posted
Did he reimburse the store owner? Someone destroying your inventory is no joke. I can only assume he was reminbursed because if not he SHOULD sue.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think it's alright to destroy someone's property just because you think they are racist or make money off of racists? That strikes me as pretty illiberal.
I don't think that was the reason for destroying the antique shop at all. There was no conversation that took place that would reference that at all. I think he just thought it'd be funny. And he paid for pretty much everything he broke. Sure the guy probably made less than he might've charging full sticker value for everything, but they pretty much bargain over price all the time at places like that. And from personal experience, Russians(and slavic peoples) look at bargaining like a sport, where you're not respected if you don't play well.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, i think he ended up being like $20 or $30 short(out of somewhere around $300 worth of merchandise) and the guy was like, "fine, that's enough. just get out of here".
posted
My question was less about what happened in the movie than Pel's statement that anyone who had that much racist stuff deserved for it to be destroyed.
I've got a copy of "Adventures of Huck Finn" that says n*****r in it. Wanna come burn it, Pel?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh, i can't really comment on that. I personally didn't pay attention to the specific objects in the store so I don't know.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm coming in late to the discussion, but I wanted to add my two cents worth anyway.
I saw Borat last week. Parts of it were genuinely funny, but for the most part, it was that kind of humor where I'm like, "Ha, ha, ha. Oh, I really shouldn't be laughing at this." Maybe it's being inured to political correctness, or just the fact that I feel there's something wrong with racist humor. I don't really know. Or like with the rodeo scene, where I was wondering, are these people really that ignorant? That wasn't so much funny as really, really sad.
At any rate, I don't understand Pelegius' whole thing with the shopkeeper. The guy sold Civil War memorabilia. And yes one side of that war was considered racist. But are we to destroy an entire part of our collective history, just because it was ugly? And from what I recall, Borat smashed some plates and a lamp and such. I don't recall him going after Confederate flags or well preserved manacles or anything, so it's not like he went in with the intent to destroy racist artifacts. (And I didn't really get that whole part anyway. I felt bad for the shopkeeper 'cause I'm sure Borat destroyed some one of a kind antiques.)
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, yet another reason for me to not watch this movie. I'm sick of stuff that convinces everyone else that the south is the most racist place ever.
quote: I felt bad for the shopkeeper 'cause I'm sure Borat destroyed some one of a kind antiques
Well, he WAS selling them. So it really doesn't matter what is done with the merchandise as long as it's paid for. From a purely materialistic standpoint.
great link Sean!
quote:Speaking on the telephone, Joseph, with Mariam chatting in the background, says they saw the film and thought it "was not anti-Semitic at all. It was outstanding. I think [Sacha Baron Cohen] is a genius."
These were the jewish bed and breakfast owners who Borat thought turned into cockroaches which he tried to appease by throwing money at.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's offensive, but not to Jews. I think he's taken advantage of people's natural politeness and used editing to paint a picture that isn't true, and now that he's giving interviews as himself, he's actually being self-righteous about it. Good grief.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie was hilarious. End of discussion. The people that looked bad in the movie looked bad because they were morons.
The fratboys? Drunk. Racist. Sexist. Not Cohen's fault.
The guy at the Rodeo? Racist. "You can look like an Eye-talian, not a dadgum muslim!" Yeah - also not Cohen's fault.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, racism against Muslims is kind of encouraged in this country nowadays. Maybe if we really want to pretend we discourage racism, we should focus on ourselves and our culture and the messages we send instead of looking for ways to feel superior to others.
posted
well one way of focusing on those issues is first bringing them to light. Maybe you don't like the way it was done, but a very large amount of Americans who have never heard such racist talk have now been exposed to it, in a way where the people espousing those beliefs were made to look foolish. racism isn't some concept that you learned about in school, it's out there all around you.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if you learn something through being humiliated, you don't really "learn" that thing at all.
Isn't there a better way for Cohen to get his point across? Or is the point just a by-product? By which i mean, is he making these comedies to enlighten ignorant racists? Or is it just something that might happen as a side-effect because he's dealing with controversial issues?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually, i was really referring not to the humiliated parties learning anything, but to the audience who is made aware of the prevalence of these ideas.
