Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
282

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
vroom wrote:
The bias I see around here is that people are biased against the movie because it happens to discuss a facet of society or lifestyle that they don’t believe is appropriate.

The fact that it exists and the fact that those that are gay have to deal with these issues does not make it biased to show things from their point of view.

vroom, do you agree with pedophilia? If a movie came out that glorified pedophilia between a 30 year old man and a 12 year old girl, and people hailed it as a true love story, and society described the characters in the film as being heroic, would you be as generous in your attitude or would you say, “what the hell is wrong with our society these days?!?!”
[/quote]

I think that was called Lolota. Classic tale. I am sure if they could get funding, they would, just for shits and giggles

283

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
vroom wrote:
The bias I see around here is that people are biased against the movie because it happens to discuss a facet of society or lifestyle that they don’t believe is appropriate.

The fact that it exists and the fact that those that are gay have to deal with these issues does not make it biased to show things from their point of view.

vroom, do you agree with pedophilia? If a movie came out that glorified pedophilia between a 30 year old man and a 12 year old girl, and people hailed it as a true love story, and society described the characters in the film as being heroic, would you be as generous in your attitude or would you say, “what the hell is wrong with our society these days?!?!”
[/quote]

The fact that you equate two (grown) men having a sexual relationship to child molesting shows you to be an asshole and an idiot.

Peace be with you.

284

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It is none of your concern either way. It will forever be a huge mystery to you as to why not one other black person on this board (of which there are at least three who are regular responders and even more of mixed heritage) has responded.

Boo-hoo. I’m crying because Professor X didn’t respond to being asked if the word “nigger” and warlock’s statements were offensive to black people. As if he’s the only black person whose opinion counts so he’s going to conceal it like he has some special authority on the matter.

Professor X, I never claimed I completely understood the psychological mindframe of black folks, but I have black friends (and I don’t mean over the computer) who I know would find warlock’s statements offensive. If you feel threatened or inferior by my assessment, then you’re either a mentally insecure person or suffer from some other psychological deficiency. My advice? Get diagnosed and treated as quickly as possible. [/quote]

My post wasn’t even referring to you so what the hell are you talking about? I also don’t claim to speak for all black people, however, apparently not one other on this board gives a shit either.

285

Stellar,

At least you are getting into interesting territory. However, you do realize the pedophilia is illegal, whereas being gay is not, right? Of course I don’t “agree” with it, and enough people feel strongly enough about it that it is a legal issue, not a personal belief issue.

That being said, there has been and continues to be movies along the lolita theme. I suppose you think they must be propaganda too?

I’d recognize it as a movie and that it was not trying to sway anyones opinion except to show a story.

Finally, if you go back in time, society used to allow marriage involving very young people. I’m glad they don’t now, at least not here. A movie depecting the reality of such events however would be simply that, a movie depecting such events.

It isn’t like such a movie has to contain glorified sex scenes or anything like that.

Sometimes the reality of the world is such that you won’t like it. When aspects of this reality are portrayed in movies you may not like them either. However, that doesn’t mean that the movie was created as propaganda to promote a cause.

Stories, or movies, generally have something to say about something… and apparently brokeback mountain is showing what may be a typical situation for gay people that attempt to hide their feelings and act like they aren’t gay.

I’d have to see the movie to decide that though, and frankly the topic of the movie doesn’t really interest me.

286

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,

Another honest question for you.

Do you think the movie would be biased if it was showing things from the honest point of view of gay men conforming to straight society?

Seriously. The use of bias is pretty interesting here. Is it biased to show how societies views force some to make choices that make them unhappy?

The bias I see around here is that people are biased against the movie because it happens to discuss a facet of society or lifestyle that they don’t believe is appropriate.

The fact that it exists and the fact that those that are gay have to deal with these issues does not make it biased to show things from their point of view.

Is everything you personally don’t agree with biased if it represents something other than your own opinion?

