Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Instead of me trying to dissect your abstract meanings of truth and lies, how about you define these terms concretely, first. Otherwise it's confusion for everyone.

I was kind of trying to bait this a little bit with my strawman. Pat refused to bite

 

[Einherjar86]

That would suck for Passolini as he would have died in vain since he was assassinated for what he was trying to "say" with Salo.

No, he was assassinated for what somewhat perceived in Salo. All death is in vain for the deceased subject.

I think we are talking about different themes in a film, let me see if i'm smart enough to portray my thoughts properly haha

I don't agree with Dak, and most people who say this film incourages torture, but even then, wasn't torture allowed in the early Bush administration? Or does my memory suck? Either way..that's not a theme I would get from that film, and I wouldn't even say it has a theme..it's just a go-USA-movie for Americans.

Django, from what I saw, did not encourage racism and if you would even call Tarantino that, you could go to Pulp Fiction where he goes and says my pals like 5 times when the Wolf comes over to get that car cleaned.

But Lincoln, a film where historians have the best possible knowledge to this day, have improperly portrayed him as a black-saviour(but it's so hard to say this, I have not seen this film but let's just argue this point) and that just isn't true, from civil war historians have said he was not, and most of it was political to gain an advantage in the war.

I don't think anyone would condone Lincoln as a movie that will help you pass your undergraduate 19-century American History final; but again, that doesn't immediately mean it's a lie. It is a framed representation that specifically leaves out certain details; and how could it possibly include everything? This obsession that some posters on this forum have with the negative side of history (we might say it's all negative) is fine, but the condemnation of films that choose to edit out certain details as "lies" is absurd. No one is actively being lied to, that's the whole point.

Even the trailer for Lincoln contains an outrageous lie. The "trailer" for the movie Lincoln based on a book by the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin. It's probably less than a minute long, but it contained these words, spoken to Abe, by his wife: "You are beloved by all the people more than anyone else in history." Contrast this with the writings of historian Larry Tagg, author of The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America's Most Reviled President (with an endorsement by Lincoln cultist Harold Holzer on the back cover) published just a few years ago:
"The violence of the criticism aimed at Lincoln by the great men of his time on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line is startling. The breadth and depth of the spectacular prejudice against him is often shocking for its cruelty, intensity, and unrelenting vigor. The plain truth is that Mr. Lincoln was deeply reviled by many who knew him personally, and by hundreds of thousands who only knew of him."
Larry Tagg documents how the New York Times editorialized in May of 1864 that Lincoln had been justifiably labeled as "a perjurer, a usurper, a tyrant, a subverter of the Constitution, a destroyer of the liberties of his country, a reckless desperado, a heartless trifler . . ." and intoned that there is no place in hell "that is full enough of torment to expiate his iniquities."

Let me ask you something: who spoke that line? His wife, right; Mary Todd Lincoln? A character in the movie. How is that a lie? It is one opinion of a character depicted within the film itself; maybe she genuinely believed he was beloved; maybe she convinced herself of that. She wasn't entirely mentally stable. Hell, maybe she knows it isn't the truth and is simply trying to make her husband feel better; maybe she actually is "lying" to him (*gasp!*). To then extend this and say that "the film is a lie" is an absurd and logically fallible conclusion. The film is not telling its audience that Lincoln was loved by all, and if certain people see it that way then they're not properly thinking about who exactly is speaking that line and how it operates. There's no truth that is revealed or concealed here; it's merely one flawed character purportedly speaking to another...

Instead of me trying to dissect your abstract meanings of truth and lies, how about you define these terms concretely, first. Otherwise it's confusion for everyone.

Truth is inhuman; there's nothing we can do to "make" a truth (I'm still waiting for Alain Badiou to convince me otherwise). It simply is; an actual state of things.

A lie is intentional and deceptive; that's its definition. Now, applying intentionality to something as multi-layered and communal as a film is an exercise in futility. You'll never succeed. So who can we really say is "lying"?

There are some extreme post-structuralists who would claim that by this definition everything we say is a lie, since words can never achieve the actual state of the thing they're supposedly representing...

If all else fails, use the OED. Then ask yourself a question: do you think a film is talking to you?

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I was kind of trying to bait this a little bit with my strawman. Pat refused to bite

Was a good try though.