Either way, sure there are much better ways for Cohen to get his point across and enlighten people. But it's important to remember that when it comes down to it this movie and that character are meant as entertainment...comedy. As much as I stick up for his intelligent commentary on these important issues, I mainly like it because I think he's absolutely hilarious.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:actually, i was really referring not to the humiliated parties learning anything, but to the audience who is made aware of the prevalence of these ideas.
Again, I ask, is this Cohen's intent? To slap the Western world with this wake-up call? Are these movies/clips/what-have-you really meant as "intelligent commentary on...important issues?" Cause while I'll agree with you all day that they might be funny and entertaining at their core, I can't imagine anyone thinking it's actually an "intelligent" way of showing people how prejudiced much of this country still is. It embarasses and angers those who are of that mindset, and trivializes their viewpoints in the eyes of the majority of the population. Whether their viewpoints SHOULD be trivialized is another matter, because obviously i think prejudice is pretty clearly a harmful mindset, but the fact is is anyone really learning anything from this? Those people have those prejudices for a reason, and they need to be educated, not ridiculed. So what is this? Just one more reminder of how far we are as a society from being truly enlightened and open-minded?
This kind of humor has always bugged the heck out of me, though, so i'm coming from the biased viewpoint of someone who finds mocking people in this way to be dishonest and manipulative. I hated Candid Camera and all of its off-shoots -- especially the so-revered-by-my-generation "Punk'd" I don't see what's so intelligent about putting someone in a plausible scenario and making them think one thing is happening when really it's this other thing and "oh my, aren't you stupid for believing this ridiculous foreign reporter is actually REAL?! You're hysterical in your ignorance! I laugh at your misfortune at being randomly chosen to be made a fool of on movie screens across America."
It could happen to ANYONE at ANYTIME and the fact that Cohen manages to expose some sad truths about the mindset of our society in the process I don't think excuses his means. There's nothing intelligent about his comedy, it's all smokescreen and falsehoods made to look clever, when really they're just out-and-out lies.
Yes, he himself is clever and he says some hysterical things in character that are brilliant and spontaneous. But for my "foreign guy messes up Americanisms and is really quite provincially prejudiced, how cute!" fix, i'd rather read Everything Is Illuminated, which deals with these same issues and doesn't resort to cheap tricks to get the point across.
whew, reading over that I realize i'm pretty worked up about this issue. I guess i hate the thought of someone being taken advantage of for the temporary comedic benefit of someone else. It offends my sensibilities.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
haven't you ever played a practical joke on someone? Or had one played on you but still thought it was funny afterward?
I don't know, look at all the people in the article Sean linked that after seeing the movie thought it was really well done and funny. They enjoyed that style of humor, and they were the brunt of it.
quote:There's nothing intelligent about his comedy, it's all smokescreen and falsehoods made to look clever, when really they're just out-and-out lies.
I'd also just like to comment that this is a bold statement from someone who hasn't seen the movie or any of his other comedy.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:haven't you ever played a practical joke on someone? Or had one played on you but still thought it was funny afterward?
Rarely. In fact, it's a strange quirk of my character that i'm actually generally incapable of working up the nerve to pull a trick. In fact, I remember quite distinctly the one time i actually pulled off a successful "practical joke" on you, calling and saying my car had broken down again on the way to visit you in New Jersey. I felt like crap afterwards, even if you didn't see any harm and weren't yourself offended by it. And truthfully, i have had a practical joke or two of that nature played on me and not come out the worse for wear. Or even thought about it again as having harmed me. I don't see any harm in periodic tricks like that, but at the same time I acknowledge that they are an incredibly cheap form of humor, no matter how amusing the outcome. April Fool's Day is based on this very mindset, and i don't see any harm in that "holiday."
Actually, you personally are quite good at tricks like that, in fact I think you played them on me quite a bit over the last few years -- nothing harmful, just little things like "Oh, i forgot to buy that! No, i didn't, i'm lying. Here it is." But occasionally I'd believe you strongly enough that it actually hurt a bit when you revealed the truth. I look at Cohen's humor like that. He takes it too far. It's not a quick little comment that's immediately explained as false. It's a fable, a performance, and it goes on and he never breaks character and he makes fools of these people, and its never fair.
