How do the dominant cultural narratives in art and mass media affect our politics?

Repressive, but Efficient is one of those lies that just won't die. Kind of like Home by Christmas.

Fair enough - I've never actually read the series, but the way your post read made me assume the USA dropped the first nuke (again) while the CSA was conducting a genocide.

If I had a cent for every time I had to correct somebody on the notion that "the Nazis saved Germany's economy" or "the Nazis came up with the Autobahn"....

Or my absolute favourite: "Germany could have won the war if..."

Seriously, they lost the moment they picked a fight with the largest empire on Earth at the time. Stop fetishising genocidal arseholes, will ya.

Most people I run into doing that are not from Germany, so to me - as a German - that's particularly creepy.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jul 16th 2018 at 6:31:20 PM

I notice thats quite common with Nazi apologists/fanboys and Imperial apologists/fanboys. More often then not they are not German or Japanese and just fetishize people of those cultures as something they are not more often then not. They then will base their identity around it.

And then when they meet someone whom is actually German or Japanese they always make an massive fool of themselves. Or insist that they actually aren't German or Japanese which just makes them look worse.

Edited by Wispy on Jul 16th 2018 at 9:40:35 AM

To Wispy: Don't forget the Imperial Weaboo, that are Otakus that believe who "liking anime=supporting Japan in everything"

World War II manages to get uglier in this timeline than it did in the real one. Petrograd, Paris, Philadelphia, Hamburg, Newport News, Charleston, and four British cities (London+three others that elude me) are all nuked before the war is over.

At one point a character drops into a radio announcer voice and jokes "Join us next time for another exciting installment of 'As the World Goes Up in Smoke.' Brought to you by the Johnson Mortuary Company. You're going to die sooner or later, why not now?"

Edited by AmbarSonofDeshar on Jul 16th 2018 at 9:43:20 AM

Star Trek was pretty guilty of this, even in the time of Roddenberry. Heck, the original series even had an episode "Patterns of Force" which claimed that the Nazis were efficient.

I guess it was done as a hamfisted "Efficiency isn't worth compromising morals" aesop, but it's just buying into the lie that repression is efficient.

Edited by M84 on Jul 17th 2018 at 12:44:21 AM

Do these people not realize all of the infighting and overall internal chaos that went on with the Nazis? Fiction really should be doing a better job showing how these supposed efficient and orderly regimes would probably tear themselves up, especially fascism.

We allowed the Nazis to set the terms under which they are discussed. Witness Triumph of the Will still being taught as a masterpiece of filmmaking when it really isn't—that was just the PR campaign at the time.

It's not just the nazis either. As a rule, these fascist-type regimes are usually extremely bloated, corrupt and inefficient, filled with cronyism, swindling of funds, poor management, etc. That's part of the reason why they're so loathsome - you are literally getting no benefit outside of just shitting on underprivileged groups.

Eh. I wouldn't say that Fascism would become less loathsome if it actually had benefits yet it was as equally awful to minorities.

I think it's important to understand the psychology of politics more than to understand the politics themselves. Fascism might say A, B and C but that doesn't translate to why people support fascism. When people feel lost or anxious, they will grab onto anything to feel secure. I am speaking from personal experience but I think we should all be fully aware of how irrational voters and citizens are. They'll vote Republican year after year even as they collect government benefits.

Fascism has a proven track record of failure but that won't ever dissuade people because it's feels over reals, an idealized fantasy of power and security wins out.

I recommend this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom

Edited by Nikkolas on Jul 16th 2018 at 10:03:18 AM

The point is that this fantasy is enabled by a lot of fictional works and even (bullshit) studies of history. Which is what makes it easier for people to buy into this crap again and again. The prevalence of Repressive, but Efficient narratives is a large part of why people are willing to surrender their freedom for an illusion of security.

Stories have power, for good or for ill. One ignores that at their peril.

Edited by M84 on Jul 17th 2018 at 1:07:11 AM

That's just making excuses for fascists. People don't fall into that level of extreme bigotry. Sure, where you're raised and who you're associated with has an effect on who you become, but only to a point. Someone who grows up surrounded by bigots might not be as PC as they should be, but if they join the Klan or a neo-Nazi group, that's still on them.

Frankly, I grow weary of this notion that neo-Nazis can't help themselves. I'm from a town where neo-Nazism was generally accepted. I am not a Nazi. Neither are my brothers—while not always as enlightened as I'd like them to be—or as they think they are—they are not fascists. And while my mom and dad—my mom in particular—can be painfully blind to how bad the people around them are, they do not share those people's opinions.

Becoming a militant bigot—because that's what fascists are—is not something that happens to you by accident or coincidence. It is something you choose to embrace.

This is also, of course, off topic again. The nonfiction book you just read is not the topic of this thread. Neither is "why people become fascists" unless that reason is a work of fiction they watched.

Edited by AmbarSonofDeshar on Jul 16th 2018 at 10:12:32 AM

Not everyone is as strong as you,Ambar. I'm glad you didn't end upa Neo Nazi but people are different. That doesn't mean we hold them to different standards of culpability - although I guess there might be leniency for some kid who was raised by Neo Nazis and did bad shit over some kid who just read Mein Kampf one day and loved it - but it is essential to understand the why.Otherwise you can't treat the core condition. Bigotry is not just "I hate so-and-so." It's spawned by things like fear and ignorance.

You're more informed than me Ambar, surely you've heard of Christian Picciolini.

It's a well-known and documented fact that hate groups specifically target young and lonely people. There's a reason for that.

Edited by Nikkolas on Jul 16th 2018 at 10:17:34 AM

We just got hit with the mods for going off-topic like this. Let's not risk them doing it again and possibly causing a thread lock.