 

[Dak]

Can we not say something is a lie without there being a liar?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see how.

EDIT: might I also add that I feel there are two analogous debates going on in two threads. In the "Gun Debate" thread, people argue whether or not guns can shoot people on their own; meanwhile, over here, we discuss whether or not films talk to people on their own.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

No, he was assassinated for what somewhat perceived in Salo. All death is in vain for the deceased subject.

That's a fair point. I'll concede you that one.

Truth is inhuman; there's nothing we can do to "make" a truth (I'm still waiting for Alain Badiou to convince me otherwise). It simply is; an actual state of things.

A lie is intentional and deceptive; that's its definition. Now, applying intentionality to something as multi-layered and communal as a film is an exercise in futility. You'll never succeed. So who can we really say is "lying"?

So, by your quasi-definitions, humans cannot prove anything to be true and there can be no such thing as propaganda. That's a pretty frightening and depressing place to be.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, all I said is that humans cannot "make" truths. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'd suggest that instead of viewing a film as a "lie" (something evaluatively negative and condemnatory), we try and see how it unconsciously reflects certain socio-cultural, ideological, or hegemonic "truths." For instance, it is a truth that racism still exists; but this does not mean we need to go after specific individuals, or actors, and try and convince them of their ignorance. This is where the film American History X is hopelessly idealistic. No one is arresting Quentin Tarantino for a hate crime (although, who knows, someone might try to assassinate him someday... although I doubt it).

What we can do is analyze and criticize the texts that our culture creates and propagates; not as lies, but merely as reflections of how we already behave. Socio-political and economic views aren't changed on a one-on-one basis. Obama isn't going to eradicate homophobia by convincing people that it's wrong (which is why I'm terrified by some of the people so obsessed with him as a kind of cult leader). The only way views and "truths" like that are altered is through careful, methodical criticism. There are no lies being told here; we're merely gradually altering our perspective of the world.

 

[Dak]

EDIT: might I also add that I feel there are two analogous debates going on in two threads. In the "Gun Debate" thread, people argue whether or not guns can shoot people on their own; meanwhile, over here, we discuss whether or not films talk to people on their own.

I think there is a difference in the context though. For example: A film inherently places a value judgment since it is limited by possible perspectives. Viewers further interpret this value judgment with more value judgments.

Regarding guns and The Civil War would be the value judgement implicit in the discussion. Some would see the use of guns by the North or South as "good", some would see it as "bad" and some might be more or less "neutral". This doesn't change the fact that guns were used to kill. We place value judgments on those uses.

Directors do have a personal vision for their work, just as an armed person has a target when he/she uses the weapon. Whether the aim is accurate, or the desired target is achieved/impacted is dependent on much more than intent. This doesn't change the fact of the intent, even if we concede that we can't always be completely sure of the intent .IE, a guy sets up a target as if for practice, fires at it but misses and hits someone else off in the distance. With only that information we couldn't be sure of intent. Maybe a guy hammering nails into a deck, who loses his grip on the upswing and it hits his coworker. We might just assume it was an accident with that information, but maybe for some reason the carpenter wanted it to appear accidental. Etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think I've said all I want to on this, but I would just conclude by noting that even if we admit that somehow a director's intention might be "contained" (whatever that means) in a film, we still can't call it a lie since we aren't entirely sure what it's even supposed to be telling us.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

EDIT: might I also add that I feel there are two analogous debates going on in two threads. In the "Gun Debate" thread, people argue whether or not guns can shoot people on their own; meanwhile, over here, we discuss whether or not films talk to people on their own.

Well personally I learn visually more than audibly; so the film would be "showing" to me by your analogy. It's a fallacious analogy that you're making comparing films to guns. I can ignore or tune out a film for one thing, not to mention spot flaws and propaganda. I find myself without much luxury with a gun. By itself, a gun is a pretty boring thing and certainly can't engage me mentally or emotionally. And it isn't even an argument if a gun can shoot someone on its own; of course it can't. And films? C'mon. Do I need to state the obvious? It's a two-way street.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

What we can do is analyze and criticize the texts that our culture creates and propagates; not as lies, but merely as reflections of how we already behave. Socio-political and economic views aren't changed on a one-on-one basis. Obama isn't going to eradicate homophobia by convincing people that it's wrong (which is why I'm terrified by some of the people so obsessed with him as a kind of cult leader). The only way views and "truths" like that are altered is through careful, methodical criticism. There are no lies being told here; we're merely gradually altering our perspective of the world.

