Many bloodsucking insects

[Rockwolf66]

Yes this is a politics thread.

Currently we have someone making a really big stink over the fact that we have a disclaimer on the Redacted page.

Now redacted is a film that has caused multiple terrorist attacks and a surge in anit American sentiments in the middle east. The disclaimer is because the majority of contributors to the IMFDB do not agree with the premise of the movie ie that American Soldiers are animals.

I'm all for the disclaimer and am wondering if we should put other disclaimers on such biased films as I know that there are other disclaimers posted on Anti-gun films.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Well let's also look at it practically....

(a) IMFDB is an American site. We've had several foreign members berate us for maintaining American standards when it comes to name formatting, descriptions, etc. But reality dictates that you have to have SOME consistent standard, or every member from every country in the world could re-configure minute details to their cultural style and the site would be a mess. That being the case, we probably won't trash our own country. If someone wants to make a wiki just like IMFDB that insults or trashes America, they can make their own site offshore.

(b) Many of our valued contributors are 'patriotic' (that is NOT a nasty word and it does not mean blind acceptance of everything any administration does, but it means that the person still loves and supports their country). I know the word "patriotic" in 'some quarters' means a flag waving 'redneck' hawk, but I use the term as far as showing respect to one's country and institutions (regardless of whether any current or former people in positions of power were effective or good at their jobs, or not). Also many of our valued contributors are either veterans of military service OR supporters of our military. It does not mean blind promotion of any or all military actions, but most Americans (and I hope most people of all nations) can separate the decisions made by those in power, and the brave men and women who serve in uniform and protect their respective countries. That being the case, we don't want to INSULT either former members or current members of our armed forces. We must be sensitive to anything which may HURT them. I for one don't have any problem insulting our enemies. Why should I?

(c) Only academics who live in a 'hypothetical world' can believe that a one can promote an anti-American film that promotes hatred of Americans abroad with, say, a film like "We Were Soldiers" or "Saving Private Ryan" as cinematic equals, and think nothing of it. Amazingly enough, persons who actually think like that, don't comprehend why anyone would be insulted or upset by that action. IMFDB needs the contributions of people, believe it or not, who DO NOT adhere to those tenets.

(d) Case in point: No one has done it yet, but say if a film came out about the Rape of Nanking, where the story portrayed the Chinese victims as the bad guys and the Japanese Invaders as innocent bystanders, I'm sorry to say we would probably be forced to write a disclaimer at least pointing out that such a film does not reflect the opinions in any way of IMFDB or it's members. The same as a film which would SUPPORT the Third Reich's Final Solution (if a film were to be made). As a purely academic exercise we would list the film, but we should make a statement that we in no way condone the film. That's just common sense. The world is NOT devoid of emotion or strong feelings. IMFDB walks the line just fine, IMHO.


--EDIT---
Here is a quote from Wikipedia, there are others from overseas press of Muslims expressing their intent to 'kill Americans' because of the film "Redacted"

Frankfurt killing of U.S. airmen

On March 2, 2011 a man killed two U.S. airmen at Frankfurt Airport in Germany. The suspect was identified as 21-year-old Arid Uka, a German citizen of Albanian descent, who had worked at the airport. Uka claimed that he shot the soldiers because of a video he had watched on YouTube the day before, which supposedly showed U.S. soldiers raping a Muslim girl.[30] The March 6th 2011 edition of the German TV show Spiegel TV Magazin identified the video as a clip from the movie Redacted.[31]

[Rockwolf66]

Preach it Reverand MPM, Preach it!

Your points are exactly why we have the disclaimer and as i said there are other disclaimers about anti-gun films. Tec-9 seems to want to push his own biased political agenda on the rest of us and I'll admit that I shouldn't have called him a son of a donkey but his behavior is borderline trolling. Basically what he has done is to go onto a website and start spouting opinions that are opposed to that of the majority of the users of the webpage. It would be like me going onto a Christian website and start posting Athiest propoganda.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

(d) Case in point: No one has done it yet, but say if a film came out about the Rape of Nanking, where the story portrayed the Chinese victims as the bad guys and the Japanese Invaders as innocent bystanders, I'm sorry to say we would probably be forced to write a disclaimer at least pointing out that such a film does not reflect the opinions in any way of IMFDB or it's members.

I think the most obvious example of a film from the other end of the political spectrum that needed a disclaimer would be The Birth of a Nation, since, as with Redacted, real people were killed because of it.

