|
Post by Ed on Sept 11, 2004 12:00:28 GMT -5
About the Film ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brainwashing 101 is a provocative short film showing how universities use tools such as "speech codes" to force political views upon students. In this cutting exposé, documentary filmmakers Maloney, Browning and Greenberg shine a light on political correctness, academic bias, student censorship--even administrative cover-ups of death threats--at three schools: Bucknell University, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). View it here: academicbias.com/bw101.html
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 12, 2004 18:18:33 GMT -5
A great film which only confirms what many of us already knew! Present, did you see the film? Robb
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Sept 13, 2004 12:04:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 13, 2004 14:34:25 GMT -5
A great film which only confirms what many of us already knew! Present, did you see the film? Robb I did see the film and will watch it again as soon as I have time. What I question most is the lack of reaction from you regarding the distortion of the facts in this. Given your reaction to the MM film it seems like you have two different standards for judging films - one if the content supports your views and another if it does not. As just a single example - Early in the film there were several mentions of various places preventing the display of the American flag and that was cited as some plot to surpress something. A closer look at some of the events showed that there was an ordinance passed that prohibited the display of banners of any type. Certainly there were some professors quoted but the context of the quotes was not in place so the whole meaning was as much in question as the out of context quotes in MM's film were. There is no doubt in my mind that some professors, as well as people in general,do have the feelings depicted in the film. The choice of Bucknell was an interesting as well. Look here: bucknellbias.info/People who choose this school do so for a reason. My child looked in, and walked in less than 10 minutes. If you choose a school you should look at its agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 13, 2004 18:17:32 GMT -5
Thanks for your feedback Present.
Interesting that you bring up MM again. I don't know much about the feller who did this film so I can't comment on his credibilty. I am very familiar with MM who grew up in my hometown and I have been able to observe his hypocracy first hand. I see that MM is intentionally deceptive in his films, having first hand knowledge about some of the people in his "Roger and Me" film. Do you suspect the same intentional deception by the guy who did this film?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 14, 2004 8:26:46 GMT -5
Thanks for your feedback Present. Interesting that you bring up MM again. I only mentioned MM because we were talking about films and the MM film had been widely denounced as trash and not worth watching and this film was mentioned as telling the facts that some people already knew. I found in both cases that the film makers presented what were know facts but distorted the meaning and reasons behind them to further their own personal adgenda. I do not know either of the film makers personally so cannot comment on their credibility but rather only on the content of their films. While it is true that MM's film was a much broader subject and reached a much larger audience, a distortion is a distortion. Whether you look at Bush sitting in a classroom listening to children's books and say he was stunned like a deer in the headlights or if you cite times when someone violated the law in hanging a banner and say they were prevented from displaying an American flag to further someone's agenda it is a personal interpretation of actual events that have been viewed in a false light. I do not know if he looked into the events he cited but if he did not he should have. The intentions of both film makers was to present their point of view and potentially sway other to believe as they do. You looked at the film and saw it as a confirmation, as you said, "A great film which only confirms what many of us already knew!" People who agreed with MM said the same thing about F9/11. It is difficult to look at what people present with the same critical eye no matter if we agree with the points being presented or if we do not. Someone did a study and posted a reference to a site that pointed out the intellegence of the various presidents. The reaction from both sides of the spectrum was interesting. If I can locate the site I will post the url and it will confirm what many or us alreay know!
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Sept 14, 2004 11:30:02 GMT -5
Present, How's the koolaid? Bryan
|
|
|
Post by What on Sept 14, 2004 11:41:03 GMT -5
Present, How's the koolaid? ;) Bryan Does anyone have any idea what this means???? Brian?? Present???
|
|
|
Post by Maybe on Sept 14, 2004 15:58:02 GMT -5
Brian is thinking about the film National Lampoon's Vacation and the scene where the little girl is mixing the Koolaid with her arm and hand. Maybe Brian and Present traveled together and it is an inside joke.
|
|
|
Post by More likely this on Sept 14, 2004 17:46:52 GMT -5
Does anyone have any idea what this means? Brian?? Present??? The "koolaid" cult leader Jim Jone's followers drank.
