Am I racist
- Thread starter ZNP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Are the people who are hiring the Trump assassins racist?
https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkx2KIRQ7P6QDyCycOhXThRzikAEEuMO4ps
https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkx2KIRQ7P6QDyCycOhXThRzikAEEuMO4ps
This is an interesting attack on the film
I have a very different take on the issue he spends the first six minutes of this video on. I am not concerned with the wig he is wearing or that he used the name Steve in one scene. I understand that some can claim he was "being deceptive" at the time, but he is certainly not being deceptive in the movie. I can understand that a few morning broadcasts that covered him might have felt a tiny sting at inviting him on to their show for a few minutes, but the way I look at it, no harm no foul. As for Deangelo this and the other race hustlers and grifters, sure, this may do irreparable harm to their grifting, but I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. To me the issue is if you were deceived by Matt and so were put to shame by your race hustling and grifting that is on you, not him. Your argument is that you would never have agreed to be exposed if you had known you were going to be exposed. That is not an argument that will fly with me.
He uses a different example. Many women in the street will pretend to be on the phone with a friend when they sense danger. That is deceptive. Is it lying? What difference does it make, only a criminal would have an issue with that.
If you put yourself forward as an expert as DeAngelo does, then people have the right to put a spotlight on that and examine the claim. That is what he did.
The question I had was how did they get the great camera angles, shot and good audio in some of these scenes. For example in the dinner scene it seemed they had at least 3 if not four different camera angles. How were they able to get all those shots without people realizing. Also, what about lighting?
Now think of the absurdity of wondering if a comedy is morally right in being deceptive towards a scammer to expose them! This reminds me of the movie the Insider. In that movie 60 minutes does not run the documentary because the legal team advised them of "tortious interference" where the film would expose their criminal activity and the more true it was the greater the damage and hence the greater the liability! It was the most ridiculous legal argument you ever heard. You can't expose a criminal for being a criminal because then he would sue you for "damages" incurred by being exposed.
I have a very different take on the issue he spends the first six minutes of this video on. I am not concerned with the wig he is wearing or that he used the name Steve in one scene. I understand that some can claim he was "being deceptive" at the time, but he is certainly not being deceptive in the movie. I can understand that a few morning broadcasts that covered him might have felt a tiny sting at inviting him on to their show for a few minutes, but the way I look at it, no harm no foul. As for Deangelo this and the other race hustlers and grifters, sure, this may do irreparable harm to their grifting, but I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. To me the issue is if you were deceived by Matt and so were put to shame by your race hustling and grifting that is on you, not him. Your argument is that you would never have agreed to be exposed if you had known you were going to be exposed. That is not an argument that will fly with me.
He uses a different example. Many women in the street will pretend to be on the phone with a friend when they sense danger. That is deceptive. Is it lying? What difference does it make, only a criminal would have an issue with that.
If you put yourself forward as an expert as DeAngelo does, then people have the right to put a spotlight on that and examine the claim. That is what he did.
The question I had was how did they get the great camera angles, shot and good audio in some of these scenes. For example in the dinner scene it seemed they had at least 3 if not four different camera angles. How were they able to get all those shots without people realizing. Also, what about lighting?
Now think of the absurdity of wondering if a comedy is morally right in being deceptive towards a scammer to expose them! This reminds me of the movie the Insider. In that movie 60 minutes does not run the documentary because the legal team advised them of "tortious interference" where the film would expose their criminal activity and the more true it was the greater the damage and hence the greater the liability! It was the most ridiculous legal argument you ever heard. You can't expose a criminal for being a criminal because then he would sue you for "damages" incurred by being exposed.