quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The gloss mode I talked about has officially ended.
quote:"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark," Gibson said in a statement.
"I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested," he added.
The cynic in me wants to say that the man works in Hollywood, and wishes to continue to do so.
But I am willing to suspend judgment, and see what he does.
I don't care how vile a person may be at any given time. If he's willing to do something about it and change, I think that's laudable. And given what he said in that article, I would absolutely give him that chance.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
So pooka doesn't like Jews any more than she likes gays. I wish I could say I'm surprised.
Pooka didn't say anything against Jews. She was simply stating the fact that the majority of the world is turning against Israel and it's millitary actions. Making a personal attack in response to that quote shows a lot more about you than pooka.
Oh, please. Gibson was talking about Jews. Not about Israel. What she said was absolutely a defense of anti-semitism. And as I said, someone who defends her opposition to same-sex marriage by claiming that it's "anti-woman"... well, it doesn't surprise me to see her standing up for Jew-hating rhetoric as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Wow, proof right in front of you, and still you chose to be blind. Wow.
And here I was thinking that you are seeing mountains where there are only molehills.
I read through your two sites to see what they had to say and I answered their points to an extent. You simply called me blind for disagreeing, you could always try refuting what I had to say Reticulum.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... what's that about? Is it my connecting bigotry in one area to bigotry in another area? Or is it my pointing out that Gibson wasn't talking about Israel, and that pooka's statement was obviously supportive of anti-semitism?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: He is doing something to change: checking into rehab, the last refuge of busted celebs.
Did you even read what he said? He's actually approaching the people he offended and asking them to work with him on it. Yes, he's an actor. Yes, the fact that he sounds sincere doesn't necessarily mean he is. But as I said, I'd give him the opportunity to show one way or the other. Wouldn't you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: He is doing something to change: checking into rehab, the last refuge of busted celebs.
Did you even read what he said? He's actually approaching the people he offended and asking them to work with him on it. Yes, he's an actor. Yes, the fact that he sounds sincere doesn't necessarily mean he is. But as I said, I'd give him the opportunity to show one way or the other. Wouldn't you?
been trying to say this the entire thread Lisa, I guess you are better at it then I am.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If he's willing to do something about it and change, I think that's laudable. And given what he said in that article, I would absolutely give him that chance.
posted
Until I saw that link, I wouldn't have spit on him if he were on fire. But you have to respect someone who makes that kind of statement of genuine regret.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Wow, proof right in front of you, and still you chose to be blind. Wow.
Reticulum, I don't see any reason to respect your views when you link two sites, one member writes a very detailed and intelligent rebuttal of them, and then you write one sentence where you say he is blind. You input nothing of your own and only attack when other people do.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
So what you're saying is, if a public figure does anything positive, he/she cannot possibly be doing it for reasons other than the money?
posted
I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I was raised by a racist - a man who sincerely believed white people were inherently better than all others and used racial epithets around the house routinely.
I have, in bad moments, channeled my stepfather and things have come out of my mouth which deeply shamed me as soon as I realized I said them. On one case I distinctly remember, alcohol was certainly involved.
I cant' judge whether or not Gibson is really anti-Semitic, but it seems highly likely his father is, and so he grew up hearing all those things and sometimes our pasts come back to haunt us. What matters is that we don't perpetuate it, that we fight against it and refuse to pass on a legacy of hate. That is what I try to do - racial slurs are not allowed in my home my husband and I both will not speak them or tolerate anyone else doing so, because I dont' want my children to grow up as I did. I know in my heart that racism is wrong, and I think it's likely Gibson knows anti-Semitism is wrong. I'm willing, because of my experience, to give him the chance to prove he means what he now says.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I watched American History X as a teenager I was amazed by how logical the racism was presented, and then suprised again when it was all debunked.
Thats a very interesting insight Belle, one which which I was certainly unaware of.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
While I think it's unrealistic to expect that anyone in the public eye doesn't have their image & potential salary in mind more or less constantly, I think you may be being overly critical.
