Irony of the Day (warning: non-PB subject)
- Thread starter Baca Loco
- Start date
About the movie "Submission".
I've seen it. It's been aired on public television long before anyone thought to show it at some documentary festival. So despite the movie getting pulled from the festival, it's not like it's been denied to the public. Instead people figured why take a risk from a small group of loonies, when anybody interested has probably already seen it.
As far as the movie goes, the way it is made I can see why even the avarage, non hardline Muslim would get upset over it. The movie is supposedly about women that were abused under the pretext of religion. I have no doubt the women in this movie were indeed the victim of this, but the way the movie is made, it seems as though they try to say that ALL Muslims are wife beaters. That's ludicrous. Besides, I know plenty of cases of wife beatings within Christian communities as well.
Most of us are aware of the avarage Muslim's stance on female nudity. Many Muslim women wear a headscarf, most of them do so voluntarily. This movie shows passages from the Quoran being projected on the bodies of the women concerned,who are wearing nothing but see through clothing. Given Theo van Gogh's (the director) love for pissing people off (he admitted to enjoying that) and the co producer's background (The movie was co produced by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a somewhat rightwing politician with an agenda that solely consists of anti-Islam points), it is obvious this movie was not meant to educate, just to piss off and/or show a slanted view.
Anyway, enough about the film. Just thought you should know a little more about the film, since you all are discussing it.
PS I'm as far from being a lefty, as I am a rightwinger. I'm quite comfortable sitting in the middle where I can flip the finger at everyone
PPS I did see Fahrenheit 9/11. As a movie it was okay, and Michael Moore certainly had some points. But as a fanatical student of modern history and military history in particular I can tell you that he also missed the target at other points. However, he does make a better point than GWB.
I've seen it. It's been aired on public television long before anyone thought to show it at some documentary festival. So despite the movie getting pulled from the festival, it's not like it's been denied to the public. Instead people figured why take a risk from a small group of loonies, when anybody interested has probably already seen it.
As far as the movie goes, the way it is made I can see why even the avarage, non hardline Muslim would get upset over it. The movie is supposedly about women that were abused under the pretext of religion. I have no doubt the women in this movie were indeed the victim of this, but the way the movie is made, it seems as though they try to say that ALL Muslims are wife beaters. That's ludicrous. Besides, I know plenty of cases of wife beatings within Christian communities as well.
Most of us are aware of the avarage Muslim's stance on female nudity. Many Muslim women wear a headscarf, most of them do so voluntarily. This movie shows passages from the Quoran being projected on the bodies of the women concerned,who are wearing nothing but see through clothing. Given Theo van Gogh's (the director) love for pissing people off (he admitted to enjoying that) and the co producer's background (The movie was co produced by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a somewhat rightwing politician with an agenda that solely consists of anti-Islam points), it is obvious this movie was not meant to educate, just to piss off and/or show a slanted view.
Anyway, enough about the film. Just thought you should know a little more about the film, since you all are discussing it.
PS I'm as far from being a lefty, as I am a rightwinger. I'm quite comfortable sitting in the middle where I can flip the finger at everyone
PPS I did see Fahrenheit 9/11. As a movie it was okay, and Michael Moore certainly had some points. But as a fanatical student of modern history and military history in particular I can tell you that he also missed the target at other points. However, he does make a better point than GWB.
Oh, and this integration thing people keep mentioning...
I think some people don't really know what integration means.
What many people think it means, and actually want it to be, is that someone with a different cultural background more or less give up their own cultural identity and adopt that of the majority.
That is not integration, that's what the Borgs in Star Trek do...
Integration means that both sides adapt to a greater or lesser extend in order to coexist harmoniously.
The problem isn't integration. Do you know what one of the largest ethnic minorities is in most western countries? Chinese...
Most Chinese people are less integrated than the avarage immigrant. They cling to their culture very strongly, they have their own societies and clubs, and as an outsider you won't be able to get in.
And there is nothing wrong with that. Like any of us they are entitled to their own culture. And they do quite well for themselves mostly. Traditionally they also take very good care of their families, and so they support eachother strongly. Good stuff.
The problem is that the groups of whom a small minority are now causing trouble came to Europe, basically got shat upon, and are for the most in a situation where they pack little or no economic muscle. This in turn decreases hopes for the future drastically, and this can cause radicalisation, particularly amongst those who are still young and impressionable.
