Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Is Losing the Battle Against Online Trolls (hollywoodreporter.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Hollywood Reporter article: It had taken years -- and the passionate support of Kirk Kerkorian, who financed the film's $100 million budget without expecting to ever make a profit -- for The Promise, a historical romance set against the backdrop of the Armenian genocide and starring Christian Bale and Oscar Isaac, to reach the screen. Producers always knew it would be controversial: Descendants of the 1.5 million Armenians killed by the Ottoman Empire shortly after the onset of World War I have long pressed for the episode to be recognized as a genocide despite the Turkish government's insistence the deaths were not a premeditated extermination. Before the critics in attendance even had the chance to exit Roy Thompson Hall, let alone write their reviews, The Promise's IMDb page was flooded with tens of thousands of one-star ratings. "All I know is that we were in about a 900-seat house with a real ovation at the end, and then you see almost 100,000 people who claim the movie isn't any good," says Medavoy. Panicked calls were placed to IMDb, but there was nothing the site could do. "One thing that they can track is where the votes come from," says Eric Esrailian, who also produced the film, and "the vast majority of people voting were not from Canada. So I know they weren't in Toronto." The online campaign against The Promise appears to have originated on sites like Incisozluk, a Turkish version of 4chan, where there were calls for users to "downvote" the film's ratings on IMDb and YouTube. A rough translation of one post: "Guys, Hollywood is filming a big movie about the so-called Armenian genocide and the trailer has already been watched 700k times. We need to do something urgently." Soon afterward, the user gleefully noted The Promise's average IMDb rating had reached a dismaying 1.8 stars. "They know that the IMDb rating will stay with the film forever," says Esrailian. "It's a kind of censorship, really."
Alternative title: IMDB fails to prevent botting and vote brigading
Someone is wrong on the internet! And now all those random anonymous people who post on IMDB mean I'll never watch another movie again!
If IMDB was so important to the success of a movie wouldn't there be evidence of every major hollywood movie being hyped there by millions of paid shills?
Maybe if they didn't invest so much in battling the non-existent pirates by buying out the US government they'd have some cash (in which they stole from the actual artists that feed them) to fix whatever the fuck this so-called problem is.
Does Turkey even need to be discredited? They seem to have done it all by themselves.
This is what the Slashdot trolls do when they're not busy buggering me.
sayeth the turkish (or possibly russian) bot...
History says differently though.
It seems the time has come to give users access to customize their rating weightings and content filters to allow for things like geographic proximity, known trolling/botnet addresses, and previous record of high quality content. I'd rather see the opinion of an esteemed scholar I disagree with on a subject especially outside their expertise than a prepubescent script kiddie on his first outing.
movies don't make a profit. They make it all on the back end where we don't have to pay out any % to actors.
Erdogan made some comments the other day about throwing them out into the sea (capsizing boats full of refugees was one of the ways they killed them). I really worry that this is all part of 'Operation Turkey Freedom' coming in a few years. Not that Erdogan doesn't need his ass beat, but I would rather they just slowly collapse over decades like Venezuela.
I for one know that I do not want to spend my money on dreary movies about genocide. During America's darkest days of the depression and WWII, the studios made happy, uplifting movies. If there was ever a need again for happy uplifiting movies, that time is now.
The IMDB should make it so the user could sort the rating by geography. In this way one could, for example, filter out all the reviews from Turkey from the ratings results. or see how a film was rated by reviewers from a particular country or region.I mean IMDB is a database right?
Why should I depend on some random people to tell what I will like and dislike?
Gone are the days of 'experts' guiding content consumption. Nowadays everybody has a some sort of internet connected device and an opinion. If they can also then tap into social media and create a cause they can summon a quite a force.
Recent non-movie events with airlines, the 'leggings' incident and United fiasco.
Honestly, sometimes I think these idiots deserve Sultan Erdogan. What a pathetic display this was. Of course there are plenty of good, decent, progressive Turks out there, and it's very sad that their voices can rarely be heard over these idiot children. Very sad indeed. I can't imagine anyone taking an IMDB rating seriously, but the fact that they are refusing to do anything to combat this is equally disturbing. "Nothing they can do" is total bullshit.
Alternate headline: Hollywood discovers that the internet can be used by unwashed masses to fight the power of The Man. It just wasn't used in that way this time...
Surprise! The tactics that make the internet so popular with Hollywood leftists can be used against Hollywood leftists!
*disclaimer* I am not well-informed about the Armenian "genocide" and do not take a position on whether or not it should be labelled as such. It certainly sounds like an intentional effort to kill off a whole culture, but that would be culturocide or something that we don't appear to have a word for yet, since we would immediately have to apply it to US culture, Islam, and to liberals in general, so... anyway. Turkey did something bad/evil in the last century, and somebody made a movie with that experience as the background, and Turkish citizens don't like it. Wow, way to go, Hollywood. You learned something today.
Turkey lost any and all of the credibility it had earned over the years when they "elected" Erdogan and his disgusting Muslim buddies to ruin the country.
Once 4chan gets wind of this they will vote it up just to piss of the turkroaches.
This is revenge for hollywood paying for good reviews.
I've been a slashdot troll since the 90s. Trolling is high art - the modern day equivalent of the court jester - the practice of teaching everyone not to take themselves too seriously.
This crap that is happening now with 4-chan esque social justice warfare against women, minorities, the historical fact of the Armenian genocide is *not* trolling. These people are doing the exact opposite of trolling - they're propping up the global misinformation machine instead of trying to convey the sense of critical thought and skepticism that I and my brethren have been working fastidiously toward for the past 3 decades (or more).
STOP calling them trolls. This is not what trolling is!
Too bad for this movie that trolls have taken the ratings down but rottentomatoes reviews are not that good, either. Im just sayin.
Looks like the summary's conclusion and the Turkish campaign to baselessly and irreversibly denigrate the movie are overblown.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Some e-commerce sites have tags on reviews for verified buyers- maybe the movie studios should implement a similar system for movie reviews. Get a code after watching a movie, maybe by dispensing them as viewers leave (not connecting to a specific ticket to avoid privacy concerns) or when you download or buy a DVD. Use the code when reviewing the movie. Allow people to see confirmed viewer and non-confirmed ratings. Of course this could be abused, but seems no worse than the current system and might offer some improvements.
It's impossible to say whether they made an impact on the box office, but in the end, Ghostbusters lost an estimated $70 million.
Downvoting on IMDB had nothing to do with Ghostbusters losing money. It was a shit movie that wasn't funny.
that sounds nastay~!
News at 11.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Digging up historical grievances helps no one.
So Kohath's chosen path of trolling on this thread is to go with ignoring the actions today, and dismissing the tragedies of yesterday.
Thanks for revealing yourself.
What utter BS that IMDB cannot control their rating system. They will not maybe. But cannot is a lie. Do they not own their own site?
It's a completely subjective unit of "goodness" or "I-like-it-ness" whose ratings tend to cluster around 1 or 10 (or 5 on a 5-star scale) making it a very polarizing way of rating things.
But if you asked people to rate each movie relative to another movie, they would have to think a little more and so voting brigades could not simply assign "1 star" or "10 stars" to movies.
Then you could use a Condorcet method or similar to rank all movies in order from least to most liked, and assign each movie an "all movies" percentile ranking and also one or more category-specific percentile rankings. This would flatten the ends of the ratings histogram and boost the middle where more movies should have been in the first place.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Maybe coordinate with Fandango/Theater's to do what Amazon does for Verified purchases (Verified watcher). That way, you can filter out the unverified noise and see ratings from those who spent money to see it. Also, if you request a refund, you should void your Verified watcher status on your review. You can hurt them financially or publicly with a review, but not both.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
So we're back to being unable to trust reviews. Game reviews are bought and have been from the first gaming magazines. Film critics have weird bias that makes it tough for average people to compare their own tastes to the critic's tastes. At least with Siskel and Ebert you had two very different points of view, and I tended to like things that Siskel liked.
In this era of we have setup very democratic systems that allow everytone to contribute. Theoretically we can have access to information of not just the average(mean) review, but we can see reviews are very polarized or if they fall into a normal distribution. But the problem with anonymous democratic systems is a social mob can hijack it. When there is no consequence to your reputation for your behavior, you'll find a few bad apples that push beyond the limits just to watch the carnage. Be it trolling someone until they commit suicide, to lighting cars on fire after a football game.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
RT critics say 38%.
Why would you trust IMDB ratings for any film? Is there anyone here that finds IMDB ratings at all useful? Serious question.
I find RT scores useful for things to avoid because they're trash. And in general a high score (by critics) is a good sign.
No, see, Rick Santorum is evil, so it's okay. Necessary, even. You should participate in that, or you are evil too, and you should tell everyone you participated so they know you're good.
But when good, correct things like this movie are trolled, then it's bad.
IMDB says they'll do nothing, unsurprising.
Wikipedia admins? A few neo-nazi palestinian types got a dozen admins blocked for adding hebrew pronunciation guides on regional, at least partly Jewish foods like Felafel... and the neo-nazi wikipedia leaders just rubber stamped it for their pallywood friends.
Erdogan did not run as a dictator. During his initial rise to power he was actually a very moderate politician. He called for EU membership for Turkey, and under his direction the country did enter negotiations with the aim of getting that membership. He pushed major labor reforms too, giving employees substantially greater protections than ever before in the country and introducing non-discrimination law. He changed later on, slowly, over the course of the 2000s at 2010s, depending increasingly upon tighter control of the media and repression of opposition to stay in power and growing steadily more conservative and Islamist in his social policies.
These folks seem to think their movie deserves a high rating because of the honorable subject matter and courage to tell a little known story. I've seen plenty of films which were lousy no matter what the subject matter was. This might be just a failed attempt.
Denying historical atrocities helps no one.
FTFY.
I don't understand why the Turkish government doesn't just admit "yes it happened, yes it was horrible". As you said, it was 100 years ago. Who from that time period is still in the government today? Just because you admit that an atrocity occurred in the past that was perpetrated by the government that you presently lead, does not mean that you are saying that you yourself perpetrated those atrocities.
"I vow to never make the same mistakes as my predecessors" is a much better line than "all of my predecessors were perfect and never made mistakes".
What about people who only learn and repeat meaningless cliches?
He called for EU membership for Turkey
And he single-handedly took those aspirations behind the shed and shot them in the back of the head.
Digging up historical grievances helps no one.
And burying historical grievances only hurts the next group of victims when you can't show that you are on the path to the next atrocity.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It has nothing to do with them being Muslims, you abject moron. It has everything to do with them being authoritarian dogmatic pseudo-religious autocrats.
