Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
When Mel Gibson made Passion of the Christ he got no support from Hollywood so he made it on his own. (which I did not see)

Where do you get this information? Television? Interviews with Gibson? I follow the trades daily, and when Gibson announced he wanted to make this film a few studios were very interested, but he demanded that the film be made without subtitles. No one would touch it because he wanted it to be a “mosaic of imagery” where the audience inferred the meaning of the langauge, and the studios felt no one would want to see a movie where they couldn’t understand what was being said. Stop spreading misinformation.[/quote]

Interesting.

62

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?
Moriarty wrote:
Don’t you get it? He’s protecting us from the propaganda. Without his warnings some of us might be tricked by this movie into treating homosexuals as human beings…[/quote]

Moriarty, if your comments were/are directed at me, then mentally, you’re the equivalent of an Islamic extremist. I never said homosexuals were sub-human or deserved to be treated with any less respect than other individuals - perhaps that’s your psyche echoing its masked beliefs in you.

I just don’t agree with the unrepentant lifestyle humans, any humans for that matter, participate in which involves constant lieing, cheating, infidelity, sexual immorality, and all-out hedonism as these two characters swaggle in, while at the same time receiving “hip hip hoorays” from the academy awards and the politically correct segment of our society as if they’d been the most chaste and courageous men to ever walk the earth.

Homosexuals do need to be treated like all other human beings, including but not limited to satan worshippers, cannibals, Amazonian headhunters, pedophiles, humans engaging in beastiality, etc. etc. I just don’t have to agree with the way all other humans live their lives and I’m not scared to voice this. If that makes me any less of a person in your book, trust me - I won’t be losing any sleep over it.

63

[quote]dukefan4ever wrote:
I do find it ironic though that a film about the savior of the world garners no Oscar nominations but a movie about homosexual cowboys racks up.

I will bet that BM won’t come close to making the kind of money that Passion made or touch as many people.[/quote]

Because that movie was a piece of shit. Two hours of a guy getting tortured and beaten, wow, what a great piece of cinema.

64

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?

Not sure if this comment was directed at me, but…

b[/b] Because even without actually watching the movie, they may have observed a small clip from the preview trailer or relied upon second hand accounts to extract relevant information and details about the story line. b[/b] Or, they saw the local news and realized the fact that cinemas throughout the country have censored the film. b[/b] Or, perhaps people want to share a civil dialogue about something before they witness or experience it for themselves. For instance, how many times does a T-Nation author post a revolutionary article on training or nutrition and receive a ton of questions and responses from members that very first hour?

And Professor X, just because I haven’t borne witness to something on a first hand basis doesn’t mean I can’t extrapolate upon the conditions, ramifications, or consequences thereof. I can’t say I’ve been to Vietnam, but I can draw my own conclusions about the war from second hand resources. I haven’t been to Puerto Rico, but I can draw my own conclusions about the country as a vacation destination from second hand resources. I’ve never eaten Thai food, but I can draw my own conclusions about the cuisine from second hand resources.

You see, much of the information humans attain in this world is second hand. Simply because a topic is controversial doesn’t mean we can’t apply second hand knowledge in assessing it. I know that experiencing something on a first hand basis is much more effective so that I can derive my own interpretations and perspectives, but since I’ve been forewarned that the film emits an agenda which I disagree with, I refuse to financially support its distribution.

Peace be with you.[/quote]

This is exactly the kind of reasoning which perpetuates our society’s acceptance of ignorance! Everybody is so convinced that having strong convictions is more important than having a well-reasoned opinion based on a consideration of all aspects of an issue. Anybody can have convictions, but few can back up their convictions with reasoning.

Are you actually suggesting that second hand information is as good as first hand experience? So, even though you’ve never had Thai food, you could tell somebody what it tastes like and which dishes to order? C’mon… This is just a weak attempt to justify the fact that you are jumping on the reactionary bandwagon. It feels great to be a part of a righteous movement, but if all you are going on is someone else’s word, then you are just a blind follower. Isn’t that how cults (and all religions for that matter) work? An authority figure says “this is your opinion” and you say “yeah, that IS my opinion!, thanks.”

If you are going to post something like this next time, at least have the sense to find a source with an opposite point of view, and compare.

This country is going to hell, but I think its because of the increase of simple-mindedness and ignorance of people who refuse to come out from under their rocks and see that the world is a complex place which doesn’t fit into their tidy little world-view. While they are mourning the rise of homosexuality and the deterioration of marriage, they ignore the fact that our kids are dumber, lazier, and fatter, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer and greedier. And the ignorant masses just wait and eat up any lie thrown their way about freedom and moral values, while the ship sinks around them. So, go ahead and hang on to your outdated and overly simplistic ideals and watch as the world becomes that which you fear the most.