It is also tricky to look at advertising in this regard. The purpose of advertising is purportedly inform the public about the availability of products. Based on this, people make purchasing decisions. False advertising is however something that generally is not tolerated well…

If people learn the honest truth about how some gay people lead unhappy lives due to their need to conform to society is there anything wrong with that? Why should people not consider the point of view of this minority? Aren’t they people too? Should they not have a way to voice their concerns with respect to how society should conduct itself?

Everyone has that right. It doesn’t make it bias or propaganda to represent those ideas, just because you don’t like or don’t agree with those ideas.
[/quote]

Vroom,

I called it biased because the movie is not portrayed as being gays honest opinion on things. If they were honest from the beginning and stated that it was a movie to give you an insight into their world, I could respect that. That way you know that going in. So I agree that they have the right to be heard, but we have the right to know that up front and not have it hidden. That is where the bias or propaganda comes in.

I also think that if they are going to show us their perspective, it can’t be some PC approved perspective. In other words, if they are unhappy because of societal rules, then they show that. But if they are unhappy because they don’t like being gay for other reasons, like they deep down feel being gay may be wrong, they should show that as well. The propaganda comes in where the full and honest picture is not presented and only a biased PC version given.

Ps - when are we going to see the movie as you promised? (you don’t call anymore, don’t write; you are starting to hurt my feelings!)

287

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
warlock wrote:
Do you have friends?

Do you want a hug?

Why do you need so much attention?

w

Lorisco should be asking you these questions. You have nothing insightful to provide to this thread and despite the fact that you appear to be liberated from religious ethics and testify of a black heritage, your comments are offending to homosexuals and African Americans alike.

Are you black? If not, how can you claim to speak as to whether or not African-Americans are offended.

There are quite a few black guys on this forum and none of them have taken offense.

I would be far more interested to hear what they have to say than what you do.

Excellent point! So are they silent because it really isn’t offense to them or because their PC or political bias is more important than their racial perspective?

There is nothing more offensive to me then YOU or anyone else acting as if you know what I should be getting offended about and when I should show it. That act alone shows you think you are superior to me and need to inform me when I should be upset about something. You are the last person who needs to be speaking about what offends black people.

You don’t want us non-blacks to answer for you, great. I can totally respect that.

Now cut the shit and answer the question for yourself. As a black person, does it offend you or not and why?

It is none of your concern either way. It will forever be a huge mystery to you as to why not one other black person on this board (of which there are at least three who are regular responders and even more of mixed heritage) has responded.
[/quote]

You know, I sincerely wanted to know your opinion as you appear (at times) to have a little insight (although Aldurr seems to have you beat hands down in that regard).

But, you appear to be afraid to answer because you know either side is going to get you slammed. So I guess you picked the safest option, to focus on me and not the issue. Good job!

288

[quote]harris447 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
vroom wrote:
The bias I see around here is that people are biased against the movie because it happens to discuss a facet of society or lifestyle that they don’t believe is appropriate.

The fact that it exists and the fact that those that are gay have to deal with these issues does not make it biased to show things from their point of view.

vroom, do you agree with pedophilia? If a movie came out that glorified pedophilia between a 30 year old man and a 12 year old girl, and people hailed it as a true love story, and society described the characters in the film as being heroic, would you be as generous in your attitude or would you say, “what the hell is wrong with our society these days?!?!”

The fact that you equate two (grown) men having a sexual relationship to child molesting shows you to be an asshole and an idiot.

Peace be with you.
[/quote]

The fact that you cannot reisist spewing the hate tells us that you are the one who seems to be intolerant!

What if it was a movie about an adult brother and sister having sex and wanting to get married?

What if it was a movie about a group of people wanting to get married?

A movie can be made about anything in a free society and I think that’s fine.

BUT…

At what point do you stand up and voice an opinion? And perhaps say, “I don’t like this movie simply because of the content?”

Perhaps you NEVER do…and that’s fine for you. But many of us are of a different opinion.

Stellars point is well taken by all by the most intolerant.

