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.
Wowzers.
I was going to comment supporting that I agree with the sentiment and reasoning behind this post, and I’m totally with David on this, but then I had to scroll down to comment and it seems a shit-show happened?
Someone is using TERFs to, I think, justify being against feminism? Is that what happened? Cuz that’s just fucking ridiculous. I just, two days ago, expressed to a new friend of mine who seems feminist-minded but afraid to call himself so (I was trying to explain to him that, as a feminist myself, his embracing the label is welcome and not offensive) that TERFs are the absolute worst and work against everything feminism in this day is. That they call themselves feminist is fucking insulting.
I was literally warning him against something he didn’t even know existed because I would hate if he’d encounter one and think that shit they spout at all acceptable.
Sorry, there seems to have been an explosion of more discussion that I didn’t read through because it was unexpected, and I rarely participate in the comments here (though read everything), but TERFs just make my blood boil.
Honestly much like with Trump let their own words be their downfall, let people go see this crap if they want to, I’d be surprised if any of them make it to the end.
If I’m remembering correctly the theatre it was to be shown at, while part of a chain, is the sort that specialises in weird documentaries, indy & artsy stuff so the audience would be small. It would have a showing or 2 & fade away like a fart in a breeze.
I suspect that any & all protests & petitions are being self produced to try & get some publicity & the theatre took the first excuse it could find to cancel once it actually saw the film.
Boy, I can feel the groupthink oozing out all over in this thread…
@Latte Cat
Finally, some love for llamas.
These ones are bicycle racing fans:/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6767157/llamas.0.jpg)
@PreuxFox
Hi and welcome in!
@Jen
No, the blow-up was over something else entirely. PreuxFox used TERFS as an example of feminisim not being monolithic, as our latest troll implies it is.
@WWaxwork
Per the email from the cinema posted earlier in the thread, some bunch of MRAs rented the theatre for a private screening of it, then started selling tickets in violation of their agreement with the owners, who became aware of this when the petition arrived.
@Alan
Well, if you were an expert, or even had the slightest, tiniest grasp of the situation, you would know that this new decision is infinitely more likely to be an effect of the extensive new temporary laws regarding immigration, which went into effect in November 2015 and July 2016, rather than trust your random hunch that it could be related to a crime he committed 13 years ago.
And, let me be absolutely clear, I have not expressed sympathy for this particular rapist. You have repeatedly expressed sympathy for him on my behalf. I have argued that the Migration Board’s reasoning is not clearly expressed in the decision, that the case has been handled extremely poorly, and that it makes no sense for anybody to be deported to a country that they have no connection to. These are issues that go well beyond this one case.
There’s no agreeing to disagree here. You have no clue what you’re talking about, and I have at least half a clue.
@Dalillama
Haha, yeah. It’s amazing how many internal disagreements we have despite the alleged groupthink, huh?
@Petal
We certainly didn’t just have a huge disagreement about whether it’s okay to insult appearances or anything. Nope, we’re all hivemind on that one.
snork maiden said
Nope!
As with any good commentariat that quotes things they’re responding to, I find that most or all of the troll comments are contained in response comments. Scrolling past troll comments saves me loads of time since I generally come to these threads a couple of pages in, if not more.
Apologies IP if I put words in your mouth. After all that it seems we’re not that far apart. I would certainly agree with you in regards to the immigration system as a whole. I suspect, again without putting words in your mouth, that we probably have similar views on immigration per se.
It’s probably just unfortunate that it should be this particular case that highlights the issue.
If it had been any other offence I’d have been quite sympathetic. (if it been one of the things I don’t think should be offences then I’d have been positively gushing in my support)
But yeah, the irony on the groupthink thing.
@Alan
Believe it or not – I have listened to what actual experts have to say about this matter. I haven’t heard anyone express your theory yet.
I am curious to know why you think it’s preferable to deport this man to Morocco, where he might assault Moroccan women, rather than let him stay in the country where he’s spent 80% of his life and has his entire social network and family, and where he might put the majority non-brown Swedish women at risk. Genuinely curious to hear how you justify that, and what you think it might accomplish with regards his status as a rapist. It doesn’t make much sense to me to say “this guy is disgusting, so therefore let’s punish Morocco”. What the hell kind of logic is that.
Hey, Alan?
Earlier, it crossed my mind that I could make the sarcastic comment to the effect that you are not capable of telling the difference between morality and the exercise of power; only I decided not to say it because a fight doesn’t need to happen. Then you went and said exactly what I was going to say, only you meant it seriously and thought that it was something that would defend rather than damn you. It’s not often that people do this.
IP is not arguing that this is a situation in which Swedish law is being broken; or a situation in which the will of the Swedish government is being ignored by its agents. They are (if I understand correctly) arguing that this law is unjust and illegitimate even if it has the full weight of the state behind it.
