Propaganda Film
-
vortexrider — 13 years ago(October 17, 2012 03:16 AM)
I see your point but you should allow for the possibility that you at some point were affected by the propaganda from the left wing, which made you believe gun-control is always good, vigilantes are always bad,
I don't know whether you make a distinction between protest, peaceful protest, and riots. What the world saw in England were political protests that turned into full out riots. We had similar things on smaller scale in USA, but less violent. There is protest and there is breaking windows and throwing rocks. At you defending rocks thrown at police and broken glass? I don't know.
Perhaps this dim does take a stance on politics of law enforcement, and maybe it does criticize rioting. But it was probably made or those people who agree with the film. Not you.
Also for something to be termed propaganda the government has to sponsor or produce it. Otherwise it is just a film which takes an admittedly biased opinion. -
Blarhhh — 13 years ago(October 27, 2012 09:06 AM)
for something to be termed propaganda the government has to sponsor or produce it
No it doesn't. (Except, perhaps, in America. But even that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't.)
propaganda - noun1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.4. Roman Catholic Church . a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions. b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.5. Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda
"No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?" -
Simon-140 — 11 years ago(May 18, 2014 12:04 AM)
Yes, I would call it propaganda of a particularly odious, populist kind. Any film that provokes people to get online and proclaim "I believe in torture," "Sometimes an oppressive government can be good," not to mention posts by gun-crazed, wannabe vigilantes who think citizens have a rightful place in the legal enforcement process, is not just propaganda: it's successful propaganda.
This is a shame, as Michael Caine's acting was excellent and the film was generally well made. -
Simon-140 — 11 years ago(July 13, 2014 09:04 PM)
You are precisely the sort of person that I believe ought to be rendered to some failed state for vigorous, car-battery and water-board assisted re-education. There's a great little novel called
1984
(or
Nineteen Eighty Four
) that sketches what I have in mind for you.
How many fingers am I holding up? -
Simon-140 — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 12:50 AM)
Your failed attempt at "irony" is pathetic.
Evidently it was good enough to fool you, despite my previously stated objections to torture. If you're unclear, I'm opposed to
all
torture by
anyone
. No end justifies its use.
Vigilantes are either moral, law-abiding and ineffectual, or criminals: I cannot see any middle ground.
As for the 2nd Amendment, I believe it's pretty much restricted to guns used in "well regulated militia" - however that is defined. By the time you unlock the safety on your 50 calibre machine gun, the government will have a hundred kilograms of high explosive, flying towards you in a drone, piloted by a teenager with his or her little finger while they sip Coke.
So, no, you won't be going out quietly. Your gun will be making little "pop, pop, pop" sounds until the drone strikes with a deafening bang.
People who are obsessed with protecting the vestigial freedoms, allowed by governments, strike me as rather sad. After you've spent so much time and money ensuring the legality, mechanical integrity, and your practiced mastery of your 19th C pop gun, how much time do you have left for building a life that's worth protecting? Probably not a lot. -
Simon-140 — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 05:30 AM)
I did not answer your question about being a victim of crime &c., because it is a silly question. If only victims have a right to express an opinion then that skews the results unfairly. Besides, I have quite enough empathy to feel for the victims of crime who are unrelated to me.
That said, I have been mugged. I was knocked to the ground by two thugs and kicked while they stole my wallet and cell phone. It was painful and humiliating, but (thankfully) no lasting damage was done. I was also struck by a car in a hit-and-run, which did cause permanent injuries. My passport was stolen when I was abroad and used to hire cars, which were then stolen - a problem that caused me no end of bother. Do these events qualify me, in your eyes, to discuss the subject of vigilantism?
When do I get a chance to thank the nice strangers, who have spontaneously offered me help when I was in difficulty? Why is society so fascinated with vigilantes rather than with people who give help and kindness, with no expectation of any reward or even an adrenaline rush?
I suspect you are someone who is concerned that a vigilante might just have a good reason to come after someone like you.
If they did, it would be a shocking miscarriage of justice. Apart from some drunken stupidity before my eighteenth birthday, and some subsequent parking tickets and traffic fines, I've led a blameless life.
Finally, I feel a profound unease about vigilantes, if only because the sort of people who
volunteer
their
free time
to do such unpleasant work, seem likely to have a higher than average probability of being angry victims of unsolved crimes, or thugs seeking power trips. (I don't have any data for this belief, but it makes sense of a sort.) Without training, vigilantes run the risk of conflating the investigative, legal and punishment roles.