Great world we live in, huh?
I think some people don't really know what integration means.
What many people think it means, and actually want it to be, is that someone with a different cultural background more or less give up their own cultural identity and adopt that of the majority.
That is not integration, that's what the Borgs in Star Trek do...
Integration means that both sides adapt to a greater or lesser extend in order to coexist harmoniously.
The problem isn't integration. Do you know what one of the largest ethnic minorities is in most western countries? Chinese...
Most Chinese people are less integrated than the avarage immigrant. They cling to their culture very strongly, they have their own societies and clubs, and as an outsider you won't be able to get in.
And there is nothing wrong with that. Like any of us they are entitled to their own culture. And they do quite well for themselves mostly. Traditionally they also take very good care of their families, and so they support eachother strongly. Good stuff.
The problem is that the groups of whom a small minority are now causing trouble came to Europe, basically got shat upon, and are for the most in a situation where they pack little or no economic muscle. This in turn decreases hopes for the future drastically, and this can cause radicalisation, particularly amongst those who are still young and impressionable.
Great world we live in, huh?
UKIP - The same party that agreed not to fight certain seats because it would allow the BNP to gain a foothold. We won't oppose you if you dont oppose us!! Gotta love political parties that strike up deals with the British Nazi Party.
D
duffistuta
Guest
I seem to remember Ben has a fondness for the BNP...we had an argument a while back in which he claimed the BNP was 'not a racist party'.
For someone who claims not be racist Ben, you have a tendency to make some odd statements.
For someone who claims not be racist Ben, you have a tendency to make some odd statements.
Playing Devil's Advocate here (and no cracks about "see, I told you she was a Satanist"!) I can see a major difference. The Chinese people you refer to don't ask for changes of the laws of the country, or free rein to disobey them, as part of keeping their cultural heritage.
There was an issue many years ago when the crash helmet law was first introduced for motorcyclists, as it isn't really feasible to wear a turban underneath them. This was a good law IMHO, safety related. But members of a certain religious group wanted exemption from this law as it clashed with their rules about men wearing turbans. TBH it was so long ago I can't remember how it was resolved, but I think that is a good example of where there can be problems with the integration of people from different cultures or minority religions.
A similar thing came up a few years ago about turbans and police helmets; IIRC they ended up making special turbans with reinforcements inside so they still had the same protection as the usual helmets - THAT is a good example of integration and consideration of others culture without making exceptions to the law of the land.
Liz,
I don't see how that's playing the Devil's advocate.
In fact, you give some good examples. People saw a potential problem, and it got settled, without anyone really having to step away from their beliefs, except for perhaps a little common sense.
I don't see how that's playing the Devil's advocate.
In fact, you give some good examples. People saw a potential problem, and it got settled, without anyone really having to step away from their beliefs, except for perhaps a little common sense.
Duffistuta - I think I agreed with most of the 10 points on BNP's manifesto back whenever we had that debate. If you do a search I think I listed them. I don't know what they are now or if they are different as I haven't looked from that day to this.
Hermitt - I support the UKIP's stance to remain seperate from Europe. I don't want to be in the EU. Do you? If you do, why? (I've asked this already, you haven't answered)
Buddha - you raise an interesting point with the Chinese. However, how many 'Chinese only' schools get lobbyed for in your neck of the woods? We don't get that here. They (the Chinese communities) are happy to send their children to our 'normal' schools without a song and dance and we are happy to have them.
The problem is when people can't leave their religion as a religion and want all aspects of their life (and religion) catered for in a soceity that has different pre-existing ways. That's what pisses people off. Just look at that fiasco in France about the Muslim headscarf in schools.
In the UK wasn't there an incident not long ago up in Burnley (I think it was there) because greenbelt land that was refused permission for a play ground or something was granted permission for a Mosque because the council was bullied by being called racists/Nazi's whatever. More political correctness gone wrong.
Look, you may all be right, maybe in years to come everyone will just get along and dance in the park together but I'm not feeling that right now.
I'm just being honest about how I feel. I don't want more religious fanatisism in the UK, I don't want to be part of Europe and I don't want an unchecked flood of immigrants into the UK.
Therefore, I am happy to lend a little support to people who are actively working in those areas. For example the UKIP are the most vociferous in declaring their case for the independance of Britain. I support their view on the subject as I am yet to hear any convincing arguments to join (from anyone!).
