Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Maybe it is similar to the anti-smoking commercials in my country that show the life of cancer patients, or the ones that show the lives of people paralyzed in a car accident, to encourage people to drive responsibly.

The point of those commercials is not to inform people that cancer/paralization is bad, but to present a warning that those are the end results of the current bad behavior (smoking/driving recklessly)

So maybe the message is less that "civil war is bad yo" and more of "if we don't stop polarization here, we will end like this".

................

But again, I did not watch the movie, so I can't judge it.

Edited by jawal on Apr 14th 2024 at 5:02:27 PM

I'd say a problem is such a message could come across as "bothsiderist", which is not great.

For “If we don’t stop polarizing this is where we will end up” we need to see the polarizing, not just the end state of it.

Edited by Silasw on Apr 14th 2024 at 5:03:13 PM

The problem with messages against polarization is that BOTH sides in the current polarized amercia thinks that the other side is both obviously wrong and acting in bad faith. Both sides are firmly convinced that they're obviously the right ones and that they're acting logically and in accordance with the facts.

I don't know how calls to stop polarization work if both sides think the other side is EVIL.

People who are being polarized think that the polarization is necessary becaue of how bad the other side is.

Edited by GNinja on Apr 14th 2024 at 4:18:07 PM

It also doesn't help when one side legitimately does want to harm the other. I remember it being described as such: "If you have two people in a room and one wants to murder the other, and the other doesn't want to be murdered, then that is a polarized environment."

Edited by Kaiseror on Apr 14th 2024 at 11:17:01 AM

My point is that it doesnt really matter if either or neither side is right. They both THINK that the polarization is justified.

And a message that just says "polarization bad" is kinda useless unless you can explain why they shouldn't be polarized.

Wouldn't the 'Civil War' that polarisation could lead to, regardless of what the polarisation is, be the evidence that polarisation is bad?

Polarization in the United States goes well beyond, "One side wants to kill and the other side doesn't want to be killed." If A believes one thing, B believes another, and the conflict between those beliefs would generate undesirable outcomes for B or A, then you have polarization.

"Fighting over this is bad," is something that goes in one ear and out the other of someone who is sufficiently committed to a position, regardless of what that position is.

The above notwithstanding, if A's position is that B should cease to exist, telling B that they are being "polarizing" for wishing to continue existing is fruitless.

There is a non-zero probability that the United States' federal government could come to be controlled by fascists, at which point the secession/revolution talk would reasonably switch sides. I just don't believe for a second that Texas would be opposed to this state of affairs. California, sure.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 14th 2024 at 1:12:21 PM

the point being that solving polarization would mean getting it through to people's heads that "the enemy" isn't some apocalyptic threat that must be thwarted at each attempt lest the world is irrevocably doomed but at the same time it doesn't help when at least one side has policy goals that leans into that perception.

Other point being that you have to explain why this cluster**ck happened to begin with. why are Cali and Texas somehow independent states instead of the strongholds of their repspective allies. Why are the western states seceding in the first place and what were the policy plans of President Asshat over here.

It's not something that can be accurately protrayed din a 2 hour blockbuster IMO.

Onto another topic. I want to ask about the Secret-Identity Identity and the related crisis. Exemplified in works like Batman (DCAU and Zdarsky flavors), Kaitou Saint Tail, etc.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Apr 14th 2024 at 7:37:24 AM

IMO, Secret-Identity Identity I tend to think of it as kind of a False Dichotomy and overthinking things. For example, I really don't think of my username as a separate being than myself.

For my part: While a lot of people like to interpret Batman as the "real identity" of someone like Batman, I would argue the reverse is more likely. Batman is an archetype Bruce Wayne leans into-the idea is to be something more than a man, if you will.

But even then, I'd say they're not really separate identities.

As someone who study polarization as tesis yeah, polarization is more often the idea the other arent a rival you can beat but at least respect but a inherit, near ontological danger that you must beat because any power is treason.

Some ideology are more subceptable than others, Nazis is inherely polarizing and I think hitler directly said he want to shake and polarize people so it is imposible to dialogue or to deal as another faction because in their worldview that is imposible.

