Media has been using nonviolence as a propaganda tool to quash rebellions and silence dissent in the U.S. for decades.
Think about it: almost every single story you ever see across all media that has the heroes using violence in a positive light, especially revenge content, will always portray that character’s actions as a negative even when objectively they are not. They always look to the same playbook of cliched arguments, one-liners, and tropes to do this. They are all oversimplified caricatures of or misrepresentations of nonviolence, violence, and revenge, justice, forgiveness, etc. A lot are just outright lies or ad-homs.
It’s even departmental policy in some companies to force writers to write their scripts in such a manner.
The only director I’ve ever seen rebel against it is Quentin Tarantino and I don’t think he has been doing it deliberately.
The media is very much establishment. So, even liberal media is old and establishment liberal. Old and establishment liberal are the kinds of people who tend to trade power with the old and established conservatives. (Or, at least they did until the establishment conservatives went nuts and went Tea Party then Trump.)
If you can expect to regularly get power every few years, there’s no reason to take radical action.
As for Hollywood, it’s even more conservative than most media. They want to make movies that appeal to audiences worldwide. They don’t want to challenge their audiences, or offend them. They just want their money.
🤔🤔🤔
There has to be something we can do. What they did prevented Americans from overthrowing their government when they should have, leading to tyranny and the destabilization of the U.S. Perhaps if we created new franchises that opposed and refuted their paradigm, we could help our people move on from their awful garbage.
DRS GME. Otherwise roll over and lick some boots.
I need to buy back in at some point, that reminds me.
It’s definitely more complicated than this. A fundamental premise of enlightenment democracy is the establishment of a framework for the mediation of political power without the need for violence. So that ideal of nonviolence goes back much farther than both the US or the fourth estate, and it can be argued that it is actually a starting point for much of the modern world’s political philosophy.
But in general, it doesn’t take a ton of thought to imagine why cycles of political violence are unsustainable and unproductive. If violence becomes a primary form of political expression, then you will simply have every different group trying their hand. This is why we prescribe the state with a monopoly on violence - a principle even older than democracy.
That isn’t to say that violence is never just. Ironically, contemporary existentialism tackles this issue pretty nicely by establishing some imperatives which revolve around the relationship between oppressor and oppressed. Primary among them is the acknowledgement that the most sustainable and desirable form of change is done through conversation with the oppressor (as in liberal democracy), and that anyone who rejects this imperative acts in bad faith, just as the oppressor does when they refuse to treat.
Simply put, to engage in violence is to ordain yourself the oppressor, and understanding the heavy implications of this action is critical to just violence. De Beauvoir argues that idealism is therefore one critical aspect of justice in all forms, as it seeks, by nature, to preserve transcendent humanity in others. And this is the ambiguity of the freedom fighter - the classic dialectical struggle will always reduce itself to mystification because ideals are not fixed like the flesh, against which violence acts. Therefore, while violence can be just, it cannot be justice, because it does not directly serve any ideal. As such, our morality must be “opposed to the totalitarian doctrines which raise up beyond man the mirage of Mankind” and “freedom can only be achieved through the freedom of others.”
I’m talking specifically about modern media which is very plainly obviously propaganizing itself with the agenda I laid down. It’s so obvious it’s hard not to notice. Older media wasn’t like that; there were anti-revenge stories back in the day but most were neutral or pro, and that only changed in like the mid 20th century when, for whatever dumbass reason, Hollywood and U.S. media in general decided to do this.
You don’t even usually see it in other countries, though there are outliers like Hayao Miyazaki though that’s easily chalked up to WW2 and how that war completely ratfucked Japan (and given what their government did, was well-deserved and a minority of their people like him knew it …)
Simply put, to engage in violence is to ordain yourself the oppressor,
Oh, I get it. You’re just one of those types out here defending it. 😕
No, I’m literally quoting a very well known, in depth discussion of the issue from Ethics of Ambiguity
Actually no, what you’re doing is taking a specific claim about Hollywood exploiting nonviolence and using it as propaganda, to proselytize nonviolence itself.
If what I am saying isn’t true, why would you feel the need to do that?
