Quentin Tarantino to be Boycotted

[Kyriakos]

Which is ironically why he stopped this nonsensical interview above.

You mean other than the ones who also think Christians are being persecuted, not to mention even most of the authoritarian conservative atheists or agnostics?

To phrase it the 'merican way ( ) :

"Shock as director who makes blunt movies about super-violent characters gets asked bluntly about violence in his movies"

 

[Grisu]

In the UK, police officers are expected to abstain from political activity, even when off the clock, to avoid giving the impression that they have any partiality - it wouldn't look good, for example, if someone being arrested for being disorderly at a Labour party rally noticed that the policeman arresting him had been at a Conservative rally the previous weekend. Personally, I think the American police are quite petty with regard to criticism - the British police have a much stronger culture of taking it on the chin and soldiering on.

We don't have something like that here. I specifically remember at least one candidate for the recent parliament elections here being a police officer. Personally, I don't see a problem with this. It's unrealistic to expect police officers to not have any political opinion. Forcing them to not voice those opinions (in private) will do nothing for their neutrality.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, just saw the trailer of his new film, his 8th one as it says, called 'the hateful 8' (as in Sharknado 2: The Second One).


Link to video.

Cemetery of washed-out actors?

I am sure this is another anti-violence movie, with multi-dimensional characters and some reason to exist.

“I’m a human being with a conscience,” Tarantino said at the rally. “And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers.”

(and then make 8 movies about murderers and maiming).

 

[Flying Pig]

Whatever you think of the social effect of violence in films (and Tarantino would not agree that it causes violence in reality), there's definitely a difference between filming staged murders and actually murdering people!

 

[Kyriakos]

Whatever you think of the social effect of violence in films (and Tarantino would not agree that it causes violence in reality), there's definitely a difference between filming staged murders and actually murdering people!

Sure. But i really doubt the Tarantino is honest here. It seems far more likely he is (as bad as that is) fishing for a side-way of promoting his frankly very boring looking film.

PS: i don't regard Tarantino as one examining violence either. He just has loads of it, and virtually nothing more. That is like claiming a movie where a woman gets raped 30 times is surely more important as an examination of rape than one where we might not even see the rape on-screen but observe an interesting discussion of it.

 

[Antilogic]

Of course they can call for a boycott.

I think it would be better if they stopped killing unarmed black people though. I for one would support a boycott on killing unarmed black people. Or any people for that matter. Just killing people, that would be a great thing for the police to organise a boycott of.

Yes, please.

The irony here is that a director who makes extremely violent movies where the heros are killers would use his celebrity status to criticise others for being violent.

Taking a line from Lynch's statement regarding the Tarantino boycott:

The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls "murderers" aren't living in one of their depraved big screen fantasies.

Okay, I changed one word.

 

[warpus]

“I’m a human being with a conscience,” Tarantino said at the rally. “And when I see murder I cannot stand by. And I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers.”

(and then make 8 movies about murderers and maiming).

You might have had a point if he went out and killed 8 people after saying that. But..

 

[Kyriakos]

You might have had a point if he went out and killed 8 people after saying that. But..

I had a point, but you killed it (or rather it was killed by straw tentacles hovering about from the very onset of your reply against my post )

 

[Berzerker]

unless unions in the US are absolutely different it's not a government union but a union of government employees, no? As such I don't see how they should not have the right to call for a boycot. Same thing with prison guard union. Basically everybody has the right to call for a boycott if they wish so. But they don't have the right to enforce such a boycott.

congress would be different since that's a government institution. so congress can't call for a boycott. but individual congressmen can get together and call for a boycott.

Employees of the state (including county clerks) are not exempt from limits placed on Congress, a government union represents the enforcement arm of Congress (and states). If the New York Times exposed an effort to lie us into war with Iraq, would you be okay with police and military calling for a boycott? Not me. Government employees dont have free speech rights, especially not when they're using it to suppress our rights.

The irony here is that a director who makes extremely violent movies where the heros are killers would use his celebrity status to criticise others for being violent.

Dont shoot the messenger He's today's target, tomorrow's could be anyone who angers politicians or their employees.

 

[warpus]

There is nothing ironic about a movie director speaking out against violence. The violence in his movies is fake and does no damage - real violence does.

 

[Farm Boy]

Government employees dont have free speech rights, especially not when they're using it to suppress our rights.

Yes, I do, Holmes. My personal speech does not suppress our rights. A police union calling for a boycott of private citizens on their own personal time does not seek to enforce a silencing of citizen's rights to free speech. What you are calling for does.

 

[Grisu]

Employees of the state (including county clerks) are not exempt from limits placed on Congress, a government union represents the enforcement arm of Congress (and states). If the New York Times exposed an effort to lie us into war with Iraq, would you be okay with police and military calling for a boycott? Not me. Government employees dont have free speech rights, especially not when they're using it to suppress our rights.

Of course they do, they're citizens and thus get all the right all the other citizens get as well. Otherwise the whole 'rights' stuff would be rather pointless.

Again you're mistakenly claiming that police unions represent the police. They don't. the represent the employees of the police.

 

[Zkribbler]

Who here genuinely believes cops are being persecuted?

There's a lot of good cops being tarred with the brush which should be reserved to tar only the bad cops.

On the other hand, a lot of bad cops shelter behind the gleam of their badges as they pretend to be good cops.

