PtiKim 1, Obama 0

[Raz]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

I have read your post twice and I still don't understand you to convey a message other than one which could be delivered by an economy of words: discussion of "sensitive" topics require super-extra-quantitative levels of courtesy, and a willingness to discuss ALL sides of the issue if one is truly seeking understanding and some level of reconciliation. The short version - be nice!

But the discussion in our present society is almost entirely one-sided, thanks to the media. And there exists an organized grievance industry that has no interest in confronting its own problems or truly solving anything. Therefore it's all a waste of time.

In deference to Metalman and you, I'll bow out.

[lektrode]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

I have read your post twice and I still don't understand you to convey a message other than one which could be delivered by an economy of words: discussion of "sensitive" topics require super-extra-quantitative levels of courtesy, and a willingness to discuss ALL sides of the issue if one is truly seeking understanding and some level of reconciliation. The short version - be nice!

But the discussion in our present society is almost entirely one-sided, thanks to the media. And there exists an organized grievance industry that has no interest in confronting its own problems or truly solving anything. Therefore it's all a waste of time.

In deference to Metalman and you, I'll bow out.

+1

with respect i wish itulip to return to the old rules... economics only... else all goes into post haste into the political abyss... as goes the world.

+2
with deference to sutro's comment, re: effects on bricksnmortar studios vs netflix

o/w its just another political blackhole and waste of time (as most of these sorts of 'news' items devolve into)

[metalman]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

+1



+2
with deference to sutro's comment, re: effects on bricksnmortar studios vs netflix

o/w its just another political blackhole and waste of time (as most of these sorts of 'news' items devolve into)

yep... whatever happened to...

...the ebola scare?

...usa budget deficit crisis?

...arab 'spring'?

...$200 oil?

etc, etc, etc.

media sez... boo! & even the mart minds here 'react'

[verdo]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

peace... but... this is the last no tan echo chamber on the entire friggin 'net i know of where minds from all walks meet outside the framework... sans manufactured idolatry & ideology... to discuss in public at this level... events... people...

others i've followed have gone all private as niche left/right/conservative/liberal/love cats/love dogs/etc/etc/etc/ sites

Not entirely sure what gave you that impression tbh. It may have been like that some years ago, but itulip is niche libertarian. If you made a poll, I'm sure you would see that the vast majority of people here are conservative, and identify with the tea party or libertarian philosophy. The only real nuance here on itulip that I've noticed (and the only reason i stick around) is Eric himself, and maybe a couple users at most that I can remember off hand. Not saying this is a good or bad thing...just stating that the typical responses I see in any given news thread rarely surprises me. If you work with the understanding that the site is largely populated by quite fiscally conservative/libertarian individuals, what you see makes sense

[lektrode]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

Not entirely sure what gave you that impression tbh. It may have been like that some years ago, but itulip is niche libertarian. If you made a poll, I'm sure you would see that the vast majority of people here are conservative, and identify with the tea party or libertarian philosophy. The only real nuance here on itulip that I've noticed (and the only reason i stick around) is Eric himself, and maybe a couple users at most that I can remember off hand. Not saying this is a good or bad thing...just stating that the typical responses I see in any given news thread rarely surprises me. If you work with the understanding that the site is largely populated by quite fiscally conservative/libertarian individuals, what you see makes sense

that would appear to be a pretty 'fair n balanced' obs
(subject to/with deference to woody's/astonas' input, tempered by/with dcarrigg's ;)

yep... whatever happened to...

...the ebola scare?

...usa budget deficit crisis?

...arab 'spring'?

...$200 oil?

etc, etc, etc.

media sez... boo! & even the mart minds here 'react'

someone commented awhile back on my.... uhhhh... enthusiasm for posting (starting new) news threads with a remark about a sudden 'proliferation' of news threads, vs adding onto existing threads (and when it finally sunk in, caused me to stop posting as much to 'the news' - rather than having to go searching to find appropriate existing threads to append to) - that and generally losing interest in the raging debate-athon - on mostly 'liberal/social politix' vs econ-investing topics - that tends to happen when those with quicker/better typing/composition skills (and more intellectual horsepower than yers truly) join the fray (not that thats hard to do round here (woody)....

;)

[astonas]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

I have read your post twice and I still don't understand you to convey a message other than one which could be delivered by an economy of words: discussion of "sensitive" topics require super-extra-quantitative levels of courtesy, and a willingness to discuss ALL sides of the issue if one is truly seeking understanding and some level of reconciliation. The short version - be nice!

But the discussion in our present society is almost entirely one-sided, thanks to the media. And there exists an organized grievance industry that has no interest in confronting its own problems or truly solving anything. Therefore it's all a waste of time.