Actually, because you found that kind of trick humor so appealing, I often tried to match you with it, trying to come up with my own "tricks" because i knew you found that so funny. I can't tell you how many times i planned to say something misleading to you and then thought twice and decided I didn't want to lie. Cause that's what I looked at it like, as lying, even if it was short-lived and harmless. I don't know why that was such an issue with me, why i couldn't ever do that effectively, but no, in general I don't play those kind of jokes on people because i feel bad immediately afterwards, like I got my laugh, yeah, but it wasn't honest and it wasn't clever. It was just lying diguised as humor.
quote:I'd also just like to comment that this is a bold statement from someone who hasn't seen the movie or any of his other comedy.
That's not true. I've watch a few clips of his "news reports" on You Tube, solely on your recommend, and the interview Borat had with Conan O'Brien. The funniest thing i saw? The interview, because Conan was in on the joke. Secondary to that was the singing of his "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song, because while in a sense it was poking fun at the denizen of the bar, it didn't actually "trick" anyone. And it was funny. I'm not denying that any of his stuff is funny. I'm simply saying it's not *smart* humor. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack on your own love of his comedy, cause it's not meant that way. I understand that if you turn off your brain and just enjoy it for itself, it IS funny, if at times uncomfortable.
edit: something I noticed during the O'Brien interview, he wasn't as funny at his schtick as in other clips. I wonder if that was because he wasn't getting the honest, un-knowing feedback of his usual "dupes." It's like his comedic doesn't work as well if he doesn't have some stupid schmuck who doesn't know what's up. Conan knew what was going on, and while he attempted to play into it, obviously his responses weren't going to be as organic. And it wasn't as shocking or uncomfortable as his interviews with those that aren't in on the joke, and that's why it was the funniest to me.
posted
ahh...maybe that's why i love him. He has the guts to take those tricks to the extreme levels I never could. I do love me my practical jokes. Where does that phrase come from anyway?
Isn't all comedy lying to a certain degree? Comedians tell jokes about people they know or things that happened that were amusing, they also exaggerate things tremendously. I doubt many of those stories are true. But they pass them off as true for comedic affect.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cohen is clearly angry. This kind of mean-spiritedness has to come from somewhere. Maybe he's one of those guys to whom society seems impossibly wrong-minded; maybe he, as a Jew, has been the victim of some serious anti-semitism; I don't know. But I can definitely see why people would be upset about his tactics.
On the other hand, I think he's brilliant. I haven't seen this movie, but I've seen almost every episode of Da Ali G Show -- and I *like* his tactics. I *like* that he lies about who he is, and the way he presents himself, because by doing so he gets people to open up about how they really feel. They think, 'This Borat is all right -- he hates Jews just like me!' and they let their hateful despicable guts spill.
And it's hilarious.
But it's also upsetting. It upsets people like me because we sit there and think 'wow -- Americans are more screwed up than we let on. This is embarassing. I'm ashamed that these racist idiots are from the same society as me.' It upsets people on the other side because they sit there and think 'how dare he chump-out my fellow racists and make us all look like uneducated idiots? It's not like that! What's he trying to prove?'
So it's comedy that comes from a very dark place, and it's going to make us *all* uncomfortable. I also sort of thing it comes from a noble place, in a way. A gutsy place. Cohen takes a lot of risks. I admire what he does, because I *do* think it serves a purpose, and the purpose is to expose the racism and the stupidity that we want to keep buried, and by exposing them, to make us think about these things -- and maybe we have to address these things we don't want to address.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Secondary to that was the singing of his "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song, because while in a sense it was poking fun at the denizen of the bar, it didn't actually "trick" anyone.
how is that sketch any different from the rest of them?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think playing practical jokes like that and especially taking it beyond the point of where the object is comfortable with it is an attempt to dominate.
I personally hate it. My older brother would do it and I just loathed him every time. It feels like dealing in bad faith and then trying to pass off the unpleasant results as a personal failing of the object.
You know what it reminds me of? Those Milagre experiments. That's more extreme, but I think it's the same principle. We are social creatures, and we make decisions all the time that make things a little more smooth socially. I think Borat took advantage of that natural tendency not to expose something that was bubbling close to the surface but to trick people into acting in ways that they never would if they were not being manipulated into it.
Like in the Milagre experiments when the students who were cast as the guards and the prisoners displayed behavior that they were horrified by later. Experiments like that are considered wildly unethical, and rightfully so. Borat is doing the same kind of thing, only blaming the people afterward for "not getting the joke."
