5 ms·

The reason is the movie being titled "Beautiful Blue Eyes", we live in a time of pure insanity.

by Zealotux 4y ago

mynameishere 4y ago
- Timshel 4y ago
  Ironic ? per the article : "the film’s title, which refers to the eye color of a child who perished at the hands of the Nazis and invokes a key scene in the movie"
  - SamBam 4y ago
    That doesn't mean it's not ironic. It strains belief to suggest that the film makers weren't aware of Hitler's belief that being blond and blue-eyed was a mark of the "superior" Aryan race
    - job_suche 4y ago
      Seems to me that the author was just propagating "the blue eyes are so beautiful" sort of white standard of beauty, probably not intentionally, and it would be a minor thing, except in this case it just does not fit, imho, given the topic.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      ITT, both bigots and anti-racists pretending that they know someone's obvious intentions based on no information and with no attempt at research.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      Yes, and? Still not a reason to prevent advertising the movie on Facebook.
LegitShady 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAi78hluFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAi78hluFc
hatware 4y ago
[flagged]
- Hackbraten 4y ago
  German here. Not entirely sure what your comment is trying to convey. Germany doesn’t have that much of a free-speech history, at least compared to the US. So the fact that publicly denying or trivializing the holocaust has been illegal (since 1949, I figure) is not seen as dystopian at all. On the contrary, the ban is even widely accepted, and perceived as a good thing. Mind clarifying a bit as to what exactly you’re criticizing?
  - hatware 4y ago
    You can defend it all you want with "historical precedent," it's still quite dystopian whether or not conditioning for 70 years has any impact. My point is that any law against free speech probably has more sinister intentions than are presented. "Do you have any proof?" Read 1984 and try to understand how close laws against holocaust denial are to thought crimes. You really don't understand what part of the timeline we're in. Time is running out.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 20amxn20 4y ago
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      I suppose if your country has just perpetrated a genocide, one might have unusual moral responsibilities.
      - 20amxn20 4y ago
        [flagged]

The reason is the movie being titled "Beautiful Blue Eyes", we live in a time of pure insanity.

mynameishere 4y ago

Timshel 4y ago
Ironic ? per the article : "the film’s title, which refers to the eye color of a child who perished at the hands of the Nazis and invokes a key scene in the movie"
- SamBam 4y ago
  That doesn't mean it's not ironic. It strains belief to suggest that the film makers weren't aware of Hitler's belief that being blond and blue-eyed was a mark of the "superior" Aryan race
  - job_suche 4y ago
    Seems to me that the author was just propagating "the blue eyes are so beautiful" sort of white standard of beauty, probably not intentionally, and it would be a minor thing, except in this case it just does not fit, imho, given the topic.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    ITT, both bigots and anti-racists pretending that they know someone's obvious intentions based on no information and with no attempt at research.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Yes, and? Still not a reason to prevent advertising the movie on Facebook.

LegitShady 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAi78hluFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAi78hluFc

hatware 4y ago

[flagged]

Hackbraten 4y ago
German here. Not entirely sure what your comment is trying to convey. Germany doesn’t have that much of a free-speech history, at least compared to the US. So the fact that publicly denying or trivializing the holocaust has been illegal (since 1949, I figure) is not seen as dystopian at all. On the contrary, the ban is even widely accepted, and perceived as a good thing. Mind clarifying a bit as to what exactly you’re criticizing?
- hatware 4y ago
  You can defend it all you want with "historical precedent," it's still quite dystopian whether or not conditioning for 70 years has any impact. My point is that any law against free speech probably has more sinister intentions than are presented. "Do you have any proof?" Read 1984 and try to understand how close laws against holocaust denial are to thought crimes. You really don't understand what part of the timeline we're in. Time is running out.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 20amxn20 4y ago
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    I suppose if your country has just perpetrated a genocide, one might have unusual moral responsibilities.
    - 20amxn20 4y ago
      [flagged]