American History X

Has anyone seen it? It's got to be one of the best movies ever made.

For those who haven't heard of it, it's about two neo-nazi skinhead brothers, one of who ends up in jail for murdering two african-american guys. It's pretty intense. Very cruel and very disturbing but it explains the one or the other thing. And I never would've expected it to end the way it does. Very good movie, go see it!

I've seen it, yeah. It was really good. Even though I think if it hadn't ended the way it did it wouldn't have gotten the consent to be released --> criminally liable. Talk about censorship, ha. I heard (not sure about the credibility of the source though) that it originally had quotes from Mein Kampf in it but they had to censor them, because the book is, in fact, forbidden. Which is kind of a contradiction imho.

PatrickMiller wrote:Even though I think if it hadn't ended the way it did it wouldn't have gotten the consent to be released --> criminally liable.

Well when Derek got out of prison he already realized that what they did was wrong, right? The entire movie is completely anti-nazi, without a doubt. It portrays the harm that this way of thinking induces without mincing manners, and that's a pretty good thing in my opinion. Because yes, there are still idiots like the characters in the movie out there. Lots, actually.

PatrickMiller wrote:Talk about censorship, ha. I heard (not sure about the credibility of the source though) that it originally had quotes from Mein Kampf in it but they had to censor them, because the book is, in fact, forbidden. Which is kind of a contradiction imho.

Elaborate on the contradiction please.

Mike wrote:Elaborate on the contradiction please.

I think what Pat wanted to say is that Hitler introduced censorship, and if his book now gets censored itself because it's now considered "depraved" - which was the word Hitler used for all kinds of art to be able to censor them - that's kind of a contradiction because censorship was one of the things that deprived people from personal freedom.

And please don't get me wrong, but I know a guy who owns a copy of said book and I asked him to lend it to me NOT BECAUSE I'm in any way far right or a neo-nazi or whatever, quite the contrary, I just wanna find some kind of explanation. Cause the way he was thinking didn't come about just like that. Don't you think?

Trevis wrote:I think what Pat wanted to say is that Hitler introduced censorship, and if his book now gets censored itself because it's now considered "depraved" - which was the word Hitler used for all kinds of art to be able to censor them - that's kind of a contradiction because censorship was one of the things that deprived people from personal freedom.

Correct. I'm not implying any far right thought here mind you (I'm french - part of the allied forces in WW2 - my standpoint is obvious), but I think that forbidding his book is a plain violation against the personal freedom.

PatrickMiller wrote:I'm not implying any far right thought here mind you (I'm french - part of the allied forces in WW2 - my standpoint is obvious), but I think that forbidding his book is a plain violation against the personal freedom.

1.) Being french doesn't certify your standpoint, not every german is a nazi either. By far not every german. What your country's government did back in history does not say anything about your own views. There are neo-nazi skinheads in Poland, I'm pretty sure.

2.) Censorship in general is not a violation of personal freedom unless it goes as far as the censorship back in the Third Reich went, or for example the censorship in China right now; you don't complain about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre being rated R, do you? That's censorship as well.

3.) Mein Kampf is not "forbidden" in this sense of the word, it's forbidden to re-print it. Whoever owns an original copy will not be prosecuted. And why would they? The satanic bible would have to be forbidden, and I know quite some people who read that book.

And honestly - 4.) - with all the school-shootings and terror attacks going on, I'm starting to understand why the government is trying to keep stupid teenagers from reading stuff they are not yet able to understand.

Trevis wrote:
And please don't get me wrong, but I know a guy who owns a copy of said book and I asked him to lend it to me NOT BECAUSE I'm in any way far right or a neo-nazi or whatever, quite the contrary, I just wanna find some kind of explanation. Cause the way he was thinking didn't come about just like that. Don't you think?

I read that part of it came about due him being rejected by that art school, which was owned by Jews. Or the commitee that rejected him was jewish or whatever.

Trevis wrote:And please don't get me wrong, but I know a guy who owns a copy of said book and I asked him to lend it to me NOT BECAUSE I'm in any way far right or a neo-nazi or whatever, quite the contrary, I just wanna find some kind of explanation. Cause the way he was thinking didn't come about just like that. Don't you think?