To be honest, this guy is a troll, plain and simple. He's made less than 100 edits in two years with his last one before this in March (and a grand total of three edits during the whole of 2010). If you want to know his angle on this, here he tells us he's an Iraqi. And with this:

I am a liberal left-winger, but find the term Hippie insulting as I am a hard-working, well-educated individual who will probably end up earning and contributing to society more than most conservative extremists out there

...We find out he's yet to find out what the outside of a university looks like. I'd guess from the general attitude we have a modern Film Studies student, ladies and gentlemen, which also brings in the attitude that all movies are propaganda of one stripe of another (a concept so patently stupid I didn't feel like explaining why it was wrong to him).

Let's have fun with quotes!

if this place becomes politicised and more like an informal NRA-type forum, it will lose all credibility

He's talking about a disclaimer undermining us as a source which has been where it is for two years and longer than he has been registered, so I guess we must have lost all credibility ages ago anyway. So, no point changing it now.

Well the portrayal of US soldiers as all being the 'Good Guys' is personally insulting to me who have had friends blown up by crazed psychopaths for simply being in what they designate as the wrong place in their own country

As MPM said, no, it's not the same at all. Nobody has ever murdered Germans because of Saving Private Ryan or Vietnamese because of We Were Soldiers or aliens because of Independence Day or robots because of Transformers. The Patriot, much as I personally find a particular scene in it obnoxious (the church-burning never happened in the War of Independence, Das Reich Panzer Division did it in occupied France, so the movie is charmingly accusing the Redcoats of an atrocity carried out by the Waffen SS), hasn't resulted in any English being lynched in the states.

Now if, as above, we had The Birth of a Nation (or Triumph of the Will, The Eternal Jew (the 1940 one), or whatever) up here with no disclaimer, he might be in a position to claim bias. But there's otherwise no equivalency, and I only suggested he might be allowed a disclaimer because I was tired and not really thinking straight. Movies like Redacted are propaganda by design (another such example would be The Trial of Billy Jack, which seriously suggested Washington ordered My Lai and showed a National Guardsman being ordered to open fire on an unarmed kid during a campus riot by a superior holding his sidearm to the guy's head) and should be treated as such, and it's ridiculous to go onto an American-run site and expect any signs of American-ness to be carefully hidden so as not to offend him with their horrible patriotism.

I would much rather put the lives of 10 US soldiers at risk from (well deserved) revenge attacks...

Ah, so he's one of those pro-lynching liberals I keep hearing about. Charming. This is the thing; he's trying not to say it, but you can tell from his words that he wants the disclaimer down because he believes any positive word about the US military is a lie and all American soldiers really are bloodthirsty psychotics. This backs that up:

It just proves this wiki is run by ignorant red-neck gun-lovers who lack the open-mindedness and moderateness to question the actions of their service members

...Since in his view, anyone who is "moderate" and "open minded" will apparently agree with him that the US military is evil. Like all extremists, he honestly can't comprehend how anyone could have any view but his own, so anyone who disagrees with him is either a liar or too stupid to see the truth (hence his constantly insulting the intelligence of the people he's replying to). He's tried to backpedal on that by saying he only meant that if we banned him, but he said that if anyone felt he was wrong to remove the disclaimer or banned him then it would prove we were redneck etc etc.

Now, with that right there, there's this:

Ok, I take back the term 'Redneck'

This is his idea of an apology; like a little kid, he apologises for using the word, but not for the sentiment behind it. He doesn't apologise for saying we're ignorant. He doesn't apologise for saying we're closed-minded extremists. He clearly, as I said, judged each and every member of this site as a hairy sister-fucking troglodyte before he even started this exchange, and his words show he isn't the slightest bit sorry for thinking we're rednecks, just for the fact that he actually said so. From just his last reply:

I think it is your credibility that has flown out the window

cease your groundless and uncalled-for insults

I am trying to have an educated discussion, not childish name-calling

just calling me different names like some school-age kid

frivilous and ignorant

you're projecting your own prejudice, ignorance and dillusions

prejudice in your own mentality

maybe suggestive of your own selective memory and bad reading skills

Yeah, this kiddie isn't talking down to us like because he's decided he's better than us, no siree. He's clearly convinced himself that we have to justify ourselves to him, apparently unaware that he's nobody on this wiki and has barely contributed a thing, certainly not enough to justify his absurdly smug attitude.

