OrangeDragon wrote: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.

No Idea why you keep going on about the hangover (?)

Even if you disagree with my interpretation, Apocalypto had tons of religious overtones with corrupt Mayan priests and human sacrifice. There are multiple white papers and articles on the Religious themes in Apocalypto. I don't recall any on the Hangover (well maybe the Onion or something could come up with something).

Case 1: The only difference I see is you trying to use wordplay to tip-toe around antisemitism while stating something anti-semitic. To suggest that "what Americans see when it comes to news and entertainment imagery about how religious/ethnic groups, faiths, and middle eastern politics are portrayed" is "dictated" by "Jewish and specifically Pro-Israel forces" is to say it's controlled by them. Correct? Dictate and control... same thing? Sure... it's not "ALL Jewish people"... I'm sure the great majority of Jewish people have no say in the affairs of the more powerfully positioned ones. But it is saying that the majority of information is "Jewish Dictated"...

Case 2: It's ambiguous... is it a "small subset of a demographic" that makes up 2% or is it "small subset" of a demographic that makes up 2%.

3: Fox, knowing the script, had already secured first rights to the film... it was only after protests that they reversed on it. They don't go into those agreements not knowing what the script and content of a film is.

No idea whats the fuck dog and dragon is on about. Next you know they will both snoggling feeling one each others dick somewhere in an island ocean.

Rain Dog wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote: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.

No Idea why you keep going on about the hangover (?)

Even if you disagree with my interpretation, Apocalypto had tons of religious overtones with corrupt Mayan priests and human sacrifice. There are multiple white papers and articles on the Religious themes in Apocalypto. I don't recall any on the Hangover (well maybe the Onion or something could come up with something).

Because it's not a christian film, but if you want to pull christian overtones out of it, it's not hard to construct them. ALL movies generally have some good v evil, loss, sacrifice, redemption type of theming to them... it's mostly what makes a story. So it's not hard to spin that in the direction of christianity.

OrangeDragon wrote:Case 1: The only difference I see is you trying to use wordplay to tip-toe around antisemitism while stating something anti-semitic. To suggest that "what Americans see when it comes to news and entertainment imagery about how religious/ethnic groups, faiths, and middle eastern politics are portrayed" is "dictated" by "Jewish and specifically Pro-Israel forces" is to say it's controlled by them. Correct? Dictate and control... same thing? Sure... it's not "ALL Jewish people"... I'm sure the great majority of Jewish people have no say in the affairs of the more powerfully positioned ones. But it is saying that the majority of information is "Jewish Dictated"...

Case 2: It's ambiguous... is it a "small subset of a demographic" that makes up 2% or is it "small subset" of a demographic that makes up 2%.

3: Fox, knowing the script, had already secured first rights to the film... it was only after protests that they reversed on it. They don't go into those agreements not knowing what the script and content of a film is.

I will deal with points two and three first as hey are just minor (rather stupid) annoyances from you,

2) It is NOT ambiguous in anyway. Go take some English lessons FFS.

3) You Keep going in circles on this. There were no "Rampant Protests". Fox bowed out to the influence of ADL (a very powerful and influential group.). The result was a huge Christian backlash against the attempted censorship, and ADL was left isolated in it's own community that it supposedly represents. How much evidence do I need to show you.

Now for your first point .... I would say that is an extremely cowardly personal attack from someone who seemingly has no ability to back up any of his (confused) arguments with facts or evidence. However since you seem to be somewhat English challenged I will indulge you a bit more.

Let's start with the basics:

1) Can you define what antisemitic means?

2) Do you REALLY believe that USA media is "Fair and Balanced" (as their most popular news network claims)? You Really think that Palestinians perspective gets anything close to balanced coverage.

3) Do you really Believe that Muslims and arabs are treated just as kindly in hollywood movies?

4) If some believe that the media is biased are they "Antisemitic" to point it out.

You should note by now I am quite methodical in my arguments rather than your shoot from the hip - make it up as you go along approach. So Please state your answers clearly and coherently.

OrangeDragon wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote: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.