If a Christian or Jewish cabal orchestrated a coup, it would have equally nothing to do with those religions either except as their rhetorical umbrella.
And I'm fresh out of mod points. I wouldn't be able to decide between funny and insightful anyway.
Better yet, the time has come for people to recognise that ratings on sites like IMDB do not necessarily reflect the views of people who might have even ever seen the movie in question, but may also be part of an deliberate effort to misrepresent it (either positively or negatively) by a group of people who have a common agenda with respect to the work, and should be taken with a sufficiently large grain of salt.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is ridiculous that Hollywood hates us so much that they break the law in order to try keep us uninformed of just how bad the garbage is that they release. This movie is hateful shit that tries to make Turks look like killers. They lie so hard. They try to make us look as bad as Germans. The Germans made the decision to kill many times more people. The Germans are worse. They are who Hollywood should be talking about because the Germans are so racist and such murderers.
Revealed: Kohath doesn't support digging up 100-year-old grievances to use against people who weren't alive 100 years ago. He apparently thinks people should focus on building a better future instead.
Seriously - if the idea of a bunch of low-IQ Turkish nationalists wanting to downplay a movie about the horrors of their history bugs you, just sign into IMDb, find the movie (I think the URL below is the right one) and give it 10 stars. That'll show them that geeks are smarter than genocide-denialists. :-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4776998/
IMDB rating number these days is completely meaningless. Many complete trash films that deserve 2 or 3 stars at most end up with very high ratings because.... Disney owns the film.
Take Force Awakens, which has a very high 8.1 rating. However if you go into the User Review section, majority of reviews are very very scathing. And having watched the film, I agree that the movie was terrible. So why the disconnect between user review and user ratings?
My guess is that it's easier to game the user rating than it is to submit fake reviews, because writing a genuine-looking review is much harder than simply stuffing fake votes with a bot or (in Disney's case) simply paying for a higher number.
Maybe they have better things to do?
"Panicked calls were placed to IMDb, but there was nothing the site could do." I think that it would be more accurate to say there was "nothing the site WOULD do." There are all kinds of things they COULD do, it's their site.
No, this is not against trolls, but something far worse. Erdogan is literally the closest thing in the industrialized world to Hitler we have. Don't believe me?
1. It's looking more and more like he staged a fake coup (remind you of the Reichstag burning?) to preemptively crush dissent.
2. He's adopted a view of immigration and migration that is close to the Nazi policy of lebensraum.
3. He has used a popular referendum to greatly empower himself and gut the authority of competing institutions.
4. He has taken a Turkish equivalent of the Nazi view about fellow Germans living in other countries. His government went nuts when European states clamped down on Turkish political organization in their borders.
5. FFS, he even channels Hitler with the moustache.
Odds are very good that if there is a mass civil war in Europe over race and religion, it will be directly the result of Erdogan's work combined with the idiocy of Merkel and a few others who let him get away with it. Anyone who considered Erdogan, who wants to resurrect Ottoman Turkey, would have wanted to keep those migrants out at bayonet point if necessary.
Better things to do? How can your schedule be too busy to admit that an event happened?
Short and to the point. Well done, troll.
Turkey is a bit like North Korea. The dedication to the country is absolute and the country can do no wrong, not in history, not in the future. Turkey wants to be a member of the EU. Yay Turkey. Turkey thinks the EU is an evil institution against everything Turkey stands for. Yay Turkey. Turkey doesn't have a dark and evil past, anyone saying otherwise is just trying to re-write history. Turkey's current supreme leader is nothing like a dictator. Anyone saying otherwise is just a supporter of Fethullah Gulen who had the audacity to try and overthrow the Turkish government by coupe ... while not even in the country.
All over Europe, the only foreign flags I see waved at protests are for Turkey, the greatest country in the world. We don't want to live there, but don't you dare tell us they aren't the greatest. Yay Turkey.
Also genocide didn't happen.
In other news, people who did bad things in the past continue to deny having done bad things.
Erdogan is a fascist!
People with legitimate grievances aren't "trolls", just people you disagree with.
That's not trolling.
Trolling is the art of annoying people on the internet through the use of contrarianism, and/or dickishness, purely for the lulz! Jeez!
This Sig does not Exist.
>Armenian financier is hoping for is to use his money and influence to push his controversial views onto general audience yet not to have to fight any resistance that naturally comes along in reaction to his actions
I'll say. The slippery bastard died just before the movie started filming. Of course, it isn't unusual for wealthy oligarchs to finance films "pushing" their views to the public.
This is the first I'd heard of this movie. But , from TFS it's:
a historical romance set against the backdrop of the Armenian genocide
In my book, setting a movie against a historical backdrop doesn't constitute "digging up historical grievances", it's been a common part of movie making for a long time.
That said, Turkey is generally hyper sensitive to this. As far as I'm aware though, the facts are against them.
IMDB can be doing more to fix this issue but since they are taking the easy out here, fighting fire with fire is the only suitable response.
I believe the best response would be for IMDB to limit what users can rate and how early in the release of the movie it can be rated. When someone attempts to put a rating on a movie that hasn't officially been released and their account is new or with very few reviews (which I assume is the case with most of the fake reviews), you hold their reviews back for moderation and flag as internet troll.
I will now have to see this movie. I also had to watch "The Interview" just because Kim Jung Un did not want me too. Hopefully this is better than "The Interview".
Poe's law strikes again! Of course the other reactions to the post are priceless! Thanks all!
Erdogan did not run as a dictator. During his initial rise to power he was actually a very moderate politician. He called for EU membership for Turkey, and under his direction the country did enter negotiations with the aim of getting that membership. He pushed major labor reforms too, giving employees substantially greater protections than ever before in the country and introducing non-discrimination law. He changed later on, slowly, over the course of the 2000s at 2010s, depending increasingly upon tighter control of the media and repression of opposition to stay in power and growing steadily more conservative and Islamist in his social policies.
Culminating in quite possibly orchestrating the coup last year and using that (and the very fortuitous rise of ISIS in Syria) to justify the sweeping grab for power that he just pulled off, effectively guaranteeing he will be in control in Turkey at least through the next decade. He used the coup to purge the military, leaving only loyalists who he can trust not to fulfill the Turkish military's customary role of maintaining secularism in government. You have to give him credit: for a politician he played the long game very well.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Events which recently crowned Turkish president Erdogan to be the Pasha Sultan, with soon-to-have powers to cast death-bolts.
What's with the quotes. They did elect him!
That's what happens when you ask a country of Conservative, religious traditionalists to vote. They vote for a conservative, religious strongman.
That's democracy. If you don't like it, openly support oligarchy or technocracy or a dictatorship. Don't just put quotes around "elected".
Except it was 100 years ago. The next everything already happened. And the next, and the next, and the next, etc.
What's the specific lesson then? If it's so important that people who weren't alive in WW1 need to be burdened with it, then surely you can tell us.
Because people spend their days listing off information about every historical event that ever happened to everyone?
This ought to backfire.
Just to show the support
welcome to democracy. The majority can choose to agree on anything -- it doesn't need to be true. In this case, the majority decided the movie was bad, and the majority decided that they didn't need to see it to judge it.
welcome to democracy. if everyone's vote counts the same, and everyone isn't intelligent, then the vote is equally not intelligent.
still democracy -- actually, even moreso, since the vote is specifically for what people want, independent of truth.
so, until you say that democracy should weigh votes based on value -- in this case, geolocation, or having seen the move, and in presidential elections by some degree of education, investment, or at least understanding of candidate platforms -- then you get crap opinions from crap people.
Stop listening.
Why would you base your actions on the opinions of random strangers?
Perhaps a more concise example: move oscars. They've never voted a shitty movie for the best picture award. Some crappy action movie, like starship troopers, or some crappy animated movie, like bubble guppies clearly aren't impressive, innovative, or special in any way. Except that they usually deliver precisely what they promissed to deliver. So if you watch it, based on the trailer, and you expect what you saw in the trailer, and it delivers what you expected, then isn't it the perfect movie for you at that time? Just 'cause Shmikel and Jeeburt don't think it's worth seeing, doesn't mean it isn't the perfect movie for your evening.
In this case, maybe the majority vote this movie as crap because they feel it's crap based on the subject matter alone. Isn't that valid? You might think a movie is crap because the title is mis-spelled, or because you hate a particular actor, or because they abused the canine actors off-camera.
The point is, it's a valid opinion to state, whatever the source of the opinion, and it's a stupid opinion to read, unless you know and agree with the context of that opinion.
Delete the existing page, destroying the troll-work, re-create it, and block all votes from Turkish IP addresses, and deny votes from all users with referrals from Turkish troll websites.
TL;DR: Who cares?
As a movie buff I like the IMDB site but their ratings make no sense. For example, the recent remake by Disney of "A New Hope" using a female lead was thoroughly trashed with one star ratings on IMDB. Reading them was as entertaining as reading Monster Cable reviews. IMDB gave it an 8+ rating overall. There is no possible way that wasn't fabricated. In order to rate a movie you have to write a review. I doubt any of these trolls can put together a single grammatically correct sentence let alone form a coherence thought. Their written reviews would make it obvious they probably didn't even see the movie. Rotten Tomatoes is just as bad making up numbers to promote certain movies Hollywood needs support -- like that billion dollar reboot of the Star Wars franchise.
The point isn't "don't make a movie". The point is: who cares? People should stop trying to start/continue fights about ancient history.
nice source, did you write it yourself?
"a systematic collection of statistical data was aborted, possibly because the data did not substantiate the claim that three million had died and at least 200,000 women had been raped."[
Seems like a great strategy for gaining power. Promise liberals feel-good utopia to get their votes and money, and then as the other poster said, "drag them behind the shed and shoot them."
Like did you know Al Gore, Mr. Inconvenient Truth? While I'm NOT debating the validity of global warming, it's pretty alarming that Al Gore just-so-happens to own and run companies that directly benefit from green energy grants, including IIRC, one where polluting companies "buy" pollution credits from his company who gets the credits from companies that don't use their full allotment of pollution. So he's actually ENCOURAGING pollution by allowing shitty companies to buy the excess "not pollution" from actually green companies.
An excellent example of why limited terms are a necessity, even if it means cutting short a good leader's reign.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Not trolling. Telling people to focus on things that matter. Ancient grievances don't matter if they're left in the past. And people who leave them there are better for it.
