I'm sure I'm the last one to have heard about this, but apparently Mel Gibson is starring in a new movie that opens in a few days.
"Hanging on the cross or banging in the nails"? Is that really the kind of imagery you want to be reminding the public of right now, Mel?
As far as I know, this is his first movie since the DUI incident back in '06. It is certainly his first starring role since then. Frankly, I've thought all this time since the incident that his career was--and ought to be--over.
It's not the DUI itself, of course. A lot of people get into trouble with alcohol and then get sober and live useful lives as good people. I would never condemn someone for all time for having had a DUI.
Being an anti-Semite, well, that's a lot harder to forgive. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I, for one, don't believe that in a state of drunkenness, he said things he didn't mean on any level. I haven't seen evidence that alcohol works that way. The operative words here, I think, are in vino veritas. In my opinion, in his sober life he's far too careful to admit to being an anti-Semite because he knows the social repercussions it would have, but one day he got too drunk and lost those inhibitions and let it slip.
And let's not forget that Gibson has said, "My father has never told me a lie." Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, believes that the Holocaust is a hoax, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Second Vatican Council (which helped modernize the Catholic Church) was an anti-Catholic plot by the Masons and the Jews.
I can't comment on the contents of The Passion of the Christ, which stirred up accusations of anti-Semitism before the DUI incident happened, because I haven't seen it. I do know that Gibson rejects Vatican II, which among other things, asserted that the Jews as a people are not guilty of the murder of Christ. How he actually depicted it in the film, I don't know.
I won't say that Gibson should be banned from making movies. We have free speech, free expression, and a free market in this country, and that is as it should be. Gibson is free to make any movies he wants. I would have hoped that the studio execs in Hollywood would have had the sense to refuse to work with him, but since he now seems able to find work, I sincerely hope that enough people remember what he really is and refuse to go see them. I want every movie he makes to flop so he can see that we, as a society, reject him and his hateful views.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
(Portions of this post submitted with apologies to Dennis Miller.)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
The trailer reminds me of Taken. And, heh, I like the first comment under the vid. I'm pretty sure it's "his" second movie released since the incident, though, even if he wasn't in a starring role in the other one.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really care much about Mel Gibson's issues one way or the other.
This movie looks awful, regardless of who's starring in it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
People forgave him, a little to quickly. I don't know why. I agree, alcohol does not make you say or do things. It only lowers your inhibitions to bring stuff out that is already inside you.
Maybe people forgive entertainers? I mean how many women do you know still march down the aisle to a song written by Wagner, who definitely hated Jews? How quickly have people forgiven Chris Brown? Roman Polanski?
Governor sleeps around on his wife, and his career is over. Celebrity beats his girlfriend, sleeps with a 13 year old, or admits to hating Jews? Forgive and forget. Can you imagine the outcry if Barack beat Michelle? Or Pelosi got drunk and made anti-semitic statements? How about Hillary sleeping with a 13 year old?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you feel about Roman Polanski?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
How many big name actors or major sports stars have had DUIs? How about Woody Allen taking nude photos of his daughter (technically she wasn't) and then marrying her?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What reason is there not to forgive him quickly?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Forgot about Woody Allen.
Are you asking me Scott?
Well, it happened a couple of years before I was born, so I don't remember the outcry.
In college I took a course on horror film and literature. It was taught by an author, Tom Whalen. As far as I can tell, his best known work was co-author on A Newcomer's Guide to the After life with Daniel Quinn (Ishmael). He showed us one of Polanski's films, and I can't remember which one for the life of me. I had never heard of the whole Polanski thing before. Whalen made some comment on how backward our country is for persecuting him for something legal in many other countries. Ok, I figured it was 20 years ago, she was probably 17 and he was probably in his 20s. I was shocked to discover later that he was in his 40s and she was 13. I was disgusted. I don't believe in censoring movies, but I can't believe people don't call for a boycott of his films here. I feel like I was the only one disturbed by the fact he made an Oliver Twist movie with orphaned children. The fact that Whalen was defending him sickened me. If I had known in that class what I found out later, I probably would have started a little in class argument.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What reason is there not to forgive him quickly?
If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher. Why should celebrities not be held to the same standards? Do I believe in worrying about it for the rest of my life? No. Will I ever pay money to see a movie with him involved again? No.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher.
Not necessarily, or even if you did lose your job you could find another teaching job.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I'd be more interested if it were Mel Brooks rather than Mel Gibson.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Governor sleeps around on his wife, and his career is over. Celebrity beats his girlfriend, sleeps with a 13 year old, or admits to hating Jews? Forgive and forget. Can you imagine the outcry if Barack beat Michelle? Or Pelosi got drunk and made anti-semitic statements? How about Hillary sleeping with a 13 year old?