No Idea why you keep going on about the hangover (?)

Even if you disagree with my interpretation, Apocalypto had tons of religious overtones with corrupt Mayan priests and human sacrifice. There are multiple white papers and articles on the Religious themes in Apocalypto. I don't recall any on the Hangover (well maybe the Onion or something could come up with something).

Because it's not a christian film, but if you want to pull christian overtones out of it, it's not hard to construct them. ALL movies generally have some good v evil, loss, sacrifice, redemption type of theming to them... it's mostly what makes a story. So it's not hard to spin that in the direction of christianity.

So you continue to just ignore the evidence and articles I provide to you. If I understand your admittedly incoherent logic correctly you seem to be saying we should not bother to interpret anything because anyone can interpret anything about anything thus attempting to interpret anything is meaningless.

"Run Aztec Run"

Rain Dog wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Case 1: The only difference I see is you trying to use wordplay to tip-toe around antisemitism while stating something anti-semitic. To suggest that "what Americans see when it comes to news and entertainment imagery about how religious/ethnic groups, faiths, and middle eastern politics are portrayed" is "dictated" by "Jewish and specifically Pro-Israel forces" is to say it's controlled by them. Correct? Dictate and control... same thing? Sure... it's not "ALL Jewish people"... I'm sure the great majority of Jewish people have no say in the affairs of the more powerfully positioned ones. But it is saying that the majority of information is "Jewish Dictated"...

Case 2: It's ambiguous... is it a "small subset of a demographic" that makes up 2% or is it "small subset" of a demographic that makes up 2%.

3: Fox, knowing the script, had already secured first rights to the film... it was only after protests that they reversed on it. They don't go into those agreements not knowing what the script and content of a film is.

I will deal with points two and three first as hey are just minor (rather stupid) annoyances from you,

2) It is NOT ambiguous in anyway. Go take some English lessons FFS.

3) You Keep going in circles on this. There were no "Rampant Protests". Fox bowed out to the influence of ADL (a very powerful and influential group.). The result was a huge Christian backlash against the attempted censorship, and ADL was left isolated in it's own community that it supposedly represents. How much evidence do I need to show you.

Now for your first point .... I would say that is an extremely cowardly personal attack from someone who seemingly has no ability to back up any of his (confused) arguments with facts or evidence. However since you seem to be somewhat English challenged I will indulge you a bit more.

Let's start with the basics:

1) Can you define what antisemitic means?

2) Do you REALLY believe that USA media is "Fair and Balanced" (as their most popular news network claims)? You Really think that Palestinians perspective gets anything close to balanced coverage.

3) Do you really Believe that Muslims and arabs are treated just as kindly in hollywood movies?

4) If some believe that the media is biased are they "Antisemitic" to point it out.

You should note by now I am quite methodical in my arguments rather than your shoot from the hip - make it up as you go along approach. So Please state your answers clearly and coherently.

2) It is.
3) There were protests... they may have been as a result of influence from the ADL, but they existed none the less and involved people who weren't necessarily ADL members. Fox reacted to this, but had originally wanted to run the film.
1) 1) Antisemitic: For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."
"Individually" would also include subgroups.
1) 2) No, but I believe this is pandering to viewers, not some Jewish Illuminati.
1) 3) No, but I believe this is pandering to viewers, not some Jewish Illuminati.
1) 4) No, unless they are blaming that bias on the Jewish religious/ethnic group instead of pointing to it as "giving the viewers what they want".

OrangeDragon wrote:
2) It is.
3) There were protests... they may have been as a result of influence from the ADL, but they existed none the less and involved people who weren't necessarily ADL members. Fox reacted to this, but had originally wanted to run the film.
1) 1) Antisemitic: For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."
"Individually" would also include subgroups.
1) 2) No, but I believe this is pandering to viewers, not some Jewish Illuminati.
1) 3) No, but I believe this is pandering to viewers, not some Jewish Illuminati.
1) 4) No, unless they are blaming that bias on the Jewish religious/ethnic group instead of pointing to it as "giving the viewers what they want".

Hmmm some silliness still. Some small progress.