Couldn't IMDB separate votes to certain criteria? Sure it will get one star in Turkey, but usually people care more about scores given by people in the same region and age - or as some prefer cohort.
As they are paying the salary of MOST of them... Liberal Trolls and Hollywood are IN BED TOGETHER! SNL is the BIGGEST Hollywood TROLL that exists. LOL
Slashdotted!
and its rating, subsequently, improved, just to show the turks there is another side to every coin.
I remember slashdot bringing whole sites down within minutes of links being posted. So here goes...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt47...
It has nothing to do with them being Muslims
Are you sure?
In 2011, Erdoan ordered the tearing-down of the Statue of Humanity, a Turkish-Armenian friendship monument in Kars, which was commissioned in 2006 and represented a metaphor of the rapprochement of the two countries after many years of dispute over the events of 1915. Erdoan justified the removal by stating that the monument was offensively close to the tomb of an 11th-century Islamic scholar,
I honestly don't know much about Turkey, but as for the Germans: They've owned up to what happened and they've passed laws to make the truth easier to get at. They've searched the world over to locate war criminals from that time and ensure they are prosecuted. They've repatriated stolen art, personal belongings, and family fortunes to those it was stolen from. In short, a generation of Germans who weren't even alive when this atrocity happened, have stepped up to make amends and heal the world. So even if Turkey was innocent of the accusations, they would be no better than the Germans. And by the way, Hollywood has flogged Germany over and over again for what happened... so in all respects you are mistaken.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Digging up historical grievances helps no one.
Ahem.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
Pointing to other's wrongdoings does not justify one's own.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
TFA has nothing to do with Trump. Your post has nothing to do with the topic. Why are you insisting on bringing him up out of left field?
Anyone saying otherwise is just a supporter of Fethullah Gulen who had the audacity to try and overthrow the Turkish government by coupe ... while not even in the country.
Doesn't seem like he would be a champagne socialist
Revealed: Kohath doesn't support digging up 100-year-old grievances to use against people who weren't alive 100 years ago. He apparently thinks people should focus on building a better future instead.
Continue with your trolling, that shows what you think, not your self-important aggrandizement that only reveals your pomposity.
So troll on down the river, troll your way down the lane.
The only good thing about Turkey is the turkish bath houses. All those fat sweaty gay men rubbing up against you. I love it. And turks penises are small, so they don't hurt your ass so much. Oh, and having sex with goats is legal in Turkey. Even the Turkish prime minister loves to have sex with goats. Yep. Turkey is a great country. I give it 5 stars for the goat fucking.
There's that cliche again. What's the specific lesson that's so important here? Please inform us exactly what lesson we are supposed to learn from these specific events. And explain the relevance to today and tomorrow.
It's important, right? Please explain then.
Re: Hollywood Is Losing the Battle Against Online Trolls
Well, at least trolls are doing some good for the ol' neighborhood.
So saying "this happened, it was bad" one time somehow is more time-intensive than saying "it never happened, stop claiming it did, shut up shut up shut up" day after day after day after day after day after... well, you get my point I hope.
In your universe, is up down, full empty, black white? Or is time the only oddity?
This is one event, that they had deep historical connections to.
They own the database, they have the DBAs, they can fix this.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Are you literate, able to read at all? The political reasons behind the actions (hatred of Armenians and destruction of the monuments of Armenian genocide) are being flavored with Islam but it has NOTHING TO DO with Islam in any real way. Whatever excuse Ergo comes up with to make an issue "Islam" focused is simply that, an excuse and an appeal to a broader base of semi-uneducated religious statists. Much like when Trump/Pence tries to make keeping transsexuals out of bathrooms a "Christian" issue.
Jesus Christ didn't hate on gay people. It's not a Christian issue. It's the dogma of a subset of IDIOTS who CALL themselves Christians.
People are tired of hollywood's socjus campaign.
Except none of the people you are talking about were alive and making decisions during WW1. So they are not guilty of what happened in WW1 and the WW1 Turks are not guilty of these alleged attitudes today. They're 2 entirely seperate groups of people.
And? What's your preferred outcome? Who benefits?
This seems to be an article about brigading; but it is not. This article is an attempt to get ticket-buyers to distrust movie reviewers by inflating the perceived effectiveness of stupid IMDB reviews.
Look, Turkey is fucked up and the Armenian Genocide is a real thing that is important. This movie is mediocre at best, according to a bunch of movie reviewers who are probably (almost certainly) not on the Turkish government's side.
It can be both: Botters could have deflated the IMDB rating and the movie could still be bad.
IMDB ratings are garbage, professional movie critics aren't that great either, but they are also not under the sway of the Turkish Propaganda machine, and they think it is a boring cookie-cutter movie.
So I would say it seems more likely Hollywood is gaming the battle against critics, by exposing online trolls, and using the narrative in its own favor.
So far as I'm concerned, Rotten Tomatoes has for years done a far better job ...
Although Rotten Tomatoes probably has the best movie rating system on the web, it can still be highly inaccurate. For example, the 2014 film Lucy received overwhelmingly positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, despite being one of the most poorly-conceived and totally inane films I have ever seen. See the review by Christopher Orr
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/07/life-is-futile-so-heres-what-to-do-with-it-according-to-lucy-a-spoilereview/375006/
for a detailed accounting of the elements that make this film so horrible. (Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was like Shakespeare in comparison.) It boggles my mind that Lucy could be so highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes.
well, you get my point I hope
Not really. What's the best outcome? Who benefits?
You are making the mistake of confusing his tactics with some coincidental attribute that he used to bind his followers to him. Erdogan is an authoritarian working to install a one-party dictatorship. He's something of a Fascist. Since he happens to be Muslim along with his people he's using that religious and cultural context to employ pretty universal tactics. The Nazi's and Fascists used some Christian symbols and traditions. Stalin even resorted to Tsarist and Orthodox symbols and traditions to build popular support during World War II. Religion and culture are used to create bonds between the leader and the followers. It's their source of tribal identity. Modi in India uses Hindu culture and traditions. In Myanmar it's Buddhism.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
If it's so important that people who weren't alive in WW1 need to be burdened with it, then surely you can tell us.
But you're too busy not listening. Haven't you noticed?
We could tell you all day, but you would not hear.
Turks and muslims are downvoting the movies cuz it doesnt star their truck of peace in it
So where is the big deal in saying "Those people back then, not us, did a genocide"? Putting fingers into their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA" will certainly not change history.
CAPTCHA: edicts...
Yes, it was 100 years ago. If Turkey would own up to it, then maybe it would be forgotten history. But their failure to own up to it isn't history, it's happening right now. It's not a matter of paying for your ancestors crimes, it's a matter of lying day in and day out about historical fact. If you can't come clean about things a century ago that you aren't even responsible for, how can anyone trust you to be honest about the things you are responsible for right now?
Meaningless? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
So where is the big deal in saying...
Where's the big deal in not bothering to say it?
Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy.
A religion is defined by its current believers, not by what some outsider or one anonymous internet commenter claims its founder would do.
Keeping transsexuals out of bathrooms is absolutely a Christian issue today, just like issues being flavored with Islam by Erdogan and other such leaders are absolutely Islamic issues. As long as the followers of the religion believe the issue to be religious in nature, it is. Who are you tell tell them that they're doing their religion wrong?
I'm not Christian, so for me to say that all the Christians who believe the bathroom issue is a religious issue isn't would be the height of arrogance.
The can't do no wrong mentality is what causes differences in opinion of what went on. Compare it to say Nazi Germany who owned the holocaust to the point that denying it happened is actually a crime.
Not being guilty because it happened in the past and not admitting that something happened are two entirely different things. If they are so detached from their past, why are they so insistent that what happened was a-okay, totally not genocide, no sirree. It's a very different attitude from other governments that don't accept responsibility for past governments: e.g. Australia stolen generation where the government always firmly had the view: "Yes it happened, no we will not apologise because it wasn't our decision. It was a decision made at the time by different people with different circumstances."
Oh look, a lying muslim feeding us non-believing kafirs more taqiya lies!
If you are such wonderful people, then why did Erdogan, himself, use SENDING MORE MUSLIMS TO EUROPE... as a THREAT when Denmark didn't let them hold political rallies? Denmark belongs to THE DUTCH, not a bunch of violent lying foreigners.
Turks are gays. Yeah, very gays. Uhoh.
What's the specific lesson that's so important here?
Did I say there was a lesson? Of course you are assuming I'm making so anti-Turk or pro-Armenian statement. I'm not.
The so-called "cliche" phrase we are talking about means this: don't do the same stupid shit repeatedly. I learned that when I was around 4 years old.
Seems like a great strategy for gaining power. Promise liberals feel-good utopia to get their votes and money, and then as the other poster said, "drag them behind the shed and shoot them."
That is wasteful, what you do is blame the liberals for causing all that ails you, gain power, promise a Utopia if only the evil liberals are purged, and convince your followers to hand over their lives to do so.
It's very successful, they jump right into the thresher, it is just like making Soylent Green.
So there is a breakdown of the vote, and it's quite amusing. Looks like they could just skim off the 1's and 10's and get a decent picture of the actual score.
You want votes from real people who've actually seen the movie.
Say you sat down every one of them and made them watch the movie. Would that change votes in any way? No.
Online voting will always reflect that hatred is more intense and brings more action than love.
Only Solution: Take online voting results with a boulder of salt. Or do not allow voting at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How do you determine which ones are fraud IPs? Keyword: Random IPs
Ahh there you go, finally your brain is catching up
Another cliché, you can't see the forest for the trees. It's frustrating talking to someone so stupid that a straight forward, plain language sentence is fucking perplexing to you. You shouldn't be seated at the adult table.
What makes you think that a majority of Christians agree on any specific social issue? First of all, "Christian" or "Christianity" is not a religion. It's an umbrella term claimed by many religions. Many denominations, churches and sects identify as "Christian", but not all of them agree on who is or is not. Mormans believe they are Christian. Most other "Christian" groups don't think they are. The KKK and Aryan Brotherhood types identify themselves as "Christian" though I'd think almost every other "Christian" group rejects them and their claim. Islam is similar in this respect. It's not even as simple as Sunni versus Shiite. I've read that most people who identify as Muslim reject ISIS. Is ISIS a Muslim group? Most of Erdogan's opponents in Turkey identify as Muslim. So while it is possible to look at a specifi group and make your argument, Christians and Muslims are not specific groups. T
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Why would anyone trust or not trust based on some true or false second- or third-hand story told or omitted about some event from 100 years ago? Is that a wise decision-making criteria?
