Subhash Jha's open letter to Russell Peters

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#91

Originally posted by: blue-ice

No its not the same...KJo was hosting the show...Arjun was a participant in that show...and if they told Aamir what they said in the show ...its not heresay...

Lets put it this way, if your friend got laid, and described in detail what happened, no matter how vicariously you live through the narrative, the fact remains that your friend got laid not you. You can't actually comment on the other person's performance other than what you heard. You don't have the actual experience to know for real.

Narrative does not equal experience, irrespective of who narrates.

Quote

707763

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#92

Seriously 🤔

wow 😵

i don't understand their point?

I mean, Kudos to Arpita Khan.. 👏

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

firework

@firework

Navigator

Posted: 10 years ago

#93

Originally posted by: blue-ice

From the articles that came out after the roast...they had asked Arjun about how he could date someone as ugly as Arpita🥱

and even if they edited it out...those jokes were made in front of an audience of 4000 people.

From Quora

"Arjun has dated three kinds of girl - One is dumb that was Alia Bhatt, one was fat.. Sonakshi Sinha and the third ugly in Arpita Khan."
He asked Arjun about having sex with an ugly girl
"Bhai ka bc. You didn't think of the Bhai at that time."

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-jokes-on-Arpita-Khan-mentioned-in-AIB-Knockout-which-got-edited-before-the-video-released

Quote

blue-ice.

@blue-ice.

Achiever

+ 4

Posted: 10 years ago

#94

Originally posted by: Heisenberg.

How is it not the same?, if I watch PK, and then I tell my friend about the film and he gets offended, how is that any diiferent to Karan, Arjun or any audience member who watched the show and then tells his friend, who then gets offended?

so if we go by ur logic...every single witness in a court would be a heresay...suppose u witness a murder...and u go testify in a court that how u saw it was done...the court will say its a heresay and is not admissible in the court??

Heresay is something which cannot be authenticated...if the people ho said it are coming and telling u what they said...how is it a heresay?? How are u comparing it to a movie...Movie is fictional...this was a talk show where actual people did the talking...big difference...

Quote

983175

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#95

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

People don't watch PK and call it "offensive" or "mocking Hinduism" based on hearsay.

Aamir doesn't watch AIB knockout and calls it "offensive" or "violent" based on hearsay.

Russel doesn't watch Bollywood films and calls them "stupid" or "dumb" based on hearsay.

Still don't see how it made Aamir less of a hypocrite.

Russel is a stand up comic and his bread and butter is assumptions like this. Some people are self proclaimed religious stalwarts and it is expected of them to have a low tolerance level. Aamir is the only one who packages himself as better than everyone else, but then goes and does the same.

It seems the entire argument is built on flimsy technicality ..

The video makes it perfectly clear that Amir found the show a bit too violent for his taste ..

Amir even went out of his way to stress on the point that AIB people should not be forced to backtrack by means of unnecessary 'witch-hunt' ..it is dangerous for a democratic society , so that has to be maintained ..

Overall , Amir only presented his opinion about the show & there happens to be nothing whatsoever wrong with it ..

Coming to the hearsay argument , the participants in the show (his friends) narrated it to him & to add to that, Amir gave up after watching couple of clips .. unlike PK , those who have watched AIB know it very well that the jokes didnt get any better as the entire show was filled with same kind of humor , so i doubt if forcing Amir to watch the entire show would have made a difference at all .. i daresay that few clips were more than enough to know what the show was all about .. moreover , hearing it from his participant friends is not the same as hearing it from some random naysayer ..so there is that difference too ..as for people protesting PK based on hearsay , the argument is perfectly valid, since watching the movie in its entirety would certainly make a huge difference ..however in case of AIB ,if such crude, crass & vulgar humor is not something that makes you laugh but instead nauseates you, the more you watch it , the worse it gets.. there is no point in forcing anyone to watch the entire thing when the person in question already packs sufficient info to have an opinion in the first place..

Quote

853244

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#96

Originally posted by: blue-ice

so if we go by ur logic...every single witness in a court would be a heresay...suppose u witness a murder...and u go testify in a court that how u saw it was done...the court will say its a heresay and is not admissible in the court??

