"Im your man" producer in anti-semitism outburst.

News about Leonard Cohen and his work, press, radio & TV programs etc.
Steven
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:32 am

Post by Steven »

Mel Gibson is a pitiful, troubled man. He needs healing. At the same
time, the hateful sentiment that spewed from his drunken mouth
shouldn't be countenanced in any way. To escape the "sins of the
fathers" for him or anyone else requires a real willingness to
step into some frightening territory and, in this case, Mel Gibson has
to have a compelling desire to do so and a brave enough heart
to get it done.
User avatar
Kush
Posts: 3202
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:21 am
Location: USA

Post by Kush »

I really liked Passion of the Christ although the gore was overdone IMO. And I have been really looking forward to 'Apocalypto' - with all dialogue in an ancient Mayan tongue. Hopefully this business won't affect its release.
Red Poppy
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:30 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by Red Poppy »

I'm completely lost here Bee. On the one hand you write:

...so, in conclusion, Mel was right, wasn't he?, the Jews were responsible for the wars!

Surely the Israelis are partly responsible for the wars - not the Jews per se. That's like saying the Irish as a race were responsible for the morder and mayhem of the IRA - simply not true.

And later you say:
Leonard Cohen, who pretends to be Zen Buddhist, while his own people are being slaughtered like sacrificial lambs in the religious wars of Muslim dominance.

So it seems you also think the Jews are not totally responsible for the wars, the Muslims are in there too.

I'm confused and so, I think , are you!
Cohendrix
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:15 am

Gibson

Post by Cohendrix »

There's no defending anti-Semitic (or other ethnic) slurs, but throwing tomatoes at Mel Gibson and turning him into the abjected shit will do nothing to address where his foolish remarks came from. I don't believe he's an anti-Semite, but I believe on some cognitive level he's carrying (at least some) Jews as an "other" of some essence that he doesn't identify with. Blaming some "universal" group called "Jews" for all wars is indefensible, but note that Gibson's idiotic utterance contains within it a desire for peace--not so idiotic. Remember: the problem is his essentialist thinking about an ethnic group, not his own evil or anti-Semitic "essence." Let's not make ourselves guilty of the same sin Gibson is guilty of.

Gibson was unfairly branded an anti-Semite for the _Passion_. The Jews in the Passion did not represent all Jews any more than any select group of Jewish individuals could. As in the New Testament, there was a particular group of individuals referred to as "the Jews" (not necessarily a universalizing term) that wanted the so-called "King of the Jews" dead. Gibson's movie was not the anti-Semitic thing. Some people's universalizing interpretation of those characters is what is anti-Semitic. If Gibson's father's Holocaust-minimizing and bad attitude toward Jewish people did affect the younger Gibson growing up, the public humiliation the younger Gibson faced for making a movie about his family's faith probably did little to ameliorate those ill effects. Let's address Gibson's cognitive errors. Let's help him become a more thinking man. Let's not replicate his errors while we puff ourselves up with indignation. Let's help him get sober and smarter.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
Steven
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:32 am

Re: Gibson

Post by Steven »

Cohendrix,

Passionate (no pun) hatred is not a "cognitive" deficiency. Some very
intelligent, educated and worldly folks are extreme haters.
Were that those traits would accompany wisdom, caring and
well-being.
Cohendrix
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:15 am

Close acquaintance of Mr. Gibson, are you?

Post by Cohendrix »

Steven: I don't know Mel Gibson. Neither do you, I suspect. I have no idea if he has a "passionate hatred" toward anyone. I do know he made an indefensible generalization about an ethnic group while he was inebriated.

I don't believe that such stereotypes hold up when a person is given the tools to analyze them, if they so choose to apply those tools. I prefer to assume that Gibson is not essentially good or bad, but, rather, is capable of both good and bad deeds, like all of us. This way of thinking allows time for all the facts to come in and prevents a torch-bearing mob's rush to judgment. Certain words, such as "anti-Semite" and "passionate hatred," are too powerful to throw around without careful consideration. Mel Gibson is no klansman or skinhead. I have no reason to believe he would murder anyone or call for their murder. Let's address his cognitive error not his alleged "passionate hatred." That he has interpreted the world poorly, we can establish. That he is essentially hateful, we cannot.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
Steven
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:32 am

Re: Close acquaintance of Mr. Gibson, are you?