I'm not seeing how it's relevant. If it's relevant to you, that seems to be something about you rather than something about the people you trust or don't trust.
Are you literate, able to read at all?
Did I say anything about the Armenian genocide? What I implied was that Erdoan colors himself with Islam, his party runs on Islamic values, and he is elected by Islamic people. I think you should ask him if his values have "nothing to do" with Islam. I suspect the answer would be yes, they do.
Jesus Christ didn't hate on gay people. It's not a Christian issue. It's the dogma of a subset of IDIOTS who CALL themselves Christians.
Well the old testament does hate on gay people. See Romans 1:26-27.
I agree.
They are far too busy with all the denying of it happening to have time to admit that it did.
If time spent on the subject was their primary concern, saying "Yes, it happened" would probably be to their benefit by saving a lot of time, whether they actually think it happened or not.
Turkey is a bit like North Korea. The dedication to the country is absolute and the country can do no wrong, not in history, not in the future. Turkey wants to be a member of the EU. Yay Turkey. Turkey thinks the EU is an evil institution against everything Turkey stands for. Yay Turkey. Turkey doesn't have a dark and evil past, anyone saying otherwise is just trying to re-write history. Turkey's current supreme leader is nothing like a dictator. Anyone saying otherwise is just a supporter of Fethullah Gulen who had the audacity to try and overthrow the Turkish government by coupe ... while not even in the country.
All over Europe, the only foreign flags I see waved at protests are for Turkey, the greatest country in the world. We don't want to live there, but don't you dare tell us they aren't the greatest. Yay Turkey.
Also genocide didn't happen.
Everyone else's propaganda is easy to dismiss except your own. Our reality is defined by our experiences, and we have different experiences. Therefore one person's "Absolute Truth" can easily be another person's "Propaganda not based on reality". The USA (and your country, if it is not the USA) blows a lot of smoke, stretches the truth, and perpetuates outright lies for political reasons too.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
He realized EU was just trying to give him Blue Balls. The Blue state will never let a Muslim majority country join. Heck they wouldnt have let Spain join if the Muslim in Spain had not been conveniently genocided. A spurned lover is the worst enemy. So when are we getting the movie about the Christians Genociding Muslims and Jews out of Spain? Bueller? Bueller?
**Life is too short to be serious**
Here is yet another example of why engaging the public on things, simply isn't worth the effort.
With the exception of places like Slashdot, where moderation is *also* handled by people at large, I can't think of a single example where public engagement has been a good thing.
The average person simply cannot be trusted with the dual power of anonymity and a public audience. This has been demonstrated time and again on countless comment boards, blogs, etc. It's to the point where this sort of thing isn't even news anymore unless it happens on a massive scale like what happened with IMDB.
And heaven forbid you try to moderate, cause then it turns into a giant game of whackamole where the moderators eventually throw their hands up in the air from the sheer volume. The only way that I've personally seen so far to combat this, is to also hand comment moderation to the public as well, because there are typically more decent folk than there are assholes.
It's not perfect, as it's still prone to things like groupthink or tyranny of the majority. But slashdot, for example, has outlived most other public forums so to me that says public moderation is generally beneficial.
Ok, so the answer is related to your feelings about the Turk's attitude. Why should anyone else care about someone's feelings about Turk attitudes?
I was told this was important.
Revealed: Kohath doesn't support digging up 100-year-old grievances to use against people who weren't alive 100 years ago. He apparently thinks people should focus on building a better future instead.
Civilized people have the decency to not build the future on top of the past's graveyards. OTOH Turkey (and by extension Kohath) is in good company here, as its newest great friend across the Black Sea also maintains that gulags never happened, Siberia was a pleasant holiday destination for many people looking for work after WW2 and there are no russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine - also in the name of building a better future.
You are making the mistake of confusing his tactics with some coincidental attribute that he used to bind his followers to him.
His party has (had?) Islam in the name. He runs on Islamic values. He quotes Islam in his rulings. He was elected by a nation of Islam followers.
Regardless, the point is rather moot. A religion is as it's followers do. If 98% of condemn homosexuality, does it matter that several critics claim that homosexuality does not go against 's teachings?
I am sure you are glad that Obama was term limited and Trump replaced him. BTW Edogan was term limited as Prime Minister which is why he became President and then did a referendum to move the Presidency from a ceremonial to an executive role
**Life is too short to be serious**
How dare you raise Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi is our great Democratic leader. She is the daughter of our even greater late democratic LEADER
So what if she is allowing the genocide of Muslims? That is not as important as the fact that under her Myanmar will turn towards the US and away from China. Whats a few pesky Muslim lives when we are fighting the war for democracy? Shame on you!!
**Life is too short to be serious**
Kinda like what Netflix does internally. Looks at your viewing history and ratings, finds other people who've rated movies similar to you, and suggests movies that they liked but you haven't seen.
The downside (for the movie maker) is that this means a movie doesn't have a single "rating". The benefit (for the movie viewer) is that you'll see ratings more relevant to your interests. If you're an honest reviewer who gives a wide range of ratings across an eclectic range of films, then you'll see ratings based on other honest eclectic reviewers. If you're a fanboi who only gives a 10-rating for movies or series you like, the ratings will be based on the aggregate votes of other fanbois. If you're a troll who only gives one-star ratings, the ratings you see will be based on the aggregate votes of other trolls who only give one-star ratings.
The downside (for the movie viewer) is that this requires you to register an account with the review site, and they can build a profile on you. Potential privacy issues.
We could tell you all day, but you would not hear.
Because it's all about someone's feelings being validated? If not that, then what?
The best outcome would be for them stop denying it happened.
The truth.
The only solution is to not make movies about the Armenian genocide .
People should stop trying to start/continue fights about ancient history.
Then why are you doing your best to fight over it?
So you can't think of any way anyone benefits? Neither can I.
I care. The people who's family's Turkey murdered care. Turkey should admit it was wrong, did wrong, and acted wrong. Then the world can move on.
You do realize Armenians complaining about genocide and ethnic cleansing is rich considering what Armenia is doing in Nagorno Karabakh?
Plus during WW1 many Turks got cleansed from European and Caucasian territories and came and settled in Turkey. Asking the descendants of these Turks to apologize for ethnic cleansing is adding insult to injury.
No one has clean hands here. Just move on and live your life and go date that cute Azerbaijani chick.
**Life is too short to be serious**
a straight forward, plain language sentence is fucking perplexing to you
Which one?
The difference is Germany lost a war and the victor's version of history was forced down the throats of the next generation. Turkey won its war of inependence and threw the Italian,French and Greek invaders out so Turkey could teach its children its version of history. History is written by the winners. e.g. Churchill starved 14 million Bengalis to death during WW2, Hitler starved 6 million Jews to death. Can you guess who won the war from how much is written about the Holocaust and how much is written about the Bengal Famine?
**Life is too short to be serious**
Most of the center-right parties in Europe have "Christian" in their names. That doesn't make them Christian. When they win an election it does not mean the country has become more Christian. One wouldn't get many votes in Turkey if your party's name included "Christian". So, you use "Islam". Whatever gets the votes. Now almost all of Erdogan's opponents in Turkey are also Muslim. Are you saying that Islam is defined by the outcome of Turkish elections? What about all the Muslims in other countries? Most Muslims don't live in Turkey. How do Muslim's vote in the U.S.? If they vote Democrat does it mean Islam supports trans-gender bathrooms? If they vote Republican does it mean the Islam fears and hates it's followers?
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
All they have to do is boldly advertise, TURKEY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE THIS FILM and given the current fear of the Middle East in general and the aftermath of Erdogan being voted president-for-life, The Promise will pack 'em in.
I have taken no side. I don't care which side is right. I'd like people to stop fighting.
They keep telling me it's important though. Yet they haven't offered a compelling explanation of that importance. It's almost like everyone's reciting lines from some alien melodrama.
Then the world can move on.
If the world wanted to move on, the world could move on, regardless. It seems pretty clear that they don't want to.
Most of these 1 star reviews are coming from brand new accounts and this is THE only review by said account.
I REALLY don't think a nuke of reviews for this entry based on these two criteria (and the suspension/banning of the accounts created to do so) is a HUGE step.
If they want to expand it to the entirety of the IP space of Turkey? Go ahead.
Nothing of any value will be lost.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Fucking genocide-ignoring losers.
So fucking own up that your ancestors did something horrible, accept it, and get over it. Would people be fine with Germany denying the holocaust openly?
Perhaps, but he's not wrong.
The at least one unrelated reference to trump. Thanks for wasting your time.
Civilized people have the decency to not build the future on top of the past's graveyards.
What's the alternative? Giving up on the future? Why would anyone want to be "civilized" if it meant they were denied a future?
I actually find it pretty easy to dismiss whatever about 100-year-old events.
So fucking own up that your ancestors did something horrible
What if they just don't want to? There's probably someone somewhere who said what you want to hear. Why isn't that good enough?
Too bad I ran out of mod points before I could mod your post, and this whole thread offtopic.
What about people who only learn and repeat meaningless cliches?
They go into politics.
I am sure you are glad that Obama was term limited and Trump replaced him
On the other hand, Trump is term-limited too. And it's a constitutional amendment so the Republican-controlled legislature would need Democrat help to get to the 2/3rds mark to repeal it.
BTW Edogan was term limited as Prime Minister which is why he became President
Hey, kind of like Putin :P Could Erdogan just hop back to PM next election anyway?
The difference being that apparently the Russian rule is contiguous terms, not terms ever like the U.S.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Heck they wouldnt have let Spain join if the Muslim in Spain had not been conveniently genocided. A spurned lover is the worst enemy. So when are we getting the movie about the Christians Genociding Muslims and Jews out of Spain? Bueller? Bueller?
You mean the expulsion of the Moors in the 1600s? About 300 years farther in the past, but okay, let's start arguing about the Crusades. That's always a fun topic :P
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You filth just knowingly, freely and wilfully chose tyranny over democracy. That makes you worthless barbarian scum. Do a favor to humanity and exterminate yourselves. You're already on the right path for that.
I nearby apologize to everyone, on behalf of everyone, for anything and everything that ever occurred. Does that solve it? If not, why not?
Hey, maybe IMDb could have, like, a user comments section where people could log in to comment about specific films and there they could discuss this type of astroturfing / coordinated downvoting!
If you and your kind are being exterminated it will not matter a fig whether that extermination was premeditated or not. If you are being butchered your thoughts tend to be about finding a way to stay alive. The Turkish government is trying to divert blame and responsibility. Shame on them.