I read Mein Kampf. I'm in no way far right or neo-nazi either, I mean I'm russian, how could I be in favour of it? Anyway. Trevis, be careful reading this. Hitler did horrible things and he wasn't thinking rationally at all. But - he wasn't stupid. Quite the contrary. Bush did horrible things but he is an idiot. This is why Bush never could've done anything as harrowing as Hitler did, because Bush was and is a stupid white american male with no sense of eloquence or persuasive power. Hitler was a master in that field. Even back then, people knew what was right or wrong. For example, locking a bunch of people like you and me into a concentration camp. People back then weren't that stupid. But Hitler was able to convince people of the things he believed in because people who can talk, who are eloquent seem respectable. You stand there listening, and you think, hold on, that guy is smart. Maybe he's right. And that's why this whole thing got out of control. Be glad Bush is an idiot. Be glad.

Amy wrote:Trevis, be careful reading this.

What do you mean by that? I mean I get the point of your post, but why are you asking me to be careful? My political opinion is tightened, I don't think reading this book is gonna change the slightest thing about it. Quite the contrary in fact.

Trevis wrote:
What do you mean by that? I mean I get the point of your post, but why are you asking me to be careful? My political opinion is tightened, I don't think reading this book is gonna change the slightest thing about it. Quite the contrary in fact.

I have a friend in Austria, Thomas. Austria has a different kind of government. There are various parties who you can vote for to get seats in the parliament. There are two parties which are slightly to far right. Thomas is a liberal, no way he'd vote for one of those right-centered parties. He went to a speech of the head of the far right party, just to listen (just to understand, like you want to understand Hitler). He came out of it, thinking, that guy has a valid point. No lie. He knew what the guy was going to say before the speech, and was against it. He went to the speech, listened to this very eloquent, intelligent politician (smart but sadly standing up for the wrong thing) and was basically brain-washed. He didn't vote him because he knew he was against it, but after that speech, he understood why this party got so many votes (they entered the parliament; yes, a right party entered the parliament in Austria (emphasized because Austria did suffer actively from national socialism) in 2008, so last year).

I did not say you'd start believing in what Hitler stood for if you read this book. I read it and I'm not a neo-nazi. I don't blame you for "wanting to understand" because it really is not quite apprehensible how this could've happened. I'm just saying that, being honest, you don't want to understand.

Amy wrote:
I did not say you'd start believing in what Hitler stood for if you read this book. I read it and I'm not a neo-nazi. I don't blame you for "wanting to understand" because it really is not quite apprehensible how this could've happened. I'm just saying that, being honest, you don't want to understand.

You're contradicting yourself. And confusing me. Please put this in terms I understand

MrMorgan wrote:
1.) Being french doesn't certify your standpoint, not every german is a nazi either. By far not every german. What your country's government did back in history does not say anything about your own views. There are neo-nazi skinheads in Poland, I'm pretty sure.

That's not what I was implying; there are neo-nazis in France, too, I suppose; I mentioned the allied forces thing in order to state my standpoint, not to imply that every french national was in favour of the allied forces. The french are very patriotic; hence my assumption that the majority of french nationals is in favour of what our country did back in WW2. In addition, comparing what the Allied Forces did to what the Nazis did is pretty much ridiculous because neither France nor England locked people up in gas chambers for example. Whole different story.

MrMorgan wrote:2.) Censorship in general is not a violation of personal freedom unless it goes as far as the censorship back in the Third Reich went, or for example the censorship in China right now; you don't complain about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre being rated R, do you? That's censorship as well.

It's not the same thing. I'm twenty, thus old enough to watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. When I was sixteen, I wasn't allowed to watch it. It is censorship, but with an "expiration date" so to speak, thus not the same.

MrMorgan wrote:3.) Mein Kampf is not "forbidden" in this sense of the word, it's forbidden to re-print it. Whoever owns an original copy will not be prosecuted. And why would they? The satanic bible would have to be forbidden, and I know quite some people who read that book.