Hermitt - I support the UKIP's stance to remain seperate from Europe. I don't want to be in the EU. Do you? If you do, why? (I've asked this already, you haven't answered)
Buddha - you raise an interesting point with the Chinese. However, how many 'Chinese only' schools get lobbyed for in your neck of the woods? We don't get that here. They (the Chinese communities) are happy to send their children to our 'normal' schools without a song and dance and we are happy to have them.
The problem is when people can't leave their religion as a religion and want all aspects of their life (and religion) catered for in a soceity that has different pre-existing ways. That's what pisses people off. Just look at that fiasco in France about the Muslim headscarf in schools.
In the UK wasn't there an incident not long ago up in Burnley (I think it was there) because greenbelt land that was refused permission for a play ground or something was granted permission for a Mosque because the council was bullied by being called racists/Nazi's whatever. More political correctness gone wrong.
Look, you may all be right, maybe in years to come everyone will just get along and dance in the park together but I'm not feeling that right now.
I'm just being honest about how I feel. I don't want more religious fanatisism in the UK, I don't want to be part of Europe and I don't want an unchecked flood of immigrants into the UK.
Therefore, I am happy to lend a little support to people who are actively working in those areas. For example the UKIP are the most vociferous in declaring their case for the independance of Britain. I support their view on the subject as I am yet to hear any convincing arguments to join (from anyone!).
Ben,
As far as the school thing goes, if Christians and Hebrews can have their own schools, then Muslims and Hindus should be given the same privilege. Personally I'd rather not see any religious schools of any creed, but that's just me.
I don't believe that in the future everybody will get along. People will be people, and we will keep killing eachother.
However, living in an isolationist nation will only increase hatred, not counter it. History has proven this, and continues to do so.
As far as the school thing goes, if Christians and Hebrews can have their own schools, then Muslims and Hindus should be given the same privilege. Personally I'd rather not see any religious schools of any creed, but that's just me.
I don't believe that in the future everybody will get along. People will be people, and we will keep killing eachother.
However, living in an isolationist nation will only increase hatred, not counter it. History has proven this, and continues to do so.
Re: the movie. So, Jay, are you saying the film made them do it? Or perhaps he had it coming? Or if peeps would only be a little more sensitive this sort of thing wouldn't happen?Originally posted by Buddha 3
About the movie "Submission".
I've seen it. It's been aired on public television long before anyone thought to show it at some documentary festival. So despite the movie getting pulled from the festival, it's not like it's been denied to the public. Instead people figured why take a risk from a small group of loonies, when anybody interested has probably already seen it.
As far as the movie goes, the way it is made I can see why even the avarage, non hardline Muslim would get upset over it. The movie is supposedly about women that were abused under the pretext of religion. I have no doubt the women in this movie were indeed the victim of this, but the way the movie is made, it seems as though they try to say that ALL Muslims are wife beaters. That's ludicrous. Besides, I know plenty of cases of wife beatings within Christian communities as well.
Most of us are aware of the avarage Muslim's stance on female nudity. Many Muslim women wear a headscarf, most of them do so voluntarily. This movie shows passages from the Quoran being projected on the bodies of the women concerned,who are wearing nothing but see through clothing. Given Theo van Gogh's (the director) love for pissing people off (he admitted to enjoying that) and the co producer's background (The movie was co produced by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a somewhat rightwing politician with an agenda that solely consists of anti-Islam points), it is obvious this movie was not meant to educate, just to piss off and/or show a slanted view.
Anyway, enough about the film. Just thought you should know a little more about the film, since you all are discussing it.
PS I'm as far from being a lefty, as I am a rightwinger. I'm quite comfortable sitting in the middle where I can flip the finger at everyone
PPS I did see Fahrenheit 9/11. As a movie it was okay, and Michael Moore certainly had some points. But as a fanatical student of modern history and military history in particular I can tell you that he also missed the target at other points. However, he does make a better point than GWB.
And, no, nobody is actually discussing the movie or the narrower issue exposed by the original irony. But, that's okay.
PPS--you might try reading Chris Hitchen's take on the movie.
Maybe a poll would be in order? We could start with One World EUtopian options and move thru the spectrum of possibilities until we reach the isolationist xenophobes. What fun!