V for Vendetta

[Chopper Dave]

Well, my post was not addressing the merits of the arguments about THIS film or its imagery but the 'paranoia' of the 'righties.' That paranoia is grounded in some about of experience and reality. Does it get into the realm of defensiveness and seeing demons in every closet? OF course. That's human nature. Check the race-related thread in the Stadium about white athletes being compared to white athletes and so on to see how defensive some whites are about 'the race card' being played.

Anyone familiar with Moore's work knows that the real hero of the Watchmen is Rorschach and he is certainly not a leftist. But again, that's not the point of my post.

Of course defensiveness is a natural human reaction, when appropriate. Thing is, there's a difference between natural defensiveness and going out of your way to paint something as anti-whatever. AFC and his kin are so hypersensitive when it comes to criticisms about their beliefs that they'll defend their beliefs (by attacking their "opponents", real or not, in this case, not) every chance they get. It's just them pushing their opinions, and there's no reason for it.

[Chopper Dave]

I think he was playing, with that wink emoticon. We had a ton of threads on this board of "atheists only" "no goyim allowed" etc that were all pretty fun because we weren't being uptight about stuff. I don't think he meant anything by it.

You must feel guilty about being associated with negative stereotypes to be so defensive /Burgold off

Probably not. It must be the hypersensitivity/needless-defensiveness in the air. Sorry skinsfan13.

[Chopper Dave]

The circumstances are only so wildly different because you're getting caught up in the specifics of THIS film and THAT film(passion.) I brought up Passion to give a concrete example that came to my head, but there are plenty of others out there. Remember Annie Hall when Woody Allen believes the guy is saying "Jew eat breakfast yet?" (he was saying, D'you..., of course)

I'm talking about the sensitivity of various groups to slurs and slanders and subtle(or not so subtle) imagery in culture and the media. That sensitivity need not be a reflection of a 'guilty' conscience.

I don't disagree with that sentiment. It's just it seems like you're trying to defend AFC's wildly off-base comments by saying it's natural, when in reality it's not. It may not be spurred by a latent guilt, but it's spurred by something, probably latent lack of confidence in one's beliefs.

[Ghost of]

I don't disagree with that sentiment. It's just it seems like you're trying to defend AFC's wildly off-base comments by saying it's natural, when in reality it's not. It may not be spurred by a latent guilt, but it's spurred by something, probably latent lack of confidence in one's beliefs.

I'm not defending AFC's comments at all.

In fact I addressed Burgold's comments. I refuted him far more in this thread than I've attempted to discuss AFC or his views.

Read the posts again. I only say that there's a reason that groups become sensitive and it's generally based in some experience in reality. That there is overreach with the defensiveness is not in doubt.

We are a Redskins board, remember? :laugh:

[Chopper Dave]

I'm not defending AFC's comments at all.

In fact I addressed Burgold's comments. I refuted him far more in this thread than I've attempted to discuss AFC or his views.

Read the posts again. I only say that there's a reason that groups become sensitive and it's generally based in some experience in reality. That there is overreach with the defensiveness is not in doubt.

We are a Redskins board, remember? :laugh:

Fair enough. Seemed like you were giving some sort of justification for the overreach, rather than just a reasoning.

[skinfan133]

Huh huh... ignurunse is funy.

hey common, i was just playing, the fact that a joke doesnt even fly any more shows the degration of our society

[Chopper Dave]

hey common, i was just playing, the fact that a joke doesnt even fly any more shows the degration of our society

I know. You should probably have read ahead before posting this.

[Ghost of]

Fair enough. Seemed like you were giving some sort of justification for the overreach, rather than just a reasoning.

It can be wrong in one case and discovered to be correct in another. That is pretty much what I was trying to say. It's there, should be tempered a bit more with rational analysis, but it's not completely off one's rocker to examine the potential messages or intent of such things.

(again, might be wrong here, but not necessarily in every case. Just like the man who cries racism might be right in one case and way off base in another. Just ask the people who didn't like me calling them racists in the USA Basketball thread a couple years back)

[skinfan133]

I know. You should probably have read ahead before posting this.

duly noted, i saw that 5 seconds after i posted that:silly:

[Chopper Dave]

It can be wrong in one case and discovered to be correct in another. That is pretty much what I was trying to say. It's there, should be tempered a bit more with rational analysis, but it's not completely off one's rocker to examine the potential messages or intent of such things.