The satanic bible is fiction (just like the christian bible by the way). Mein Kampf is anything but fiction. There's a huge difference between those two.

MrMorgan wrote:And honestly - 4.) - with all the school-shootings and terror attacks going on, I'm starting to understand why the government is trying to keep stupid teenagers from reading stuff they are not yet able to understand.

This I agree with; and refer back to my point about the "censorship with an expiration date". Do you understand my point?

PatrickMiller wrote:That's not what I was implying; there are neo-nazis in France, too, I suppose; I mentioned the allied forces thing in order to state my standpoint, not to imply that every french national was in favour of the allied forces. The french are very patriotic; hence my assumption that the majority of french nationals is in favour of what our country did back in WW2. In addition, comparing what the Allied Forces did to what the Nazis did is pretty much ridiculous because neither France nor England locked people up in gas chambers for example. Whole different story.

1.) I get it, thanks.

2.) I know that you can't compare the Allied Forces to the Nazis, fact is, however, they all fought a war. And supporting a war, for whatever cause, is - in my opinion & no offense - wrong.

PatrickMiller wrote:
It's not the same thing. I'm twenty, thus old enough to watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. When I was sixteen, I wasn't allowed to watch it. It is censorship, but with an "expiration date" so to speak, thus not the same.

It isn't forbidden to own Mein Kampf. It's not us citizens who "suffer" from this censorship. It's forbidden to re-print it, like I said before. I know it's not the same thing, but assuming it's forbidden to own Mein Kampf is just plain wrong.

PatrickMiller wrote:
The satanic bible is fiction (just like the christian bible by the way). Mein Kampf is anything but fiction. There's a huge difference between those two.

I admit, the satanic bible is a bad example, I'll say... a book supporting cannibalism. Fiction or non-fiction isn't relevant, both books' contents are criminally liable. So I beg to differ; there's no difference.

PatrickMiller wrote:
This I agree with; an refer back to my point about the "censorship with an expiration date": Do you understand my point?

I understand your way of thinking but in my opinion it's still wrong.

You guys do know that you're all completely off topic right?

Trevis wrote:You're contradicting yourself. And confusing me. Please put this in terms I understand

I'm not contradicting myself, I said I don't blame you for wanting to understand, because that what I thought before I read the book. My example about the Austrian government referred directly to my warning. I know you think you want to understand, but I'm telling you, you don't. You don't want to close this book and think, hold on man, I get it. You know?

PatrickMiller wrote:The satanic bible is fiction (just like the christian bible by the way)

Don't you think it's slightly pretentious to assume the christian bible is fiction?

Beth wrote:You guys do know that you're all completely off topic right?

I do. And after this discussion has settled I'll move the posts to a different thread.

MrMorgan wrote:
1.) I get it, thanks.

2.) I know that you can't compare the Allied Forces to the Nazis, fact is, however, they all fought a war. And supporting a war, for whatever cause, is - in my opinion & no offense - wrong.

1.) Sarcasm radar says undeterminable. Enlighten me?

2.) The Allied Forces fought in this war to end it. I know that sounds a bit contradictive but honestly, what else could they have done? Sit on their porches and laugh at the douches who die in war? I don't think so.

MrMorgan wrote:
It isn't forbidden to own Mein Kampf. It's not us citizens who "suffer" from this censorship. It's forbidden to re-print it, like I said before. I know it's not the same thing, but assuming it's forbidden to own Mein Kampf is just plain wrong.

I surrender.

MrMorgan wrote:
I admit, the satanic bible is a bad example, I'll say... a book supporting cannibalism. Fiction or non-fiction isn't relevant, both books' contents are criminally liable. So I beg to differ; there's no difference.

The fact that fiction is, in fact, criminally liable is exactly what my initial point was. When a government starts censoring fiction for all ages, it gets kinda creepy.

MrMorgan wrote:
I understand your way of thinking but in my opinion it's still wrong.

Let's just agree to disagree?

Mike wrote:
Don't you think it's slightly pretentious to assume the christian bible is fiction?

