OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"?

This is a part of our Cambodia forums to chat about anything Cambodia-related. This discussion forum is at the top of our site because it's usually the busiest part of the expat community chatter with random topics on just about everything, including expat life, Khmer politics, Cambodian blogs we have or have come across, or whatever else our members want to discuss. Whether you're an expatriate, tourist, Cambodian or random traveler just passing through South East Asia, you are welcome to talk about anything or start new topics yourselves.
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:50 pm

Soi Dog wrote:
OrangeDragon wrote:I don't think anyone suggested it was a Christian movie... you got your reading mixed up.
Rain Dog wrote: I agree with you and Vlad on Apocalypto. I thought it was hard to watch at times due to the extreme violence, but the film itself was excellent. The Cinematography was brilliant and just immersed me into the movie. The real genius is that this may have been the most "Christian Movie" ever made and yet contained not a single reference to Jesus or Christianity. The landscape is literally a portrait of "Hell on Earth" and the evils of idolatry and a corrupt Priesthood. Sort of like a 21st century Cinematographic interpretation of Dante's Inferno. Add to this the themes of hope and faith (The wife and infant in the well), redemption, and divine intervention (The Jaguar scene near the end) and one can see the movie was quite thematic.
I was referring to this post. Did i misread something?
Oh nope... that was me. I somehow missed that bit (after a while I bored of people arguing the merits of "Run Aztec Run" and wasn't paying close attention)...

I fully agree with you that such a reach of logic is a bit absurd.
Soi Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:53 am
Reputation: 5

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Soi Dog » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:37 pm

OrangeDragon wrote: I fully agree with you that such a reach of logic is a bit absurd.
There very well could be deeper meaning in that movie, I just didn't pick up on it. I thought it was full enough at face value without subtle religious parables. It could work on both levels, I guess. People always used to ask John Lennon about the real meanings of his Beatles songs' lyrics. He would often respond that each song was about having a good shit that day.
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:54 pm

But you can tie that stuff into almost any film, because almost every film has the right elements that make up the plot line. hell, you could even make The Hangover fit that mold...
Rain Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm
Reputation: 29

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Rain Dog » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:30 pm

Well OD --- I don't take this forum stuff too seriously but it really seems you are trying to be disingenuous and relying on wordplay rather than attempting to make any coherent argument. You have now attempted to either misrepresent or ignore what I have said multiple times.

Case in point #1
Rain Dog wrote: I have never stated "The Jews Run Hollywood".
[...]
It is not "Anti-Semitic" to suggest that Jewish and specifically Pro-Israel forces pretty much dictate what Americans see when it comes to news and entertainment imagery about how religious/ethnic groups, faiths, and middle eastern politics are portrayed.

Surely you can see the differences between the two statements?
Yet you say
="OrangeDragon'" No, not really at all. "pretty much dictate" and "run" would be about as close as synonyms get without being the same word.
So in other words you deliberately try to conflate two words and totally ignore the other 40 or so words in my statement, because they are not consistent with what words you want to put in my mouth.

Not only this but my original post included this
Rain Dog wrote: I have never stated "The Jews Run Hollywood". I find that argument to be overly simplistic and treating American Jews as a single entity, while in fact they have many diverse perspectives.
Yet you conveniently left this part out when you re-quoted me.

Pathetic, Weak, Lame (insert any other negative poster term here)

Case in Point #2
Rain Dog wrote: Also you fully misrepresent the reaction to "Passion of Christ". The so called "Rampant Protests' you refer too were from a small subset of a demographic that makes up less than 2% of the USA population. Unfortunately they had a lot of clout with Fox so Fox pulled it and the resulting backlash ensued.
OrangeDragon wrote: I think approx 2% of the population protesting any piece of pop culture qualifies as rampant. This isn't protesting bank fraud or war we're talking about, it's a movie.... movies rarely get protested at all. Again, you say it was something "the establishment tried to kill off", when really it was just a group of protesters. Had they not protested, Fox would have ran with it.
Notice the difference. I specifically said "from a from a small subset of a demographic that makes up less than 2% of the USA population."

