Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

I feel the need to point out in really simple terms why a couple of the posters in this thread (particularly Cole) defending this movie against posters wishing it had been more accurate with regard to the book and/or more anti-war are being* dumb. The posters in question have basically been arguing that the people criticizing this movie are being stupid because the more anti-war movie accurately portraying Chris Kyle that they wanted to see isn't the movie the director chose to make.

This is dumb because it is literally the exact same thing as someone saying "I don't like ______ because he is an rear end in a top hat" and then someone else defending ______ by saying "But that's how he chooses to be, and last I checked you don't have the right to force him to behave a certain way :smug:" I am not exaggerating in the slightest; those "but the director didn't choose to make the movie the way you wanted" arguments are every bit as dumb as this. Saying "The director doesn't have to make a movie the way you want him to!" is not an argument against someone else saying "I think this movie is bad."; you should either point out why the stuff people say is bad isn't bad or just admit that you've lost the argument.

Also, related to this same point, it is really stupid to say "Hollywood doesn't have a responsibility to make movies about recent history historically accurate and not pro-war." That is not a counter-argument against people saying that they think Hollywood should do these things. It would only be a reasonable argument if some poster started saying that they think the government should force movie film studios at gunpoint to make movies this way. It does not contradict a poster that is saying that he/she thinks it is bad that Hollywood doesn't do these things.

I feel silly having to point this out, but I've read many pages of this thread that seem to show that certain people need this to be explicitly stated.


*Just want to make it clear that I'm not saying that Cole and other posters are dumb people; just that their arguments in this thread are dumb.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

Smoothrich posted:

That his enemies in war were doing hosed up things and made him "hate the enemy" which you know you can't even express that here without people being self righteous about how its your duty to murder your officers because there's no WMD or some ridiculous fantasy land idealistic poo poo.

Ignoring whatever Chris Kyle said about Iraqis being savages, the one single thing that makes him a 100%, undeniable piece of poo poo is that quote about sniping people in New Orleans after Katrina. Last I checked, he wasn't fighting black people in Iraq. While there's an argument (that I agree with*) to be made that the whole "Iraqis are savages" and enjoying killing stuff also makes him a bad person, it's that little fake(fortunately) story about sniping "looters" after Katrina that really cements his position as a Really Bad Person.

I don't think it necessarily makes him a sociopath (combing the facebook feed of any right-wing gun-owner is likely to result in various fantasies about gunning down "thugs"), but it definitely makes him a far less sympathetic human being.


*While I understand the "you weren't there, someone's experiences in war can make them racist" argument, there are also many people who were in the same wars and experienced the same sort of traumatic things and *didn't* end up hating (insert enemy ethnicity) people.

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

Cole posted:

This is a horrible way to look at it.

There are also people who experience war who have no symptoms of PTSD.

I guess the ones who do show symptoms are faking it because there are those that don't?

Yeah, that's a fair enough point. I can understand how a soldier's unique experiences might lead to them harboring hate towards the ethnicity involved. I realize that it's unfair to think that a soldier is a terrible person for forming racist beliefs as a result of his/her experiences in war. That being said, I do think that it says something bad about the person (or at least worse than the people who don't react with hate) and that we shouldn't make excuses for them. Unless it's specifically co-morbid with PTSD, I think we can safely attribute soldier bigotry to the same hate and ignorance to which we attribute anyone else's bigotry.

  • Locked thread