Let's see what big Mel has to say. I'd be interested in hearing from the Jewish community members he talks to.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
Fascinating. Someone more cynical than I am. I'm impressed.
I think the reason I'm not seeing it the way you are is that he didn't have to go as far as he did in his apology to get the result you're talking about. No one really expected it of him, for that matter. He could have just said, "Hey, I was shnockered. I said dumb things. Sorry." He went beyond that, unnecessarily, from a PR view, and that makes me feel that there might be something there.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, I must say your right, and what I said was mean. Sorry. However, I still think Ghandi was racist. Let's agree to disagree, agreed?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Blackblade, I must say your right, and what I said was mean. Sorry. However, I still think Ghandi was racist. Let's agree to disagree, agreed?
apology accepted along with your proposal Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
So what you're saying is, if a public figure does anything positive, he/she cannot possibly be doing it for reasons other than the money? -pH
No, of course that's not what I'm saying. Let's say some regular guy gets wasted, and spouts off some anti-semitic junk to his fellow barflies. The next day he apologizes, says he doesn't believe that, etc.
I'd be more likely to believe him than someone who's whole career depends on selling an apology. I don't know if Gibson's apology is sincere, but his motivations for giving an insincere apology are too huge for me to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Art exists independently from the artist.
One can choose to look for motives behind works of art, but I think that is among the shallowest ways to appreciate any work of art, for two reasons: Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head.
Tres, once again we disagree about the same thing, and if you think my opinion will be different in this thread then you are mistaken. It hasn't changed. You can say till your blue in the face that "art exists independent from the artist," but what that means as a statement is in question. Personally I can agree with that statement on many levels: a painting is not a person, or a painting exists after a person dies, changes careers, or loses touch with that type of art or that opinion. I agree on all those points. Edit: But when Da Vinci carried the Mona Lisa around with him everywhere he went for 10 years, was he seperate from the art, in EVERY sense of the word? He was close to it, it effecte him every day, he was physically near it, he used it to influence other people and it became part of his relationship with the world. How seperate were they?? Can you see where the above statement lacks?
Perhaps you believe that you have made a simple decisive point "it is seperate," but you consistently fail to define anything beyond the broad and as it applies to your view, and not to the specific meaning you wish to convey through universal understanding of an idea. Please strive, for my sake, to be specific and universal, rather than broad and personal in a discussions such as this. Your opinions will not be very effective if they are cloaked in your own intended meaning, rather than thoughtfully applied to the question at hand. As it is you have only raised further questions, and answered nothing.
Edit to add: This is why my post is in no way a response to your opinion: you seem to have no standpoint from which to argue. If you were to specify and actually discuss the nature of the thing you want to explain, I might be able to respond.
Take this for example: "A work of art is seperate from the artist," and then "It is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art." Here you deny any connection, and then claim unlikely any success in finding something you believe to be irrelevent. If it is irrelevent, or non-existant, than why is it "nearly" impossible. It should be impossible in your view, if it is a consistent one following from "the art is seperate."
You may wish to view the art as seperate for your own purposes, but again that is not relevant here, and it is clear that you don't even believe it.
Please don't take this as a discouragement from further dialogue, but you must understand that I find dialogue impossible with you when this kind of thing goes on.
posted
Guys, Guys, Guys. You're missing the forest for the trees! TheHumanTarget has just stumbled on the best-kept secret in human history! It's The Gibson Code!
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Now I understand all of the hidden subtext in the first Lethal Weapon movie...
Furthurmore, starLisa: it makes me all giggly when someboy uses the word "shnockered". It's people like you that help me get through the day.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up with Catholic hard-liners like Gibson -- and while none were as anti-Semitic as he is (I never really understood the concept), they shared his homophobia and hostility against non-Catholics.
I respect the guy's talent, honestly. Braveheart's quite possibly my favorite film, and if Gibson's anything like the average Catholic nut, he's not evil or malicious. He's just sure everyone different is. He reminds me of some of my old teachers, and that's not a bad thing.
I feel bad for him. The guy he hired to play Jesus, Jim K______, spoke at my high school -- and he's a nutjob too. He warned us about Satan lurking in every corner, trying to destroy you and everything good, to the point where he was actually crying onstage with the fervor of his beliefs.
