Propaganda Film
-
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. -
avia2 — 11 years ago(December 04, 2014 12:58 PM)
Please don't compare the gritty
Harry Brown
to the awfully pretentious
Law-Abiding Citizen
which tries to be clever.
Harry Brown
isn't really propaganda. Brown clearly struggles with his decisions, and he's discreet about his actions.
If anything, it's a warning for police to pay more attention to public concerns, to prevent future vigilantism. -
spookyrat1 — 11 years ago(May 20, 2014 04:38 AM)
it felt like a right wing propaganda film
Promulgating exactly what?
an anti gun-control agenda, glorifying vigilante gun violence.
How so? During the film the police notably condemned the use of guns by the gangs. Yes, Harry does take up guns, but doesn't appear all that comfortable in doing it, though he is frustrated by the lack of any convictions arising from his friend's murder.
The politically motivated riots in England (which were happening as this was being produced) were portrayed as displays of senseless violence perpetuated by thugs.
The film portrays the riots occurring because of the police crackdown on the estate gangs, not as a result of any political decisions highlighted in the film. Yes, there was mindless violence.
Anyone associated with the criminals is judged and sentenced to death by Harry, including the gun dealer's assistant and the young hoodlum who we see get sexually abused.
That's simply incorrect. The drugged out gun dealers both tried to kill Harry first, before he returned the favour. Harry didn't kill the young hoodlum. His gang member "mates" did that in the tunnel. Harry did threaten and "interrogate" him for information about his friend's death before using him as bait in the tunnel.
but do we really feel comfortable seeing them assassinated because of the company they keep?
Incorrect as mentioned above.
It's a strange right -wing film that is critical of the lack of a sustained, in-touch, police presence in the estate areas of London as well as a lack of social and health services for both the young and old.
I agree with you that it is a good film from a first time director of promise. But rather than promote a right wing agenda, I feel the film primarily is critical of successive authorities that have allowed these "estates" to "develop" to the extent that people, such as Harry Brown, living in them in modern London face third world living conditions and dangers. -
max-468 — 11 years ago(February 01, 2015 02:48 PM)
Truly, SOK, your oversimplification of an intense character study make me laugh at the stupidity of it. Do yo have any experience of the council estates in England? I do and this film is completely accurate. Your exactly the type of coward that bleats PC this and PC that, and when you are the one in trouble, scream for help the loudest. Please, remove your rose tinted glasses and see the world exactly for what it is.
-
totalbollacks — 10 years ago(November 03, 2015 04:17 PM)
I feel exceedingly comfortable with any portrayal of scrotes being wasted, gorier the better. The zombie hoards who cost my country billions of pounds per year are far better dead for the rest of us.
The cash that smack and crack costs my nations economy would be better spent on those who need it rather than want it.
Kill them all. -
TheFearmakers — 5 years ago(January 13, 2021 11:57 AM)
there are no RIGHT WING films. some films may seem that way but Hollywood is liberal, and if they aren't bashing the right they're doing them a favor.
left wingers love these kinda revenge movies JUST as much as anyone.
www.thefearmakers.blogspot.com
Gay 4 Fugazi