289

[quote]At what point do you stand up and voice an opinion? And perhaps say, “I don’t like this movie simply because of the content?”

Perhaps you NEVER do…and that’s fine for you. But many of us are of a different opinion. [/quote]

Zeb,

Perhaps you should reread the first post. This thread is NOT about whether or not someone likes the subject or content of the movie.

It is about claiming that the movie is merely propaganda.

If the thread was about not liking the movie, there would be nothing at all to talk about…

290

[quote]vroom wrote:
At what point do you stand up and voice an opinion? And perhaps say, “I don’t like this movie simply because of the content?”

Perhaps you NEVER do…and that’s fine for you. But many of us are of a different opinion.

Zeb,

Perhaps you should reread the first post. This thread is NOT about whether or not someone likes the subject or content of the movie.

It is about claiming that the movie is merely propaganda.

If the thread was about not liking the movie, there would be nothing at all to talk about…[/quote]

Shit, I don’t like the movie because of its content either. There are a lot of movies I don’t like because of their content. That is why I won’t go see them. This thread would have ended on the first post if that was all that was being said.

291

[quote]vroom wrote:
At what point do you stand up and voice an opinion? And perhaps say, “I don’t like this movie simply because of the content?”

Perhaps you NEVER do…and that’s fine for you. But many of us are of a different opinion.

Zeb,

Perhaps you should reread the first post. This thread is NOT about whether or not someone likes the subject or content of the movie.

It is about claiming that the movie is merely propaganda.

If the thread was about not liking the movie, there would be nothing at all to talk about…[/quote]

I’m responding to the haters on the thread vroom. And I will continue to do so vroom.

292

[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
At what point do you stand up and voice an opinion? And perhaps say, “I don’t like this movie simply because of the content?”

Perhaps you NEVER do…and that’s fine for you. But many of us are of a different opinion.

Zeb,

Perhaps you should reread the first post. This thread is NOT about whether or not someone likes the subject or content of the movie.

It is about claiming that the movie is merely propaganda.

If the thread was about not liking the movie, there would be nothing at all to talk about…

I’m responding to the haters on the thread vroom. And I will continue to do so vroom.[/quote]

Aren’t the haters the ones claiming that a movie should not be made because of the content? There is a rather large difference between avoiding a movie because you don’t agree with it, and believing that it shouldn’t have been made in the first place. The thread starter took it upon himself to claim that a movie he never even saw was propoganda simply because he disagreed with the content and the content was not shown in an absolute negative light. How are people “hating” if they point out the faults in this line of thinking?

293

LOL.

Well, you keep right on going there missy, I’m not trying to stop you.

However, I thought perhaps you’d at least like to discuss the same issues that everyone else was discussing.

My bad.

294

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
At what point do you stand up and voice an opinion? And perhaps say, “I don’t like this movie simply because of the content?”

Perhaps you NEVER do…and that’s fine for you. But many of us are of a different opinion.

Zeb,

Perhaps you should reread the first post. This thread is NOT about whether or not someone likes the subject or content of the movie.

It is about claiming that the movie is merely propaganda.

If the thread was about not liking the movie, there would be nothing at all to talk about…

I’m responding to the haters on the thread vroom. And I will continue to do so vroom.

Aren’t the haters the ones claiming that a movie should not be made because of the content? There is a rather large difference between avoiding a movie because you don’t agree with it, and believing that it shouldn’t have been made in the first place. The thread starter took it upon himself to claim that a movie he never even saw was propoganda simply because he disagreed with the content and the content was not shown in an absolute negative light. How are people “hating” if they point out the faults in this line of thinking?[/quote]

You got that a little wrong hoss! The reason it is propaganda is not because it doesn’t show being gay in a negative light. It’s because it doesn’t show that it is negative at all. When an issue is presented that only shows part of the truth, and not all of it, that is bias or propaganda. So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

295

Other than the fact that some people object to it, what is negative about the gay condition?