Communism.....can be polarizing indeed, if not for ideas at least by rethoric of "current status quo is broken, people will fight for it, ergo we need someone -And by someone, I mean us- to hold all the power and remake sociaty" which not surprising can be use for a lot of actors, this happen here in Venezuela, as far as 93 Chavez was already in cuba saying Venezuela have a gangrene it need to be cut down.

Some funny things: the big two issue with polarization is that paradoxically it lower the standards and it make power grabbing a sacrosant act(because any power concede to the enemy is unthinkable) it let open to grifters, bad actor and very much lower any intelectual discourse because beaten the oponen become a "victory", its why for example conservative at times are obsess with pointless culture battles and at time clearly they think in terms of "what give me more power".

Polarization is very much a gateway to moral decay

In fairness, I'd argue polarization in the current climate in America is very much a bad thing. In fact, I'd actually argue it's a large part of how Trump was able to get into power to begin with.

However, at this point, it's a bit late for that.

trump was a clivage in Us politics in that it cause a split, polarization was already there but he push it to the bring by him saying "You know? you are weirdos, idiots and bad people and feel proud to said it" it pretty much shape a tribalistic thinking.

And yeah is kinda too late a this rate.

Trying to tell a story about a civil war in the USA without explaining why the war started seems pretty silly.

"Why did the war start? Nobody remembers, and it doesn't matter much now" is a valid storytelling trope for some war and post-apocalyptic tales.

But mostly those focused on the aftermath, or on wars that have raged for decades/centuries.

That doesn't seem to fit well with this film. It feels as if they aren't mentioning the cause because they don't want to alienate the audience or be seen as taking sides, not because obscuring it aids the plot.

And even Fallout went into more detail about what the War was about — and what kind of place the USA was that it helped start said war.

Not necessarily, new and younger generations will tip the balance, possibly to the left, and possibly to a moderate middle ground, and the polarization will solve itself by sheer numbers.

...............

Even if not, I doubt the result will be war, the most likely scenario is a gradual decline in the effectiveness and power of the federal government over multiple decades, while foreign adversaries take its place as the dominant force internationally.

States may gain more power, corruption may become rampant, and in every election, the candidates will promise to return America to its glory days.

Then, maybe in a century or so, a charismatic military leader will appear and take over as a dictator.

......................

I wonder if there is any work that presents this scenario?

But predicting the future is a fool's game.

.......................

Also,  Civil War (the movie) seems to be doing fine in theaters.

Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 2:39:21 PM

This seems like the most likely answer.

I think the trope page for the film mentioned a different neutral party. Not the strange bedfellows alliance that is Texas/Cali but rather a community that is apparently so chill that the protags compared it to going back to the past and The Twilight Zone. The locals explained it as a result of not watching the news

It might be commentary on how media accelerated polarization, but it kinda comes off as "ignorance is bliss" at a glance imo.

The director kinda explains about the alliance.

"Two states who are in different political positions are saying we are more concerned about [this fascist constitution] than we are about our political differences"

Yeah, let's be honest, for many people it's not reasonable to not pay attention to the news; it could very well rapidly impact their lives. And if everybody stopped caring about the news altogether, people wouldn't be informed enough, or perhaps not motivated enough, to use the tools they do have to prevent hostile parties from getting into power.

The thing that gets me there is, anything I can think of California would be opposed to, Texas would actively support, and vice versa.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Apr 15th 2024 at 11:33:32 AM

Now I'm wondering whether this or The Martian is more...optimistic about things transcending politics.

In The Martian the Chinese are quite pragmatic; they offer the Americans help in returning their lost astronaut, in exchange for adding a Chinese member to Ares V.

That wasn't pragmatism, btw. In the books they note how getting one of their people on the next mission was a bad trade for the rocket they wanted to use for their own mission. They just wanted to help their American colleagues, and made the "deal" just so they could pretend they didn't just give away their rocket.

The two scientists indeed do that.

But as they noted, the National People's Congress (NPC)  won't accept to help the Americans for free.

So the scientists negotiate with NASA, directly and manage to offer the (NPC) the first Chinese astronaut on Mars, plus the prestige of saving the Americans, and looking like an equal power to the U.S.