In the past, you’ve taken this same position on a range of positions, from concentration camps to the torture of civilians to the use of war crimes in subjugating colonised populations. Interestingly, the one time that you haven’t taken this position is when condemning Saudi Arabia – which is a government whose policy richly deserves all the condemnation it gets and then some; but is also made up of brown people.
Come to think of it, in the earlier cases, most of the victims were brown (or coded non-white) too. A pattern emerges.
We’ve called you on this repeatedly. Your response was initially to say “I won’t comment on legal cases”, then “I won’t voice my opinion that concentration camps are fine as long as they’re implemented by Her Majesty’s government rather than by nasty foreigners”, and now finally “you’re white, I’m white, why are you being mean to me about my racism? I’ve dehumanised the victim, so why can’t you?”
(As an aside, can I just point out that I hear that line a lot from other diaspora white South Africans, and it doesn’t get any better with repetition.)
M has called for your banning before. I didn’t agree then, and I’m still not sure now. You’re funny and are pleasant enough to us when you choose to be; but then racists often are to the people they don’t dehumanise, and are often puzzled when those people don’t appreciate being part of the favoured few. I hold out hope that you might be able to remove the scales from your eyes and become less toxic.
What I’d like is for you to stop commenting on whether something happened to jump through the legal hoops, and comment purely on the moral aspects of it. I’d like this to be the way that you comment on things from now on, not just this case. Are you capable of understanding morality distinct from the exercise of power in the service of the privileged? Let’s see some empirical evidence.
@Alan
I love you like an older, incredibly white brother. Quit digging, fill in the hole, ditch the shovel
@ EJ & Axe
Its a dilemma because I agree with Axe’s very sensible suggestion to stop digging but obviously I’d disagree with EJ’s assertions and implications. I’d argue I’ve posted nothing that supports what you say (you appear to agree I haven’t said such things but somehow you can infer my views) and those certainly aren’t my views. The best thing is probably just to let people read what I post and make their own judgements.
As to the moral position in this case I hoped I’d made it clear I thought the immigration system was dysfunctional and unjust. If not, I reiterate that now.
However, there are certain people whom I just can’t feel sympathy for (literally, it’s not a conscious decision) even if they are a victim of injustice. That group includes Nazis and rapists.
(You asked me to be honest)
@ej: I seem to have missed quite a few of Alan’s posts. I’ll have to pay closer attention from now on.
Okay, so, I needed to reread some things, and I probably getting this wrong, so feel free to correct me, IP.
IP said:
IP then stated the dude had a variety of crimes under his belt, including rape. Alan then brought up Nazis for no real reason and said:
Now, I don’t know crap about Hassan II, but a quick google search tells me he dissolved parliament to rule directly and had a terrible human rights record. The Moroccan dude fled his country since he spoke out against this Hassan fella, which makes him a refugee.
While the reason Alan brought up Nazis is because they were also deported slowly but, like, they’re being deported because they were Nazis, while the Moroccan dude was a deportation candidate before he was accused of any crime. He also had nothing to do with a gross, fascist regime and was, in fact, escaping one.
He’s not a war criminal.
Alan says later on:
And Alan then quotes and says:
He says this in defense of why he brought up Nazis or something? Which is strange considering the first thing I quote from IP shows the Moroccan dude has, in fact, nothing to do with him being a war criminal fleeing a country into a new one and the part that “stood out” to Alan was two paragraphs into what IP said.
Alan continues to say:
Okay, so, like, that bolded part, IP said earlier:
And I’m pretty sure that’s being granted asylum? But it’s clear this Moroccan dude was a legal resident, so, like, I don’t think his status as a refugee matters anymore if you’re a legal resident?
I mean, I have no idea real idea how immigration in my own country works, let alone Sweden, so…
Anyway, some more Alan:
However, IP stated in the first post mentioning this:
The Moroccan dude was considered for deportation BEFORE he was convicted. He was considered for it in the 90s BUT did crime in the 00s.
But, again, he was a legal resident before being considered for deportation for decades.
Now, for the rest of IP’s post.
Okay, like, this dude has been living without his bank accounts or an official place of residence for, like, seven/eight years and, like, they’re saying he’s at fault for not self-deporting. Like, what the fuck? How is he suppose to get out of the country? Like, he was in prison for years and was striped of being a legal resident, THEN got arrested again before being considered deportation AGAIN. How is he suppose to get the money to go back to Morocco, especially when he knows no one there as he fled when he was seventeen? Where’s the dude suppose to go and how?
So, conclusion: The fuck are you doing Sweden?
@sillybill,
Fluttershy is my mantra. (Mostly just a reminder to not be a horrible, terrible person.)
@dalillama, ain’t it funny how that works? If we agree with each other, we’re a bunch of groupthinky sheeples. If we have an argument, we’re so anti-social and mean and miserable we tear each other apart in our quest for ideological purity. Apparently there’s no proper way for us to interact with each other? Imagine that.
@Alan, I think your eagerness to explain the legal framework of immigration has bulldozed over some of the finer points of the case that was being made, that’s all. I do that too sometimes. Your mileage may vary!