2) You are just being silly and argumentative. Check with any English Teacher on this board -- or not. I have nothing further to say on this matter.

3) Some small progress ---- Yes ADL and Only ADL and it's affiliates launched some protests from which almost all of the Jewish American community distanced themselves. Fox caved to ADL pressure -- not "Rampant Protests" as you claimed previously.

Definition of Antisemitic: Your definition is not bad. Now please tell me how you go from

"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."

To

"hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity." "Individually" would also include subgroups.

I believe the only honourable thing to do is to retract your unsubstantiated accusation.

2) i disagree, we'll wait for one of the many on here to chime in.
3) so it is "only ADL" or "only ADL and it's affiliates"? Or perhaps only ADL, it's affiliates, and anyone not directly affiliated with either organization who agreed with them. Hell even Southpark keyed in on it.

"Now please tell me how you go from"
Blaming Jewish groups for filtering media and claiming they dictate the contents of the media to further their own agendas would be antisemitic, presuming you don't assume that they are made up of a variety of religions/ethnicities which have nothing to do with Judaism.

Rain Dog wrote:
1) Can you define what antisemitic means?

2) Do you REALLY believe that USA media is "Fair and Balanced" (as their most popular news network claims)? You Really think that Palestinians perspective gets anything close to balanced coverage.

3) Do you really Believe that Muslims and arabs are treated just as kindly in hollywood movies?

4) If some believe that the media is biased are they "Antisemitic" to point it out.

OrangeDragon wrote: 1) 1) Antisemitic: For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."
"Individually" would also include subgroups.
1) 2) No, but I believe this is pandering to viewers, not some Jewish Illuminati.
1) 3) No, but I believe this is pandering to viewers, not some Jewish Illuminati.
1) 4) No, unless they are blaming that bias on the Jewish religious/ethnic group instead of pointing to it as "giving the viewers what they want".

Ok -- some progress here as you at least acknowledge media bias. Your choice of the word "Illuminati" is of course a loaded term to which I have never used directly nor implicitly. It seems you are a bit incorrigible with these intellectually dishonest methods, but I shall move on from this now rather than get dragged into the gutter.

So the root issue is that you acknowledge media bias but blame it on the "free market" "give the people what they want" approach. This is very naive of course, but you cannot be blamed totally as this is a common belief from Americans coming from Republican or (so called) libertarian backgrounds.

The reality of course is very different. Mass Media is considered a National strategic asset and Hollywood/News-Entertainment work closely with various policy makers to implement social engineering programs. Have you ever noticed that when the drumbeats of war reach fever pitch all movies critical of war (Platoon, Casualties of War, Born on the 4th of July) disappear from the airwaves and "Heroic" Military Films are shown instead? Hollywood and Pentagon work hand in hand during times of strategic interest (eg, driving support for war).

This is nothing new. Social Engineering started as early as "Leave it to Beaver" and it's portrayal of how perfect white families should behave. The Late 60s turned everything upside down of course --- but by the 70s we had "All in the Family" trying to address issues of feminism and racism, and this ultimately spun off into trying to bring the African American community into the media mainstream with (unfortunately stereotypical) shows like Good Times and The Jeffersons and ultimately moving into more positive Role Models like The Cosby Show and eventually Oprah. The African American community had never been of particular interest to advertisers --- so these were NOT market driven initiatives originally (Although Cosby and Oprah eventually became hugely successful).

Another example is the 1990s of Hollywood trying to make homosexuality accepted in the mainstream --- by introducing sympathetic Gay characters. This most certainly was not done by market demand (Most Americans were quite against this at he time).

Not all Social Engineering is bad (as some of the above examples illustrate) but when one group is heavily promoted in a positive way at the expense of another group being demonized (as in middle eastern conflicts) the methods need to be questioned.

By the way, if you are truly interested in the Topic you can search and Download Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" book, which is the seminal work on the topic of Social Engineering and Manipulating the Public's collective consciousness.

Oh ---- and if you feel the overwhelming urge to play the anti-semite card again, you should know that Chomsky is very much Jewish.