Yet you "again" use my words wrongly and apply it all 2% (The Entire Jewish American Population). WTF? Not only have you deliberately misrepresented my words again, you are completely wrong (again). The Vast majority of Secular Jews could give a shit that Gibson made a Catholic Movie. ADL started the ruckus. You do realize that ADL relies much on Donor Funds, and just as some NGOs do here will hype things up to appear to be still relevant in a country where there is little if any antisemitism any more?

Don't want to take my word for it.

"The reactions of Jews were few and generally very reserved. Most Jewish organizations did not refer to the movie at all, choosing to keep quiet; others gave strange reasoning to explain why one must not attack the anti-Semitism in the movie."

"Rabbi Eugene Korn, the ADL's director of intrareligious affairs, said that the movie awakens the demon of deicide.When it seemed that the Pope was in favor of the movie, Foxman said that since the Pope was not anti-Semitic, then the film must not be either. Later on, when it emerged that the Pope had mumbled something incomprehensible that was interpreted as denying any support for the movie, Foxman attacked the movie again but was almost alone in doing so. Although pointing out that the movie denigrates the Jews and almost absolves the Romans of their responsibility in Jesus' death, Foxman was not willing to say the film was outright anti-Semitic."


The source by the way: Jewish Political Studies Review http://www.jcpa.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OrangeDragon wrote: Your reference to his anti-semitic slurs later though makes it comical that you think that it wasn't intended to be an anti-semitic movie though. And my exact words regarding the christian community were "condemned it as not following the story accurately and having too much "gore" violence"... the latter part you seem to have ignored while repeating the first part as the argument against the statement itself.
The only thing comical is that I just proved the entirety of your argument totally wrong as even the main Antagonist (Foxman) ultimately refused to call the film Antisemitic, and the vast majority of American Jews seemed to mostly ignore him.
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:53 pm

Case 1: I was specifically clarifying that YOU are using wordplay to say "the jews run hollywood" while saying that's not what you've implied... which you continue to do. Pathetic, Weak, Lame (insert any other negative poster term here).

Case 2: "small subset of a demographic that makes up less than 2% of the USA population" i took to mean that the small subset made up 2% of the population... but as it is almost every protested film in america has been pulled or pushed away by major studios. they care VERY much about public opinion.

Point 3: no idea what you're even trying to say there... foxman is as much a politician as a business owner... non committal is their forte. but again, he WANTED to run the film and only bowed under pressure from the protests.
Rain Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm
Reputation: 29

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Rain Dog » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:05 pm

OrangeDragon wrote:
Soi Dog wrote:
OrangeDragon wrote:I don't think anyone suggested it was a Christian movie... you got your reading mixed up.
Rain Dog wrote: I agree with you and Vlad on Apocalypto. I thought it was hard to watch at times due to the extreme violence, but the film itself was excellent. The Cinematography was brilliant and just immersed me into the movie. The real genius is that this may have been the most "Christian Movie" ever made and yet contained not a single reference to Jesus or Christianity. The landscape is literally a portrait of "Hell on Earth" and the evils of idolatry and a corrupt Priesthood. Sort of like a 21st century Cinematographic interpretation of Dante's Inferno. Add to this the themes of hope and faith (The wife and infant in the well), redemption, and divine intervention (The Jaguar scene near the end) and one can see the movie was quite thematic.
I was referring to this post. Did i misread something?
Oh nope... that was me. I somehow missed that bit (after a while I bored of people arguing the merits of "Run Aztec Run" and wasn't paying close attention)...

I fully agree with you that such a reach of logic is a bit absurd.
The only thing absurd is that I am discussing a critical review of a film with someone who got only "Run Aztec Run" out of it. :crazy:

Good films leave room for interpretation and discussion. I would never impose my interpretation on anyone, but I think the Christian symbolism throughout the movie would be obvious to anyone who watched it critically.