Post by Steven »

Cohendrix,

I applaud your unwillingness to have a rush to judgement. My
evaluation of Mel Gibson was partly the result of patterns observed
in watching interviews of him, reading the transcript, knowing
of his self-admitted problems of substance abuse and other mental
health issues and the real conflicting forces that would be present
in a person attempting to reconcile an upbringing by and loyalty to a father
(who has extremist, yes, hateful views) that clash with later
learnings and experiences. And I agree with you,
he's "no klansman," hence the conflict, painful for him, no
doubt. Most people are a mix of qualities. Within him, though,
would be a rather volatile presence of vitriole, considering his dad
(and Gibson's unwillingness to even distance himself from
positions of his father or to disavow them). So, what fueled
him wasn't only alcohol when he was recently arrested for
drunk driving, but also a more "passionate" emotion, that was
captured in the original police transcript. You didn't
make clear what you mean by "tools," so I can't know for sure.
But, if you meant reasoning tools, they, by themselves,
are particularly a very poor antidote for countering deep
seated beliefs. Cohendrix, I don't believe that he is
"essentially hateful." Very few people truly are. You appear
to be a very thoughtful person, by the way.
Cohendrix
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:15 am

I can't read Mel Gibson's mind. Can you?

Post by Cohendrix »

Steven wrote:

"Within [Mel Gibson], though, would be a rather volatile presence of vitriole, considering his dad (and Gibson's unwillingness to even distance himself from positions of his father or to disavow them)."

Steven: I don't presume to have as developed an ability to read Mel Gibson's mind as you do. None of us amount to a carbon copy of our parents' attitudes. While Gibson's father is an extreme case, I expect that most of us have heard things from our parents that embarrass us and that we disagree with. Most of us, also, are not asked by journalists to dishonour our parents in public by calling them on the carpet for their views. Consider the effect this could have on Gibson's relationship with his father, which I expect is more important to him than satisfying tabloid readers' desire for Mel Gibson to confirm that he understands his father holds some idiotic views.

Remember, too, that Gibson's father is not simply the sum of those views--he is a man whom Mel Gibson loves and who nurtured him to adulthood. Mel Gibson does not owe entertainment junkies anything when it comes to his father. Mel Gibson's father is not a public figure--he is a relative of a public figure.

Also, I don't think it is fair to assume that Gibson's comment is evidence of a "deep-seated" attitude, whatever that metaphor implies. It's possible that in his drunken stupor he said a stupid thing in an attempt to get a rise out of a police officer (who happened to be Jewish) who had stopped him for speeding and D.U.I.

I am reminded of Elvis Costello's controversy when he got into a drunken argument with the members of Steven Stills' band. Costello called Ray Charles a "nigger" and never became the superstar he was on the road to becoming had he not had that outburst. Elvis Costello is certainly not a racist, yet he made an indefensible racist remark for which he paid dearly. I still consider him one of the most talented writers in the history of popular music. Like Gibson, he is not an essentially good or bad man but, like all of us, capable of good and bad deeds, hence no more or less worthy of forgiveness than any of us. Before I have a compelling reason to believe otherwise, I will assume that Gibson made a dumb-ass remark that is not evidence of any "deep-seated" attitude. It is too easy for us to pat ourselves on the back and set ourselves up as liberal exemplars of anti-racist morality. It is harder (and more responsible) to look in the mirror.

Let's not pillory Mel Gibson.

Amen.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl »

Gentlemen, permit me to join. We are dealing with two different problems here :

1) hatred
2) alcooholism

1) I know it is a subjective position and not a fact, but I am againts spreading hatred. Everybody who reads my posts know by now. I repeat 'cause, you know...

Now we must agree on the definition of "spreading hatred".

When a group was victim of hatred like the Jews were with the nazi, it leaves marks on some individuals (some others are "resilient" - not handicaped by the same experience that handicaps some others - some others are not resilient, and this phenomenon is not explained, but the fact is that most of people are wounded - both in their body and their mind.). Once wounded like that, after, it is too easy to see hatred where there is only opposition or bad manners, and it is dangerous, because the day the wolf is going out the wood for real, nobody is listening.

So please, be wise when you are dealing with this. It is an explosive matter, and accidents caused by good will arrived - sadly - too often while they could easily be avoid by simple "thinking twice" and common sense.

2) Anybody who knows a little about the problem of alcoolism will tell you that alcoolics have destructive behaviors againts the people they love the more in life.