|
|
Must be the brainwashing
Guest
|
Post by Must be the brainwashing on Sept 14, 2004 19:52:26 GMT -5
The "koolaid" cult leader Jim Jone's followers drank. I have read all the posts and there is no mention of Jones. were either bryan or present members of that cult? i can't see any way anything relates to drinking koolaid. maybe i am just to tired to work it out. can anyone make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 15, 2004 12:07:27 GMT -5
I have read all the posts and there is no mention of Jones. were either bryan or present members of that cult? i can't see any way anything relates to drinking koolaid. maybe i am just to tired to work it out. can anyone make any sense? I have no idea what Bryan is talking about. Perhaps he is hinting at the idea that I am in a cult and following that group without question. Maybe it is because I pointed out that the short film in question contained distortions of the facts just as other films that Bryan has spoken out against and he thinks I should drink the Kool-aid as they did in Jonestown. Or it might be in reference to that hot day when Bryan and I filled up the bathtub with cool water and added the Kool-aid before taking off . . . but I digress. I guess Bryan will have to solve the mystery.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Sept 15, 2004 16:08:11 GMT -5
I downloaded and watched about 17 minutes of the film before I stopped it in order to work on school work. I must say that although some of it may happen, I have never heard through anybody any of that happening at the Univeristy I go to (UW-Madison www.wisc.edu/). I also didn't see it at UW-River Falls ( www.uwrf.edu/), nor at Madison Area Tech. College ( www.matcmadison.edu/). I plan on watching the rest of the "documentary" later this week when I have time. I expect it will be quite humorous. andy
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Sept 15, 2004 16:32:31 GMT -5
Maybe it is because I pointed out that the short film in question contained distortions of the facts Could you point those out again because to me it just seem like you guessed at what could be distortions.... Please be specific in the distorted facts found in the movie...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 16, 2004 0:25:31 GMT -5
Could you point those out again because to me it just seem like you guessed at what could be distortions.... Please be specific in the distorted facts found in the movie... No, Bryan, not guessing. Also not to lazy to actually do the research for myself rather than just sitting sipping the kool-aid and requesting that others do the legwork. Starting right after the introduction here are the clear distortions from the first 5 claims made: Richard Berthold hnn.us/articles/1121.htmlThis was not a plot from the university nor was it accurate. It was a sound bite lifted out of context. ==================================== Nicholas DeGenova Anti-war comments taken completely out of context The stand Nicholas takes is not been supported by Colombia University other than to support his right of free speech. The comments were not even part of a class. It did not represent the views of the Colombia University. ==================================== An official at Lehigh University did initially order American flags removed from its buses as of September 14th. Lehigh University reviewed the order and did withdraw it. Attributing the acts made officials of a university as if they were completely supported by the university in an attempt to "brainwash" students is a distortion. Many states have long prohibited the display of flags in school buses for a number of reasons that have more to do with safety than with anything else. Following 9/11 the Oregon education department even issued a memo reminding school superintendents that under state law, "school buses may not display flags." =============================== Regarding Central Michigan University: The dorm director, Al Nowak, denies ordering any flags taken down, but acknowledges censoring the other "offensive" material. The student government condemned the action, but John Fisher of the university's Facilities Management office reaffirmed the policy in a letter to dorm administrators: "It is our contention that profanity, vulgarity and other items that make people in our community, or visitors, feel uncomfortable is inappropriate and unnecessary. We will continue to espouse these values as well as to manage our residence hall communities in this fashion." ======================================= In Arizona a student had posted the large flag after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. But officials removed the flag because, according to the State Press, "they knew it was against university policy to hang anything without permission," and for, "concerns for the feelings of international students on campus." Students sponsored a student government resolution to hang the flag back up and to condemn the officials who removed it. The vote was 9 in favor, 6 against, and 6 abstaining. Their bylaws states that abstaining votes are to be added to the nay votes. The resolution was defeated. In the end, the dispute was resolved and the flag was displayed. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As I mentioned above, the facts, like those in the MM film, are substantially correct. But the reasoning behind the events are distorted. In Michagan and Arizona the display of American flags was not denied for any reason other than there were pre-existing rules regarding their display. It was in no way a plot to brainwash the student population. The comments made by the professors were either taken out of context or were presented as being somehow supported by the Universities. In the case of the professor from Colombia the University was very much against the views of the professor but did support his right to free speech. My initial comment stands. There are distortions in this film. Just keep sipping the kool-aid Bryan.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Sept 16, 2004 0:58:20 GMT -5