65

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Much of Hollywood has been pushing a pro-gay and anti-religion agenda for quite a while.
[/quote]

Actors maybe, but most of hollywood cares only about one thing, Money.

66

stellar_horizon -

You’ve managed to post many more times, yet we still do not know who this supposed doctor who authored the article is or where the article is sourced from.

67

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?
Moriarty wrote:
Don’t you get it? He’s protecting us from the propaganda. Without his warnings some of us might be tricked by this movie into treating homosexuals as human beings…

Moriarty, if your comments were/are directed at me, then mentally, you’re the equivalent of an Islamic extremist. I never said homosexuals were sub-human or deserved to be treated with any less respect than other individuals - perhaps that’s your psyche echoing its masked beliefs in you.

I just don’t agree with the unrepentant lifestyle humans, any humans for that matter, participate in which involves constant lieing, cheating, infidelity, sexual immorality, and all-out hedonism as these two characters swaggle in, while at the same time receiving “hip hip hoorays” from the academy awards and the politically correct segment of our society as if they’d been the most chaste and courageous men to ever walk the earth.

Homosexuals do need to be treated like all other human beings, including but not limited to satan worshippers, cannibals, Amazonian headhunters, pedophiles, humans engaging in beastiality, etc. etc. I just don’t have to agree with the way all other humans live their lives and I’m not scared to voice this. If that makes me any less of a person in your book, trust me - I won’t be losing any sleep over it.[/quote]

It was a joke, nothing more. It was not meant to be a logically sound rebuttal to anything you’ve written. Calm down. Sorry if I implied that you think of homosexuals as “less than human”; you’ve made it clear enough in this thread that you DO NOT think that way.

68

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Be aware of the propaganda in Brokeback Mountain

ARTICLE START

By Dr. R. Winfield

MY COMMENTS BELOW

The author goes on to cite how in Japan, a multi-million dollar subculture trend (called yaoi) is targeting teenage girls to lure them into gay pornography through cartoon comics involving valiant, handsome men.

The trend baits young girls into experimenting with their own sexuality at a young, confused stage through bisexuality and lesbianism. The author predicts that this trend will continue even into the Americas as men and women quiet down for the sake of wishing to remain “politically correct” and fearing retribution from the [b]all-tolerating yet hypocritically intolerant[/b] sectors of our society.

Whether that happens or not, I now believe Brokeback Mountain is in fact priming the American public towards a hidden agenda. I never planned on watching the film in the first place, but for those who do, take heed of the author’s message and the reaction of the undiscerning, unsuspecting, sentiment-driven American public.

I sincerely respect the vows of marriage, true love, God and His everlasting commandments, as well as my right as an American citizen to participate in an intellectual discourse regarding controversial themes. This Dr. Winfield fellow is one badass dude in my opinion. I also liked the phrase he coined - “truthophobic”. Too many people are truthophobic these days. We need great minds to keep speaking their minds.

Peace be with all![/quote]

Were you or Dr Winfield just born yesterday? This kind of assault on the current values of society held by the majority has been going on for years. This is not some new “hidden agenda”. It has been out there for years.

It has always been the aim of Hollywood to push a leftist view of things and this film is just another one of their attempts to do that. They want to tell people what and how to think and only tolerate a position similar to their own.

This is not some hidden conspiracy. People who are followers will continue to do and think whatever Hollywood tells them to and those of us who have a brain will continue to tell Hollywood to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine and believe what we want regardless.

So don’t sweat over bend-over mountain, not as many people fall for this shit as Hollywood or you apparently believe.

69

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you know how many times I have seen Bridgette Jones diary? Not once. It looked like a chick flick from the beginning. I was tricked into seeing Bring It ON because the girl I was going out with was ex-cherleader and REALLY wanted to see it with me. Therefore, my dick chose to see the movie. These guys could have been straight and I still wouldn’t go see it because I didn’t see one gun or an ounce of blood in any posters for it.[/quote]

Thanks for sharing that Professor X, but not every movie carries the same appeal to every individual. As I’ve already said in this thread, I’m no fan of romance films, but the fact that there’s controversy surrounding this film sparks interest in me and thousands (if not millions of other people) in gathering more feedback as to what the rest of the film is truly about and what, if any, meaning or message can be extracted from it.

I live in NYC so the censorship of the film initiated plenty of gab and the news hyped up the events. Perhaps you weren’t exposed to the same stimuli as I was which may have otherwise prompted you to also start asking questions.