(again, might be wrong here, but not necessarily in every case. Just like the man who cries racism might be right in one case and way off base in another. Just ask the people who didn't like me calling them racists in the USA Basketball thread a couple years back)

True. In this case, I can't really see how AFC's justified, unless the writer of the novel can predict the future and knew Bush was going to be president one day, and knew that he'd have the type of policies he has.

That said, going back to Burgold's post, also in conjunction with your statement that the cases vary, in this case I'd say that it could be a matter of latent guilt, or perhaps a latent lack of confidence in his beliefs. I mean, no one mentioned anything about the Bush administration in relation to this movie until AFC did. Apparently the liberals he hates so much aren't the only ones that see shades of facism in Bush's politics.

[Ghost of]

Apparently the liberals he hates so much aren't the only ones that see shades of facism in Bush's politics.

This could be true too. Not that the person sees actual shades of fascism but 'easy target' issues that they believe are being linked to whatever tehy're defending.

If I were to talk about Section 8 or welfare or other entitlements, there would be people of a few different backgrounds that would instantly cry racist or become defensive on racial grounds when I was actually talking about a subcategory of those in that situation or all of those (or that most of the people I'd met in that scenario were white.)

[Chopper Dave]

This could be true too. Not that the person sees actual shades of fascism but 'easy target' issues that they believe are being linked to whatever tehy're defending.

If I were to talk about Section 8 or welfare or other entitlements, there would be people of a few different backgrounds that would instantly cry racist or become defensive on racial grounds when I was actually talking about a subcategory of those in that situation or all of those (or that most of the people I'd met in that scenario were white.)

That's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to say is, why would AFC defend his beliefs (I use that term loosely, because let's be honest, he was really just attacking his political opponents) against a movie that depicts facism, when no one had even brought politics into it, if he doesn't himself see the validity in the comparisons? If the "Bush is a facist" claims are so insane, then a somewhat intelligent person could easily debunk them, right? If that's so, couldn't he at least wait until they pop up to mount the fairly simple defense against them? The only reason I can think of for his premature and uncalled-for defense of the Right is that he sees the validity in those criticisms, and feels the need to curb them before they rear their head.

Maybe I'm just thinking into this too deeply. But I doubt it.

Anyway, places to go, people to see. I'll be back later. I'm sure AFC and his ilk will leave me some pretty juicy morsels to chew on while I'm gone.

[brewdogmike]

If the "Bush is a facist" claims are so insane, then a somewhat intelligent person could easily debunk them, right?

Let's review the characteristics of fascism for a second -- Centralization of authority under a dictator? Stringent socioeconomic controls? Suppression of the opposition? I think the burden of proof remains on the "Bush is a fascist" side.

[Chopper Dave]

Let's review the characteristics of fascism for a second -- Centralization of authority under a dictator? Stringent socioeconomic controls? Suppression of the opposition? I think the burden of proof remains on the "Bush is a fascist" side.

While those aren't all the characteristics of facism, I guess you could lump most of them into those generally.

Centralization of authority? Check.

Stringent socioeconomic controls? Not so much, but that's not necessarily a facist principle.

Suppression of opposition? To an extent, check.

I don't disagree that the burden of proof is on the side arguing Bush is a facist, and I don't claim to be part of that side. I don't think he's a facist. I just think he treads the line a little to closely for comfort.

[brewdogmike]

Well, while you failed to list all, or even most of the characteristics of facism, I'll just I address the ones you listed.

Centralization of authority? Check.

Stringent socioeconomic controls? Not so much, but that's not necessarily a facist principle.

Suppression of opposition? To an extent, check.

I don't disagree that the burden of proof is on the side arguing Bush is a facist, and I don't claim to be part of that side. I don't think he's a facist. I just think he treads the line a little to closely for comfort.

My apologies for not posting an entire treatise on the subject.

"Check?" That's it?

You're seriously arguing that Bush has centralized all authority in the country in himself, abolished the legislature and the judiciary, and essentially set up a police state --- and that's just supposed to be self-evident? "Check?"