If the people in the movie agreed to the final cut of themselves, then I'd be fine. They didn't, though, and while the disclaimers cover every letter of liability necessary, I think the star and producers dealt in exceedingly bad faith.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if i can articulate it adequately. It was just a performance. It was his character, surely, and his schtick, but it was just this bar, that he walked into, sang a song, and left. The bar patrons could think whatever they wanted about what happened, and i'm sure a few of them thought he was just pretending. It was more of a moment of comedy, like those improv groups that perform in public and pretend things that aren't true. Performance artists. LIke that Improv Everywhere group, and their schtick. In fact, the only improv of theirs that really made me feel uncomfortabe was the hypnotist one, where people in the crowd were getting upset that he was manipulating that girl, and then he ran away and everyone was concernd for those he left behind. That made me uncomfortable. It's a fine, fine line. In comedy you're always manipulating people, surely, but there's that line between their willing participation in your manipulation, and you just pulling a fast one on them and waiting for the inevitable realization that they were fooled.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read the interview linked to above, and found this passage to be pretty revealing:
quote:"Borat essentially works as a tool," Baron Cohen says. "By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudice, whether it's anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism. 'Throw the Jew Down the Well' [a song performed at a country & western bar during Da Ali G Show] was a very controversial sketch, and some members of the Jewish community thought that it was actually going to encourage anti-Semitism. But to me it revealed something about that bar in Tucson. And the question is: Did it reveal that they were anti-Semitic? Perhaps. But maybe it just revealed that they were indifferent to anti-Semitism. "I remember, when I was in university I studied history, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, 'The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.' I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but I think it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic."
posted
Or maybe the people in the bar thought it was a joke. I can imagine plenty of Strider's friends (He's culturally Jewish) singing a song like that in a raucous manner, and not meaning anything remotely anti-semitic by it. I could imagine sitting in a bar and having someone sing a song like that and i would just assume it was too outrageous to be real. I would sing along with aplomb because i would be so sure it was a joke
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL's quote is exactly what I don't agree with. Someone who acts like a raving anti-Semite is NOT going to expose other people's antisemitism so much as catalyze and cause it.
People take social cues from those around them all the time. The reason he acted like a Khazak instead of a Californian is that people would not give someone from California the same tolerance and indulgence as they would to someone who portrayed themselves as a well-meaning foreigner.
You know who else this is reminding me of? Cedrios. Stay with me. Remember he lied about who he was and then claimed to passing it all off as a social experiment? It's the same thing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you can invoke Cedrios without guilt. After all, Hitler and the Nazis were just mentioned, and we're only on page two ;0p
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It upsets people like me because we sit there and think 'wow -- Americans are more screwed up than we let on. This is embarassing. I'm ashamed that these racist idiots are from the same society as me.' It upsets people on the other side because they sit there and think 'how dare he chump-out my fellow racists and make us all look like uneducated idiots? It's not like that! What's he trying to prove?'
You're making a false dichotomy here. As much as I don't like anti-Semites, I still don't like the idea of playing mean-spirited jokes like this. I also don't like the idea of goading them on to make some "artistic" point.
He lies. I'm trying to figure out why we tolerate his lies in these situations.
And no, I'm not under the assumption that everything a comedian or actor says must be true. The difference is that he acts as an actor in a situation where he intentionally causes the people to think he's not acting. It's deception. It's lying. And the fact that some people find it funny doesn't change that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or maybe the people in the bar thought it was a joke. I can imagine plenty of Strider's friends (He's culturally Jewish) singing a song like that in a raucous manner, and not meaning anything remotely anti-semitic by it. I could imagine sitting in a bar and having someone sing a song like that and i would just assume it was too outrageous to be real. I would sing along with aplomb because i would be so sure it was a joke
I think maybe that's the possibility Cohen was talking about when he said it could have just been indifference.
quote:TL's quote is exactly what I don't agree with. Someone who acts like a raving anti-Semite is NOT going to expose other people's antisemitism so much as catalyze and cause it.
People take social cues from those around them all the time. The reason he acted like a Khazak instead of a Californian is that people would not give someone from California the same tolerance and indulgence as they would to someone who portrayed themselves as a well-meaning foreigner.
We're in total agreement about the methods Cohen uses, katharina -- at least in the sense that we both (and I'm sure everybody does) understand how he does what he does.
