Messages

Don't forget that my teachers and the 80 students they lecture must be crazy too. No, sometimes things are just like as Christy Burns, prof. Verhoeven and I say it is.

What they say is not necessarily a lie, but keep in mind that some other professor in some other Uni may have written a thesis on the same theme with different opinions. I don't know of any, but writing contradicting books and handing them to students as exam material  happens all the time in the academic world and that's what keep thinking students interested. They compare and decide.  Well, they write what they must at the exam, but they can still disagree...

MOST episodes are about guys that can fit through keyholes, and people that can set things on fire. Strange bugs that eat you alive brought about by prehistoric natural distaster, and occasionally the supernatural - ghosts.

Indeed. It's most about paranormal than extraterrestrians. And I can't see why I should say hello to the mother of all cockroaches I found on my door handle the other day, just in case it is a friendly alien. I'm too old to scream, but the beast ended up in the garden...Brrr.

Occasionally, we'll get an alien episode. These got more frequent as the show went on, and I might point out, as the show got WORSE. But that's a mute point.

No, that was season 8, when we got religion in the classic X-filesque distorted way: A baby from a woman who was not supposed to have it, a man who rises from the dead, people who follow a bright light on the sky and find the birthplace, which is a filthy building in nowhere,etc etc...


I do think most films/shows/books have racial content, consciously or not, but I can't accept it's their main purpose...They just use what is available in the culture around them. First it was the Russians, then the Serbs, now the Iraqui, the Chinese started appearing from nowhere...And haven't you noticed how series like Startrek, Stargate etc describe a route to unification of all Earth under one Nation (depends on the series to say which one) and, having cleared all threats and cultural mistakes, they proceed to -conquering discovering new worlds? I'm not sure the producers/writers/directors do it on purpose, they just "read" the spectators minds...and know that it will sell and that somehow, someone like me will think they are revealing and say in a few years "See? I told you the government was working on pulsar weapons!!"

Still, I 'm not sure how all this will help the original poster find some tunes...

I wonder what will lo_res_man make of all this...Found any tunes yet or watched some of us getting sleepy?

By that, do you mean stories that include no mention of xenophobia at all, or can we include stories that seem to speak out against xenophobia rather than treat it as normal?

I mean that films are supposed to say a story and are products of the producers' local culture. If they think a topic is catchy, they include it. If they think the opposite is even more catchy, they include the opposite. They go on in circles around the social problems, not really trying to solve them, just to get some fame out of them. Ã, I can't think of any examples of "innocent" film/book so Ã, I can demonise film noir.

Yes, Bobobobo bobobo bobobobo.

That's what I thought. So why pick at a specific kind?

Can somebody give me examples of films/series/books that are not xenophobic, racist and all the things mentioned in this thread?

You can have opinions about what others should or should not do. However, it's their choice.

I think pervs and serial killers are bad. That they should not do what they do, becasue it is not moral and it threatens other people's lives or wellbeing. You say I have to accept their choice for freedom's sake? Or that we should discuss whether they are immoral and threatening?

I don't apply the above to the cartoons , of course.

We stick to secondary characters and forget about the leading ones that are mainly white, rich and all the other correct things...

Eddie Mars, Brigid O'Shaunnesy, Archers' wife, the younger Sternwood, Norma Desmond...Do they belong in minorities? It;s tehm who rot the heroes' lives, not the various Cairos.

[film noir]

film noir

B, She sees aliens in the X-files as symbolism for the (american) fear of losing cuture to ethnic minorities, just like me.

Apart from the "american" bit, which I think should include more countries, I agree with series/films containing symbolisms for this fear. Just take a crime/spy/war series or films Ã, from the 60s the 70's the 80s and so on and make a note of who the villains are...and how they change accordingly to foreign affairs.

I've watched many of them and the bad, plotting, scheming, cheating villains have nothing to do with minorities etc. Only secondary characters. But again, I was looking mostly at cars... 

btw, don't forget that Number invention (as we know them today) bellong to the Arabs. Have fun doing all of those things without numbers.Ã, 

You don't mean numbers as a whole, I suppose . I guess multiplying XVIII*XIXÃ,  or IK*IH is going to be a pain since I'm used to 1,2,3..., but it can be done.


Oh, and when we talk about the East, do we include China, Japan, India etc etc or only "mainly muslim" ones?

I am not claiming that the West is free of sin, but the spirit of a lot of people during this days is saying is that East is, or at least, has less sins than the ones the West have.

And, sorry, but... no.

And I'm trying to say that it's not comparison of cultures that matters to me at this point, since I have already compared and chosen the ways of the West, but how we are going to handle the situation. What we are currently doing is adding oil to the flames and giving ammunition to the fanatics. I don't like us reacting the way we blame others for using. My concern is not culture-clash related, but political manipulations from both sides. Culture is used from both sides to ignite flames and I don't like it.
As for freedom of speech, it's my side's actions I'm worried about.

It's not understanding, it's "trying diplomacy before act of war". I can't believe it's really the cartoons that caused it, but that they were a means to the end: the riots. I thought that the riots started after the cartoons were republished, to which I found a political agenda and I've been reading a million of world newspapers to try and see who's favoured the most at the moment.
I think the West is no free of criminal behaviour. We have bad seeds among us, which are not muslims, and this should mean something. Ã, I also think that there is something wrong with Islam, or else I would become a muslim myself. But I can also find mistakes in other religions as well, including christianity.
If it is convenient for some to forget that there are muslim women without burkhas, it's also convenient for me to remember that there are places in the west where premarital sex is a mortal sin while shooting the woman for the offense isn't.