I guess some people respect that. But I've never seen fundamentalism do anything but make otherwise good people closeminded bigots, threatened by anything that contradicts their dearest beliefs -- hence such idiocy as intelligent design and "defense of marriage." It's a shame, Gibson seems like an otherwise nice guy.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what was is he an otherwise nice guy? I think when you cross over to driving drunk and calling the cops F-ing Jews and saying the Jews are ruining the world, you don't get "otherwise nice guy" as an option.
I think back to not too long ago and that Children's Songs album done by inmates in federal prison. When the work they did was presented as "from some pedofile and a bunch of felons in prison," (paraphrase) it was recieved with terrible rancor. Why? If they are good artists then what is the beef? We know what the beef is, and yet because Gibson's work predates the knowledge that he is really a heel and an idiot/nut, we refuse to go back and reconsider our former conclusions.
If you had heard that prisoner's album and liked it before you knew where it was from, how would you feel? Knowing that, would you allow your kids to listen to the album? Why not? So that you don't support these prisoners? Because their evil might infect your child vicariously, or they might get off on being listened to by children? Don't you think Gibson gets off at being listened to by millions of Americans? You didn't think it was ALL about the art did you? Could it be?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: In what was is he an otherwise nice guy? I think when you cross over to driving drunk and calling the cops F-ing Jews and saying the Jews are ruining the world, you don't get "otherwise nice guy" as an option.
He's anti-Semitic -- that makes him ignorant, not evil. There are a number of people in this very forum that believe in a "homosexual agenda," that homosexuals are trying to force equal marriage rights on the country through political correctness. Others go further, and believe heterosexuality is inherently superior to homosexuality, and believe that homosexual love is a sin. Will you dismiss their good aspects because of their close-minded beliefs?
Card is, even by conservative fundamentalist standards, a rather rabid homophobe. He's also an excellent writer. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and ranks among the greatest gifts to this country. Bigotry is a sad reflection on the bigot, but it isn't such a hideous crime that one can't appreciate their better aspects.
Like I said, I grew up with hardcore Catholics. While I never noticed much anti-Semiticism, Gibson strongly reminds me of them -- and they're good guys, in truth. They don't like effeminate homosexuals or vegetarians, but they do believe in frequent volunteer service and strong religious community. They distrust the unfamiliar and enjoy getting hammered, but they don't give a damn about race or income. They're loyal to a fundamentalist interpretation of religion, and that invariably leads to closed minds and paranoid hatred -- but not sinister mustache-twisting, and insisting otherwise makes you look foolish.
Gibson's not evil, he's wrong. Trying to demonize the guy accomplishes nothing.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Gibson's not evil, he's wrong. Trying to demonize the guy accomplishes nothing.
How did I try to demonize him? I simply asked why you say he is an "otherwise nice guy." One does not get being evil from being a "not so nice guy after all."
Also, you don't know if he IS evil. You don't know him personally, I assume, so you can't really vouch for him as a person beyond what any movie viewer could. How do you know he is a nice guy? How do you know he ISN'T evil?
I wasn't even calling him evil, but simply saying that I think when you do dispicable things, you are not "a nice guy" who does dispicable things. A guy who does dispicable things (even while drunk yes) is not a nice person. The drunk and the sober person are not divorced from each other, and though I think alcoholism is a disease that can do some things, alcohol does not actually take over your body and give you things to say while drunk. He already had those things in him to say, and that means he only appears to be a nice guy when he ISN'T drunk. Edit: Can you say things you don't mean to say? Oh yeah. Can you say things you don't mean AT ALL? Not really IMO. I've been drunk, and it was me talking.