This has nothing to do with the "mummy state" and everything to do with the social contract that I agreed to, as a pre-condition for staying in this country. If the government were to change that social contract, by (say) ceding police powers to amateurs and paid private officers, then I would no longer feel obliged to abide by the laws of the new social contract. In such a case, I would probably leave. -
Simon-140 — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 10:20 PM)
Sadly, we've reached the "laughing out loud" - presumably derisively - stage, but I'll answer anyway,
no one has "agreed to" anything if they live in the land of their birth.
This is only true until a person reaches the age of majority. After that, we are all as free as our talents permit to live wherever we choose. At various times, I have genuinely considered moving to three other countries, all of which would have accepted me. I did move abroad for a decade, and retain dual nationality, but I returned for family reasons. I may leave again.
And even if they had, the government is clearly not holding up its end of the agreement.
If the government isn't holding up their end of the bargain then you have two choices: you can change things from within or leave. Attempting to change things from within doesn't seem like a realistic option to me.
Why bother hanging around, banging my head against a brick wall, when I could just get on a 'plane? (Not everyone has my freedom to move - more below.)
There is nothing noble about fighting a doomed battle, that may involve breaking laws that
are
enforced, especially when the majority of the population cannot even see, or won't admit, the problems.
You ASSume that vigilantes are ignoble, and that is usual for those who have such irrational objections to vigilance.
Let's not bring sturdy quadrupeds into this, OK?
I assume that the majority of vigilantes are trying to do the right thing for the right reasons: not everyone is as lucky as me in being able to freely emigrate, so they may have to stay and make the best they can of a bad situation.
However, any sort of vigilantism provides a perfect cover and "group justification" for thugs and sadists. This is my foremost reservation about the whole idea.
I would only consider participating in a vigilante group, if its members had to:- undergo in-depth background investigations;
- careful psychological screening, and
- lengthy and in-depth training in psychology and defensive martial arts (e.g. Aikido).
I would also want the members to wear back and front facing, shoulder-mounted, light and IR video cameras, with the signal streamed directly to a tamper-proof server. Finally, I'd want there to be a legal fund of sufficient size to defend member vigilantes against
unfair
civil suits, and to pay timely restitution should a vigilante mess-up.
In short, I would only feel comfortable participating in a vigilante group that, almost certainly, would be too costly to be viable. (I would like to see the police adopt my suggestions, where they haven't already.)
However, if you were going to spend that much time (with its associated opportunity cost) and spend that much money, why not fund a "special officers" group within a local police force? Reaching an agreement with the government over this may be difficult, but perhaps (like Charter Schools) it could be done.
Conversely, you ASSume the government and its instruments are good.
Rubbish. I assume most governments work against the interests of the people, in at least some respects. (e.g. the NSA and Five Eyes surveillance, ignoring vast corporate tax loopholes that could fund social welfare programs, racial profiling, under-taxation of mining operations, capitulating to the demands of lobbyists and those who finance their campaigns, etc.)
However, on balance, I believe the government is (on average) better than the alternatives. If I didn't, I would tear up the social contract, emigrate, and sign another one.
-
Simon-140 — 11 years ago(July 14, 2014 11:24 PM)
it's a pro-statist position.
Yes, I like living in civilised states, for all the reasons that Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau gave, and more recent thinkers have given. (Locke was especially influential on the authors of the US constitution.)
A two-dimensional, slavish mentality
Slavish? If I don't like my "owners" I say beep you" and leave, albeit for another "owner." If this is slavery then I'm fine with it. I don't like physical conflicts and I'm not very good with them. I'm far happier when I'm creating something rather than tearing something down, let alone killing people.
As I said, no one agrees to anything when they live in the land of their birth.
And as I said, once you've reached majority, you're free to leave. I see no difference between the naturalised citizens of a nation and those who were born there. I have no particular love for the land of my birth: that land was just an accident of history and geography.
The government can "demand" all the respect that they wish, but they rarely get any from me. (As for the silly line that I've often heard - albeit not from you - that government positions deserve respect even if you despise the incumbent, I take that as seriously as transubstantiation.)
Your position that we are obligated to obey or leave provides all one anyone needs to know about you
You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I wrote was that these two positions are the easiest and most practical courses
for me
. People who find themselves
trapped
in an intolerable country, that persecutes them or their fellow citizens, may choose to stay and fight. Personally, I would do almost anything to avoid that.
If you want to start throwing words like "coward" around, feel free: as I pacifist, I'm used to it.