4 ms·

I guess at this point I should believe the points made in the documentary. The reaction to it speaks volumes.

by John23832 4y ago

pell 4y ago
Absolute Streisand-Effect here.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  Barbra Streisand faces an unclear tradeoff between publicizing the pictures of her home that already exist and encouraging the future taking of unwanted photographs of her home. Modi has much, much, much more reason to fear that tolerating one scandal-raising documentary will lead to further scandal-raising documentaries, and much less reason to believe that ignoring the problem he already has will make it go away. I don't think the Streisand Effect is a good analogy to try to draw here.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    The Streisand effect isn't about a 1:1 comparison of the two cases. It's just about calling attention to something few people would have noticed by being really heavy-handed in trying to take it down.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Is a BBC documentary about one of the world's most prominent politicians "something few people would have noticed"?
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        Yeah, I'd never heard of it until it was blocked on YouTube. It's totally on the map now.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        This makes as much sense as the infamous perspective "Nixon can't be president; nobody I know voted for him".
        wkat4242 4y ago
        I really think that outside of the UK very few people would have heard of it if it wasn't for all this.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
orlp 4y ago
"When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  Wow I’ve not heard this one before? Who said this? I love it.
- ninjin 4y ago
  Apparently George RR Martin, from A Clash of Kings. Edit: Apologies, should have been in response to the sibling, rather than the parent.
- JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
  This does not apply to Holocaust revisionism, before anyone even suggests it.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Sure it applies. In that case, there's just maybe some legitimate reason to fear it.
- handsclean 4y ago
  Imagine there’s an FBI raid on, or congressional investigation into, whatever American news outlet attacks your political beliefs, and I think you’ll find yourself believing not that the government must be scared of the truth, but that these guys didn’t deserve their tongues. It’s easy to stand outside a regime’s borders and say it can’t change your reality, and comforting to believe that the truth always comes out in the end, but I think reality is more harsh: “History is written by the winners.”
helsinkiandrew 4y ago
The likely reason that he isn't still barred from entry to the US is that he became India's prime minister: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-narendra-modi-was-banned-from-the-u-s-1399062010 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-narendra-modi-was-banned-fr... https://archive.ph/Kf95r https://archive.ph/Kf95r
bongoman37 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

I guess at this point I should believe the points made in the documentary. The reaction to it speaks volumes.

pell 4y ago

Absolute Streisand-Effect here.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
Barbra Streisand faces an unclear tradeoff between publicizing the pictures of her home that already exist and encouraging the future taking of unwanted photographs of her home. Modi has much, much, much more reason to fear that tolerating one scandal-raising documentary will lead to further scandal-raising documentaries, and much less reason to believe that ignoring the problem he already has will make it go away. I don't think the Streisand Effect is a good analogy to try to draw here.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  The Streisand effect isn't about a 1:1 comparison of the two cases. It's just about calling attention to something few people would have noticed by being really heavy-handed in trying to take it down.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    Is a BBC documentary about one of the world's most prominent politicians "something few people would have noticed"?
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      Yeah, I'd never heard of it until it was blocked on YouTube. It's totally on the map now.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        This makes as much sense as the infamous perspective "Nixon can't be president; nobody I know voted for him".
        wkat4242 4y ago
        I really think that outside of the UK very few people would have heard of it if it wasn't for all this.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

orlp 4y ago

"When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say."

philliphaydon 4y ago
Wow I’ve not heard this one before? Who said this? I love it.
ninjin 4y ago
Apparently George RR Martin, from A Clash of Kings. Edit: Apologies, should have been in response to the sibling, rather than the parent.
JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
This does not apply to Holocaust revisionism, before anyone even suggests it.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  Sure it applies. In that case, there's just maybe some legitimate reason to fear it.
handsclean 4y ago
Imagine there’s an FBI raid on, or congressional investigation into, whatever American news outlet attacks your political beliefs, and I think you’ll find yourself believing not that the government must be scared of the truth, but that these guys didn’t deserve their tongues. It’s easy to stand outside a regime’s borders and say it can’t change your reality, and comforting to believe that the truth always comes out in the end, but I think reality is more harsh: “History is written by the winners.”

helsinkiandrew 4y ago

The likely reason that he isn't still barred from entry to the US is that he became India's prime minister: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-narendra-modi-was-banned-from-the-u-s-1399062010 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-narendra-modi-was-banned-fr... https://archive.ph/Kf95r https://archive.ph/Kf95r

bongoman37 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]