I think the situations simply aren't parallel. Politicians set policy for our society. They are supposed to represent our views. If they hold views we find repugnant, they aren't qualified to represent us.
The same isn't true of entertainers, composers, business owners or athletes. I don't go to movies to support the actors agendas, I go to movies to be entertained. As long as an entertainer's personal private opinions don't influence the product, its not clear why I should care about those personal private opinions.
If an entertainer or business person is using the proceeds from something to support a cause I find repugnant, I can see reason for boycott. If they are using their fame to promote something I find repugnant, I can see reason for boycott. But if we are simply talking about private views which the individual has publicly disavowed, the reasons for a boycott are far less understandable. I can understand why someone might desire to avoid doing business with a person they find morally repugnant, but I can also understand why that doesn't matter to most people.
The issue is even more ambiguous if you are talking about someone who is deceased like Wagner. He does not benefit in any way from my patronage. I listen to Wagner because its beautiful, not to form political and social opinions. There is nothing in Wagner's music that makes me feel negatively about Jews. Why would I need to forgive Wagner for being an anti-semite to enjoy the music he wrote? Rodin was pedophile. I'm not going to forgive him for being a pedophile, but as long as observing his art doesn't cause people to start molesting children, why should I care? His statues are amazing.
In a society where nearly everyone is willing to do business with companies like Walmart and Nike that benefit from the equivalent of slave labor, its hard to get too worked up about movie starts who make repugnant comments when they are drunk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I, for one, don't believe that in a state of drunkenness, he said things he didn't mean on any level. I haven't seen evidence that alcohol works that way.
I disagree. I don't even drink and yet in moments of anger I've said lots of things I don't believe and that I deeply regret.
Decent moral human beings aren't decent and moral because they have never had an impure or hateful thoughts. The are decent and moral because they choose to control the personal demons everyone has. Those personal demons are not somehow our true selves. The fact that a person in a fit of drunkness or anger spouts something horrible, does not indicate who they really are. The things we do by conscious choice are a far better indicator of our true character than the demons we reveal when we loose control.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Rodin was pedophile. I'm not going to forgive him for being a pedophile, but as long as observing his art doesn't cause people to start molesting children, why should I care? His statues are amazing.
He was? I'm not a Rodin expert, but that doesn't jibe with what I know of his life. Googling "Rodin pedophile" isn't turning up anything, either. Why do you think that he was one?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:The fact that a person in a fit of drunkness or anger spouts something horrible, does not indicate who they really are.
You might have a point, if there were no additional evidence that he believed the hateful sentiments he spewed on that occasion. But there is, quite a bit.
I actually sort of wish this were a movie that I wanted to see. It doesn't mean much to boycott a movie I'd never watch anyway.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I'd be more interested if it were Mel Brooks rather than Mel Gibson.
Same here.
[ January 27, 2010, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I, for one, don't believe that in a state of drunkenness, he said things he didn't mean on any level. I haven't seen evidence that alcohol works that way.
I disagree. I don't even drink and yet in moments of anger I've said lots of things I don't believe and that I deeply regret.
Decent moral human beings aren't decent and moral because they have never had an impure or hateful thoughts. The are decent and moral because they choose to control the personal demons everyone has. Those personal demons are not somehow our true selves. The fact that a person in a fit of drunkness or anger spouts something horrible, does not indicate who they really are. The things we do by conscious choice are a far better indicator of our true character than the demons we reveal when we loose control.
This--I completely agree with. I'm always quick to forgive people because we're ALL human, and we all make mistakes in moments of weakness. People shouldn't be defined by their moments of weakness--there's a whole person there.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I, for one, don't believe that in a state of drunkenness, he said things he didn't mean on any level. I haven't seen evidence that alcohol works that way.
I disagree. I don't even drink and yet in moments of anger I've said lots of things I don't believe and that I deeply regret.
Decent moral human beings aren't decent and moral because they have never had an impure or hateful thoughts. The are decent and moral because they choose to control the personal demons everyone has. Those personal demons are not somehow our true selves. The fact that a person in a fit of drunkness or anger spouts something horrible, does not indicate who they really are. The things we do by conscious choice are a far better indicator of our true character than the demons we reveal when we loose control.
ALso, truth in wine is a flat out lie. People say and do things when drunk that they would never say of do any other time, sometimes just to hurt other people. Not because they really feel that way, or they have been hiding things. It happens all the time, and is well documented, just anyone who has worked with addicts, or had one in the family. It doesn't matter if they are drunks or addicts, they both lash out and hurt people because they themselves are in pain.