They are blaming them for whatever goes wrong in their life, also.

When they are drunk, they are not to be taken in serious at all, they have to be understood like intoxicated people. Take them in serious when they are like that only means that you have a serious problem (that does not mean to allow them to do anything to you, yes, there is a difference).

So. Please. You can relax in regard of "spreading hatred", OK? Thank you.

Now dealing with an alcoolic is as difficult as dealing with hatred. So I suggest a source of information to understand what is really going on, as their behaviors are not the ones of "ordinary" people. If you don't want to help yourself and prefer to act a "poor" victims, well, I don't mind. It is a free world. But I don't believe in acting like a victime (I know that victims exist, I know that some people are victims of others sometimes, but I mean being a victim as a modus vivandi).

Cheers! and I drink to that :wink:

http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/


[/i]
Steven
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:32 am

Re: I can't read Mel Gibson's mind. Can you?

Post by Steven »

Hi Cohendrix,

"None of us amount to a carbon copy of our parents' atttitudes."
The extent that the copy is true to the original varies, but what
doesn't is that the attitudes (and the parents, generally in their
positions as role models) do have tremendous affect (barring
circumstances such as separation from children or when
there otherwise is a relinquishment of parental function).
This is bad news where the aftermath on the child does
not serve him/her well. Good news when it does. Good news
in that the child upon maturity can choose to determine
for him/herself what to keep and what to dispel, and, given
sufficient "tools" can do so.

"Deep seated" wasn't intended as a metaphor, but refers to beliefs
that are ingrained or well-established. My comments were
based upon observation of patterns, not a "mind read" and
include a very good memory for what Gibson himself has
said about his own history of dealing with his personal
challenges.

You mentioned Elvis Costello's nasty remarks about Ray Charles.
In his case, I believe him when he said, in the last year, that those
comments are regrettable and were the results of stupid, drunken
behavior accompanied by beligerence (not a mind
read, either). We all deserve the benefit of the doubt and I don't
know of any patterns that would suggest that Elvis Costello's
situation, in any way, would parallel Gibson's.

"It is too easy for us to pat ourselves on the back and set ourselves up as liberal exemplars of anti-racist morality. It is harder (and more responsible) to look in the mirror.

Let's not pillory Mel Gibson." -- Well said, Cohendrix.
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Post by Tchocolatl »

Now that I am not afraid to offense sensitivities anymore, I must say it :

I imagine the whole thing, a drunk man going into a tantrum and insulting the Jew policeman 'cause he arrested him seems like a big joke to me. Particularly when the drunk man is a star and he has to apologize in the face of the whole world for having been acting like a fool.

Paparazzi, they are only big trouble makers, if you ask me, with their way to feed media with human flesh. It is true that many of fellow humans are cannibals.
Cohendrix
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:15 am

I'm starting to understand what I understand.

Post by Cohendrix »

Steven wrote: "The extent that the copy is true to the original varies, but what doesn't is that the attitudes (and the parents, generally in their
positions as role models) do have tremendous affect . . ."

No one is going to argue with the easy truism that parents' attitudes influence those of their children, but this does not change the irrefutable fact that we can't know what Mel Gibson thinks from what Mel Gibson's father has said about the world. My own experience with my own parents tells me that it is possible (probable, even!) to have a close and loving relationship with one's parents and to disagree with them entirely about many things.

You have not addressed the fact that it is unfair to expect Gibson to harm his relationship with his father by calling his father down in public. Gibson has stated that his own remarks to the police officer were "despicable." He is responsible for what comes out of his own mouth, not for what comes out of his father's. He has no obligation comment on anything that scandal-hungry journalists have solicted from his father. I will continue to assume that his silence on this issue is evidence of nothing other than an understandable reluctance to dishonour his father in public.

Steven continued:

"'Deep seated' wasn't intended as a metaphor, but refers to beliefs
that are ingrained or well-established. My comments were
based upon observation of patterns, not a 'mind read' and
include a very good memory for what Gibson himself has
said about his own history of dealing with his personal
challenges."

Uh-oh--these comments suggest that you believe in the possibility of a "scientific" understanding of human experience, behaviour and "patterns," that you believe by observing surface patterns you can find evidence of "deep-seated" attitudes. This is depth psychology--hence, your use of a surface-depth metaphor, though you confirm that you were unaware it is a metaphor.