"Check?" He's "suppressed the opposition?" Which opposition would this be, that's suppressed? -- Hollywood, DailyKos, the overwhelming majority of the media, just off the top of my head. They're "suppressed?" "Check?"

And stringent socioeconomic controls certainly is a primary tenet of true fascism -- and by that I mean for-real fascism (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain, etc.), as opposed to rhetorical "Bush is a fascist" fascism.

[Prosperity]

:laugh:

Keep throwing those stones at the glass house!! You're one to talk Liberty. You have made some of the most absurd posts on this board so it might suit you to :stfu:

:2cents:

Whether or not the comic was made 20-30 years ago is irrelevant. The current movie was left up to the interpretation of the director. Would it shock me if there were subtle liberal undertones? Absolutely not. But I'm going to reserve judgment until I've seen the movie.

Some of these posts being made by the resident liberals on this board are just downright hilarious though.

Wow you think your opinion holds any water anymore. You are right in the same boat as AFC. :laugh:

[Chopper Dave]

My apologies for not posting an entire treatise on the subject.

"Check?" That's it?

You're seriously arguing that Bush has centralized all authority in the country in himself, abolished the legislature and the judiciary, and essentially set up a police state --- and that's just supposed to be self-evident? "Check?"

"Check?" He's "suppressed the opposition?" Which opposition would this be, that's suppressed? -- Hollywood, DailyKos, the overwhelming majority of the media, just off the top of my head. They're "suppressed?" "Check?"

And stringent socioeconomic controls certainly is a primary tenet of true fascism -- and by that I mean for-real fascism (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain, etc.), as opposed to rhetorical "Bush is a fascist" fascism.

Apparently you're not reading my posts. I fail to see where I make the argument that "Bush has centralized all authority in the country in himself..." Don't put words in my mouth, and don't ignore the words that do come out of my mouth for the sake of making your argument. Go back and read my post, and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. Or you won't, and you'll just come back with how I'm full of ****. I don't really care. While none of what you're saying I claimed is self-evident is actually self-evident, the fact that you're simply arguing for arguing's sake is.

[Winslowalrob]

Hahahah, I cannot BELIEVE people are arguing about this. Well, actually, as long as we have AFC and hokie, I suppose its plausible. A movie based off an old great comic, which looks pretty faithful to the source materiall, supports terrorism? Sigh...

[Chopper Dave]

Hahahah, I cannot BELIEVE people are arguing about this. Well, actually, as long as we have AFC and hokie, I suppose its plausible. A movie based off an old great comic, which looks pretty faithful to the source materiall, supports terrorism? Sigh...

If you don't support Bush, then you support terrorism. Duh.

[Winslowalrob]

If you don't support Bush, then you support terrorism. Duh.

I forgot. Hell, the makers of V for Vendetta probably went back in time, dressed up as Romans, and killed some guy named Jesus too. Lets blame everything on the movie while we are at it .

[Big Weirdo]

I heard this movie also supports abortions. Who really knows though. Tricky directors and producers.

[Chopper Dave]

I heard that this movie funded al Queda, Iraq, Iran, AND the Taliban at different points... oh wait. Never mind. Don't want a lien put on my parents' house.

[Winslowalrob]

Haha, its the worst movie EVER! It will destroy the United States!

[Big Weirdo]

I've read this movie also opposes gay rights. There's a 5 second clip where you see two men brush their hands against each other while walking down the street. A KGB officer (obviously Republican) notices this and sends them both to jail.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Awesome!

It's clear to me that this "film" is little more than a thinly veiled attack on the principles of Collective Bargaining and Revenue Sharing. Are any of you aware of the fact that the original "comic" was financed and published by - a then unknown - Ari "Bud" Selig...or that it took almost 20 years of clandestine, nefarious activity by the mysterious SternBrenner Umbrella Corp. to secure irrevocable global distribution rights. I even heard a rumor that a significant percentage of the investment was underwritten with laundered funds provided by the infamous arab warlord Yusef "Stevie the Cat" Islam....and I believe it!! Fellow Redskins, this is a call to arms! Do not let this propaganda undermine the ideals upon which the very future of our blessed Redskin nation relies. We owe it, not to ourselves, but to the next generation of Redskin youth.