I am a bit torn over the Gibson thing. I don't want to see this one, although it looks good, but I don't believe that celebrities are really role models, or that they should have to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The issue is even more ambiguous if you are talking about someone who is deceased like Wagner. He does not benefit in any way from my patronage. I listen to Wagner because its beautiful, not to form political and social opinions. There is nothing in Wagner's music that makes me feel negatively about Jews.
I think this is a good point. The Wagner example especially stood out to me as a "this thing is not like the others" since there is AFAIK no substantial financial way in which even Wagner's descendants benefit from performances of his work, even assuming that they share the same views which is pretty doubtful.
quote: In a society where nearly everyone is willing to do business with companies like Walmart and Nike that benefit from the equivalent of slave labor ...
Seems kind of a cheap shot. I think there are several ways in which one can find doing business with Walmart or Nike as being the morally neutral choice or even a morally positive choice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher. Why should celebrities not be held to the same standards?
If you made these comments to a police officer while drunk, chances are the rest of the public would never know of it, since you aren't famous, and thus it would have no effect on your job. Even if the comments were made public, I would not think that is a good reason to fire you - unless you made the comments to students or in a school-related environment.
Teachers also could be held to a different standard than film directors, because being an effective teacher entails a different skill set than being an effective director. For one thing, being a teacher requires more trust than being a film director.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: If I boycotted all entertainment created in part by people I had moral issues with, well, I'd pretty much have to stop consuming any entertainment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher. Why should celebrities not be held to the same standards?
Because celebrities are not in positions of authority over children. They are entertainers.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Anti-semitism is a justifiable reaction to Jewish ethnocentrism.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
They entertain, not teach. They play parts, and a lot of them basically are elaborate liars....they lie about who they are so well that we believe them.
It's called acting.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What reason is there not to forgive him quickly?
If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher. Why should celebrities not be held to the same standards? Do I believe in worrying about it for the rest of my life? No. Will I ever pay money to see a movie with him involved again? No.
Not in the Clark County School District here in Nevada. Just recently we had a Career teacher go off on a 20 minute rant to her high school students that the Holocaust was fake, all of the pictures that were taken were all doctored, and that the Germans did not have the technology to kill millions of people.
After parents raised hell and demanded the teacher be fired, the school district investigated. The punishment? A slap on the hand. She got a memo in her file that will stay there for a year, and then it will be removed. She would need to do the exact same thing two more times within the year to be terminated.
As far as Mel goes, if he makes a good movie, fine. I could care less about his personal life. I don't agree with the comments James Cameron made comparing the militants in Avatar to our US military, but I enjoyed his movie. He has his opinion, I have mine.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Here's a fact: Jews control Hollywood.
I don't mean in a villainous way or that they have total, absolute control of the place, but as it happens, Jews control most of the studios and talent agencies.
How did it get that way? Hint: they discriminate mercilessly in favor of their own. Anyone recognizing this behavior is automatically deemed an 'anti-semite.' Anyone recognizing ANYTHING about Jews acting in a clannish fashion is an anti-semite.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher. Why should celebrities not be held to the same standards?
Because celebrities are not in positions of authority over children. They are entertainers.
Genau!!
[QFT]They entertain, not teach. They play parts, and a lot of them basically are elaborate liars....they lie about who they are so well that we believe them.
It's called acting.[/quote]
QFT!!
Different standards are appropriate for different professions because of differences if the associated responsibilities and skills.
Unless you are arguing that people with racist or anti-semetic views shouldn't be allowed to work anywhere, the double standard argument falls flat on its face. And if you are making that argument, then you're wrong. Holding an offensive and unpopular opinion should not disqualify people from holding a job or any other essential activity in a just society.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Rabbit, I'm really interested in finding out what you know about Rodin being a pedophile. Could you share what you know?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Here's a fact: Jews control Hollywood.
I don't mean in a villainous way or that they have total, absolute control of the place, but as it happens, Jews control most of the studios and talent agencies.
How did it get that way? Hint: they discriminate mercilessly in favor of their own. Anyone recognizing this behavior is automatically deemed an 'anti-semite.' Anyone recognizing ANYTHING about Jews acting in a clannish fashion is an anti-semite.
Whistled.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mel Gibson was on Leno last night. He said this new movie is the first one he has appeared in personally in eight years. The last one, he said, was Signs.
On a previous edition of Leno, James Cameron said that he was not anti-military. He said he has relatives in the military, and he pointed out that his hero in Avatar was a marine who showed all the true ideals and values of a good marine.
