• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University of Maryland cancels ‘American Sniper’ after Muslim students complain

Who is we? There is no we here. There is just the group in question. You're extrapolating from this situation to fit a worldview that doesn't exist. In this case, the general does not reside in the particular.



This has nothing to do with political correctness. You're manipulating reality to fit your agenda here.



There is no line to draw.



I'm sure I could find plenty of petitions that go nowhere.



You sure are in this thread.



I don't care.



Then why are you complaining about the group expressing their freedom of speech by freely choosing the right to pull the film showing?

I don't care.

all i need to know

cya
 
Maybe someone should tell all the "japs" that they should protest the showing of "Unbroken", just so the Muzzies don't get all the attention. ;)

I remember when college campuses were diverse and celebrated free speech, actually I lied, I don't remember; my whole life colleges and universities have been invaded by SP's and it's really unfortunate.


Tim-
 
No, they chose to show it. Then they pulled it out of fear.

It would not surprise me to learn that CAIR had a hand in this, considering that it is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. And I'm hardly surprised to see this enabling of jihadism on display at a commie campus like that one. Leftists and Muslim jihadists have something in common: They both hate the United States and western civilization in general.
 
It would not surprise me to learn that CAIR had a hand in this, considering that it is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. And I'm hardly surprised to see this enabling of jihadism on display at a commie campus like that one. Leftists and Muslim jihadists have something in common: They both hate the United States and western civilization in general.

One student association, on one campus, in one state, cancels the showing of one film and you think

DA MUZLIM BRUTHAHOOD COMMUNIST LEFTIST JIHADISTS DID THIS.

Jesus.
 
They chose to show it, and then chose to not, to prevent a negative backlash. That's free speech. They weren't forced to not show it. They chose to.

Because they feared some people might not like it, they chose not to do it, freedom of choice to be intimidated!"
 
Maybe someone should tell all the "japs" that they should protest the showing of "Unbroken", just so the Muzzies don't get all the attention. ;)

I remember when college campuses were diverse and celebrated free speech, actually I lied, I don't remember; my whole life colleges and universities have been invaded by SP's and it's really unfortunate.


Tim-

You went to college?
 
The university feared an attack on campus. Period.
 
And you refused to give into the PC ****?

I didn't go to college until I was 26 and already served duty in the Canadian Armed Forces. Translation: I was already done with my youth and liberalism. I had gotten it by that time. I saw a little bit in the school I went too, but that was in Canada, and it wasn't all that political..

Anything else you'd like to know? ;)

Tim-
 
If campuses are going to insist that we need to have an armada of left-wing socially conscious films and documentaries that may be controversial (which is fine by me), then let's not get our panties in a bunch when a mainstream film is being shown. American Sniper was relatively tame, given that its main criticism was that it didn't even highlight (let alone make the decision to celebrate) his more controversial racial/ethnic views.

Furthermore, attacking a film for being nationalistic is tremendously lame. Many of the celebrated left-wing films made in the past half century were nationalistic. They were attacking the colonial social order of the French, the British, the Soviets, and so on. In its place they frequently desired the native-grown population to take control over their own affairs. That's nationalism, folks. Methinks the youth meant to say "colonialist" or "hegemonic."
 
Last edited:
I didn't go to college until I was 26 and already served duty in the Canadian Armed Forces. Translation: I was already done with my youth and liberalism. I had gotten it by that time. I saw a little bit in the school I went too, but that was in Canada, and it wasn't all that political..

Anything else you'd like to know? ;)

Tim-

One more. Were there, by any chance, friends you had in college who also didn't give in to the PC BS?
 
One more. Were there, by any chance, friends you had in college who also didn't give in to the PC BS?

I choose my friends carefully, so no not really. As far the babes, well although younger than I, I really didn't care about their politics if you know what I mean. ;)

Tim-
 
Because they feared some people might not like it, they chose not to do it, freedom of choice to be intimidated!"

There was no coercion involved. A bunch of people said "we don't like you're doing this and don't think you should" and so they didn't.
 
I choose my friends carefully, so no not really. As far the babes, well although younger than I, I really didn't care about their politics if you know what I mean. ;)

Tim-

That's all. If you didn't see where I was getting at then oh well :D

Have a nice day.
 
If campuses are going to insist that we need to have an armada of left-wing socially conscious films and documentaries that may be controversial (which is fine by me), then let's not get our panties in a bunch when a mainstream film is being shown. American Sniper was relatively tame, given that its main criticism was that it didn't even highlight (let alone make the decision to celebrate) his more controversial racial/ethnic views.

Furthermore, attacking a film for being nationalistic is tremendously lame. Many of the celebrated left-wing films made in the past half century were nationalistic. They were attacking the colonial social order of the French, the British, the Soviets, and so on. In its place they frequently desired the native-grown population to take control over their own affairs. That's nationalism, folks. Methinks the youth meant to say "colonialist" or "hegemonic."

None of this is relevant.
 
Freedom of speech is a one-way street these days. And this country has lost its spine.
Oh, you youngsters. I guess you weren't around when Last Temptation of Christ came out. Christians and conservatives all over the US had a collective snit, and didn't just protest against it, they openly tried to get it shut down -- without, of course, actually seeing the movie.

