Posted on 02/16/2004 7:22:27 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
What's more, she givws no indication that she has attempted to contact or interview Mel Gibson. That's not good journalism no matter what else she has written.
Oh BOO HOO.
Interesting that you should include me in your list of people to scold. A lot of people suffered horribly during WWII. Gibson's pointing that out while acknowledging the horror of the Holocaust does not make him what she seems to be implying.
If an apology is owed to anyone, it is Gibson.
:-}
Now you're being obtuse HA, almost Clintonesque thoguh I reserve that for the only the most obtuse.
Perhaps you simply fear fear itself?
Perhaps you have a problem reading with comprehension.
In fact, when you listed a couple of "interesting" references in a post to me (e.g. my discussion of Jews but not Romans), I got the impression that you were trying to paint me as potentially ant-semetic as well
I'm sure that it was just a misconception...
Yes, it seems that you have a tendency towards misconception.
Anti-Semitism is a term I usually avoid since groups like the ADL have overused it to the point of irrelevancy. Not having seen the Gibson film (and having an aversion to the ADL), I didn't characterize the film at all. The attempts to censor it and the discussions on this and other threads were much more interesting to me, and it was those I commented on.
My comments on your statements that were "interesting" were just that. Trying to see how you viewed the events. I'm sorry that I didn't make more of an attempt to explain myself properly to you.
Have a nice day.
EXACTLY.
Have a nice day.
I'm sure you'll do better next time...
Ben-Hur
-BEST MOTION PICTURE:"Ben-Hur"
- ACTOR:Charlton Heston
- ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:Hugh Griffith
- ART DIRECTION & SET DECORATION (COLOR):"Ben-Hur"
- CINEMATOGRAPHY (COLOR): "Ben-Hur"
- COSTUME DESIGN (COLOR): "Ben-Hur"
- DIRECTING: William Wyler - "Ben-Hur"
- FILM EDITING: "Ben-Hur"
- MUSIC (MUSIC SCORE OF A DRAMATIC OR COMEDY PICTURE): "Ben-Hur"
- SOUND: "Ben-Hur"
- SPECIAL EFFECTS: "Ben-Hur"
The Ten Commandments
- SPECIAL EFFECTS: "The Ten Commandments"
Chariots of Fire
-BEST MOTION PICTURE:"Chariots of Fire"
Even "Bible movies" can win the little gold man. That's what has Hollywood quaking in their boots.
The predicate is everything, the subject is nothing. Interesting theory, I'll have to consider it.
Have a nice day.
And you as well.
That's not all you did. You also called her a "rancid dingbat". How Christian is that?
All I know about Cathy is that she wrote a stupid article about Mel Gibson.
Your "summaries" of her points were considerably more "stupid" than her article, actually. See below.
My only comments on Cathy were with respect to her stupid article.
Oh, so calling her a "rancid dingbat" wasn't any sort of personal comment, it was only a "comment on her article"?
Nothing that you have posted makes anything she said in her Passion article less stupid.
That wasn't my goal, my goal was to implore people to stop throwing stones, making personal attacks, and making knee-jerk presumptions about how anyone who says anything you might disagree with must be a "stupid PC liberal leftist Trostkyite" etc. I'm completely embarassed for FreeRepublic at times like this, when it descends into the sort of vicious, empty-headed rhetoric typical of DemocraticUnderground.com. Maybe you don't care about what damage that may do to the conservative movement, due to how it may turn off people who happen to be dropping in here for the first time and encountering virtual lynch mobs, but I do.
Now let's look at your original post to see whether the essay was as "stupid" as you assert, or whether it actually went over your head:
Let me see if I get this:
1. Gibson is criticised for thinking that the Nazi attrocities were horrible and ghastly, but, - maybe -, in a century of mass murder on an even larger scale by the Soviets and Chinese, not uniquely horrible
No, that's not what he's being criticized for.
2. Evidence is provided that, yes indeed, the Soviets and Moaists did in fact commit systematic mass murder on a scale even larger than the Nazis
And yet, several Freepers falsely denounced her as a "socialist", "Trotskyite" who had a "double standard" about the communist purges. Go figure.
3. Evidence is provided that there is a double standard with respect to mass killings by the Commies, as opposed to their brother socialists the Nazis, the Marxist bastards being given an unwarrented pass because they commited genocide for "progressive" reasons
And yet, after slamming the left's double standard, over a dozen Freepers attacked her as a "liberal" "leftist". How odd.
4. The author seems to accept that the issues noted in points 2 and 3 are in fact accurate
Yes, a point overlooked by many of the posters on this thread.
5. Therefore, the author concludes that Gibson's position in point 1 is horribly wrong
Nope, but nice try.
Have I missed anything?
Yes, indeed you have. Her point is that since 1) there is legitimate concern about what Gibson's personal feelings and beliefs about Jews might be since he was raised by a father who was openly anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier, it's disturbing to many people when 2) Gibson responds to a flat-out invitation to repudiate such views by choosing to divert the topic to other casualties of World War II and even casualties of other wars entirely. As the author correctly points out, this sort of "yes, but" answer is common among anti-Semites and/or those who wish to minimize the extent of the Holocaust.
In short, it raises red flags about how far from his father's tree Gibson might have landed, and how careful he might be about fanning possible flames with his film. If he has such a tin ear about how his answer to the question would be received by many in the audience, how clumsy might his film be on the same topic?
Her point, as made clear at the end of her article, is that rather than help defuse the issue, Gibson's answer helped to inflame it, and he has himself to blame for that.
Agree or disagree, but that hardly seems a "stupid" thing to point out.
Furthermore, I note another weird aspect about Gibson's answer: "War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Um, "The Second World War" is not what killed "Jews in concentration camps". It was the Nazis, and there's little doubt that the Nazis would have implemented some form of the "Final Solution" even if the world had instead practiced appeasement and allowed Germany to keep Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Gibson makes it sound like the Jews in the concentration camps were inadvertently killed as a byproduct of "the war", when instead they were systematically exterminated in a conscious act of genocide. It's just freaky to present that in the way that Gibson did, and to wander off to a discussion of other tragedies when the topic of the question was specifically his feelings/beliefs about Jews because he's making a film which might affect Jews.
The author points out how Gibson's question raised more questions about his views instead of resolving them, and it seems to me that's a perfectly valid point.
Or have I correctly summed up this rancid dingbat's position?
No you have not, and even if for the sake of argument her point had been flawed, you would still be out of line for calling her a "rancid dingbat".
Since Christianity is concerned with the truth, I would say, with respect to this article, I am being pretty Christian...
Or not. See my previous post.
Let's assume for the sake of accuracy and honesty that her point is flawed, OK?
But as one poster who shall remain nameless has asked a thousand times, can you prove that these films didn't lead to a pogram?
Because, you know, if you can't prove that they didn't, they might have
Which is, of course , the fault of the film
And since you like these films too, you are also guilty (assuming something happenned, which you can't prove didn't) /sarcasm
Let's not, for the reasons I pointed out in the post which you are responding to, but failing to actually address.
Thank you.
Now I can see the only reason as to how she can turn a "Yes, of course." into a denial of the holocaust, is that she has started smoking crack.
Actually, the more interesting question is what sort of drugs you might be on which caused you to misread her article as claiming that Gibson's response was "a denial of the holocaust". She said no such thing.
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
I'm also curious how you might have leapt to the conclusion that: "Yet, she probably stood up for Clinton when he said it depends on what is is, and oral sex is not sex, etc, etc."
And when you said, "Funny how the left thinks", how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that she was part of "the left"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.