That's not the correct way to go about this at all. The problem is culture itself, which is based almost entirely on lies.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

And since you're not gonna read it, I'm going to post this article for others to peruse.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Thomas J. DiLorenzo[/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Why the Totalitarians Among Us Love Lincoln[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Armies of scholars, meticulously investigating every aspect of [Lincoln’s] life, have failed to find a single act of racial bigotry on his part."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Doris Kearns-Goodwin, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743270754?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0743270754&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell"]Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of [/ame][/FONT][ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743270754?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0743270754&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell"][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abraham Lincoln[/FONT][/ame][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif], p. 207.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . . I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Abraham Lincoln, First Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Ottawa, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858, in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/143447710X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=143447710X&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell"]The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln[/ame] vol.3, pp. 145-146.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Steven Spielberg’s new movie, Lincoln, is said to be based on several chapters of the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who was a consultant to Spielberg. The main theme of the movie is how clever, manipulative, conniving, scheming, lying, and underhanded Lincoln supposedly was in using his "political skills" to get the Thirteenth Amendment that legally ended slavery through the U.S. House of Representatives in the last months of his life. This entire story is what Lerone Bennett, Jr. the longtime executive editor of Ebony magazine and author of [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874850851?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0874850851&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell"]Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream[/ame], calls a "pleasant fiction." It never happened. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip . . ."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln’s actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment "if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene" (emphasis added). "One New Jersey Democrat," writes David Donald, "well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change" (emphasis added). Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, in complete contradiction of the writings of the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Steven Spielberg’s movie (See my review of Goodwin’s book, entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Lincoln’s First Thirteenth Amendment Gambit[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There is no evidence that Lincoln provided any significant assistance in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives in 1865, but there is evidence of his effectiveness in getting an earlier Thirteenth Amendment through the House and the Senate in 1861. This proposed amendment was known as the "Corwin Amendment," named after Ohio Republican Congressman Thomas Corwin. It had passed both the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-dominated U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, and was sent to the states for ratification by Lincoln himself. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It read as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Person held to service" is how the Constitutional Convention referred to slaves, and "domestic institutions" referred to slavery. Lincoln announced to the world that he endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" (emphasis added).[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Believing that slavery was already constitutional, Lincoln had "no objection" to enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution on the day that he took office. He then sent a letter to the governor of each state transmitting the approved amendment for what he hoped would be ratification and noting that his predecessor, President James Buchanan, had also endorsed it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Lincoln played a much larger role in getting this first Thirteenth Amendment through Congress than merely endorsing it in his first inaugural address and in his letter to the governors. Even Doris Kearns-Goodwin knows this! On page 296 of Team of Rivals she explained how it was Lincoln who, after being elected but before the inauguration, instructed New York Senator William Seward, who would become his secretary of state, to get the amendment through the U.S. Senate. He also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some of the Northern states that were used by those states to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln strongly supported. (The Fugitive Slave Act forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to their owners).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] As Goodwin writes: "He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield [Illinois]. The first resolved that ‘the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.’" The second proposal was that "All state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] So, go and see Spielberg’s Lincoln movie if you must, but keep in mind that it is just another left-wing Hollywood fantasy.[/FONT]

 

[Dak]

I think that might be a deeper subject. What is culture? I think we all make so many assumptions about what culture itself is, what our cultures are, that it would take a lifetime to undo the knot.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

As Stefan Molyneux would say, "You have to take the CULT out of CULTure." :Spin:

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Also

 

[Dak]

Putting the Play back in Playgrounds

As a parent and former child, I found this interesting.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

"If stealing 100% of the product of someone’s labor is slavery, at what percentage is it not slavery?"


Thoughts?

 

[Dak]

Stealing any portion of a persons time and/or labor is slavery, even if only portional.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Yes. 0%.

 

[Einherjar86]

If a thief steals a flat-screen television while its owners are out of the house, has the thief achieved a position of "mastery" over the "enslaved" owners?

I'm not sure I would classify the relationship in that way.