If you ask why I should judge him, then I shall say it is only because he has gone SO FAR to set himself up in this christ-role in society and in many of his films, in which he is the bearer of suffering and wisdom for the whole world. It stinks, it's pathetic and I don't care if he is a great film maker, that doesn't make him a nice guy. I wish people would see that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Society has an interesting take on its hero's and its villians. We take a person who does an incredible perfect heroic deed, and assume that he is always that heroic, that perfect. Then when we discover that there were times when they were less than perfect, less than 100% heroic at all times, we demonize them as fakers and frauds. Then we take our villians and we assume that those moments of pure evil represent their entire lives. When we discover that there were times when they showed compassion, loved a kitten, helped an old lady across the street, not out of some sinister plot, but because they too are human, we question their guilt.
Mel Gibson is not another Hitler, nor would he support one. On the other hand, the worst of his attitudes could do a lot of damage if splashed across the big screen.
I go back to my first post. He got drunk, and channeled his father, spewed out the years of hate his closed minded father fed him. Its a shame. In many ways its like a car wreck, in that we all can't turn away from this disaster, but face it, there are bigger disasters going on today.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: He's anti-Semitic -- that makes him ignorant, not evil.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Being evil isn't like a tattoo. It can come off. An anti-semite can stop being an anti-semite, just like a homophobe can stop being a homophobe, and a racist can stop being a racist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A dear friend recently had a terrible experience -- because of a complication with some medication she basically lost control of her mind and her mouth. She had no control over what came out of her mouth. She used terrible abusive language, said the most awful things about all of her family members. It was quite an ordeal. It made me wonder -- in the same circumstances, what would come out of my mouth? Would it be the deepest, most repressed part of my brain? The things I had disgarded as wrong and decided never to say in my life? Most of us have been exposed to many many things that are NOT US! Especially those raised by parents who we have decided to disagree with as grownups.
So -- what should we be judged by? The things we CHOOSE to say and do in our lives after considering and rejecting other possibilities? Or what spews forth from our darkest places when we are out of control? I hope I'm judged on what I choose to say after careful consideration rather than what falls out when I'm not in my right mind. But -- obviously that won't happen.
Posts: 780 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Actually, I'd say the exact opposite. Anti-semites are necessarily ignorant, but they aren't necessarily evil. In fact, I don't think any person is evil.
quote:Being evil isn't like a tattoo. It can come off. An anti-semite can stop being an anti-semite, just like a homophobe can stop being a homophobe, and a racist can stop being a racist.
I'd also say the exact opposite to each of these.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, once again we disagree about the same thing, and if you think my opinion will be different in this thread then you are mistaken. It hasn't changed. You can say till your blue in the face that "art exists independent from the artist," but what that means as a statement is in question.
How can you know that we disagree and what we disagree about, yet then later claim you don't know what I am saying and that I have "no standpoint from which to argue"?
Let me put it another way though: I think that, in most cases, you don't need to know anything about the artist in order to appreciate his or her art in the deepest and most meaningful way. Or, more broadly, I simply think that it is possible to take great meaning from art in a way that is totally unrelated to the creator and the creator's intentions. That is what I mean when I said the art is "separate" from the artist.
There are usually many ways to appreciate any given work of art. You can appreciate it as a paperweight, for one thing - but I think that is one of the shallowest ways to approach art. You can also appreciate it in terms of what you think the artist intended to communicate through it - which I'd argue is a significantly more meaningful way to approach it than if you just looked at it as a paperweight, but also significantly less meaningful than what the art itself means to you. (I'd say that for reasons 1 and 2 that I mentioned earlier.) Being able to appreciate it in all of these ways would add to the value of the art, in your mind, I'd think. At the same time, it would be foolish to allow a failure to appreciate art in one sense cause you to be unable to appreciate it in other, more meaningful senses. I don't think it is wise to reject the value of a painting because it doesn't work well as a paperweight, because that would misses the greater value one could find in it. In a similar fashion, I don't think it is wise to reject the value of a painting because you don't like the message the author intended to communicate through it, because that also misses the greater value that one could find in it.
So, what my position is, to be clear, is that I think it is foolish to allow Mel Gibson's intentions as an artist, or his character as a person, prevent us from appreciating his films.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is foolish to allow Mel Gibson's intentions as an artist, or his character as a person, prevent us from appreciating his films.
It would be like not being able to appreciate Master & Commander because Crowe is a violent mong.