I was in St Louis at the time, and the city's fire marshall shut down the theater where it was supposed to be shown. He made no pretense about his reasons, either.

Same thing with numerous art exhibitions in the 90s -- e.g. Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, David Wojnarowicz, Karen Finley, Chris Ofili come to mind.

I for one find it mildly hilarious that you imagine that conservatives and Christians have never protested a movie, art exhibit, book, website, or any other cultural expression in an attempt to stifle its author(s).
 
None of this is relevant.

It's all relevant. The university system is meant to be an open ground for the safe exchange of ideas. Not only does this push from the group dismantle that concept, but they also have an incredibly flawed basis by which to suggest the university shouldn't air that film.
 
It's all relevant. The university system is meant to be an open ground for the safe exchange of ideas. Not only does this push from the group dismantle that concept

No it doesn't at all. In fact this is an example of the very thing you're saying didn't happen. Ideas were exchanged in an open manner. As a result, the group freely chose to not show the film. That's a prime example of what you're claiming should be happening.

but they also have an incredibly flawed basis by which to suggest the university shouldn't air that film.

That's your opinion, and again, irrelevant.
 
No it doesn't at all. In fact this is an example of the very thing you're saying didn't happen. Ideas were exchanged in an open manner. As a result, the group freely chose to not show the film. That's a prime example of what you're claiming should be happening.



That's your opinion, and again, irrelevant.

No, it's not. A truly open environment would allow the materials to be presented, but also allow for opportunities to discuss and critique. You should always err on the side of allowing distribution, but allow for retorts-whether that comes in another function or not.

Of course it is an opinion, but it is very relevant given they espoused reasons for why the University should stop that showing. It's a critique of the rationale behind their objections.

I know these subtleties come hard for you, but do please actually pretend to care what the university stands for as an institution in American society before resorting to such simplemindedness.
 
University of Maryland cancels



Freedom of speech is a one-way street these days.

And this country has lost its spine.

I think it is nonsense to ban a movie for anything other than it being illegal (illegally obtained material) but for the rest even movies someone does not agree with should be shown no matter who objects, muslims have no right to ban the showing of a movie but please religious/American loving people, don't complain when someone shows religulous or "The life of Brian" (and yes, that goes for muslims too, it is a funny movie).
 
No, it's not. A truly open environment would allow the materials to be presented, but also allow for opportunities to discuss and critique.

What? So a "truly open environment" would be forcing this group to show the film?

I don't think you know what "allow" means. The film was "allowed" to be shown. The people doing the film screening chose not to.
 
What? So a "truly open environment" would be forcing this group to show the film?

I don't think you know what "allow" means. The film was "allowed" to be shown. The people doing the film screening chose not to.


You have a twisted version of reality.

The University was going to show the film until the petition said to not show the film. It was bullying. The proper intellectual environment would be to say you shouldn't pressure people to not present those materials. What you can do is allow for a rebuttal or panel discussion of Islamism or the like in film or popular culture. It's not like they don't have a case to critique the film, because we've long had scholars like Edward Said discuss how popular culture relies on certain tropes of Arab and Islamic culture. But you shouldn't bully people so they aren't exposed to another perspective.

As someone above pointed out, any campus outrage at a showing of the Last Temptation of Christ ought to be viewed in the same light. Christians displeased with that film ought not have the power to bully and pressure the university from displaying the film.

The university is a fragile structure. We shouldn't promote an intellectual atmosphere where only one spectrum of ideas are acceptable for public display or comment. It needs to be an open forum. Putting pressure to shield everyone from contentious issues is antithetical toward its purpose.
 
The University was going to show the film

SEE is a student organization, not an arm of the University administration. A group of students were going to show the film, and chose not to. Here's what the student group said:

"Student Entertainment Events (SEE) has decided to postpone its May 6th and 7th screenings of American Sniper after meeting with concerned student organizations. SEE is choosing to explore the proactive measures of working with others during the coming months to possibly create an event where students can engage in constructive and moderated dialogues about the controversial topics proposed in the film."

Bold is mine.

until the petition said to not show the film. It was bullying.

A petition is an expression of an opinion by a group of people. That is free speech, not "bullying".

The proper intellectual environment would be to say you shouldn't pressure people to not present those materials.

The proper intellectual environment would be to allow students to choose to show or not show the film as they see fit.

What you can do is allow for a rebuttal or panel discussion of Islamism or the like in film or popular culture. It's not like they don't have a case to critique the film, because we've long had scholars like Edward Said discuss how popular culture relies on certain tropes of Arab and Islamic culture.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what they are planning on doing. Apparently you didn't read the statement.

As someone above pointed out, any campus outrage at a showing of the Last Temptation of Christ ought to be viewed in the same light. Christians displeased with that film ought not have the power to bully and pressure the university from displaying the film.

If a student group wanted to show that film, and another group of students protested its showing via signing a petition, the exact same situation would apply. It's irrelevant what the film is.
 
Back
Top Bottom