And last but not least, just because you don’t see the value in analyzing this film, doesn’t mean anyone else won’t either. You’re a negligible fraction of a sample set comprising billions of people. It seems like quite a few people are jumping on a mind-control wagon lately. What happened to free-thought, and if you still believe in it, why criticize those who practice it who think differently than you? The homosexuals can practice free thought but heterosexuals can’t? You trying to criticize me for criticizing the film is just flat out ridiculous. And if you don’t care about the thread, then why the heck are you posting on it? I never perceived you to be a pest on the forums, but with sufficient evidence, my views do accept an occasional adjustment.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What agenda and exactly what is with the “peace be with you”? Didn’t Spock used to say that on Star Trek? It’s a mnovie about two gay guys. That would change my world view about as much as watching someone open a can of mayonnaise would…and I hate mayo.
[/quote]
You already confessed to not reading the earlier posts. Perhaps you should backtrack to answer your own question. As far as the “peace be with you” motto, that’s how early Christians greeted others. In the Bible, Jesus Christ taught the Apostles to love and be loving towards all of His creatures. Jesus Christ used the phrase to bond people in positive harmony rather than envy, chaos, and hate. I employ (or try to employ) the phrase in a similar manner. If it offends you, I shall refrain from using it when addressing you.

70

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
stellar_horizon -

You’ve managed to post many more times, yet we still do not know who this supposed doctor who authored the article is or where the article is sourced from.[/quote]

I’ve attempted to locate the url to Winfield’s website, but without fortune. I’m receiving a “bad gateway” message from a site indicated on another internet resource. As soon as I attain a functioning link, I’ll let you know.

Peace be with you.

71

[quote]PublickStews wrote:
For the 12th time, who is “Dr.” Winfield and what organization/website is he affiliated with?[/quote]

stellar_horizon, I’m calling you out. This has been asked several times, but we haven’t seen an answer.

At this point, I’m starting to belive that Dr. Winfield may be made up… I haven’t seen one bit of evidence to the contrary posted on this thread.

72

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
So, go ahead and hang on to your outdated and overly simplistic ideals and watch as the world becomes that which you fear the most.
[/quote]

I gathered from this one phrase alone that you’re not religiously-oriented. I honestly don’t have issues with that but it seems like you’re missing the point. Yes the world’s going to hell and yes there are other issues to deal with like the economy, etc. but that implies that just because we have a sh*t stain on our underwear that we shouldn’t avoid getting mustard on our T-shirt. Let’s not even go there.

Peace be with you.

73

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dukefan4ever wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?

I don’t need to see a homosexual in action to know I don’t agree with what he does.

Why do you feel the need to agree or disagree with what he does? What if someone disagrees with your use of “warming lotion” on the bedroom? What if I employ the use of leather whips and a chain, do you disagree? I used some handcuffs once and was trapped in bed because she stole the key. Do you disagree? I do.
[/quote]

Why do I feel the need to disagree? Because I can. Freedom to speak your mind isn’t just a gay right. Ang Lee has the right to make any kind of movie he wants. I have the right to say it’s wrong.

74

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
dukefan4ever wrote:
I do find it ironic though that a film about the savior of the world garners no Oscar nominations but a movie about homosexual cowboys racks up.

I will bet that BM won’t come close to making the kind of money that Passion made or touch as many people.

Because that movie was a piece of shit. Two hours of a guy getting tortured and beaten, wow, what a great piece of cinema.[/quote]

Like it or not, numbers don’t lie. Over $370 million in the US alone.

75

“To even talk rationally about a film like this will endanger one of causing immediate knee-jerk reactions with slogans; “homophobe”, “bigot”, “narrow minded”, etc.”

the next reponse on thread

"RIGHT! KILL THE GAYS! THEY WANT US TO BE GAY LIKE THEM! BOOO! EVIL GAYS!

WE FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!

C’mon dude. This is pathetic. "

76

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
You see, much of the information humans attain in this world is second hand. Simply because a topic is controversial doesn’t mean we can’t apply second hand knowledge in assessing it. [/quote]

I know that experiencing something on a first hand basis is much more effective so that I can derive my own interpretations and perspectives[quote], but since I’ve been forewarned that the film emits an agenda which I disagree with, I refuse to financially support its distribution.

swordthrower wrote:
Are you actually suggesting that second hand information is as good as first hand experience? So, even though you’ve never had Thai food, you could tell somebody what it tastes like and which dishes to order? C’mon…[/quote]

Re-read my post. I already answered that. I do however, agree with your later statement - the pretense that it’s good to have more than one perspective before developing an opinion on a particular theme. Again, I don’t know if the film itself is good or bad from a theater-goer or critic’s point of view, but Brokeback Mountain appears to be loaded with propaganda as Dr. Winfield’s article convincingly relayed. It appears that most posters agree with Winfield in this regard. For those that didn’t realize the propaganda perpetuated in the film, this article had the chance of enlightening them.