What we're going to have to agree to disagree about is whether or not someone acting like an anti-semite CAUSES anti-semitism in others.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're making a false dichotomy here. As much as I don't like anti-Semites, I still don't like the idea of playing mean-spirited jokes like this. I also don't like the idea of goading them on to make some "artistic" point.
What is the false dichotomy? If I gave the impression that I think there are only two possible reactions to Borat, let me correct myself. There are many possible reactions.
quote:He lies. I'm trying to figure out why we tolerate his lies in these situations.
Yes. He lies. I don't think that's any great revelation. We tolerate his lies because -- what is the alternative? In America, we have freedom of speech. I'm very glad that those who might not want to tolerate his lies, really, have no choice.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just dishonest. Sure, he exposes anti-Semites and racists. But he does it through trickery, and it's dishonest. I disagree with katharina that we shouldn't be held responsible for what we say and do under the influence of a charismatic manipulator. I think it's false and dishonest and any number of things, but i don't think he makes them act racist. Sure, they'd probably contain themselves in different company, but that doesn't make them any better for knowing which audiences will be sympathetic to their complaints, it just makes them prudent.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to add that i'm not at all advocating for him to stop what he's doing. It makes me uncomfortable, in much the same way that Punk'd and Candid Camera and certain comedic movies do, and i simply avoid them. I freely admit that not everyone feels the same way and i have no problem allowing him to continue. Just because i think it's a lazy kind of comedy (not in the planning, of course, cause certainly you have to be very good at method acting and improv to pull off what Cohen does successfully, and my hats off to him for that) doesn't mean i think it's not comedy.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. He lies. I don't think that's any great revelation. We tolerate his lies because -- what is the alternative? In America, we have freedom of speech. I'm very glad that those who might not want to tolerate his lies, really, have no choice.
You seem to be using "tolerate" in a far different manner than I. I wasn't referring to legal action of any kind.
I think he should stop what he's doing. I think he owes an apology to everyone whose time he wasted by lying to them to get them to participate in his boorish behavior.
Whatever racists were exposed by him owe their own apologies for their own faults. They don't lessen his.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: haven't you ever played a practical joke on someone? Or had one played on you but still thought it was funny afterward?
Never. I also don't find practical jokes funny at all. If someone were to play one on me, I would be upset and hurt and then probably become paranoid for a little while.
Edit: Also, my point is that with this movie, you just point and go, "Ha-ha, silly racists!" Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't distinguise between Arab and Muslim or know that there are actually different countries in the Middle East. But that's okay because we can all ha-ha at the people who are gullible enough to say outright what's becoming increasingly pervasive within our country. It's completely unproductive and probably counterproductive because it makes the rest of America feel like oh, so glad we're not as bad as THOSE guys instead of paying attention to what they do in their own lives.
posted
Luet13, "The guy sold Civil War memorabilia"
No, he did not. Among other things, he sold signs expressing how unfortunate it was that the Confederacy lost the war. I have some civil war memorabilia, including a picture of my great grandfather in his Southern uniform. I have never regretted the Northern victory, and doing so, in my mind, expresses a preference for the existence of slavery.
Anyway, the man is eventually repaid, albeit with many absurd setbacks. Really, I have every right to enter a store and ruin all the merchandise I want, as long as I pay their asking price for it. Mr. Cohen is far from the first to do this.
"I've got a copy of "Adventures of Huck Finn" that says n*****r in it. Wanna come burn it, Pel?"
As I am not in the habit of burning books and do not believe that Mark Twain was a racist (in fact, I am fairly sure he was not), I have not intention of burning your book. However, if you had a copy of Mein Kempf, and I were making a certain type of comedic film, I might well flush it down the toilet on camera and then pay you back on camera.
If anyone should be angry, it is the city of Dallas, were that antique shop was suposidly located. Judging by almost any factor (accents, merchandise, size of store), I do not think that was in Dallas, which is not part of the Deep South and was integrated fairly early and peacefully.
"Does anyone think this is altruistic?"
Is anything ever entirely altruistic? Would Gandhi have been so saintly had he not known that his biographies would be read even today, would Michaelagelo have painted the Sistine Chapel had he not been forced to?
“I'm sick of stuff that convinces everyone else that the south is the most racist place ever.”