I am not alone in these views

The Ends of Sacrifice: Mel Gibson's Apocalypto as a Christian Apology for Colonialism

http://www.questia.com/library/journal/ ... calypto-as" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another writer states:

"The movie’s central question is what the idea of a miracle, or salvation, can mean in a non-Christian world."

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... eal_r.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ending of the story (The arrival of the Spanish Fleet) was also open to discussion. Soi Dog appears to view it as an indication of a continuation of a cycle of occupation and oppression. However, knowing Gibson's strong Catholic Leanings he could very well have meant it as an indicator that "Salvation" was coming in the form of Catholicism (no matter how much we might disagree with this view) and ultimately "freeing" the natives from their hellish existence in a land that was for all intensive purpose "demonic". Certainly there is room for debate on this point -- but hey --- If "Run Aztec Run" works for you no problem. Just don't go calling other people's interpretation "absurd" simply because you personally were unable to extract much from it.

Cheers,

RD.
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:07 pm

i'm not saying you can't abstract that from it... i'm saying you can abstract that from damn near ANY film if you reach far enough, as they're doing with this one.

hangover 2, the story of sacrifice and redemption of one man and his apostles seeking salvation from the hell they've found themselves in. complete with the sin of sodomy.
User avatar
vladimir
The Pun-isher
Posts: 6077
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
Reputation: 185
Location: The Kremlin
Russia

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by vladimir » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:13 pm

Mickey Mouse falls asleep, then finds the cheese:

JC gets the big payoff and rises 3 days later

yeah, i can see the connection. Pass me some more crack...
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right? ;)
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by OrangeDragon » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:25 pm

vladimir wrote:Mickey Mouse falls asleep, then finds the cheese:

JC gets the big payoff and rises 3 days later

yeah, i can see the connection. Pass me some more crack...
http://markpinsky.com/books/the-gospel- ... and-faith/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rain Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:40 pm
Reputation: 29

Re: OMG! Does CEO really mean "Cambodia Evangelicals Online"

Post by Rain Dog » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:34 pm

OrangeDragon wrote:Case 1: I was specifically clarifying that YOU are using wordplay to say "the jews run hollywood" while saying that's not what you've implied... which you continue to do. Pathetic, Weak, Lame (insert any other negative poster term here).
I will simply state AGAIN for he 4th or 5th time, the below represents my views on the matter. I have chosen my words carefully. There is no need for you to continue to misquote, omit parts, extrapolate, and otherwise misrepresent me. Why is this so hard for you to understand? FFS.

"I have never stated "The Jews Run Hollywood". I find that argument to be overly simplistic and treating American Jews as a single entity, while in fact they have many diverse perspectives.

What i did say was this. It is not "Anti-Semitic" to suggest that Jewish and specifically Pro-Israel forces pretty much dictate what Americans see when it comes to news and entertainment imagery about how religious/ethnic groups, faiths, and middle eastern politics are portrayed."

Surely you can see the differences between the two statements?

OrangeDragon wrote: Case 2: "small subset of a demographic that makes up less than 2% of the USA population" i took to mean that the small subset made up 2% of the population.
I will leave it some of our esteemed professional English Instructors to help you on this matter. I believe "subset of a group" is self explanatory.
OrangeDragon wrote: Point 3: no idea what you're even trying to say there... foxman is as much a politician as a business owner... non committal is their forte. but again, he WANTED to run the film and only bowed under pressure from the protests.
What I am saying is that there were no "Rampant Protests" as you allude to. It was ONLY ADL and some of their affiliates. Finally it was most of Mainstream USA Jewish community leaders who more or less told him to STFU because he was risking driving a wedge between Jewish and Christian relations (by trying to censor it) much more than the film had any chance of doing. Fox pulled the film because ADL has huge financial and political clout ---- certainly not any populist uprising. I believe I have provided ample evidence on this already.

Your last sentence is particular irrational, as you seem to be saying Foxman wanted to run he film (?)
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arget, beaker, Felgerkarb, Ghostwriter, Majestic-12 [Bot], samrong01, SINUS, TheImplication and 371 guests