Steven, my own contention, stolen from Cohen, who may have stolen it from French psychoanalysis, is that we must learn to stop bravely at the surface sometimes. My own belief is that most things that humans create--attitudes, for instance--are changeable. I'm very curious about your source for "what Gibson himself has said about his own history of dealing with personal challenges." When I have heard him being asked about his father (once or twice, I think) he has flatly refused to comment and (rightly, I think) called the question out of line. I am still unconvinced that Gibson shares--or necessarily must share in a "deep-seated" way--all of his father's attitudes. Depth psychology might also lead you to believe (erroneously, I think) that Gibson would be uninhibited enough to reveal a "deep" belief while drunk. Frankly, I think his dumb-ass drunken remark is weak evidence of any "deep" attitude. Moreover, it would appear that the onus of proof of its "depth" is on you. I don't think you will find much evidence to support this claim. Please elaborate if you do.

I must say here, Steven, that I, too, have made a surface-depth error in an earlier post when I spoke of what Gibson might believe "on some cognitive level." (Level, too, implies surface-depth.) Upon further reflection, I retract that idiotic statement. It is inconsistent with my beliefs.

By the way, my own use of a "tools" metaphor is indeed a metaphor for reasoning "tools." Because I do not have faith in depth psychology, I believe it is possible to change attitudes with the right "tools."

Finally, I think that there IS a parallel between Costello's and Gibson's situations in that both stories were private obnoxious comments that were pulled into the press in a decontextualized manner. I still think it was and is necessary for Costello and Gibson to apologize for those comments, but I think part of that apology should include a contextualization of the comments. Part of that contextualization is the drunken state of both speakers. Gibson and Costello did not spread hatred; rather, they spouted idiocy. It seems possible that both men were doing so in order to get a rise out of their interlocutors. In good will, I shall assume that this is the case.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Re: I'm starting to understand what I understand.

Post by Tchocolatl »

Cohendrix wrote:Gibson and Costello did not spread hatred; rather, they spouted idiocy.
Yep. And Gibson was drunk and he did excuse himself for this.

The Israeli army guy with the eye patch said a bigger idiocy, when he was quoted (in a wrong context, according to Stephen) that as Israel took the land of "those people" they will want to take it back and therefore they have to kill them all, men, women, children, hezbollah, military and civilian as well, kill them all.

And he was not drunk

And he did not excuse himself for having say this.

And he did not excuse himself to kill people.

Gibson did not even kill anybody.

Now, if the issue is that Jews have all rights and non-Jews have any rights, and if non-Jews don't want to agree with that they will be all killed because Israel has no other choice, well, that would justify hatred.

Still, I am against spreading hatred.

This is why I repeat, whatever things can go wrong and weird : don't begin to hate.

There is other solutions to deal with psychotic murderers, even when they take power of a state, than to destroy entire civilisations and murdering innocents.



[/i]
Steven
Posts: 2140
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:32 am

Post by Steven »

Cohendrix,

I value the tone of this conversation. Were I, though, to
qualify (or disqualify) my observations further
(professionally, academically, whatever), it could start to have the conversation
be about me (something I try to avoid). And further nuanced comments about
Mel Gibson would veer towards both gossip and inappropriately stripping him
naked. Granted he is a public figure, but also a person entitled to
being treated with the golden rule (the one about treating others
as we'd like to be treated). Just a bit further, were Gibson to
have said that he loves and always will love his father, but has
come to conclusions that are different than his dad, this wouldn't
be taken by the public as a "calling down" of his father in public
or a "dishonor."

I'm not a fan of depth psychology as a "tool." I.m.o, it is not best
suited for most to make substantive change in their lives. I recognize the
value that it sometimes has in explaining why people do things.
There is depth to our psyche and even cognitive approaces and
other "surface" oriented approaches do penetrate to it, when and
if they are effective (despite their generally not placing much
value on "depth" based paradigms). Again, for the reasons
given, I'd rather not parse further whether Gibson's alcohol
content was a truth serum or not. Proof or disproof, here, wouldn't
do him or us any good.

I appreciate your apparent "good will," you've shown in this thread.
Red Poppy
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:30 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by Red Poppy »

It's interesting to sit back and watch someone analyse another person whom they've never met, never spoken to, don't know and have no real knowledge of...... we are wonderful beings, we humans!
Post Reply

Return to “News”