 

[Borachio]

The violence in his movies is fake and does no damage -

I'm honestly not sure that this is true.

It's possible that watching images of violence - fake or otherwise - normalizes it in some respects.

And how many people, while actually watching a violent movie, think to themselves "Well, this is OK. It's pretty obviously fake."?

Often enough, imo, movie violence is hyper-real.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's a lot of good cops being tarred with the brush which should be reserved to tar only the bad cops.

On the other hand, a lot of bad cops shelter behind the gleam of their badges as they pretend to be good cops.

For a lot of good cops to be unfairly tarred with that brush there would have to be a lot of good cops. I do not think that there are. However, I may well have a more strict definition of "good cop" than you do.

Most people who say what you said here will look at a situation like we recently had here, in which a cop was convicted of raping a woman he pulled over after she declined a sex for free pass on the ticket offer, and say "that is a bad cop, but that's just one cop."

I look at the cops in the union, which provided this guy with far better attorney representation than 99% of the people they arrest can afford, who displayed no outrage at all, and say "while you aren't raping women on duty yourselves you aren't "good" cops. Maybe you aren't blatantly BAD, but you aren't good.

I look at the cavalier way this guy committed this crime and see it is very unlikely that he just decided that day to try something new. He had engaged in some amount of similar acts, or acts building up to this. If people he worked with every day who are in law enforcement failed to notice anything odd about this guy in regards to how he understood "power of the badge" they are too dense to be good cops. If they did recognize it, but didn't want to look to closely at a brother officer then they are even further from being good cops.

So I see a force with at least one bad cop, maybe a good cop here or there, and a bunch of cops that are probably neither that I have little or no sympathy for.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, I do, Holmes.

Tell that to Snowden or any other government employee in trouble for speaking freely.

My personal speech does not suppress our rights.

It aint personal if your government union calls for a boycott.

A police union calling for a boycott of private citizens on their own personal time does not seek to enforce a silencing of citizen's rights to free speech. What you are calling for does.

Free speech belongs to us, not government unions. In this case a government union is trying to silence a critic and by extension, any critic. I didn't say government employees cant express an opinion on the matter, they just cant use their "union" as the platform.

Of course they do, they're citizens and thus get all the right all the other citizens get as well. Otherwise the whole 'rights' stuff would be rather pointless.

Again you're mistakenly claiming that police unions represent the police. They don't. the represent the employees of the police.

The police are employees of the government, their unions represent them. As employees of the state they have limits on their rights, they can be fired for what they say and do just like the rest of us. If they use their status as a government employee to suppress criticism then they are violating our free speech.

 

[Farm Boy]

I do not have limits on my rights to free speech in the manner with which you want to hobble me. I have the same rights everybody else has. I have agreed, because of my position, to be bound by FERPA. I have agreed, because of my position(and a couple other things), to be bound as a mandated reporter. A labor union is a union of employees, a labor union is not the office. I am not my position. I am a citizen who holds a position, as are my coworkers. Unions of governmental employees are you and me, by the way. You're still confusing the two. You do not want a sheriff's office being able to silence its employees on their personal time. Talk about just begging for more Snowden-like situations because government control of speech is great! If my union says Quenten Tarantino, or Barack Obama, or Bruce Rauner are pricks that does not suppress criticism, it does not violate free speech. It injects criticism and exercises free speech. I'm not quite sure how you have this so neatly reversed.

 

[warpus]

I'm honestly not sure that this is true.

It's possible that watching images of violence - fake or otherwise - normalizes it in some respects.

And how many people, while actually watching a violent movie, think to themselves "Well, this is OK. It's pretty obviously fake."?

Often enough, imo, movie violence is hyper-real.

This study seems to contradict that hypothesis.

Violence in movies and video games has long been blamed for mass shootings and rising violence in society. But a new pair of studies finds that while we're watching more screen violence than ever before, that hasn't translated into more violence in society.

Mind you I've also found references to studies that say the opposite. Either way I don't see a movie director who is himself not violent denouncing violence as being hypocritical. Can a musician sing about the consumption of hamburgers and then the next day speak out against the sort of animal abuse that goes on in slaughter houses? Why not? The content of the art created by the individual is just that - art - it is not violent in itself.

 

[Grisu]

Tell that to Snowden or any other government employee in trouble for speaking freely.

Snowden was not at all comparable to this. The accusation there was that he revealed secrets he was supposed to keep.

Free speech belongs to us, not government unions. In this case a government union is trying to silence a critic and by extension, any critic. I didn't say government employees cant express an opinion on the matter, they just cant use their "union" as the platform.

Unions represent the employees, not the employer, that's pretty much their whole point. You keep caling them government unions, apparently to imply that they're part of the governement. They're not (unless the US is massively different from the rest of the world in this matter). your argument is rather invalid.

The police are employees of the government, their unions represent them. As employees of the state they have limits on their rights, they can be fired for what they say and do just like the rest of us. If they use their status as a government employee to suppress criticism then they are violating our free speech.

Calling for a boycott is not in any way, shape or form suppression free speech. It is free speech itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Calling for a boycott is not in any way, shape or form suppression free speech. It is free speech itself.

Here's a question.

When a trade union calls for a boycott of a business during a labor dispute they post up union members with signs outside that business, often with signs, sometimes passing out leaflets, etc.

If off duty armed cops post up outside theaters to advocate for their suggested boycott would this seemingly identical behavior be allowable?