In deference toMetalman and you, I'll bow out.

Well, I'll certainly agree that my main thrust was to, as you succinctly put it, "be nice!" I see that as a pre-requisite for ALL discussions here and elsewhere, but some topics do seem to require the reminder more than others.

I should add that in the past you have demonstrated that you do usually seek out that high road, and so my comment wasn't intended as a slight, or a criticism, but as a gentle reminder. If you really do want a conversation on the intrinsically touchy subjects of race and sexual preference that you brought up, I was specifically trying NOT to shut you down. (With apologies if I came across as having an intent different than that.) On this point, I was actually agreeing with you, though I can certainly understand and respect metalman's opposing position. So don't feel you need to bow out in deference to me, that wasn't my goal.


But there were other points I made on my way to my main one, which I managed to obfuscate (sorry about that):

I was also agreeing with you that sensitive topics - even unpopular ones - DO need discussion (as long as it is "nice" discussion). Such discussion is how we as a society continue to make progress, shedding outdated norms in favor of ones that include more recent, or more scientifically supported, evidence. It is the process, for example, that allowed our society to make the transition from women not being allowed to vote, to the understanding that women voting is a perfectly normal and rational thing. I'm sure we all agree that this is progress, and should be encouraged.

And I was also pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between self-censorship due to fear, and due to civility. When we bring up "Why can't we talk about homosexuality?" in the same conversation as "Why can't we watch 'The Interveiw'"? that is implicitly making a false equivalence -- the reasoning behind the two self-restrictions is entirely different.

As an example, I know of no one who is threatening to bomb churches in their criticisms of various churchs' positions on homosexuality. There is a huge difference between being physically threatened, and being merely criticized, complained about, or even mocked. A threat of violence is intrinsically restrictive of freedom of expression. A demonstration of a lack of respect for a given worldview is exactly the sort of freedom of expression that needs protection. These are opposite, not equal, concepts, when it comes to free speech.

Put simply:

We have a right to speak our minds free of the fear of violence. This right should be defended.

We do not have a right to speak our minds free of the fear of being laughed at for holding views that others see as silly. That is exactly what the Muslims you criticize try to do when banning cartoons about their prophet. There is no sense in trying to defend this non-right, since such attempts can only restrict the freedom of expression.

But even when it is very tempting to mock what we see as silly views, not doing so usually makes for a better (more civil, productive) conversation. So let's try to start there.

It is only when we CAN'T be civil that the conversation isn't worth pursuing. But I have every confidence that we still CAN, if you wish.

[anthonydr2]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

What would happen if an individual made a parity video that included an unlikely, but possible, way to assassinate the US President? I expect that video would get millions of YouTube hits and then the secret service would pay the indidual a visit and whether by choice or force the video would disappear. I expect the same if the video assassinated any meaningful US political leader (vp, house/senate majority/minority leaders) and certainly any leaders of foreign countries at least those that are respected or have special status (military alliances, protected groups eg., Muslims, Black skinned foreign leaders). I justify this through the administrations deflection of their own blame on Benghazi to attempt to lay the blame for Benghazi squarely on the shoulders of an individual who had developed a YouTube video that painted a protected class "Islam" poorly.

What would happen if a foreign studio made a movie featuring the humorous assassination of a sitting US president, no matter how whimsical or unlikely the means of the assassination were....I don't see that going well - do you?

My bet is that either the US itself had political and clandestine service put a stop to the movie, or that China, looked at this through a long lense of time/political implications and both blocked the movie and then faked the NK Internet blockage so that it would appear to be a punch, counter-punch situation and both the US and NK could walk away from without further escalation.

For those finding a foreign film featuring the assassination of a current sitting Country executive branch leader, we all ought to be calling for resignations - the head of Sony USA (and anyone in that organization who green lighted or provided a funding sign off. Additionally, there should be impeachments, and possibly removals from office for any US federal leader who had heard of the film and took no proactive action on their own to stop it. And, if one or more of them is responsible for the actions that did stop it, they ought to have immunity if they step forward in a timely manner.

To me this is NOT a free speech issue. Free speech has been found limited before, a common example is "yelling fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists". The reasoning there is based on the harm it will unnecessarily and fooolishly create - eg., possible death/crushing of people attempting to escape a non existent fire.

Can anyone truely feel there is not an equivalency to a film made realistically portraying the attempted assassination of a specific current leader of a sovereign country. If so, please prove me wrong by publishing a fictional short story on the assassination of the current US president within this thread - I expect both that person and possibly myself to receive visits from the secret service in that event. My purpose for publishing this is not to in any way to lead to threats to POTUS. Rather, to draw attention to the arrogance of those who think "The Interview" should ever have made it from script to anywhere other than the trash can -- without publicity.

