A theater chain in Melbourne has cancelled screenings of Cassie Jaye’s The Red Pill in response to a petition on Change.org. Good news for feminists? No. Bad news.
As someone who’s writing critically about Men’s Rights activists for years, including many of those who appear in the film, I ask you to NOT support efforts to get the film removed from theaters.
Yes, the film (which I haven’t seen) looks to be a whitewash of some of the most noxious people in the world.
But if you’re interested in fighting against MRAs and all that they stand for, attempts to get The Red Pill removed from theaters don’t help.
I’m against this sort of thing on principle. But it’s also a very bad move practically. These sorts of campaigns give the film free publicity. They allow Cassie Jaye and her supporters to play the part of free-speech martyrs — especially ironic given the ongoing efforts of MRAs and fellow travelers in the alt right to silence women and feminists through harassment.
It’s exactly what they want.
So please don’t start petitions against The Red Pill, don’t sign petitions against The Red Pill; don’t support petitions against The Red Pill.
Let it sink into the obscurity it deserves on its own.
EDIT: As I said in the comments, this is such a boon to MRAs I would not be shocked in the slightest to discover that it was an MRA publicity stunt.
@IP: I hadn’t intended to justify either. I’m not convinced that Alan was attempting to with his post, but if he was, than he would deserve the banhammer.
I’m off to work, so if you reply to this, please don’t think I’m ignoring you if it takes me several hours to get back.
Good. We live in a bully of a country. Seriously. Have you seen the map with all the nuclear detonations across the globe? As you watch it, notice how the U.S. has to always have at least half the global total and how ant time someone else detonates a bomb we’re right there detonating another one to show how powerful we are.
What we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was inexcusable. You should be very, very uncomfortable with that fact.
Thank you everyone for offering more explanations.
I don’t even know how to phrase this now, but… as a non Neo Nazi German myself…let’s just not use Allied attacks on German cities in WWII as examples in the same sentence as Hiroshima and Afghanistan. The guilt was not just with the German leaders, joekster. And in no way is what the Germans did comparable to the Japanese, Afghans or whatever. There’s just too much baggage here. It makes me uncomfortable as all hell, that’s all.
Edit: To be absolutely clear. I don’t think what happened in Dresden was not a problem. But, the city was not annihilated. Casualties were exaggerated for years by the German Right, although they were still staggeringly high, I know that. Calling it an atrocity or even worse a war crime is also in this country almost exclusively used by neo nazi revisionists. That’s why I’m uncomfortable seeing those phrases here.
Most of us think it was a terrible thing that should never have to happen again, but if anything we tend to blame Hitler. Since he started the war and the worst genocide the world has ever seen.
For context…
Alan’s reaction to Bernie Sanders giving a somewhat dismissive answer to a question about factory farms: OMG WHAT A HORRIBLE PERSON I HATE HIM AND I WILL NEVER FORGIVE HIM WHAT A MONSTER
Alan’s reaction to 130000 people being annihilated by nuclear bombs: “Unfortunate, but necessary.”
@LittleLurker
‘Calling it an atrocity or even worse a war crime is also in this country almost exclusively used by neo nazi revisionists. That’s why I’m uncomfortable seeing those phrases here.’
Im sorry that maybe the case [?] in the US but anyone with half a concience and knowledge of history says the same thing in Europe.
I get really upset when its made so black and white.
It was an atrocity.
But does that mean that the Holocaust and Hiroshima werent , no of course it doesnt.
The ‘downgrading’ and comparing and evaluating of one with the other to justify or deny, in of itself is grostesque abstraction.
And American far right groups, well fortunately their opinions are not global, but twisted niche, and frankly Im so over American neurosises being given so much weight.
I don’t believe that banning Alan is a good idea. He’s not a stupid man, he’s not a troll and he’s not often disruptive to threads. He is not an asshole in the way that Mark is an asshole. I don’t want him to go away, I want to help him become less objectionable.
I am also drunk. Let this colour the above as you will.
I agree with EJ! Changin’s hard, no one’s perfect, etc. Alan adds good things to the forum. I am not drunk, but I wish I were! take it as you like.
Okay, the fuck are we considering banning Alan? No. What are you guys talking about?
For fucks sakes, unlike every other person I’ve seen banned, Alan does in fact take shit into consideration and changes his opinion and mind. He’s growing and learning, just like everyone else here should be doing.
He’s actively trying to change his stance and opinion on things for the better. It’s not fast, it’s not overly obvious, and it’s not equally distributed on all the issues but he’s trying which is more than I can say about a shit ton of other people I’ve known.
So, like, you can dislike him all you want for what he’s said here. He has said some shitty and questionable things, he’s even admitted to having a rather shit past, but at least he can take criticism and learn from his mistakes.
Alan is a good bloke.
Erm… After a much-needed day off from everything, I need to apologise for losing my temper and lighting the powder keg. No excuses, I’ve just been tired and stressed lately and took it out on you guys.
Purely to prove that I wasn’t just making it up, here‘s one of the specific threads I was thinking of (IP’s already posted the other). Aside from that, I’ll be bowing out of this thread; sorry for being a hair-trigger shithead, all. >_>;
totally agreed!
EDIT: (with Jack. I understand, SFHC <3 )
@SFHC
If it makes you feel any better, I actually got more pissed off with Alan when I went back and read those threads. Previously I’ve been of the opinion that he certainly shouldn’t be banned, since 98% of the time his contributions are fine and good. Now, having refreshed my memory of the old threads, I feel more creeped out. Let’s be honest, if a random sockpuppet dropped in here and used desperately twisted logic to come up with a legal loophole through which you could get away with shooting black protesters, and described the annihilation of entire cities as necessary, that sock would be socked the fuck out of here immediately. Of course, we should give the benefit of the doubt to commenters who are generally good and decent contributors, but this crap keeps happening over and over with him. My patience is gone now.