Ban him. He clearly has no desire to work with anyone else on this site, so let's let him take his awesome brain somewhere us fumbling apemen won't bother it.

[funkychinaman]

Can we just explain our objections in the intro, including the two deaths that this film has directly contributed to? I'd be happy to whip one up.

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Can we just explain our objections in the intro, including the two deaths that this film has directly contributed to? I'd be happy to whip one up.

Don't change anything until others have had a chance to think about the matter. And it's not only 2 deaths. It's much more. But I don't think we need to start chronicling all the death and mayhem 'inspired' by the film since some of that is 'arguable' and we don't need to go down that road either.

[MT2008]

(1.) This Tec-9 dude is wrong (IMO), but I would appreciate it if you guys would stop using his behavior as an excuse to bash university students and academics. In case you've all forgotten, I am a graduate student, and I'm not a leftist. Also, if Tec-9 thinks his education automatically makes his opinions superior to ours, he'll have to argue his way past me first (and while I don't know for sure, I can almost assure you that the university where I'm doing my M.A. is ranked considerably above his own).

(2.) It is one thing to use the forum for debates (provided they don't degenerate into personal attacks and name-calling, which used to happen with BurtReynoldsMustache), but the site itself is for gun IDs only. The discussion pages should only be used for this purpose, not debating politics. I really wish you guys had just told Tec-9 to shut up and take it to the forum, and deleted his comments, instead of participating.

(3.) While I have zero respect for Tec-9's politics or his opinion of U.S. soldiers, I do think that it is somewhat unnecessary to have a disclaimer on the "Redacted" page. IMFDB exists to document guns in films/TV/video games only; the inclusion of anti-gun or anti-military media on the site should not be mistaken for anything other than completion purposes (as opposed to our political leanings). We can add this (or some equivalent universal disclaimer) in an appropriate heading on the Rules, Standards, and Principles page, but anyone who thinks that our page for "Redacted" indicates our support for Brian De Palma's politics needs their head examined anyway (IMO). Isn't it fairly intuitive that someone who would contribute to a site such as IMFDB would lean to the right on the political spectrum, and therefore find "Redacted" to be abhorrent?

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

Don't change anything until others have had a chance to think about the matter. And it's not only 2 deaths. It's much more. But I don't think we need to start chronicling all the death and mayhem 'inspired' by the film since some of that is 'arguable' and we don't need to go down that road either.

Well, I can't change anything, since the page is still locked.

For your consideration:

"'Redacted' is a 2007 film that is fictionalized account of the Mahmudiyah killings that occurred during the Iraq War, by writer and director Brian De Palma. The film was met with mixed reviews and extremely poor box office sales, with a total worldwide gross of less than a million dollars.

This film has been criticized for it's depiction of American servicemen, with a some going as far as accusing writer/director Brian De Palma and producer Mark Cuban of treason. Some have also criticized the film for not showing any repercussions of the crimes themselves, as the perpetrators of the actual Mahmudiyah killings received harsh sentences, ranging from 27 months for obstruction of justice to life imprisonment without possibly of parole for the ringleader. There was also the fear that the movie could incite violence towards Americans. These fears were realized in March of 2010 when two American airmen were killed and two others wounded in an attack allegedly perpetrated by a Islamic extremist who had watched a clip from this film on Youtube.

The following guns were used in the film Redacted"

[predator20]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Well, I can't change anything, since the page is still locked.

For your consideration:

"'Redacted' is a 2007 film that is fictionalized account of the Mahmudiyah killings that occurred during the Iraq War, by writer and director Brian De Palma. The film was met with mixed reviews and extremely poor box office sales, with a total worldwide gross of less than a million dollars.

This film has been criticized for it's depiction of American servicemen, with a some going as far as accusing writer/director Brian De Palma and producer Mark Cuban of treason. Some have also criticized the film for not showing any repercussions of the crimes themselves, as the perpetrators of the actual Mahmudiyah killings received harsh sentences, ranging from 27 months for obstruction of justice to life imprisonment without possibly of parole for the ringleader. There was also the fear that the movie could incite violence towards Americans. These fears were realized in March of 2010 when two American airmen were killed and two others wounded in an attack allegedly perpetrated by a Islamic extremist who had watched a clip from this film on Youtube.

The following guns were used in the film Redacted"

Sounds good to me. Let's see what the others think.

[MT2008]

Oh, and Evil Tim, I appreciate your refutation of Tec-9's comments, but you do realize you're preaching to the choir, right?