Maybe not blame the current generation, but admitting that some shit went down that probably shouldn't've would be nice.
Well in the West usually in this situation, when they admit something bad happened, they pay the survivors. So they would benefit.
e.g. Churchill starved 14 million Bengalis to death during WW2
No, try 2.1 million. And apparently there's debate about whether it was his fault.
Debate over the specific cause or causes of the Bengali famine hinges on a series of interlinked questions: when the nature and scope of the disaster were recognized, whether enough food was available at the provincial or national level (or via international food aid arranged by Great Britain) to feed the population of Bengal, and whether the failure of the colonial rulers to alleviate the crisis was due to incompetence or insensitivity to Bengal's needs. [...]
The question of when the famine was or should have been recognised is relevant to a discussion of the unreliable crop statistics. The 1942–43 Annual Report of the Indian Statistical Institute (1945, p. 107) asserts that the lack of reliable crop output statistics left the government effectively uninformed about the state of agricultural output, precluding any timely response. Others, however, have expressed doubts that the government was naive or "caught napping" when it rejected those statistics out of hand.[354]
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Also...Ghost in the Shell was a highly enjoyable film.
doesn't support digging up 100-year-old grievances to use against people who weren't alive 100 years ago.
That argument is invalid. The mass killing of jews by the Nazis happened over 70 years ago. Are you saying that 30 years from now talking about that should stop?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
So where is the big deal in saying...
Where's the big deal in not bothering to say it?
Leg me tell you what the big deal is by "not bothering to say". In the very best case, it will be a passive aggressive way of denying that it happened. Denying what happened is being dishonest. A man or a country that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man or country. Why do you not care about honesty?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
The original people aren't, but what we're seeing in this story, is that lots of people want to adopt whatever things happened. Living people want the credit/blame for whatever the dead people did (and they're saying it's credit).
Whether this makes sense or not is irrelevant; they're claiming it (but I do admit I respect them less for it; see below). Especially at a national level, there are assloads of precedent for people speaking about past events that way. An American born only 20 years ago will often say bizarre things like "we broke our treaties with the tribes," or "we drafted people to fight in Vietnam" or "we nuked Japan" or "we saved your limey asses in WW2" etc even if he wasn't alive when the purported events happened. And this isn't just an American thing, not even a little bit. (If anything, Americans do it less than people in lots of other places.)
Some people include themselves in past "we"s, even if they weren't really there.
And some people (me! me!) don't. The bad news is that it means I didn't put a man on the moon or vote to recognize women's right to vote, but fortunately it also means I didn't segregate blacks, put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, vote to hand over the alcohol (and other markets) to organized crime, etc. On balance, I'm happy to not be part of past-"we"s. My own disgraceful fuckups and sometimes-shining accomplishments are plenty of moral complexity enough!! Who the fuck isn't already weighed down with plenty of real identity that they actually earned (for good or bad, usually both), that they need to plunder the graves of their ancestors for more?! Whatever. Some people insist. Let them play their stupid games.
Failing to disclose non-relevant information isn't "dishonest".
Compared to the above two, Armenian massacre is small.
You are making up a false dilemma here. If is not either the two examples you gave or the Armenian massacre, is is both.
All wrongdoings by any country should be openly discussed, be it Japanese war crimes during WW2, human rights violations by the CIA, the Bosnian genocide, etc. Trying to downplay any such event as "not important" or "not as bad as something else" is being dishonest and respectless.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Who remembers the Armenians?
Have gnu, will travel.
I don't know about your part of "the West", but I would never be willing to be held even partially financially liable for anything that happened 100 years ago. If the individuals who did it can't be held responsible, then no one should be.
Discredit a shit hole that was once democratic, they did that all by themselves, voting for Erdogan and his fascist ilk, and denying the obvious fact of the Armenian genocide.
No one called for "not talking about it". People should talk about it if they want and not talk about it if they don't. But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.
Exactly what criteria do you use to classify the Armenian genocide as "non-relevant information"?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Those who wish to remember, remember.
It's not a No True Scotsman fallacy. The fact that Turkey is Muslim does not keep it out of the EU. If Turkey was a reasonably secular state, with a free society and more economic development, it would fit right in despite its religion. The fact that Turkey is Muslim explains much about why Turkey isn't reasonably secular with a free society and more economic development, but it has nothing directly to do with whether or not it can get into the EU.
I feel I do have reason to compare what Christians say and do to what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing. Unfortunately, to be a Christian it isn't a requirement to think that Jesus guy probably had a clue, because I rather admire Jesus.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
100 years passed
So you are saying that 30 years from now, you will classify the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 as "non-relevant information" as well?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I saw the movie and the $100 million does not appear on the screen. Christian Bale is unconvincing as a Turkish general. 1 star.
No one called for "not talking about it".
Have you not called for not talking about the Armenian genocide several times?
But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.
The first sentence is a truly valid argument. Although not very relevant. Because the question is not whether people living today are responsible for things that happened 100 years ago (of course they are not), but the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I have taken no side.
Why are you not honest about you absolutely having taken a side?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I think you mean Paul in the new testament didn't like what Roman priests were getting up to and took their homosexual actions to be a result of their corrupt worship of Roman gods. My personal benchmark to identify a fake Christian is if they use hate instead of love as their motivator. If you see a "Christian" hating on others, you know that you have quite a different beast on your hands.
Nope, you keep fighting, that's a problem, you aren't even admitting to your own role. It's almost...wait, no, it is because you're trolling.
Which should be a hint to you, nobody is going to take a troll seriously. You're just the clown, and not even the Auguste, but the Bouffon.
You didn't even quote that correctly.
I won't be condemning people as "dishonest" for not talking about it. If they don't want to talk about it, that's up to them.
This is information being used for disinformation. This is a volley across the freedom that should be the Internet's bow. This is information-warfare/cyber-warfare under the guise of movie ratings.
Sadly as most have mentioned.. without some form of moderation or non-repudiation of sources... the Trolls own the bridge, the valley and the city.
Peace out.
On another note... in my youth I didn't give jack SHIZ about the movie ratings on TV, the newspaper or radio as most of those "critics" were elitists that are alive and well today for the Oscars, the Grammys et/al. Reviews rated "The Burbs" as a must see back then (my girlfriend and I walked out in the first 20 minutes). A few more movies were rated well but I either walked out or just survived it as I couldn't get my money back. End result? Even today it only takes a preview to determine if I'm going to pay full price in the theater (Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, Logan, The Great wall and many more) or wait for the Bluray (John Wick, The Revenant, 13 Hours the secret Soldiers, Captain America Civil War) or eventually the endless hunt in the bargain bin so I can link it to my VUDU account.
Which side?
The difference is Germany lost a war and the victor's version of history was forced down the throats of the next generation. Turkey won its war of inependence and threw the Italian,French and Greek invaders out so Turkey could teach its children its version of history. History is written by the winners. e.g. Churchill starved 14 million Bengalis to death during WW2, Hitler starved 6 million Jews to death. Can you guess who won the war from how much is written about the Holocaust and how much is written about the Bengal Famine?
Not a proud moment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/the...
My quick look indicates the famine lead to the death of 3 million. That might not play as well into the "Churchill was as bad at Hitler", but you wouldn't want to be acused of making the whole thing up.
And? What's your preferred outcome? Who benefits?
The Turkish Government benefits by being able to control the narrative of history to make their ancestors look a lot better. Think of how much Americans absolutely revere their own founding fathers and take such pride in US history. There's a lot of power in being able to mythologize your nation's past.
...the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.
It's unjust to try to burden innocent people with their ancestors' guilt. It's also self-defeating, because, if you look back far enough, I guarantee your ancestors also have blood on their hands, just like everyone else's ancestors.
Didn't slashcode solve this problem years ago with metamoderation?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
This is wonderful! So millions of Armenians were either machine-gunned to death or marched to death all the way into the Syrian desert AND it's not a big deal. Because it can't be a big deal, because if it was a big deal it would take away from the biggest deal of them all, the jewish holocaust. It's already bad enough they have to share with the gypsies (who get decidedly less). So that's the big deal why IMDB isn't taking action. Oh and it's a big deal in Turkey too, they don't like to be reminded and certainly they don't want to pay for it, that's behind the ratings bombing, to make all of this no big deal.
It couldn't be that the only people who like the movie are pretentious Hollywood rich people who have to like certain things to remain cool and hip and *in* with their own crowd... Could it?
This sort of thing has been in full force in the US for nearly the past 8 years; organized downvote brigades have attacked entertainers that have voiced criticisms against right-wing opinions or politicians. For example, Quentin Tarantino is under massive attack for comments on the police iduring the BLM movements. His latest movie was downvoted massively (Hateful Eight) even before it came out. Even his older movies have been under attack. J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series is under similar attack for her comments against Trump and Brexit, and her positions on Twitter. Her latest movie (Fantastic Beasts) have attracted a string of -ve reviewers. Amy Schumer attracts an unbelievable level of vitriol due to her anti-Trump comments. The list goes on.
The strategy is discussed and coordinated on right-wing Talk Radio and alt-right websites.
https://m.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks :D :D
Since they always are busy denying that the genocide ever happened.
The difference is that I don't deny what my ancestors did, unlike the nationalist Turks.
You're just the clown, and not even the Auguste, but the Bouffon.
I don't know who they are. Do they also want people to not start/continue fights about 100-year-old grievances?
America is a bit like North Korea. The dedication to the country is absolute and the country can do no wrong, not in history, not in the future. America wants to be a member of the EU. Yay America. America thinks the EU is an evil institution against everything America stands for. Yay America. America doesn't have a dark and evil past, anyone saying otherwise is just trying to re-write history. America's current supreme leader is nothing like a dictator. Anyone saying otherwise is just a supporter of Hillary who had the audacity to emails ...
All over Europe, the only foreign flags I see waved at protests are for America, the greatest country in the world. We don't want to live there, but don't you dare tell us they aren't the greatest. Yay America.
Also genocide didn't happen.
Slight edit of parent's statement. I wonder if anyone will spot my subtle change.
I never said anything about Turkey being part of the EU; you must be thinking of some other poster. I only addressed your assertion that political actions or excuses for actions are not associated with Islam, which is blatantly false. Religion has long been used by political leaders as a tool, but that doesn't mean the religion has nothing to do with those leaders' actions, or that the religion is blameless; in fact the opposite is true. If the religion actually lived up to its divine claims, then it would be impossible for it to be subverted that way.