Anyway...

I mentioned that Star Trek seemed to buy into the Repressive, but Efficient narrative a lot. Kind of odd for a work that was supposed to be so "utopian" to claim that repression is efficient.

Edited by M84 on Jul 17th 2018 at 1:26:15 AM

Doubly so for a universe that appears almost entirely post-scarcity and possessing close to zero waste; with recycling so efficient that by TNG the only resources worth fighting over are planetary biospheres and the few things that cannot be Replicated, like Dilithium crystals.

Roddenberry liked his soapboxes and that seems to be what stuck the most in peoples' minds, but he so often failed to address the implications underpinning the assumptions of a unified, central human government and culture it boggles the mind.

A discussion elsewhere about Rick and Morty(which I've never watched) talked about how apparently Rick is a sad, pathetic loser and a rib on sci-fi nerds. But apparently he's become beloved by the sci-fi nerds he was intended to mock?

Somebody responded with " It's like people identifying with Walter White or Tony Soprano, except it's pretty much the entire fanbase"

And somebody else responded with that video.

I think there's just something in a protagonist thatmakes folks identify with them and it doesn't matter how evil or pathetic you make them. Perhaps it's just learned behavior as identifying with the protagonist is the point in the vast, vast majority of narratives.

He's a sad, pathetic and anti-social genius. Capable of anything, anywhere, anytime in the whole of the multiverse.

I think they just think that identifying with him, makes them smart. Living vicariously through a fictional character.

Edited by TerminusEst on Jul 17th 2018 at 4:29:22 AM

More importantly. Rick is legit the only person that is allowed to have victories in the series. It's only in the last season where he's getting a actual defeat for once.

I just looked at the repressed but efficient trope and it lists the Justice League episode among the examples. In hindsight, that arc wasn't done so perfectly.

When you have Superman on your side, anything is possible and believable. He's Superman. There's literally not a thing anyone could do to stop him or hope to be beyond his reach.

Edited by Nikkolas on Jul 17th 2018 at 5:00:12 AM

It makes you wonder why he has to become a tyrant if everything is possible. Well, it isn't because DCAU!Superman really isn't uber strong, but you get the point.

That's the issue with many Well-Intentioned Extremist plots that want us believe that is "your Freeeeeeeedom or peace/equality/insert nice thing here" but ultimately forget to mention that the plan is nonsense because it wouldn't reach it's goals. It's framed as a moral issue of "Security vs Freedom" instead of just saying "this plan is actually stupid".

That is just how narratives are written. Evil is practical, Good is emotional. I think it's fair to say most people are Hobbesians and believe that people are fundamentally selfish and cruel. There's a lot of recent research to dispute this idea but it's still just in our collective psyche.

Luke doesn't turn down his father's offer to rule the galaxy based on reasoned argument. He turns it down because he feels that it's wrong. And that is how "true morality" is understood. If you have seen an abstract, philosophical argument about some super controversial topic like raping children and why you shouldn't do it, what is the response 99% of people will give? "IT'S WRONG!" "Why is it wrong?" "Because it just is!"

And if you start trying to insist they give a more logical,substantive argument about "logical things" like consent or harming the child, they'll condemn you as some sort of freak because you shouldn't be "thinking" at all. If you were trulya good and moral person, you would just say "it's wrong because I feel it's wrong" and have done with it.

And that's how stories are written, too. The villain will be presented as offering something practical and desirable like wealth, fame and power. You would in a perfect world want all of those things. It is only your emotion that immediately makes you turn down the villain's offer, not a thorough examination of why everything they offer is fundamentally impossible or inefficient or something of that sort.

I doubt it. Otherwise most stories would end with the heroes putting down protesters. Or with the heroes being those protesters and taking down the goverment to instaure their own.

It would be a quite different fiction than ours. Also, more plots would mention why the villain plan is bad.

That's only if your definition of argument is speaking with a random person, which as a rule tend to be quite ignorant of ethics as a whole (and that include leftists, that tend to be informed of social issues but not ethics as a whole).

Talk that to a ethicist and they would respond giving short arguments without seeing you as a evil freak (mainly because ethics is full of freaky questions and answers).

A common joke is that ethicists, regardless of their self declared political views, tend to have similar views than your average Progressive Leftist...but that they considerate them the definition of Right for the Wrong Reasons in that regard. Even the actual Leftists.(Right Wingers and ethics are an even biggest mess, the academical Right tend to be it's own antithesis while the regular Right tend to care even less about ethics)

What's funny is that is likely that said lack of care of ethics (unless it involves bigotry) in the Left might be a leftover of Marx from all persons, given that he explicitly rejected moral arguments for his theory and treat it as a fact of history.

...which explains all the Commie dictatorships actually.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 17th 2018 at 8:05:43 AM

A couple of points:

1. Star Trek's "Patterns of Force" may have the stupid argument about Nazis being efficient but it is actually a show which a good message: That fascism will inevitably become a complete shitshow. The fact the guy made a non-racist non-enemy based state fascist state inevitably became a genocidal militant one.

2. I actually think the Confederate apologia that involves Britain and France is a mistake because both of those were arguably more hostile to slavery than the North. Mind you, the argument, "No one except aliens would support the Union" argument is a hard one to swallow.

3. I grew up The Fundamentalist surrounded by a deeply anti-homosexual community and was a bigot until I was a teenager when I met some gay people. In that moment, I had a choice to either be a raging asshole or not. I also had a religious experience which convinced me I needed to change my ways. Personal responsibility plays a role and if you go with being a scumbag, prepare to be treated like one. While I was a homophobe, people treated me like a monster and they were right to.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 17th 2018 at 6:45:56 AM