If Hollywood feels their freedom of speech is being limited, Obama, ought to publicly discuss the freedom of speech including the principles behind the limits of individual speech and how those principles would logically be extended to corporations within this country. In order to avoid any political slant it would be a great teaching moment for it to be a joint liberal democrat and conservative republican speech as I believe there is enough for both parties to agree on here to prevent terribly unproductive corporate investments that also endanger the lives of our citizens.

[astonas]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

What would happen if an individual made a parity video that included an unlikely, but possible, way to assassinate the US President? I expect that video would get millions of YouTube hits and then the secret service would pay the indidual a visit and whether by choice or force the video would disappear. I expect the same if the video assassinated any meaningful US political leader (vp, house/senate majority/minority leaders) and certainly any leaders of foreign countries at least those that are respected or have special status (military alliances, protected groups eg., Muslims, Black skinned foreign leaders). I justify this through the administrations deflection of their own blame on Benghazi to attempt to lay the blame for Benghazi squarely on the shoulders of an individual who had developed a YouTube video that painted a protected class "Islam" poorly.

In this case you might be imagining a little more intervention than is real. Assassination of US presidents (even sitting ones) is not only tolerated as a movie topic, it's practically its own sub-genre! For example:

10 Best President Assassination Movies

While I haven't seen most of those linked above (they're too routine a plot device to be interesting) I do remember that In the Line of Fire actually showed the process of making a gun that could pass metal detectors, and other details that one might hold up as sufficient cause for banning a film, if one were to apply the logic above. Needless to say, it wasn't stopped by the government, but instead went on to make plenty of money.

So your argument just doesn't reflect reality in any way. Instead, we see the exact opposite of your postulate. Not only are such films routinely published, even as hollywood blockbusters, they appear to have no net ill effect in a broader sense.

What would happen if a foreign studio made a movie featuring the humorous assassination of a sitting US president, no matter how whimsical or unlikely the means of the assassination were....I don't see that going well - do you?

I would think this would pretty much be a non-event. As linked above, we not only make them here at home, quite openly, but we even translate and export them to be viewed abroad.

When it comes to assassination films, the only thing we could really accuse a foreign entity of is plagiarism.

My bet is that either the US itself had political and clandestine service put a stop to the movie, or that China, looked at this through a long lense of time/political implications and both blocked the movie and then faked the NK Internet blockage so that it would appear to be a punch, counter-punch situation and both the US and NK could walk away from without further escalation.

I would suggest considering whether this would fit well on the following chart, perhaps next to "Kennedy Assassination":
The Conspiracy Theory Flowchart "THEY" Don't Want You To See
Occam's razor is pretty effective at slicing away most conspiracy theories. I think this one is no exception. China has very little to worry about from a film about North Korea which is far less significant than the many harshly critical films that have been made about China itself. This argument, too, simply doesn't wash.

For those finding a foreign film featuring the assassination of a current sitting Country executive branch leader, we all ought to be calling for resignations - the head of Sony USA (and anyone in that organization who green lighted or provided a funding sign off. Additionally, there should be impeachments, and possibly removals from office for any US federal leader who had heard of the film and took no proactive action on their own to stop it. And, if one or more of them is responsible for the actions that did stop it, they ought to have immunity if they step forward in a timely manner.

Since no one in government gives approval to films (thankfully), there isn't really an opportunity for impeaching or removing those elected or appointed officials who gave approval.

I also think that calling for people to resign over a ridiculous little farce is extremely risible. I suppose shareholders might have a valid complaint about the movie's high cost, and the fact that it now won't make any back, but Sony certainly has no responsibility to protect Kim Jong Un from mockery.

To me this is NOT a free speech issue. Free speech has been found limited before, a common example is "yelling fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists". The reasoning there is based on the harm it will unnecessarily and fooolishly create - eg., possible death/crushing of people attempting to escape a non existent fire.

The fact that free speech has limits does not in any way make this "NOT a free speech issue", regardless of one's feelings. The question at hand is how freely one may express one's thoughts publicly, and therefore it IS a free speech issue. That just follows from the definition of the term "free speech". The justification you provide for your assertion is therefore nothing more than a non-sequitur, with no logical connection between the first and second sentence in the quote above.

Even if we grant the non-sequitur, for speech to be limited, there must be a credible and foreseeable threat created by the speech. Are you really suggesting that people will watch this and decide to go (on their own) and kill Kim Jong Un? Really? I'm genuinely finding it hard to even imagine a person so credulous. The entire film is about how incredibly hard it is for an average person to do exactly that, even when provided with CIA mandate, support and guidance!

