What Sidious said. It's honestly disgusting.
It's also sad to see that American politics are so divided these days that even the memorial thread for one of your greatest movie critics turns into such a ridiculous debate.
Roger Ebert is dead...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
What Sidious said. It's honestly disgusting.
It's also sad to see that American politics are so divided these days that even the memorial thread for one of your greatest movie critics turns into such a ridiculous debate.
The right to free speech isn't based on whether the speech is politically unpopular, something you agree with or what you choose to call "inflammatory."
Card said/wrote politically unpopular controversial things. Ebert did as well.
In both cases it was wrong to argue the writer should be punished or to argue that he was wrong to make his statements simply because he was being "poltical."
Furthermore, in the case of Card, he made the statements outside the job in question (the Superman story), not as part of the job (Ebert's reviews). Therefore, basing employment on same is especially ridiculous.
In addition, I am hardly the person who started dragging politics into this. I was responding to what others wrote, which was political and took up about 1-2 pages of this thread. My criticism was not one towards Ebert (in fact I posted about enjoying his writing earlier in the thread [April 4 2013, 10:48 PM]). It was directed towards the hypocrisy of posters such as yourself, who attempt to decide what should and should not be said based on whether you, personally, agree with it.
Case in point, as noted above, there were about two pages of political meandering before I chimed in with my "awful" comment. At no time did you (or Zulu for that matter) complain about the thread getting political. It was only when I pointed some apparent hypocrisy from certain left leaning posters that suddenly things were "too political."
And, of course, that political debate was after several pages of people arguing like SW v LotR nerds over how the thread was titled.
So stop acting like this thread was a big love in until I made that comment. And try standing up for diversity of thought once in a while.
Fox News is awful but not primarily responsible for our ideology-ridden culture; it's been an accelerating problem since at least the 1960s.
The fact that you regard equating gay people with pedophiles as "unpopular" speech and not dangerous and destructive is shocking. While there was a political battle it was nowhere near as vulgar as what you did. Disgusting.
There's a colossal difference between supporting and funding homophobic causes that play an active role in denying fellow citizens basic rights and humane treatment and expressing a liberal-progressive viewpoint while reviewing FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY.
That moral equivalence stuff isn't going to fly when one man is a well-known and active anti-gay bigot and the other was nothing more than a social liberal on many issues who told people if a two-hour movie was great or sucked.
Only because you strongly agree with the latter and despise the former.
The whole point of free speech is to respect the right to say controversial things, even extreme things, so those views are tested in the marketplace of ideas.
Twenty years ago, definitely thirty years ago, Card's view on homosexuality was about as mainstream as Ebert's viewpoint on, for example, socialized medicine (which is what it was often called back then in large part because it was so reviled).
Fortunately, at least in the case of Card's views, popular opinion has changed.
It changed in no small part because people didn't censor or demand that what was then considered an "extremist" viewpoint (that gays should marry) be silenced as controversial.
Free speech and the free exchange of ideas isn't about silencing unpopular or even extreme viewpoints because the simple fact of the matter is that anyone can eventually find even a correct opinion labeled extreme.
And cloaking it in the canard that it is okay to silence Card because his views are anti-freedom isn't going to fly either. Once you go down that path, there are plenty of people who could argue that "socialized medicine" takes away basic legal rights including the right to contract. So if that's your argument, one could have just as easily said Ebert should have been silenced for his political views by couching it in anti-freedom terminology.
You and sideous618 deciding what views can and cannot be aired because of what you might term extremism or bigotry are simply the modern day version of the people who felt justified in censoring what they called "heresy" or "sedition."
If your viewpoints are supportable you shouldn't fear debate.
Rubbish.
^Agreed. At least Ebert (if ever he had been a political commentator) would have roasted the asses of the people that appeared before him trying to soft-pedal bullshit, unlike Russert, who could barely challenge the people in both U.S. parties who appeared before him, sharpened as he was by his debates with Gene Siskel.
William F. Buckley was continually using attack dog attitudes in addressing anyone not suitably to the right. He was an idol to the young Republicans of the 80's. As time went on, we get to Fox News and others, whose main deal is ideologically driven view of events over and above any sort of critical thinking. Why else would anyone take a simple line from a movie review which is pointing out a relevant issue withing the film and turn a memorial thread into jack ass insults of the man's memory?
I believe Ebert's favorite film may have been Aguirre, the Wrath of God
I've listened to his commentary track on Citizen Kane. An informative, enlightening and thoroughly fun experience. I have Casablanca but didn't remember he added a commentary track to that film until now, so thanks for reminding me. Another one to go listen to and enjoy.
He has one on Casablanca?! I knew about the others, but not that one. Cool. I'll have to check my copy to see if it's on there.