As for going native, the hero (also a soldier) in Dances With Wolves did that too .
[ January 27, 2010, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Rabbit, I'm really interested in finding out what you know about Rodin being a pedophile. Could you share what you know?
He had a reputation for having sexual relations with young teenagers who modeled for him. A 50 year old have sex with a 15 year old isn't strictly pedophilia but its too close for me. I read a bunch on him about a decade back when the UofU had a Rodin exhibit. I'm afraid I can't remember the source for that particular tidbit.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The same isn't true of entertainers, composers, business owners or athletes. I don't go to movies to support the actors agendas, I go to movies to be entertained. As long as an entertainer's personal private opinions don't influence the product, its not clear why I should care about those personal private opinions.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Anti-semitism is a justifiable reaction to Jewish ethnocentrism.
Antagonizing you and calling you the most worthless poster this site has seen in years is a justifiable reaction to how absurdly stupid most of your posts are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Here's a fact: Jews control Hollywood.
I don't mean in a villainous way or that they have total, absolute control of the place, but as it happens, Jews control most of the studios and talent agencies.
How did it get that way? Hint: they discriminate mercilessly in favor of their own. Anyone recognizing this behavior is automatically deemed an 'anti-semite.' Anyone recognizing ANYTHING about Jews acting in a clannish fashion is an anti-semite.
Whistled.
Beat you to it.
[ January 27, 2010, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That was some really obvious trolling, there. I don't know how whistling will help, unless Papa is willing to ban someone for making deliberately offensive statements.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't even know if he is around. As mentioned, he's having a baby and the site didn't appoint a backup moderator for when he's unavailable.
And yes, ban clive candy.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: That was some really obvious trolling, there. I don't know how whistling will help, unless Papa is willing to ban someone for making deliberately offensive statements.
I'm not trolling. The people of the Jewish faith are a highly ethnocentric lot. It's how they managed to survive in other nations for thousands of years. Inevitably the people of those nations came to recognize Jewish ethnocentrism and the fact that they were too effective in dominating resources, i.e, using their clannish ways to out compete the individuals in those societies. This has been the cause of all those pogroms.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
thus in combination with your statement about 'appropriate response' with the mention of 'all those pogroms'
HEY-OOO
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: thus in combination with your statement about 'appropriate response' with the mention of 'all those pogroms'
HEY-OOO
Pogroms were not a particularly enlightened response, to be sure, but they were reactive in nature and Jewish enthocentrism was the provocation. It's like any revolution in which an economic elite is targeted.
It should be noted that Jews didn't do too badly under Islam, because the Arabs were divided into many tribes that were all ethnocentric themselves. Jewish enthnocentism is mostly advantageous in individualistic societies -- i.e, Europe and America.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Papa may not be around, but that doesn't mean we have to read or respond to anything else Clive says. He's a troll. I doubt he believes anything he says. He's just trying to start a fight. He can't do that if no one responds to him.
Stop feeding the troll.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Rabbit, I'm really interested in finding out what you know about Rodin being a pedophile. Could you share what you know?
He had a reputation for having sexual relations with young teenagers who modeled for him. A 50 year old have sex with a 15 year old isn't strictly pedophilia but its too close for me. I read a bunch on him about a decade back when the UofU had a Rodin exhibit. I'm afraid I can't remember the source for that particular tidbit.
Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What reason is there not to forgive him quickly?
If I had made those comments publicly, I would have lost my job as a teacher. Why should celebrities not be held to the same standards? Do I believe in worrying about it for the rest of my life? No. Will I ever pay money to see a movie with him involved again? No.
Not in the Clark County School District here in Nevada. Just recently we had a Career teacher go off on a 20 minute rant to her high school students that the Holocaust was fake, all of the pictures that were taken were all doctored, and that the Germans did not have the technology to kill millions of people.
After parents raised hell and demanded the teacher be fired, the school district investigated. The punishment? A slap on the hand. She got a memo in her file that will stay there for a year, and then it will be removed. She would need to do the exact same thing two more times within the year to be terminated.
Interesting. I'm curious. It is in our contract that we can be fired for embarrassing the county publicly outside of school. But it is also in our contract that we have the right to express our opinion in school.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Papa may not be around, but that doesn't mean we have to read or respond to anything else Clive says. He's a troll. I doubt he believes anything he says. He's just trying to start a fight. He can't do that if no one responds to him.
Stop feeding the troll.
It's a narrative that fits Jewish history, and I have not seen a single coherent Jewish response to the academic who peddles these theories.
True, I've been almost entirely unavailable due to the new baby (both baby and Mama are doing very well). Locking this thread for review. Please do not take the discussion to another thread.