Or is there another sort of mass hysteria and death that can reasonably be predicted people who watch this film might engage in? Do you personally know anyone who has ever watched a farce like this and thought "Hey, that looks fun, I think I'll try that!"?

It is the logical equivalent of saying the three stooges should be banned because people might watch them, follow their lead, and cause injury. It simply isn't a reasonable argument.

Just to be clear: violent threats made by a foreign power in response to a film are not caused by the film, but by the foreign power making the threat. In such a case, the film is properly classified as the occasion of the threat, not the cause. I make the same case for the tasteless, but nonetheless constitutionally protected film about Mohammed that was the occasion at which some islamic preachers were able to incite violence. That film, too, should not have been suppressed, and for the same reason.

Respect for religion is a matter of taste, and civility. Elevating it to a right equivalent to free speech is not justified, no matter which religion it is. Simply put, people have a right to practice their own religion (as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights) but they do not have a right to demand that their religion be respected by others. Making fun of a religion is OK, as is making fun of dictatorships, and based on precisely the same reasoning. In this case, it is actually numerically identical, since the Kim family claims to be literally divine, and bases its demand for respect on that fact.

Can anyone truely feel there is not an equivalency to a film made realistically portraying the attempted assassination of a specific current leader of a sovereign country. If so, please prove me wrong by publishing a fictional short story on the assassination of the current US president within this thread - I expect both that person and possibly myself to receive visits from the secret service in that event. My purpose for publishing this is not to in any way to lead to threats to POTUS. Rather, to draw attention to the arrogance of those who think "The Interview" should ever have made it from script to anywhere other than the trash can -- without publicity.

Have you seen the previews? I think that calling this film anything close to "realistic" is itself a farce. This isn't a "guide to presidential assassination." It just isn't. (And unless you think sticking a projectile up one's rectum is an idea that genuinely contributes a promising new, non-obvious, and effective tool to the art of spycraft, I suspect that on re-consideration you might even agree here.) Besides, as I've already linked above, far more realistic films about assassinating contemporary US presidents are already routine both here and abroad.

So while I agree that the script of "The Interview" might have been better placed in the trash, that stems entirely from my lack of appreciation for this type of comedy, and not from any notion that it is somehow undesirable to make Kim Jong Un look stupid.

If Hollywood feels their freedom of speech is being limited, Obama, ought to publicly discuss the freedom of speech including the principles behind the limits of individual speech and how those principles would logically be extended to corporations within this country. In order to avoid any political slant it would be a great teaching moment for it to be a joint liberal democrat and conservative republican speech as I believe there is enough for both parties to agree on here to prevent terribly unproductive corporate investments that also endanger the lives of our citizens.

This whole discussion is about Hollywood's decision-making process, and has almost nothing to do with Obama, so bringing him up here is a bit bizarre. The decisions to make, and to pull, the film were entirely within the sphere of the private business world, with no meaningful government involvement. (There's been commentary after the fact, of course, but that is not the same thing. WE'RE engaging in that, after all.)
But "If Hollywood feels ... [then] Obama ought to ..." doesn't make any sense. A proper syntax might be "If Hollywood feels ... then (Hollywood) ought to ..." Unless you are saying that the presidency should be subordinate to the media, I'm not sure this works.

I would also point out that a speech by a politician that tells people not to express some of their ideas publicly because of a fear of terrorism is something that NEITHER party could or should want to be affiliated with, so I could hardly object more to the notion that restricting free speech is something both parties can agree on.

A valid reason to choose to restrict one's own speech is civility, so that productive conversation may be conducted. But Kim Jong Un isn't participating in a conversation with the head of Sony, unless you consider cyberattacks to be a sensible form of conversation. North Korea is being a bully here, no more, and no less. This best response to such tactics is not abject capitulation, which simply reinforces the behavior.

Instead, ridiculous ideas and people can and should be ridiculed, and doubly so when they are forcibly driving over competing ideas. Kim Jong Un is certainly a ridiculous figure. So is the idea that he should be above criticism, not only within his own country, but also worldwide, where his claim to be a deity is not generally accepted.

[DSpencer]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

For those finding a foreign film featuring the assassination of a current sitting Country executive branch leader, we all ought to be calling for resignations - the head of Sony USA (and anyone in that organization who green lighted or provided a funding sign off. Additionally, there should be impeachments, and possibly removals from office for any US federal leader who had heard of the film and took no proactive action on their own to stop it. And, if one or more of them is responsible for the actions that did stop it, they ought to have immunity if they step forward in a timely manner.

After such a long human struggle for the common man to not have to cower beneath world "leaders" you would voluntarily throw it all away. I shudder to think that you live in the same country as me.