As for comparing the words and actions of real, modern-day Christians to what Jesus supposedly said and did, you can make that comparison, as it is interesting in pointing out what appears to be hypocrisy of Christians from your point of view, however that doesn't mean that those peoples' doings aren't "Christian", they absolutely are, and since they claim to be true believers and you don't, then they have far more claim to what constitutes "true" Christianity than you do. Similarly, ISIS and Taliban leaders have far more claim what constitutes "true" Islam than anyone who isn't a Muslim.
These are all examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because all these different sects don't like each other and disagree on who's a "true" believer of that religion doesn't make it so. From the perspective of an outsider, ALL people who claim to be Muslims are, and ALL people who claim to be Christians are. It's really rather offensive for any of them to claim the others aren't; that's like me as an American trying to claim that people from Mississippi aren't "true Americans". It's patently absurd. For a Christian, the only real requirement is to believe in the divinity of Jesus. For a Muslim, the only real requirement is to believe that Mohammed was Allah's chosen prophet. Everything else is just disagreement on fine points of theology. Obviously, these different sects have some significant disagreements, but that doesn't mean they can't be grouped together by outsiders, or that any of them aren't "true".
And yes, "Christianity" is a religion. It's not a single organization obviously, it has many different sects, but look up the definition of "religion": it fits. A "religion" doesn't mean a specific organization.
Imagine someone in your high school class was caught stealing a car - face clearly visible on a surveillance camera, the license plate and records make it clear that it wasn't a case of 'accidentally locked out of own car, breaking into it and hotwiring it on your own to save money' or anything innocent like that. Now it is decades later, and he is running a business but he continues to insist that he never stole that car. He owns a factory that makes widgets, would you buy from him? Or would you expect him to deliver you defective widgets and demand to be paid because he brought you widgets.
It matters because it makes it clear that they are a pathological liar - that they cannot own up to the truth.
Because it's all about someone's feelings being validated? If not that, then what?
Oh, so you think you have heard, is that it?
I don't know who they are.
That would be no impediment to your performance, not that it is truthful, mind you.
Congrats?
Are you naturally this obtuse or did you have to work at it? I think you're muddying the waters deliberately.
As to your silly confession, if an innocent person confesses to a crime, the guilty party gets away with it. I hope you agree that's bad.
Who cares? The rest of the world (apart from some Russians) believes that the Turks deliberately committed mass murder of Armenian civilians. Anyone dealing with the Turkish state now knows that they can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Deal with it.
Turkish military's customary role of maintaining secularism in government.
But think about it: would it be a good thing to have the US military to drive tanks around the White House every time a President Elect confesses believing god of some kind? Would that be sign of a working democracy?
The sign of a closed mind.
Most dictators that turned democracies into dictatorships didn't run as dictators. It just happened that they needed all that power (legislative and judicial in addition to their executive powers) to keep country xyz safe and make it great (again).
There's basically a book on how to do this.
Would that be sign of a working democracy?
Yes. Not a healthy democracy, mind you, but at least a working one. Where the alternative is a movement which has "abolish democracy" at the top of the agenda, preventing that group from assuming power is paramount if you believe in democracy. Even if it takes undemocratic means to do so.
TL;DR: Where the alternative is no democracy at all, the answer is "yes."
It might help the Turks to feel less defensive about their history. And it might help the Armenians to move on from their history. Germany admit they fucked up in a really big way and they have done all they can to make amends and ensure it never happens again. For them, you truly can say that digging up historical grievances does not help anyone, because they have already dealt with their past. They have earned the right to not burden current generations with the sins of their ancestors. What has Turkey done?
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
LOL, with Erdogan in the hot seat, it's not a difficult job to discredit Turkey, it's doing itself by letting that dictator stay in 'office'.. Erdogan isn't far from what Hitler did last century....
Re Germany: All that was done, and from what I have heard, is appreciated by contemporary Jews.
Incidentally, Austria did none of that, despite being equally a part of Nazi Germany...
perhaps the solution on imdb's side is to localize the grades of movies. What one country sees as shit can be a mastercraft in another.
GitS for example, is being dowgraded to heck in the west by SJW claiming 'whitewash', but praised in the Asian market.
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
Y'know, usually when someone moves goalposts, they move them to be more in their favor, not less. I don't know where this whole "not talking about it" came from, but this is about the Turkish government actively denying it ever happened (ie, talking about it).
...if an innocent person confesses to a crime, the guilty party gets away with it.
All the guilty people are dead. It was 100 years ago. Everyone left is innocent of it.
The rest of the world (apart from some Russians) believes that the Turks deliberately committed mass murder of Armenian civilians.
But they all died a long time ago.
Anyone dealing with the Turkish state now knows that they can't be trusted to tell the truth.
This is a 100% artificial concern. You're pretending this matters to start or continue a fight based on an ancient grievance. I understand this. It's destructive and unjust and potentially destabilizing. It advances the cause of hatred and it benefits no one. Just let it go.
It's not analogous because the person who "was caught stealing a car" actually died a long time ago. And you want me to distrust a completely different person because he won't jump through a specific hoop for you. (And there's no reason to trust a random person anyway, so it's a doubly strange concern.)
And all the questions about why this matters are a sign of an open mind. But then the answers are about someone's feelings being validated, which isn't something I value.
Umm, they don't have to agree to still be 'in' the same religion. I like football- does that make baseball players not sport fans?
Look, what you said is actually the reverse: religion is the greater umbrella concept- whilst Christianity is a religion (that references Christ, despite the religion's codification being authored by Paul). The DENOMINATIONS, factions, variances are sub-categories of religions not the religions themselves. They are as you accurately said, denominations.
This reminds me of the lady I once heard saying that she was religious and other people were not. Why? Because what other people believed were not religions, they were cults. (Because she had identified her denomination as the umbrella concept- instead of the sub-variance it is).
In other words: All restaurants are a religion, restaurant themes are the major variances, (Chinese food, Italian, coffee-house), and the denominations are the local idea, (Panda Express Chinese, Milaggio's Italian Pizza, Starbuck's Coffee). The wild-card is all you can eat buffets which can appear across any of these denominations... and therefore mislead you.
When?
Right after the massacres the Muslims did starting with the prophet Mohammed (PUH!) and continuing with the Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, who launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.
But back to Spain. How come the Muslims where there in the first place? Spain has always been Christian, at least since 349 D.
Ah, that's right! Because they INVADED Spain in the first place. Who would have thought!?
You clearly didn't.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I largely agree with you, with the caveat the actions done are also done *in the name* of that religion, to be considered 'religious'. Otherwise, one could call the first and second war in Iraq a 'holy War' perpetrated by Christianity onto Muslims. But those wars weren't religious wars. And even though, statistically speaking, I think it's true most of the soldiers of the West were Christians, that wouldn't make it a 'religious/Christian' war.
In contrast, however, it's true that doing something 'in name of (ones') God', clearly validates the nominator that it's religious in nature, EVEN - as you say - some others of the same or similar faith may disagree, and claim it's not about their religion. This is especially true in the case of Islam, since they have no central authority (Like the Pope in Rome For Catholic Christianity) who determines what is the 'right interpretation'.
There is NO right interpretation in Islam, and no-one with absolute authority to claim so. This in turn means, that ALL interpretations can be considered correct - even though warring factions will never agree what interpretation is the correct one, and think 'theirs' is correct - ad infinitum.
The truth is, all interpretations have equal worth within Islam, from an objective stance. Even ISIS is not 'wrong' based on their interpretation; we merely find their interpretation (certainly as Westerners) despicable and vile. And, it must be said, also by a lot of other Muslims. But they're not *wrong* when claiming the Koran says the kill unbelievers. It's in there, all right. And, in their view, they're only adhering to what the Prophet asked - and they're right there too. Because, as with any 'Holy' book, it's full of contradictions, and thus you can choose and cherry-pick whatever you want. But it's ALL there, so one can't say (moderate) Muslims saying that the Koran says Allah is merciful are wrong. BUT, and here is what is controversial for the multicultural left; neither are radical Muslims saying the Koran says killing the unbelievers (and many other things that are murderous and vile, like with enslaving women as warbooty).
So it does the Islam good or bad? Neither and both, but looking at the recent developments of the last ten years, it's clear without a doubt that it's pretty dangerous, especially to democratic Western societies. That's because, apart from the terrorist attacks, a *significant* and large part of the Muslim-community still have ideas that are antithetic to Western, democratic values, even if they don't use outright violence like the 1-2% of extreme radicals of their religious community.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Oh look, a lying muslim feeding us non-believing kafirs more taqiya lies!
If you are such wonderful people, then why did Erdogan, himself, use SENDING MORE MUSLIMS TO EUROPE... as a THREAT when Denmark didn't let them hold political rallies? Denmark belongs to THE DUTCH, not a bunch of violent lying foreigners.
I think the Danes might disagree with you on that!
First, I'm saying that a Muslim country could be admitted into the EU, provided it measured up to the standards. Islam comes into play as it's part of what keeps Turkey back from meeting the standards. Currently, it's used as an excuse or inspiration for a lot of bad things.
Second, I know some Christians, who do seem to try to follow what Jesus was doing. My idea of what Christianity should be is based largely on them and the Gospels. Their brand of Christianity is at least as valid as a lot of other people calling themselves Christians. I don't try to define Christianity, and I'm not interested in pointing out hypocrites.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If someone wrote something like this about the Jewish deaths people would be on their head like a ton of bricks shouting "Holocaust Denier" I accuse you of being a "Famine Denier"
**Life is too short to be serious**
These are all examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because all these different sects don't like each other and disagree on who's a "true" believer of that religion doesn't make it so.
Actually, it does make it so, as pointing out the identification and recognition of groups is a reality. People are able to exercise discernment. The fallacy you refer to is a tendentious manner of argumentation, and not persuasive at all.
From the perspective of an outsider, ALL people who claim to be Muslims are, and ALL people who claim to be Christians are.
Nope. From the perspective of an outsider, it could be that differences are minor, or differences are extreme, it can be quite distinct, depending on the circumstances. Outsiders are capable of thinking, you know?
It's really rather offensive for any of them to claim the others aren't; that's like me as an American trying to claim that people from Mississippi aren't "true Americans". It's patently absurd.
You'd have been better off picking a more particularly rigorous example. Like Native American tribes. Were they Americans? Not by law, until Congress decided they were citizens. Africans? Well, there was this Supreme Court case...and some in the South, do still hate being called Yankees. Of course, you could find arguments over who is a Southerner, if you wanted.