@Craig, lol. Why do you say “at least I go out and look at other opinions!” – and assume that we don’t? As it turns out, we aren’t fixed to the floor here. We’re all actually human beings with full, complex lives and thoughts, just like you! Amazing!
(Could it be perhaps that your anger has nothing to do with us being “sheeple” who can’t think for ourselves, but because we are smarties who do think for ourselves, and have come to a different answer than you? Nah, couldn’t be it…)
@Jack
Yeah, exactly. The pure impracticality of what’s being suggested for this man to do, should be grounds enough to reconsider.
My most basic objection to deporting him, is really that it makes no sense for us to consider Morocco his “real home country” or whatever. We should keep in mind that he was still legally a minor when he came here. He has lived here his entire adult life, and 80% of his life childhood included. His family is here, his friends are here, his work experience is here, damn near everything he knows is here. His crimes were committed here. He is a product of Sweden. Frankly, if he were to commit crimes in Morocco I think it would make more sense for them to deport him to Sweden.
We can’t logically look at this situation and say “well, that’s Morocco’s problem”.
That kind of simplistic, dogmatic view of what nationality means, is exactly what racists employ when declaring Swedish citizens “not real Swedes” because they spent the first few years of their lives in a different country, or because their parents were born abroad, or because they have a Polish sounding name, or because they have black hair, etc etc etc.
If you can live in a country for several decades, work in the country, pay taxes in the country, have no tiea to any other country, without being a citizen, then citizenship doesn’t mean a damn thing other than words on a piece of paper, the right to vote, and the right to not have people like Alan hold threats of deportation over your head until you die.
Handsome Jack,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence and the gif.
I just erased a whole bunch of summary cause I’d just be adding to the confusion. I suggest you reread. Alan had a specific reason for mentioning the Nazis. Sweden is obviously employing assholes in their immigration department. IP is rightfully indignant that anyones civil rights are being trampled. I haven’t been following this site long enuf to figure out exactly why some folks are already bent at Alan.
In other news: Craig seems to have disappeared.
I could type up a longer, more detailed explanation of the situation with immigration here right now, if anyone’s interested. Tomorrow, that is.
Scildfreja,
MLP must be a generational thing. Or I’m missing some portion of my brain.
@sillybill, i don’t expect anyone to ‘get’ or be interested in my ponies. The show started during a very depressing time of my life, and it represented a bright point of happiness when I wasn’t really able to feel happy about anything else. It sort of helped me leverage myself from that pit. So I don’t really expect other people to understand!
@IP:
I’d be very interested in reading it, but please only do it if you want to.
@Scildfreja:
I’ve never engaged with My Little Pony much except through its fanbase, which is an interestingly metatextual way of relating to any media. Nowadays, whenever I see pictures of Fluttershy, I think of you: very intelligent, very warm, and very self-aware.
I don’t know what she’s actually like, but you’ve set a high bar.
@IP
I’m with you on this one. Deportation shouldn’t be considered at all considering he was, in fact, a legal Swedish resident for most of his life. He might have been an official citizen but, like, I’m sure he did what all Swedish citizen do in those 55 years he lived there–he even did the same crime some Swedish people do; I mean, I think if you live a certain number of years in a place, you should pretty much be a citizen at that point.
Was there any reason he didn’t or wasn’t able to become a full-fledged citizen?
Eh, those reasons for mentioning Nazis were slim at best. If this dude’s case and those Nazis cases were put in venn diagram form, their sides would be barely touching, let alone overlapping, especially since the dude isn’t a Nazi or war criminal. He would be more comparable to the people fleeing from Nazi Germany if Nazis are involved at all.
Alan has a habit of putting British law on a pedestal, which makes sense because he IS a lawyer in Britain…he’s also white and pretty sure he’s over 60 but I’m not sure. Did I mention he’s British? It explains some things.
He’s said some things before that reminded me of those “good ol’ boy” British stereotypes, you know, “for Queen, for country, for the Empire” kind of things. However, he’s been courteous and will concede if he’s proven wrong or called out but I can understand why people can be wary of him. He has said some pretty egregious things.
I think in this case, he’s letting his law degree and biases against criminals cloud his judgement. I mean, Alan isn’t, like, a defense lawyer, whatever the British equivalent is. I think he deals more with business matters than criminals, however.
Scildfreja,
I didn’t mean your pony but the whole thing in general. Lot’s of folks love them some ponies, you should see Wonkette – it’s wall to wall ponies.
I’m glad you found something to get you out of the pit. The whole damn planet is full of pits and everyone needs a ladder.
@ scildfreja
Yeah, mea culpa
@ IP
I do get where you’re coming from; I certainly find the idea of there being two ‘classes’ of citizen repugnant. And I acknowledge my double standard in agreeing with you about the universal applicability of rights, but then applying the caveat ‘unless you commit a few select offences’.
You’ve certainly given me something to ponder.