Or saying "I refuse to look at any Caravaggio piece, because he was a violent mong."
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Does this statement apply roundly to anyone who discriminates against people of other faiths? Is it equally inherently evil to be anti-Muslim?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope that Mel Gibson's apology does some good for Judeo-Gentile relations in the same way that Rebbitzen Rothschild refered to the Temple bombing in Atlanta as the "bomb that healed."
I do have to say that I am much more wary of anti-Semitism now that I am the mother of a Jewish child. Also, I spoke to my dear friend in LA yesterday about this. Her husband is a producer for a prominent production company and he had this to say about the apology, "Not even Mel Gibson has the money to make and distribute his own movies."
I have to say that I am a little shocked that no one seems to be batting an eye over the fact that he was DRIVING DRUNK, which is a much worse offense to me. I have many friends in LA (including quite a few Hatrackers) and the idea of a drunk driver sharing the road with them scares me (yes, I realize that there are more drunk drivers out there than just Mel Gibson and I hold them all in the same low regard). The friend I mentioned is 8 months pregnant - what if Gibson had hit her? Or hit anyone? I understand that alcoholism is a disease - I am the child of an alcoholic. However, drunk driving is a choice and a deadly and despicable one. Gibson was lucky that no one, including himself, was injured or killed.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: [QUOTE] Bigotry is a sad reflection on the bigot, but it isn't such a hideous crime that one can't appreciate their better aspects.
Like I said, I grew up with hardcore Catholics. While I never noticed much anti-Semiticism, Gibson strongly reminds me of them -- and they're good guys, in truth. They don't like effeminate homosexuals or vegetarians, but they do believe in frequent volunteer service and strong religious community. They distrust the unfamiliar and enjoy getting hammered, but they don't give a damn about race or income. They're loyal to a fundamentalist interpretation of religion, and that invariably leads to closed minds and paranoid hatred -- but not sinister mustache-twisting, and insisting otherwise makes you look foolish.
Gibson's not evil, he's wrong. Trying to demonize the guy accomplishes nothing.
And this "hardcore Catholic" is trying to make the assumption that you are just refering to specific people rather than making a generalization about "hardcore Catholic". Even so, I will try to "appreciate your better aspects" and, rather than assume "sinister mustache-twirling", will just wonder about what invariably led to your closed mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card is, even by conservative fundamentalist standards, a rather rabid homophobe.
Not really. He disapproves of homosexuality, certainly, and he tends to condescend towards those who promote the acceptance of homosexuality, but I've never seen evidence that he discriminates against homosexual people.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Actually, I'd say the exact opposite. Anti-semites are necessarily ignorant, but they aren't necessarily evil. In fact, I don't think any person is evil.
If you don't think a person can be evil, then you've essentially denied the existence of evil. In which case, you're starting with the premise that evil doesn't exist, and concluding that anti-semites aren't evil. No offense, but that's kind of empty, logically speaking.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Being evil isn't like a tattoo. It can come off. An anti-semite can stop being an anti-semite, just like a homophobe can stop being a homophobe, and a racist can stop being a racist.
I'd also say the exact opposite to each of these.
What's the opposite of "a racist can stop being a racist"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Does this statement apply roundly to anyone who discriminates against people of other faiths? Is it equally inherently evil to be anti-Muslim?
Anti-semitism is not anti-Judaism. It's Jew hatred. And yes, to hate all Muslims, because they are Muslim, is evil.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and concluding that anti-semites aren't evil. No offense, but that's kind of empty, logically speaking.
Are we talking "evil" as a separate force? That, I don't believe in, either. Or "evil" as an adjective to describe abominable, malevolent, despicable?
For once, I'd have to agree with Tresopax. I don't believe any person is evil. I do believe that people can commit evil acts.
Anti-semitism is a belief. An ignorant one, in my opinion. It is not evil, nor are people who hold that belief. People who act on that belief may be committing evil acts.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Card is, even by conservative fundamentalist standards, a rather rabid homophobe.
Not really. He disapproves of homosexuality, certainly, and he tends to condescend towards those who promote the acceptance of homosexuality, but I've never seen evidence that he discriminates against homosexual people.