Heresay is something which cannot be authenticated...if the people ho said it are coming and telling u what they said...how is it a heresay?? How are u comparing it to a movie...Movie is fictional...this was a talk show where actual people did the talking...big difference...

What? 😆, that doesn't make any sense, that would make me an eye-witness, but if I tell a friend about the murder, and then he tries to testify in court, it would be inadmissible.

Movie are fictional so everything is permissible under the sun? 😕, violence, vulgarity, profanity, balatkar jokes are all ok because they are fictional? PK dealt with a real subject, the subject of religion, a real religion that is followed by nearly 1 billion people around the world and poked fun at it. Can't have it both ways.

Quote

blue-ice.

@blue-ice.

Achiever

+ 4

Posted: 10 years ago

#97

Originally posted by: Heisenberg.

What? 😆, that doesn't make any sense, that would make me an eye-witness, but if I tell a friend about the murder, and then he tries to testify in court, it would be inadmissible.

Movie are fictional so everything is permissible under the sun? 😕, violence, vulgarity, profanity, balatkar jokes are all ok because they are fictional? PK dealt with a real subject, the subject of religion, a real religion that is followed by nearly 1 billion people around the world and poked fun at it. Can't have it both ways.

u got it...here its not Karan or Arjun's friends who are narrating it to Aamir...its KA THEMSELVES...so its not a heresay...

@ red...i agree that movies should also be held responsible...for the vulgarity and crassness...I am just saying that a movie and a live talk show are not the same.

Quote

853244

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#98

Originally posted by: blue-ice

u got it...here its not Karan or Arjun's friends who are narrating it to Aamir...its KA THEMSELVES...so its not a heresay...
@ red...i agree that movies should also be held responsible...for the vulgarity and crassness...I am just saying that a movie and a live talk show are not the same.

But I don't think you got it, Aamir is not a witness though, and that makes his testimony worth zero. Anything he says is based what he's heard from someone else, even if it be from the participants of the show, and unless he's seen it himself, and takes into account the context, the environment and the spirit in which these jokes were made, his opinion is only half-ass. No different to those who protested against PK but hadn't watched it.

Edited by Heisenberg. - 10 years ago

Quote

desigal90

@desigal90

Trailblazer

+ 5

Posted: 10 years ago

#99

I'm not even gonna address or talk about Aamir's hypocrisy or lack of at this point. That's irrelevant to my point here. Aamir may or may not be a hypocrite.

But nothing will justify Russel Peters speaking about this issue. Not in any way or form.

Like I stated earlier, a man who blatantly goes on record time and time again mocking and looking down on something anyway, how serious can you take his criticism?

Example.

A racist that hates a certain ethnicity and makes it KNOWN that he dislikes that ethnic group...how much right does he have to criticize someone's behavior from that group? Or give his analysis on that group's dynamics or issues? In other words, does a racist have any credibility at all?

Another example, given Abhijeet's history of racist remarks against Pakistani artists like Atif and Shafqat Amanat Ali, does he have any right to give his analysis about any Pakistani artist?

Same thing here.

If Russel hates bollywood in general, and mocks everything about it from it's actors to it's movies, then why does he feel like his opinion is credible when it comes to one specific behavior?

Edited by desigal90 - 10 years ago

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#100

Originally posted by: blue-ice

so if we go by ur logic...every single witness in a court would be a heresay...suppose u witness a murder...and u go testify in a court that how u saw it was done...the court will say its a heresay and is not admissible in the court??

Heresay is something which cannot be authenticated...if the people ho said it are coming and telling u what they said...how is it a heresay?? How are u comparing it to a movie...Movie is fictional...this was a talk show where actual people did the talking...big difference...

Hearsay is not admissible in court.

But you missed the definition of hearsay.

If you saw something firsthand. You are a witness. You experienced it. Not hearsay.

If you hear some narrative. You are not a witness. You didn't experience it. Hearsay.

So irrespective of who narrated it, the actor or the viewer, Aamir's rendition of AIB Roast is hearsay because he didn't experience it.