However, a more pertinent example that sticks with your example, is the people of Mexico, the Honduras, and even Brazil(as well as the other countries), who say they are Americans. Is that a valid claim, or is it something that can be recognized as a tedious assertion?
For a Christian, the only real requirement is to believe in the divinity of Jesus. For a Muslim, the only real requirement is to believe that Mohammed was Allah's chosen prophet. Everything else is just disagreement on fine points of theology. Obviously, these different sects have some significant disagreements, but that doesn't mean they can't be grouped together by outsiders, or that any of them aren't "true".
Actually, it does, and in fact, there are Unitarians. You basically excluded them as Christian, yet...they'd call you absurd. And they aren't alone. And Muslims would point out that your understanding is limited.
And yes, "Christianity" is a religion. It's not a single organization obviously, it has many different sects, but look up the definition of "religion": it fits. A "religion" doesn't mean a specific organization.
And yet few people will go forth screaming about how "ALL YOU CHRISTIANS are alike" and be taken seriously, particularly by the same people who sagely nod their heads at the idea that "ALL MUSLIMS are alike" and use it to condemn the whole.
You have been following the conversation, right? It doesn't seem to be the case, your responses seem off-kilter. Not just Old97, but david_thornley, and your initial foray into this thread, you seem determined to push forward your own recitation of a fallacy, without realizing that it isn't actually very helpful.
This wasn't even the first famine. The British caused repeated famines through food confiscation in the 300 years of rule in bengal. The British Parliament even discussed that a famine was good as it helped to control the "population problem". Hitler did not invent the term "Final Solution" or "concentration camps". Both were British inventions - one used in India and one in South Africa against the Boers.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Muslims did not genocide when they captured Spain from the Romans. They converted folks from Roman religions to Islam. Some may have been from families recently converted to Christianity. However under Muslim rule both Christians and Jews were able to live as tax paying citizens. However when Aragon and Castille started their pogrom no muslims were left. They had to emigrate, convert or die.
**Life is too short to be serious**
That doesn't make them Christian. When they win an election it does not mean the country has become more Christian.
He (Erdoan) quotes Islamic values and acts on them in the name of Islam. And yes, if the population of a country elects a religious leader that runs on religious values, it DOES mean the country has become more religious.
Are you saying that Islam is defined by the outcome of Turkish elections?
Islam, as all religions, is defined by the values of the people that make up the faith and the leaders they elect / appoint to project those values. This, as opposed to how some random guy on the internet defines it.
How do Muslim's vote in the U.S.? If they vote Democrat does it mean Islam supports trans-gender bathrooms? If they vote Republican does it mean the Islam fears and hates it's followers?
I personally vote with the issues not based on the D/R in front of the candidates' names. To be honest though not even sure what you are getting at.
the answer is obvious - BOMB THEM DRONE THEM KILL THEM it's what america does
IMDB vote rate wages a lot of factors including the top 1000 voters, etc. That rating will soon go up or down to reflect the actual quality of the movie. Good or bad.
What if in order to do reviews, you received a code near the end of the movie, that when combined with some identifier on the ticket you purchased would then identify you as an actual 'paid' viewer?
Bit of a strawman. Don't suppose you have a source for your 14 million figure?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
They can delete the obviously fake ratings.
That was a complete non-answer not even remotely related to what I asked for. Will you in 2047 start classifying the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 as "non-relevant information" because the condition "100 years passed" is true?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
How many peolle actually consider reviews holistically these days? I mean, come on, I've eaten at places that blew my socks off with poor ratings because of things just like this. Hell, half the time critics go on to say when terrible movie, I loved, is.
If someone wrote something like this about the Jewish deaths people would be on their head like a ton of bricks shouting "Holocaust Denier" I accuse you of being a "Famine Denier"
Because both are well documented, and we know mostly what went on in both events. If someone came in here saying 20 million Jews died in the German Holocaust and I responded that historians generally think that around 6 million Jews died in that time, that wouldn't make me a "Holocaust denier."
Historians also agree that the Nazi regime was pretty much the sole cause of the Holocaust, while saying Churchill or the British being the sole cause of the Bengal famine would be absolute nonsense. They're guilty, and this is a horrible act, no getting around it, of blocking aid that could have helped, but there were many major factors, such as rice crop disease and natural disasters, that helped to put them in that situation. If you would blame the British for that, why wouldn't you have put even more blame on the Japanese who cut off the regular rice exports from Burma that the Bengali depended on? Or the Axis attacks on ships that dared to cross the Indian Ocean? Yes, there's a more fringe scholarly line that pins the blame on the British War Cabinet because WWII virtually guaranteed that a famine would occur, the British basically determined where it would occur because, uhh.. racism. But that completely ignores all the other factors leading towards the famine, and it absolves local policy-makers of any blame as well as the industrialists who created such an extreme wealth gap that left so many destitute in the first place that they had nothing to fall back on.
So no, I wouldn't say the Bengali Famine and the Holocaust are really in any way similar.
Of anything? More fool you.
By the way, just checked at imdb, and The Promise is up to 5.2.
I'm afraid you have an overly optimistic view of Islamic conquest. Let me give you a link to help you open your eyes a bit: http://www1.cbn.com/churchandm...
One sees there a plethora of massacres, genocides and mass killings done by Muslims. Where they alone in that? No, Christians did their share (Buddhists far less, if one is honest), however, far LESS than Muslim conquest has done.And mostly, in regard to the crusades and other fights against Muslims, it was *in response* to the conquest of Christian grounds and land. Meaning, if the Muslims hadn't INVADED and CONQUERED Christian lands and countries, they wouldn't have had such a reaction neither. I couldn't find any specifics on the conquest of Spain to demonstrate unambigiously that the killings done by Muslims there is 'less' than those of Christians, but in any case it seems rather overly naive to think Muslims didn't kill off civilians and innocents at all, when they clearly had no problem doing it everywhere else.
But, regardless, I'm willing to gleen over all that, since it's in the far history, and during those times violence was rampant everywhere. It's of little use trying to convince whomever was 'the bloodiest' hundreds of years ago. Of far more concern is, how Muslims react NOW, in current times. And in this respect, it does not bode well.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As one can see, a majority of Muslims in Muslim-countries, and even a significant large proportion of Muslims in Western countries have ideas and beliefs that are antithetic with the mores, rules, and values of Western democracies. We're not talking about terrorists here, we're talking about *radical views* hold *by* Muslims, which is much broader then straight out terrorism, but still - even more so, I would claim - a danger to the continuation of Western democracies with their values derived from the Enlightenment.
It is THAT which is *really* worrying, though less visible and less openly violent than beheadings of ISIS. Unless there is a drastic reformation of Islam, such as has happened to Christianity, I claim the following: Islam is unreconcilable with, and a danger to, Western, democratic values based on the enlightenment, and, if we do not (re)act against this, it will - in the long term - mean the end of our era. It's clear as daylight, you can not have or maintain our Western system if Muslims continue to flood in (or breed and propagate faster and more in the Western countries than the original populace) while remaining as insensitive to integration and incorporation of our values as they are today (and ever have been).
Note that I'm not talking about race. Race is not the problem. I'm also no racist. Raise Blacks, Berbers, whatever, up from infancy in ones' own culture, and they ARE and BEHAVE like one of us. I'm saying it's the culture and mentality that is the problem. 40% of British Muslims want the Sharia to be the supreme law, trumping any other laws. 40%!! That's HUGE. That's like, a thousand times more and higher than when you would ask an original, born-and-raised Brit. I find it peculiar that the danger of this is not more than apparent to the left. If you take in a million refugees, as German did, and 40% of them wants to introduce sharia-law, one has to be blind and stupid not to see how this will create tensions and huge societal problems for your own civilisation and society. Yet, the West turns a blind eye. It's incomprehensible. It's like cultural suicide, and we're doing it to ourselves, like a bunch of lemmings.
Even the 'moderate Muslim' should be worried, in fact. At least those who wanted to escape from sharia law and the oppression of their home countries. If this keeps up, I foresee the end of our current Western model by the end of the 21ste century, if not sooner. This is not Islamophobia, it's just an observation and logically deduced analysis.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
ON the incident has always been remarkably consistent, "We drove them into the desert without food, water, medicine or shelter but we didn't mean to kill them."
Oh Muslims have problems. Just Christians should keep their mouth shut as they have a far more bloodier history of discriminating on the basis of religion. Its built into the religion. Christians believe anyone not a Christian is a heathen and going to hell so needs to be converted. Islam at least has scope for a Dhimmi status where people can live in a Muslim society without converting. As neither Muslim or Christian I say a pox on both your houses. Just because Christians today dont behave like savages doesnt take away that they believe in a savage book burning evangelizing (thats a dirty word) religion that pushed Roman Europe into a 800 year dark age due to the basic religion being anti-science.
**Life is too short to be serious**
I would claim it rather being the Qu'ran and Islam, instead of the bible and Christianity. That said, buddhism has even less violence done in its name than either of those. Jainism even far less, if not outright 'none'. But regardless, that sort of discussion is endless and leads to nowhere. I would agree that all religions have blood on their hands, and while one might dispute who has 'the most blood', it changes nothing to all the rest I pointed out.
All monotheistic religions believe in a nonsensical book that is rife with contradictions, but that said, the most dangerous religion nowadays, is clearly Islam.
I also note that you did not address the main point I made, namely that a large percentage of Muslims want the sharia and have ideas that are not compatible with Western concepts (such as respect for free speech, EVEN if it's directly insulting the prophet Mohemedd (PUH!)), and that the sharia is at odds with our Western democratic values. Hence, as it currently stands, it is antithetic and therefore a danger to Western democratic values and its society as a whole, which is based on those values of the Enlightenment.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I don't have any good predictions for the year 2047 on that subject.
Most modern folks are not religious. If they actually believed the Bible or the Quran they would be out killing each other. So given that, I don't really see a reason for singling out Muslims in western society. Those who live and work peacefully and pursue their own religion without pushing it in others' faces I have no problems with. Yeah if someone tried to say food in public cafeteria needs to be halal I would shut them down but I myself do buy Halal meat .I find Halal meat actually more tasty. The way of killing while being more cruel for the animal leads to the blood draining out so it does not have the yucky blood taste. Just goes to show that while noone should be forced to follow a religious practice sometimes it makes sense and non religious people may follow the same as long as you don't force them.
For those who want to change western society into a total replica of their home societies I have no sympathies. Every society has a right to exist. Similarly I have no sympathy to imposing Democracy by dropping bombs from 30000 feet. Democracy from 30000 feet does not work.