Peace be with you.

77

I see alot of people on this thread that are really dodging the issue, they prefer to attack stellar_horizons’ character, or blow the article by the Dr. out of proportion. I dont think anyone has really entertained the thought that there may be some substance to the article no matter who wrote it. I think Stellar_horizon posted this article to see if maybe an intelleigent debate arose, but instead alot of smart asses chimed in to tear him down. I for one thought the article was thought provoking and people should give thought to what many movies about all subjects try to sneak past them without them noticing.

78

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do people who haven’t seen “controversial movies” seem to be the loudest voices against those movies? If you haven’t seen it, why complain about it? Hostel, anyone?[/quote]

I didn’t watch hostel and or other movies of similar nature because they make me physically ill. Not that you were directly aiming that at me but I did criticize that movie and I didn’t watch it.

This movie… well it’s gay. Not that theres anything wrong with that.

Also, bigflamer, I like your perception of god, thats the way I see shit too, like god is a fucking moron? ummm, no, he’s the supreme intelligence so obviously everything he does is perfect and he’s probably not an sob so he probably isn’t sending people to hell for being gay… Against thier free will. And if you think you have free will, you are a retard, you can’t have free will if someone knows what you are going to do, and to say that there is a god yet he doesn’t know what we are going to do, makes him, … not a god.

V

79

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

Very, very nice post Flamer.

There was a part in Gettysburg where the old Irish guy says, “Any man who judges by the race is a pee-wit. You take men as they come- one at a time”. To be coming out like this and putting up a post where you pretty much equate gays with all the problems in America…well thats just uneducated.

Wasn’t the chick in Titanic engaged or something? Wasn’t she an adultress?

Wasn’t Johnny Depp in “Blow” a deadbeat dad and a drug dealer?

Wasn’t Tim Robbins in “The Shawshank Redemption” a murderer? Or Nicholas Cage in “Con Air”? We’re being awful selective here…

To the original poster, get a goddamn life. It seems like everywhere on here everyone is preacheing against gays and is claiming these radical religious messages about America being the great evil and how the world is ending. Your making Zeb here look like almost secular :wink: Live and let live.

Did you guys climb the gates of the asylum, or did you tunnel out?

Irish,

Being a rebublican and a Catholic, these views often get me into trouble, especially with dear old mom :wink: But hey, those are my beliefs. I believe that God’s will is God’s will, and to think that any of us could ever deviate from that is wierd IMO.

I post on another forum for home inspectors quite regularly. On this forum is an inspector who is openly gay and talks about his life partner all the time. This guy is one of the most helpfull, knowledgeable, and inspirational people on that forum. I couldn’t even begin to count everything that he has taught me about marketing, business, and inspections in generall. He truly would be a great role model for anybody.

Yet I’ve already heard someone in this thread compare homosexuals to rapists and perverts and that they shouldn’t be considered role models, simply for being gay. To me that’s wierd.

BTW, I loved your line a while back about “Not catching the gay”. I’ve actually used that a few times on my homophobic brother. Pretty funny.

[/quote]

That’s what I’m saying. Its very easy to hate when you don’t know anyone of the that nature.

Indians used to drive me crazy (meaning the one from India). I’d been ripped off by a few a couple times, and really had a lot of contempt for them. Until, of course, I met a friend of a friend, who is one of the funniest, most educated guys I’ve ever met…he also happens to have parents that are immigrants from India. The same thing happened to me with Asians.

When you have this happen to you, it makes hating anyone on the basis of their color or creed just ridiculous, and it really made me feel like a horse’s ass. To hate anyone because of their race is stupid. To hate anyone because of their sexual orientation is stupid.

And by these guys saying that its wrong to make “role models” out of gays…well thats called, “hating”. And last I checked, God wasn’t about hating. Neither was Jesus. And I think that both of them are laughing at the supposed zealots here, and everywhere.

80

[quote]bears wrote:
“To even talk rationally about a film like this will endanger one of causing immediate knee-jerk reactions with slogans; “homophobe”, “bigot”, “narrow minded”, etc.”

the next reponse on thread

"RIGHT! KILL THE GAYS! THEY WANT US TO BE GAY LIKE THEM! BOOO! EVIL GAYS!

WE FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!

C’mon dude. This is pathetic. "[/quote]

Hey, first of all, I react to very ignorant things with sarcasm. Thats my nature.

Second, I saw a chance to quote Monty Python. So I took it.

Third, the article is ridiculous and ignorant. So maybe “knee- jerk” is the wrong word to use.