EDIT: In addition, I used to think it’s great to have someone with legal expertise as part of this community, but Alan’s tendency to make clueless comments on all kinds of legal issues where he’s clearly out of his depth, kind of defeats the purpose. Like I said in an earlier comment, I’m not capable to determine whether he’s speaking with authority or with his rectum at any given moment.
@ SHFC
Actually* I’ve probably given you loads.of excuses. I can be a dick at times and I have come out with some sketcy things, or at least expressed myself poorly, and that’s entirely my fault. I’m really sorry I’ve upset you. Unreserved apologies.
@ guises
I appreciate what you’ve said and I’ve taken it on board. All your criticisms are entirely valid. You are really helping me consider my own perceptions on things. That can be hard at times, but like lots of great journies it’s well worth the pain. I am really enjoying (if that’s the right word) the experience and you are all great travelling companions. I’m lucky to have you. You’ve stuck by me long after lesser souls would have decided “Fuck it, let’s leave him to the crocodiles”.
(* You couldn’t be sure it was really me without an ‘actually’, it’s like my blue tick thing)
I, for one, won’t be happy until you’ve kissed Bernie’s bald head and apologized to him in person.
Can I just say as an avid reader/occasional commenter that I’d be really disappointed if Alan were banned? He’s one of the funniest people here and his law perspective is often very insightful.
OK? Are we fine here? I hope so. We seem to be infighting a lot recently (guilty as charged myself). Fam goes at it sometimes, but I want us to get better from our arguments. I’m just using words at this point…
As per @Alan. I like you. You’re funny and smart. You’re a calming force (except when animals are involved). The white nonsense can be palpable with you, but I grant some slack there. What I can’t have you doing is doubling down so much. Or sending people on goose chases to find evidence of your fuckery. Don’t defend yourself so hard. It’s not cool
I don’t see what’s wrong with the comment SFHC linked. It wasn’t a value judgment, it was a legal perspective. If anything it reads as cold and clinical to me.
Okay, back from work, catching up.
Reading both the threads posted above, I think I can see part of where Alan offended people.
Alan is a lawyer. The law does not recognize moral right and moral wrong. It really can’t, because morality is not absolute, while law has to be if it is going to be enforced.
There is one thing from the Star Wars quote above that bothers me:
Alan used as his basis for the argument that the destruction of Alderaan was justified that the firebombing of Dresden and the destruction of Hiroshima were justified. I don’t particularly care that he was justifying the destruction of a fictional world in an imaginary universe, but I’ve got serious issues with the notion of someone assuming genuine, real-world atrocities such as the destruction of Hiroshima were legitimate. I think that it may have been a reasonable choice given what Truman knew at the time, but it was still a terrible mistake, and one that continues to blacken my nations history.
That said, I am in absolutely no position to advocate banning anybody. If anyone commenting here (other than Craig) deserves the banhammer, it’s probably me. I agree that Alan usually does add to the discussion, and he seems to do better learning from his mistakes than I do, so there’s that.
‘nough said.
I would also not want joekster banned! You’re learning too, and I’m certainly in no place to judge your progress. You’re trying, and improving, and you are welcome here in my opinion. Also in my opinion, we would be lesser in losing either of you <3
@Joek
I also don’t wish you banned or think you deserve it
@Schild, @Axecalibur: I appreciate the support.
To be clear, I wasn’t fishing for compliments or cookies (I’m diabetic, so cookies aren’t good for me anyhow 🙂 ). I just realized I may have gone too far in criticizing Alan this morning.
@aqua
I’m German, not American.
It did lead me to a knee-jerk reaction, probably, for which I apologize. Of course it was a terrible thing to happen.
@everyone else
Glad that the rest seems to have been sorted out a bit.
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/fire_community.gif
Um… everything OK here?
New to this site, so I’m still forming opinions as far as how much bias I’m willing to ignore (cuz this site’s chock full of it. And side note: bias isn’t necessarily bad, so long as it’s known).
Now, given, I don’t know much about the documentary other than the blurb and the 8 minute trailer online, but I’d still think a documentary about a feminist trying to bridge the gap and learn about the MRA movement would at least be something to view in a good light (knowing that again, bias exists).
Is there really nothing you agree with as far as the MRA goes? You don’t think men have the short end of the stick when it comes to family law? You really think domestic violence against men is treated the same and given the same gravitas as violence against women?
I’m not denying that the MRA is large enough to contain misogynists. But in the same way that “feminazis” are not and should not be the standard representation of feminism, would it not be fair to say the same of the MRA? It seems quite hypocritical to allow yourselves to dismiss the extremists (who do identify as feminists) as extremists while lumping misogynist extremists as the totality of the MRA. Beyond that, just because the movement houses extremists does not mean whatever tenets it was founded upon are rendered invalid.
Admittedly this site seems to be founded on mocking and satire, so the fact that it hyperbolizes the tiniest of issues and uses black and white thinking to enhance it’s viewership isn’t a shocker, but nonetheless it’s disheartening to see people revel in mockery of “the other side” than any attempt at understanding it.
I live in a small tight knit county in the uk
The red pill Is showing In our city And It literally makes me want to cry that Such awful people are being given a platform so close to home.
I know the owner of the assembly hall it’s being shown at Who seems like a reasonable man and would like to call and let him know some of the things the people starring in the film have said in the past.
You say don’t try and get the film pulled but is there anything I can do?