Any society which tries to tell other societies you should change risks opening itself upto scrutiny which it may not survive.
Which is basically why I say Christians should shut up about Muslim intolerance and focus on their own shortcomings.
BTW Fun thought experiment. Hitler used the Swastika - An Aryan symbol commonly used in Hinduism. Today it is pretty much banned which can be a shock to Hindus coming to the US when they decorate their doors with Swastikas. However the KKK used the Cross as their symbol. Lets imagine the cross being similarly being banned or socially shunned.
There are many double standards in western society. Again as I said "Don't invite scrutiny which you wont survive"
**Life is too short to be serious**
Because they still have a problem with aggressive nationalism, as a nation. It doesn't take forms as ugly as Armenian genocide, but look at what they're doing to the Kurds, for example. Also check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because it is directly relevant to a great deal of modern Turkish politics, such as their attitude towards the Kurds.
That's where trolls belong!
"So given that, I don't really see a reason for singling out Muslims in western society. "
I've given you the reason in my former posts. Whether one wants it or not, in comparison, today, FAR more acts of terrorism are done in the name of their religion by Muslims than by Christians. But, as said, what's even worse is that FAR more Muslims uphold and concur with ideas that are antithetic with democratic, Western values based on the enlightenment. Those are not all terrorists; they just hold extreme views (extreme in regard to our values). If you looked at the links I provided you, you can note that some of those views - which are incompatible with how *we* think about things and go against our basic values - have either a majority, or a very large minority being supportive of it.
If you would take a random sample size and compare Muslims with non-Muslims in regard to women's rights, homosexuality, etc., you would see a HUGE discrepancy in Western countries between the two groups. clearly, the correlation is not by accident, but has a *causal* relation: it's because they are Muslims, such a large part thinks that sharia should be the only law being applied, that women are less worth than men, that homosexuality is abhorred, that they think fre speech does not allow to insult the prophet Mohammed (PUH!), etc.
you wouldn't find these numbers and percentages with atheists, not even with Christians, nor Buddhists, etc. the reason for that is what you said: most people, even claiming to be Christians, aren't all that religious anymore, and Christianity has had a reformation and lost a lot of its sharp teeth anyway.
The Islam has not - or to a far, far lesser extend. Muslims are also to a far higher percentage still devote in the classical sense. You only have to look at the mosques for that: almost always filled, while the churches in Europe are dwindling and largely empty. So, both in religiousness as in the strict applicability of their holy book, Muslims are far more ferocious, percentage-wise, than any other religion these days. That's why you see raving and angry-shouting Muslims trying to get a museum shut down, or making threats - by legal and illegal means - if that museum was posting art that offends their prophet. Do the same with Christians, and the most you get is some bishop saying it's not very proper. That's also why you see people being shot for making a cartoon of Mohamed *by Muslims* - tell me, when was the last time a group of people were shot dead out of religious motives because they offended, say, Jesus?
It's this sort of blindness that annoys me the most. Yes, there has been brutality in the past by all monotheistic religions. Yes, you have nutcases here in the West too, who commit terrorist attacks or who want to impose their religious laws on others. Yes, you have homo-haters in the indigenous populace also. Yes, you have people thinking women are inferior to men as well. But *comparatively* you have FAR more of them within the Muslim community than in every other religious or non-religious community. This is a fact; see the links I gave you, and compare those numbers with the average you get asking the same questions of natives in Europe. The scale and level is considerably higher than with the local communities, and even with any other group who is or has settled themselves in Europe, and their integration is one of the lowest.
Your halal-example shows the same sort of naivety, imho. Ok, so you like halal meat more. Good for you. Now, say I want to eat non-halal food. Do you know it has become increasingly difficult, with the exception of pork, to find *any* non-halal meat anymore in my country? Even when it's not explicitly mentioned, it's still made in a halal way, because that's more convenient for slaughterhouses, even if they technically break the law with it (since they are obliged by law to sedate animals before killing them). Alas, we made the mistake of allowing an exception for religious reasons, and now it's done with all and every animal/meat, wheth
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
From your passionate response I must conclude you live in Europe rather than America. The fundamentalist muslim you refer to who does not want to adapt is far more common in Europe than in the USA. There is a reason. USA is a land of immigrants and while everyone assimilates nothing is forced. Europe on the other hand for a long time did not want the Muslims except as cheap labor. it put them into ghettos on the outskirts where they indulged in their own version of Circlejerk. I have seen families where the mother wears skirts to the knee but the younger generation is wearing headscarves. This is because while the older generation came to Europe with hope in their hearts the younger generation feels they will always be treated as an outsider so they turn inwards and listen to the fundamentalist preachers. This is not going to get any better by shutting them out with statements like "Islam is the problem"
The other problem is of course refugees. Economic migrants come to the West because they want to so they want to live in western society are open to adapting new practices. Refugees don't. They were perfectly happy with their own cultural practices and were forced out of their countries and many of them blame the west for the sad plight of their countries (And with the number of countries the West has bombed or done color revolutions in during the last 25 years they have a point).
For refugees you may want to have cultural education classes and again don't settle them all in one group in one area. Spread them across so that they adapt to the local culture. Again locking them up in detention camps is only going to make the problem worse.
We want to avoid fundamentalism not Islam. if you say Islam is bad that will only create further fundamentalism in response.
While the US has created many of the problems by destabilizing the middle east, it has done a much better job of assimilating muslims than Europe. Perhaps time for Europe to take some lessons from its daughter culture
**Life is too short to be serious**
Heck they wouldnt have let Spain join if the Muslim in Spain had not been conveniently genocided.
When was this?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Banned in Boston got books to sell like hot cakes...lemonade out of lemons..........label it as a Hater attack!
Again, I think this is naive.
I refer again to one of the links I gave. There you can see that even among Muslims in the USA there is a considerably HIGHER - significantly so, in scientific terms - percentage that think it's ok to, for instance, stone women to death which are 'unfaithful'.
The only reason, thus, why the USA doesn't have as many problems (yet) is because of..numbers. It's as simply as that. Germany, last year, got 1 million (!) refugees - in one year, thus. In comparison to it's populace, that would be equivalent of the USA taking in 4 million a year. Everyone with a grain of intelligence will understand that, if the USA did the same, EXACTLY the same problems would occur. (And btw, once they got the nationality, you can't force them to settle anywhere, since as a citizen, they're free to go where they want, so your idea of 'spreading' doesn't help. In fact, after 20-30 years, there is no spreading to be done anymore, because they're in all cities with their own neighbourhoods).
Can you imagine how well the USA would fare, if they took in 4 million people per year for 20 years in a row, where 40% of them think the sharia should be above the constitution, and 12% think it's ok to stone women to death?
I say Islam is bad, because it IS bad - if you follow what is actually described there and you believe the stuff is actually the 'word of god' you have to follow. Other religions may be considered bad too, but those are NOT, or far, far, far less, being interpreted literally anymore, nor are the adepts of those religious so devout anymore, as it is with Islam.
In fact, the problem is NOT being fanatic, at least not on its own. Take the most fanatical Jainist, and that will lead to someone avoiding to trample on insects and who wouldn't even try to hurt bacteria. A fanatical Jainist would be a complete and utter pacifist. So being 'fantical' about your religion, when that religion is inherently peaceful, makes person that is fanatically peaceful. There is no problem with that. So how comes it is with Islam (and, granted, some other religions)? Because there IS bad in there, and it DOES say things that are antithetic to modern thoughts, and the more literally you take this, the more bad it becomes. So it's not just fanaticism that is the problem, it's the sourcematerial as well.
But anyway, the point is, the USA has no problems, not because the Muslims they have are so welcomed by the populace that they don't have any of the antithetical values and wishes anymore ( - as evidenced by the poll, they still have, and still with a far larger percentage than the rest of the populace), but primarily because they have far less than the EU. The percentage of Muslims in the USA make out 0,9% of the populace... in Germany, however, it is more than FIVE TIMES as high. Plus, the USA has far more landmass, so you *can* spread them better, in most EU countries, there is nothing to spread anymore: they're in every city, within there neighbourhoods. Many of which have become no-go zones for the police, btw.
It's all about numbers, thus. The more you have them, the more problems you get, because the more people you get with undemocratic ideas - EVEN if, as correctly noted, not ALL of Muslims share those views. My point is, that that doesn't matter: whether all adher to it or not, it doesn't change the fact that TOO MANY do, and that your society/civilisation is going to buckle under it, if one keeps accepting people where 40% wants to abolish your laws.
And the left has tried for 40 years to claim 'spreading' and 'education' will deal with it, and make them all integrate. Alas, wishful thinking: integration goes extremely slow and is very poor, with Mulims, simply by the fact they don't really want to integrate - especially the 40% that finds their laws should govern the land. In fact, polls have also shown, that even among second and third generation immigrants, it's even worse then with their parents that came in the 60'ies. A recent poll with those youth in immigration-neig
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I don't have any good predictions for the year 2047 on that subject.
Really? Why not? Because you claim today, with absolute certainty, that the Armenian genocide is non-relevant information (because of age). If that is a valid argument then it must be universally applicable. When you argue "if event X if older than Y years then it is non-relevant information" you cannot cherry pick values for X for which the argument should be true and "uncertain" for others. There are no reasons why that argument should not be applicable for the Nazi's killing of jews, Stalin's killing of Gulag prisoners, or other historic events if it is a valid argument.
It is not a valid argument, which is why I pick on it to expose it as such. Deep in your heart you know this as well I assume. I find it sadly disturbing that instead of admitting this you choose to try to deflect and thereby not agreeing on that calling the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 non-relevant information (when discussing history) will never be acceptable.
The (implicit) argument "nothing can be predicted about the future" is not valid either. Of course many things are difficult or impossible to predict about the future, but not everything. Example: I claim today that a man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man, and I will most certainly continue to do so in 2047 as well.
I do not understand why you engage the way you do. Could you help me understand by trying to explain what you lay down as problem and cause for your action?
What is the problem? ... What is the cause? ... What is the solution? Emotionally engage in advocating that the Armenian genocide can be ignored.When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Christian religion does actually have some well-defined requirements which are the necessary condition of a sect to belong to the religion. One is the status of Jesus and the meaning of his death and resurrection. This is the one that already thins the herd enough already. The "Christian way of life" and other such terms are just inventions of the conservatives to put their herds of believers into submission. Muslims have their pillars of faith. It is all that is required and the rest is just invention of the times, culture or the particular sect to serve their purposes.