I would disagree with the disclaimer because it sounds unnecessarily partisan - besides the issue that MPM2008 pointed out that it is difficult to claim that the movie directly inspired the terrorist attack when it is probably one of several triggers (which is equivalent to saying DOOM inspired the Columbine shootings), it also begs the question for casual imfdb visitors of why the movie is even posted if it is so clearly offensive to the sensibilities of the mods. I feel that the current disclaimer was sufficient to convey why the page was posted (for reference purposes), whereas this disclaimer just seems vindictive.

Tim's post was actually brilliant. Tec-9's debating style is akin to much of the liberal left I have to deal with. I suppose my mind is not well tuned to "deflect and divert" tactics. I prefer honesty and straight talk and their intellectual dishonesty is astounding at times. I could not have designed a better refutation, and using his own quotes actually helped clarify my own thoughts on the matter. I always ended up more FLUSTERED than not, to I really had trouble engineering an appropriate response that fully outlined his hypocrisy.

On the point of disclaimers, I actually DISAGREE with you. I knew you never thought it necessary, but I feel VERY STRONGLY about it. I understand your point about pure neutrality on the site. But then, an 'academic' would think this way ;) LOL. (just kidding, but you SHOULD know that a lot of academics see everything PURELY as an intellectual exercise, devoid of real world consequences, which is why many people get frustrated with them. There are tons of PhDs who have no clue how the real world works). And i know you understand other peoples' strong feelings otherwise on this one issue.

Okay, here is a digression. This dude, POI, Burt Reynolds Mustache. They create an interesting phenomenon in that they 'push' the envelope but never really far enough to merit banning them when they start. It's like it is an 'intellectual exercise' to see how much prodding it takes to make other members of IMFDB snap. It's like a kid poking you with a stick, gently over and over again.

My view is that we don't need people who feel pleasure in prodding others with provocative postings. But that's just an opinion. But I'm getting the same POI vibe here, albeit his world view is far more offensive to me (the quote alone of supporting the deaths of American troops for "much deserved" revenge by Muslims) crossed a line in my mind.

One important point: Other than pissing off a lot of members, this guy's contribution to this site consists purely of correcting our grammar, misspellings and some formatting changes. No information re guns. No Information re movies, tvs, anime, Videogames. He just walks in an restructures our sentences so that they flow more smoothly (sometimes the changes are irrelevant since the original wording was just fine). Nothing heinous here, but something I just noticed.

Though I like your post, DOOM or violent videogames did not inspire the Columbine shootings. Bullying did. Though some fools tried to demonize violent video games, it did not stick (thankfully). I just listed one actual event with a verifiable body count. I have other quotes from foreign media where they have people quoting that after seeing the film "they wished they could join up to kill Americans". That, to me, indicates a body count that we cannot accurately measure, but believe me, it is there.

Edit: You are RIGHT about not going overboard. I (and probably others) would have been more receptive to some re-wording, but I still believe we need to make it clear that we in no way condone the film due to the immediate negative reaction it has in many quarters. This Tec-9 guys just muddied the waters by pissing everyone off (including me). If we remove it now, this Tec-9 guy wins.

Keep the disclaimer. Ultimately it really doesn't matter what Tec-9 thinks or posts. If we were to go onto a left wing site and start posting inflammatory stuff they woud ban us without a moment hesitation.

In all honesty, I don't feel strongly (not enough to really protest, anyway). But my opinion is that the disclaimer is unnecessary. I think the issue is legitimate even if the same cannot be said about Tec-9's world view.

As for the new disclaimer that was posted by Funkychinaman: If there is going to be a new disclaimer at all, I prefer the older one to this new one. This one is even less neutral than the previous.

First of all, not sure about "academics" in general (that is a very broad term), but in my field, Political Science, I'd say that those "intellectual exercises" are how we come up with ways to explain state/non-state entities' behavior so that policymakers can make the appropriate decisions. For instance, the theory of "democratic peace" underlies the tendency of American policymakers to promote democratization abroad, and also makes a convenient argument against moron leftists who see moral equivalence between democracies and dictatorships.

Minor digression, bullying didn't cause Columbine, either. Read this (yes, it's Slate, but they're right this time).

I tried to move away from merely stating our opinion, which, as many have pointed out, seems a bit out of place, to stating the fact that many disapprove of the film, and the reasons why. I admit I tried to present one side, and let the reader decide which side to fall on. It's like the difference between a campaign ad that states "I don't like Bob Smith," vs "Bob Smith raised taxes and is a convicted sex offender." Again, just an idea.

Thanks for that. VERY INTERESTING STUFF. At least SLATE didn't throw the blame on us stupid Americans and our 'fascination with guns' BS or that idiotic screed "Easy access to guns"...... :D

As well as what's already been mentioned, a key difference would be that Doom doesn't tell you that your school is full of evil, terrible people. There's a world of difference between Doom, which contains violence directed at zombies and demons from hell, and Redacted, which contains a hateful message directed at real people and has inspired people to attack the group it targets.

(Note: the idea that Harris ever made a model of Columbine in Doom has been thoroughly discredited: the Harris WADs are hard to find because most hosts took them down out of respect, but by all accounts the levels are only remarkable because of who made them, not what they are. Journalists then backpedalled to "looks like a school" which is true only insofar as that Harris' maps contain things like rooms and hallways)

If we are including the disclaimer at all, I think that implies our awareness of the film's controversy. People can always read more on Wikipedia or whatever.

Again, my preference is that we still try to stay as neutral as possible.

I agree, IMO any political discussion- left or right -on the imfdb site should be kept at a minimal level (something that can put into the rules in the 'principles' section if necessary).

I know, I was just throwing the DOOM example out as something that was brought up at the time as a cause of violence by the media, but in hindsight was not as relevant as it was portrayed at the time.