Not a bit pretentious, no.

PatrickMiller wrote:The Allied Forces fought in this war to end it. I know that sounds a bit contradictive but honestly, what else could they have done? Sit on their porches and laugh at the douches who die in war? I don't think so.

Ever heard of the words compromise and factual discussion?

Amy wrote:
I'm not contradicting myself, I said I don't blame you for wanting to understand, because that what I thought before I read the book. My example about the Austrian government referred directly to my warning. I know you think you want to understand, but I'm telling you, you don't. You don't want to close this book and think, hold on man, I get it. You know?

Okay I get your point but really that's the reason why I wanna read it. I want to understand, and my understanding does not make me a neo-nazi. I'm not that easily influenceable. And I don't think you are, either.

PatrickMiller wrote:Not a bit pretentious, no.

What makes you think it's fiction? How can it be complete fiction?

PatrickMiller wrote:
1.) Sarcasm radar says undeterminable. Enlighten me?

2.) The Allied Forces fought in this war to end it. I know that sounds a bit contradictive but honestly, what else could they have done? Sit on their porches and laugh at the douches who die in war? I don't think so.

1.) No sarcasm, I get your point.

2.) That's not what I meant. I know that the Allied Forces fought this war to end the actual war. I didn't say that was wrong, I said supporting any kind of war is wrong.

PatrickMiller wrote:
The fact that fiction is, in fact, criminally liable is exactly what my initial point was. When a government starts censoring fiction for all ages, it gets kinda creepy.

You have to be careful nowadays. People become dumber and dumber and the more impulsions they get, the more they'll think they're able to do. What do you think moved the school-shooters to go ahead and mow down their fellow students and their teachers? They didn't wake up one morning and knew: These guys deserve to die. Some people nowadays aren't born with the same brain the rest of mankind was born with, apparently.

PatrickMiller wrote:
Let's just agree to disagree?

Yeah, let's just do that.

Trevis wrote:
Okay I get your point but really that's the reason why I wanna read it. I want to understand, and my understanding does not make me a neo-nazi. I'm not that easily influenceable. And I don't think you are, either.

Trevis. I never said you'd be a neo-nazi after reading this. I said you won't want to admit to yourself that you understand why Hitler acted the way he did. Believe me, you don't.

Candy-Mae wrote:
Ever heard of the words compromise and factual discussion?

Honey, we're talking about men here.

Candy-Mae wrote:
Ever heard of the words compromise and factual discussion?

That made me laugh.

Mike wrote:
What makes you think it's fiction? How can it be complete fiction?

Because:

o No man can walk on water.
o Virgin birth is physically impossible.
o Blind people don't just start to see because someone tells them to.
o You cannot feed 40 people with one loaf of bread and one fish.
o You cannot part an ocean with a stick.

Want some more? I've got lots.

MrMorgan wrote:
2.) That's not what I meant. I know that the Allied Forces fought this war to end the actual war. I didn't say that was wrong, I said supporting any kind of war is wrong.

Let's agree to disagree once again.

MrMorgan wrote:
You have to be careful nowadays. People become dumber and dumber and the more impulsions they get, the more they'll think they're able to do. What do you think moved the school-shooters to go ahead and mow down their fellow students and their teachers? They didn't wake up one morning and knew: These guys deserve to die. Some people nowadays aren't born with the same brain the rest of mankind was born with, apparently.

I watched movies, read books, heard stories with potentially criminally liable content and I never thought to myself, tomorrow I'll go to a public place and shoot twenty random people down. You have to have a predisposition for that. It's not nurture, it's nature.

Amy wrote:
Honey, we're talking about men here.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with men or women, Amy.

PatrickMiller wrote:That made me laugh.

Excuse me?

PatrickMiller wrote:
I watched movies, read books, heard stories with potentially criminally liable content and I never thought to myself, tomorrow I'll go to a public place and shoot twenty random people down. You have to have a predisposition for that. It's not nurture, it's nature.

It' not just nature. Of course, nature is the major reason, but without nurture, nature of this kind wouldn't even get to these people's heads. Deny that.