So, if you don't think they're illegal, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about generalising and being ready to react like the ones we blame for being "sheeplike" while we claim we are different. About ignoring political agendas and blamingit to people who are less informed and less free(yes, I agree here) than me. About not putting those who don't participate and may not even know about the riots under the same label with those Ã, who make me think bad things about the human brains.

I don't think I ever agreed with the riots and the violence, or that they were right in the first place, but someone has to realise that if we throw their ambassadors out and if we keep talking about racist/hateful/uncivilised muslims we 're going to have a war for Ã, no real reason. And I think that if a war can be avoided it should Ã, for as long as peace doesn't get worse than war, which may happen, of course. I think the current peace is good enough to spoil it for some hot-headed fanatics. Ã, 

If a violent crowd of hot-headed christian football fanatics from Ã, my country come and burn cars and smash shop windows and even stub people in your country,after a game they clearly lost for no reason, say that the referee was unfair to them, Ã, will you be willing to declare war or will you think "What a bunch of d*icks?" and spare the generalisations?

There's also the "Freedom means being able to say things that people doesn't want to hear"

-George Orwell, in his book, 1984.

Freedom of speech mustn't be restrained unless you enter into criminal messages. I've been hearing cartoonists this days. They say "People say we mustn't do cartoons that might annoy muslims... So? Where do we paint the line? Can we do "leftists" jokes, or can't be because it's going to annoy the right? Can we do "rightists" jokes? Which cartoons are we allowed to do? the ones annoying less than a million people, or those annoying less than 10?"

So, where do you paint the line? Shall we remove all graphic humour?

You put a line yourself : "unless you enter into criminal messages". Not that I believe that the cartoons were criminal messages, I just used your line. But again, if you ask ten people about waht is criminal you'll get twelve answers.
I said earlier in the thread that I'm not offended by cartoons and I never think a situation is not suitable for humour (even a death). If it's not humour-resistant, it 's not serious enough. I was talking about freedom in general, not only freedom of speech. Why aren't I free to dump my waste in my neighbours garden, if freedom should not be restricted? I think that small restrictions make what I call civilisation. I don't say we should hide the truth, only that we accept that a coin has two sides.
For the record, I find nothing more insulting than political correctness, tiptoeing around tricky terms and avoiding the issue altogether.

Or watch some films to get the feel and then google for similar tunes

When you say "Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person," what I hear is "We shouldn't have Freedom of Speech."

I think it's more like "My liberty stops where the other people's liberties start to get violated." Kind of democracy.
Liberty is the right to make mistakes, not the right to do the wrong things.

I'm not picking at this particular post, I'm just using it because I'm too tired to scroll back to the whole thread.

While not all muslims are terrorists, almost every terrorist is a muslim.

I'm glad you remembered that there are far right/far left christian extremists that act as terrorists (they bomb civilians etc), that we have/had western Ã, organisations that are terrorist/regarded as terrorist , depending on which side of the line you are standing (IRA?)

If we were in global faith war, these mega-caring westerners would be shot along with others.

a)I'm not a pacifist in its strict sense, I'm not mega-caring westerner unless it is about children and environment and I'm quite a racist if we analyse it for more than 20 minutes, but I don't like the generalisations we make about the muslims, because if we get used to generalisations they can be applied to almost any nation/religion/community etc.
b)The point is not to find ourselves in a total, global, religious hate-generated war, because if this happens, we're cooked! (litterally). I agree that if this war happens nobody will ask me if I'm an "understanding " westerner, they'll shoot Ã, me me right away, but I guess the same applies vice versa as well. So if this happens (for the millionth time in world history), I 'll try and follow a favourite saying of mine."Do not unsheath me without reason, do not return me without honor."

Why aren't the flags and embassies of Afganistan not burning yet?

Because they don't have any left? Ã,  Or should we include all the muslim countries and communities Ã, in the world, even if we don't need their oil or their land for our gas pipes? Oops, sorry, I mean if they are not very hateful/ retarded/ uncivilised/ intolerant/ oppressing etc...

Why aren't diplomats sent out of western countries?

Because we'd have a new World War? A big one which won't happen thousands of miles away from most westerners' homes and it won't stop to their embassies? Ã, Is this suggestion a demonstrations of the West's tolerance, advanced culture and minimal oppression??

[Edit]

Do you really think this is only and exclusively about the cartoons?Ã,  Ã, :


Edit

And the other side's reaction is really silly... if not openly provocative.

<snap> burning cars <snap>and rioting everytime you are pissed is a behavour of... monkeys.

I thought we were talking about the cartoons...When did football (or soccer, if you like) got in the way?

Or is this about strikes??

but I believe that 99.9% of the people who practice your religion are ignorant, intolerant, xenophobic, assholes who are full of themselves.Ã, 

Is that based on experience or hearsay? Can you say the opposite about christians? I mean, that 99.9% of them are decent? Because I can easily make it 99.8% When you say that the west is not ignorant, intolerant etc, do you include the remote christian villagers in several countries where analphabetism and limited access to the media is a common thing? Do you include the christian grannies that spent their days around the local priest, which sometimes happens to be a wonderful wonderful person but he can also be a fanatic or an ignorant who's telling them that the muslims are making a fuss somewhere, burning embassies and all that, but doesn't tell them how it started in the first place? I think your statement above makes you quite intolerant and xenophobic.

Just to clear things, I'm not a muslim.

As they should be. Even with freedom of speech, conflict is ALWAYS the last option.

If you can avoid trouble then why get into it?

"Use your enemy's hand to catch a snake", let your antagonists publish troublesome content and then follow up with controversial discussions...