296

[quote]vroom wrote:
So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

Other than the fact that some people object to it, what is negative about the gay condition?[/quote]

Well, not to start this debate up again, but statistics show gays with a much higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and depression than straights by percent of population. So that alone would indicate some negative aspects of the condition or lifestyle.

297

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

You got that a little wrong hoss! The reason it is propaganda is not because it doesn’t show being gay in a negative light. It’s because it doesn’t show that it is negative at all. When an issue is presented that only shows part of the truth, and not all of it, that is bias or propaganda. So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

[/quote]

Bullshit.

If that was true, every movie, article or book that does not cover every aspect of a problem/situation is propaganda.

Your use of the word propaganda makes the word meaningless.

Like the Mona Lisa is propaganda because it focuses on her face and smile and not on her ass.

A pfffft to you Sir!

298

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

Other than the fact that some people object to it, what is negative about the gay condition?

Well, not to start this debate up again, but statistics show gays with a much higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and depression than straights by percent of population. So that alone would indicate some negative aspects of the condition or lifestyle.

[/quote]

So, you wanted a movie to focus on them getting diseases and being depressed? Any focus on them not getting diseases and not being depressed is propoganda?

299

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well, not to start this debate up again, but statistics show gays with a much higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and depression than straights by percent of population. So that alone would indicate some negative aspects of the condition or lifestyle.[/quote]

You haven’t shown any negatives with respect to the gay lifestyle, you’ve shown that those with that lifestyle might bear some additional risk factors. There is a difference between these concepts you know.

Also, it isn’t fair to say that these are even inherent risk factors if it is mainstream society that is in some way causing them, with respect to depression for example. People tend to get depressed when they are ostracized.

Finally, there is no reason that gay people can’t also practice safe sex. Come on, do you have any real negatives, other than flat out dislike for the lifestyle.

I mean, I don’t like it either… it is revolting, but it seriously has no impact on my own life. It is none of my own business.

300

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:

Listen dude. I have a strong faith in god and his works. Religion is where I develop a problem. Do you think that people are gay against God’s will, and that there’s nothing he could do about it? Think about it. All things happen for a reason and all things exist because God allows them to. Period.

If:

-God has a plan for us all and we all interweave together in that plan

-God has a reason for everything

-God doesn’t make mistakes

Then:

-God’s plan includes the homosexuals

-There’s a reason he allowed homosexuals to come into this world

-God doesn’t make mistakes. Period.

To think that anyone, including the homosexuals, could do anything but god’s will is vain indeed.[/quote]

I guess this means free will doesn’t exist.

301

Wow…this is a perfect example of why debates on the internet suck. All the original post did was point out that there was gay propoganda in the movie (yes, most movies do have propoganda about something) and that while the critics have praised it (they often praise crappy movies) a lot of people who have seen it did not think it was that great.

Some people feel that it was definitely not worth all the awards, nominations and accolades. This leads them to think that perhaps the hype and awards are more because some in Hollywood circles are sympathetic to this film. This is all it was saying, nothing more, nothing less. The debate should have focused on these points, not break down into the name calling fiasco that it has.

No where did the original post say anything advocating that the film should not being shown or made in the first place or anything anti-gay. In fact, the responses just confirmed the observation that ANY criticism of the film would likely result in cries of “homo-phobe” and “consipricy theory”, which is exactly what happened.

I’m kind of shocked at how quickly the discussion got sidetracked with accusations being made about Stellar’s position that he never even made. The second response insinuated that he wanted to do harm to gays in some way, which was in no way advocated anywhere in the original post. The thread just fell apart from there. His mistake was in trying to defend or clarify these positions he never took.

My advice to him is recognize when someone’s throwing up a straw man to attack and don’t respond because you can never win against a master internet debater who uses those tactics.

And to the majority of the responders I’d suggest checking out Shugart’s blog where he discusses what a “Straw Man” is and try to recognize when you’re about to throw one up. It would raise the level of discussion on this board considerabely.