Lord, Chris. He has called for the force of law to be used to persecute homosexuals. Don't get me wrong; I like him. I like his writing, and I like a lot of his views as well. But on this one, the term homophobia, or bigotry towards gay people does apply. You can't say "We should put gay people in jail" and claim you have no problem with gay people. It just doesn't work that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anti-semitism is not anti-Judaism. It's Jew hatred. And yes, to hate all Muslims, because they are Muslim, is evil.
Yeah, that's why I applied the term 'anti-muslim,' which, likewise, wouldn't be anti-islamism, but rather the catchall for hating muslims. I think.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
He is very, very against the acceptance of a behavior he believes to be wrong. He is not against the people themselves.
I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's an important point. A homophobe is irrational, by definition, and can never be reasoned with. That doesn't apply here, I don't think, although it would certainly be an uphill battle. Likewise, labeling someone an anti-semite isn't terribly useful as it doesn't tell us much unless we immediately jump to assume the very worst and the accused must be one army away from committing genocide.
Someone with anti-semitic beliefs could be an otherwise wonderful person who likes Jew jokes. Or she could be someone who won't hire a Jew, or someone who won't date one. Or he could be someone who goes out and beats them up after work. Or he could be someone who makes a movie with anti-semetic themes and releases it worldwide.
I don't like labels. I think they do a disservice to the person so labeled and to the discussion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's the opposite of "a racist can stop being a racist"?
Ooops... Nevermind what I just said about that. I read it as being the exact opposite as what you said... which means I actually agree with you on that one!
quote:If you don't think a person can be evil, then you've essentially denied the existence of evil.
No, I'm just denying that people are evil. There are plenty of things out there that are evil (such as rape and murder) - just not people.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*cough* I don't consider a non-Jew who refuses to date Jews an anti-semite. I consider them right. (Of course, I may or may not agree with their motivations for the choice.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny, I'd roll my eyes at a non-Mormon who refused to date a Mormon ... but if a Mormon refused to date a non-Mormon, I would understand. Why am I so messed up?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
quote:From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality", by Orson Scott Card: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
I included that second paragraph so that no one would shoot back saying that I'd ignored it. But the fact that he says the intent isn't to put gays in jail doesn't mitigate his statement that the laws should stay on the books in the least. On the contrary; subjective law of that sort -- having laws that can be used arbitrarily as weapons when desired -- is always a bad thing. Favoring the abuse of governmental power to force people to abide by his views... well, that's the main area where he and I don't see eye to eye, but in this particular case, gays are his victims.
Again, I need to repeat that I see more positive than negative in OSC. But this is definitely homophobic bigotry. Replace "homosexuals" with any other group of people, and you'll see.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: That's funny, I'd roll my eyes at a non-Mormon who refused to date a Mormon ... but if a Mormon refused to date a non-Mormon, I would understand. Why am I so messed up?
If a Jew refused to date a non-Jew because of some kind of bias against non-Jews (rather than because it's just wrong), I'd think very little of that person. But I'd still be glad he or she wasn't dating a non-Jew.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean, replace "homosexuals" with "pedophiles" and we'll see a pedophilophobe?
He's talking about curtailing behavior that he believes to be immoral and illegal. I understand that not everyone shares that view about the behavior. But to use the word "homophobe" implies that he hates or is afraid of homosexual people, which he has shown time and time again is NOT true.
This is what drives me crazy ... comparing hating someone's chosen behavior to hating someone because of their race or religion. I can't stand people who blow up abortion clinics, but I'm not anti-fundamentalist Christian. I just hate the behavior. I hate suicide bombers but I'm not anti-Muslim. It's about behavior, not about hating a group of people.
And before anyone accuses me of comparing homosexual behavior to suicide bombers ... please. I'm not here to argue whether the behavior is right, just to argue that disapproving of someone's behavior is NOT the same thing as hating or fearing an entire group of people.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, I still think Ghandi was racist. Let's agree to disagree, agreed?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Why am I so messed up?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