Compared to certain regions of Rwanda, the South is very accepting of ethnic differences.
Seriously, a large portion Southerners, although probably no longer a majority, hold publicly racist views. There is a section of Southern society, namely uneducated rural males, which tolerates the most egregious racist views and actions. There have been lynchings in East Texas during my seventeen year life span. The town were my great aunt lives still has a fence between the “White” and “Black” cemeteries.
I do not claim that all or most Southerners are racists, I have seen quite the opposite, but to deny the real presence and frightening prevalence of racism in the Southern U.S. is to lie to oneself. We have progressed far more than imaginable in 1960 and far more than even most liberals felt desirable in 1860. But the generation that rioted in Mississippi and Alabama is still alive, and not all of them changed their minds about African-Americans. The evidence for this is beyond all contestation.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't distinguise between Arab and Muslim or know that there are actually different countries in the Middle East."
I find that also to be pretty scary, considering that U.S. policy is now entagled in a web of Turks and Kurds and Farsi-speakers and an assortment of tribes and sects and parties. Actualy, the U.S. media has done better than one might expect, given its record, in explaining the complex ethnic, religious and political divisions of the region.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: However, if you had a copy of Mein Kempf, and I were making a certain type of comedic film, I might well flush it down the toilet on camera and then pay you back on camera.
Destroying someone's personal property (even if you recompense them) is wrong. Saying someone deserves to have their property destroyed because of a viewpoint you find distasteful is illiberal. I generally hold that people should be secure in their persons and property, regardless of their beliefs.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I'm pushing this issue, Pel, is because I feel your attitude strikes against the heart of liberal democracy, which you claim to support so strongly. Believing it's okay to hurt someone because you don't like their beliefs betrays the basic principles of liberty (as set forth by, for instance, John Stuart Mill, the philosophical grandfather of the Liberal Democrats).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, a large portion Southerners, although probably no longer a majority, hold publicly racist views. There is a section of Southern society, namely uneducated rural males, which tolerates the most egregious racist views and actions.
You might find this shocking, but people in other areas of the country are both racist and tolerant of racism, as well.
quote:Seriously, a large portion Southerners, although probably no longer a majority, hold publicly racist views. There is a section of Southern society, namely uneducated rural males, which tolerates the most egregious racist views and actions.
You might find this shocking, but people in other areas of the country are both racist and tolerant of racism, as well.
-pH
No one ever claimed otherwise, pH.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Destroying someone's personal property (even if you recompense them) is wrong."
Not if they are selling it and you recompense them. Indeed, it was presumably the desire of the shop owner to have people relieve him of his possesions and give him money for it, which is what Mr. Cohen did. His methods were uncoventional, but still.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if they are selling it, and you recompense them, it is wrong. People put conditions on sales all the time. If I own a Van Gogh that I want to sell, I have the right to refuse to sell it to anyone but a museum, if I wish to make sure it will be available for people to enjoy and not locked away in a private collection. In this particular case, he destroyed the property before it was purchased. If the store owner had wanted to, he could have pressed charges against him, instead of accepting the money. "Borat" did not have the right to destroy it, even intending to pay. Many store owners don't care what you do with something once you purchase it, but many do care, and would not sell you something knowing you were going to turn around and destroy it. Antique store owners tend to be in the business because they are passionate about what they sell -- for the most part, they sure aren't in it for the money. It is reasonable to assume that they would be less likely to sell something knowing it would be destroyed. And that is their choice.
Also, did Mr. Cohen remove the broken merchandise from the store? Generally, when a shop owner is relieved of his possesions in exchange for money, the person takes them away, and doesn't leave them in a broken mess for the owner to clean up. I haven't seen the movie or read the linked article, so he very well may have been compensated for his extra trouble, as well. But if he wasn't, that's another reason that Mr. Cohen didn't have the "right" to do what he did.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just came back from the film, and I may not have agreed with everything Mr. Cohen did, or how he did, but around me it has sure sparked many long discussions and arguements over topics that would not otherwise be discussed. Could it be that Mr. Cohen does not want everyone to like his film? Maybe he just wants to spark discussion and make people think about their predjudices for more than the 84 minutes people sat and watched his film for.
Or maybe he didn't intend any of those things, but is it not still a good thing that people are talking and thinking about these often taboo subjects?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