To be totally honest I may strongly disagree with you but I don’t have the patience, time, or energy to reply in full to a conversation I am not 110% passionate about… And so you “win” this argument based on my indifference to the subject when it reaches a certain point… Does this make sense? I'm sure there are subjects you would feel the same about...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 16, 2004 13:22:17 GMT -5
To be totally honest I may strongly disagree with you but I don’t have the patience, time, or energy to reply in full to a conversation I am not 110% passionate about… OK In re-reading the thread, that point seemed to come when the distortions you questioned had been pointed out. It isn't a matter of winning or losing but a matter of presenting the facts that support a belief. The facts that support the belief are there whether you are indifferent or not. Yes, it does. Perhaps, but if I enter into a discussion I am usually interested in it enough to hang on to the bitter end!
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Sept 16, 2004 14:57:36 GMT -5
. . . .Perhaps, but if I enter into a discussion I am usually interested in it enough to hang on to the bitter end! Errr, "interested" or "stubborn"? It's all a matter of perspective! ;D inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 16, 2004 16:36:30 GMT -5
Errr, "interested" or "stubborn"? It's all a matter of perspective! ;D inatent I stubbornly refuse to engage in discussions that may highlight some of my less appealing characteristics (as if there are any that are appealing!).
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Sept 16, 2004 20:08:20 GMT -5
I stubbornly refuse to engage in discussions that may highlight some of my less appealing characteristics (as if there are any that are appealing!). Ah, your extreme humility, if genuine, cancels my skepticism. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 25, 2004 20:48:13 GMT -5
Of course.
Of course.
etc.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 28, 2004 7:46:43 GMT -5
In the limited number of Jerry Springer Shows that I have watched I was struck by the number of people who responded to the others on the show by shouting "Whatever" as the response to any and all comments made. I quickly realized that the reason for the response was because they felt the need to respond but did not have the knowledge or ability to formulate any other answer. It is disheartening to see this board sink to the same level.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 28, 2004 19:58:14 GMT -5
And with such broad perspective, from a Jerry Springer audience no less, you assume all "whatevers" will fit in the same category. It appeared to me you threw the baby out with the bath water. You found a couple statements disagreeing with certain segments of the documentary and then seemingly dismissed the rest. The funny thing is, you would defend MM's almost indefensible documentary until fingers bloodied. Ed "Men [and women ] occasionally stumble across truth, but they pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened." --Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 29, 2004 7:58:25 GMT -5
And with such broad perspective, from a Jerry Springer audience no less, you assume all "whatevers" will fit in the same category. Perhaps I did misjudge and will be proved wrong. So far, in this case, I do not see anything that would refute my original statement. No baby, no bath, no water. I do not believe that I have ever defended the MM film other than to say that the majority of the facts are correct but the meaning behind them at times was distorted to make MM's point. My purpose in posting the two points above was as examples to point out that the same technique was being used in this 'film'. Fact - people were prevented from flying an American flag. Stated reason - Anti-American brainwashing by Universities. Actual reason - the hanging any type of banner was prohibited. In the second example the action was by a few individuals who worked for the university and who's actions were overturned as soon as the administration learned of the event. It was not the university trying to brainwash the students as was presented. Regarding the professors who spoke out and were mentioned - professors have the right to their opinions and the suggestion that the the university admiistration should somehow control of censor them seems to fly in the fsce of freedom. Students may go into universities where they hear ideas that conflict with their own. Would you really want it any other way?
|
|