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

Who said anything about formulating my views on You Tube? I enjoy (some) of them because I largely agreed to begin with.

Though yeah, it really is. Its politics on TV Up To Eleven.

They're not (always) related, but a lot of the people who support the latter also support the former. And a not insignificant amount of people who support the former in some shape or form do support the latter.

There is an overlap at times.

I'm aware.

Edit: I've probably had 99 pagetoppers, and this ain't a good one. 4/10

Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 13th 2019 at 11:18:49 AM

I'm thinking on stuff as the classic Benevolent Dictator. We have spend time to mock it from time to time, but I'm wondering...there any Broken Pedestal dictator in fiction?

Some dictator that died being thought as a hero and then whose legacy broke down after it when people realized the truth while suffering the consequences of the dictator's actions years after their death?

Yes! King Dorugla, from Let Us Cling Together. His death sparked a civil war afterwords for control of the country, and later reveals in the story paint a less than kind picture of the late man. Namely of a man who cheats on his wife and later embraces the darkness.

Wisecrack covers Idiocracy and whether or not it predicted the current social and political landscape. The tl;dw is that.

• The problem is pseudo-intellecturals rather than anti-intellectuals (though one can argue that's a Distinction Without a Difference). The film for reference posits a dystopia filled with morons and as such a setting that leans towards the latter.
• Regarding the Eugenics subplot (which was discussed here IIRC). The video first discusses the origins of the movement. Then claims that the global population is actually getting smarter (which I guess ties into the first point). The film for reference posits that the state of things in the setting was the result of stupid people outnumbering and outbreeding "upstanding citizens" (which now that I think about kinda sounds evocative of the overpopulation dogwhistle, but I digress) leading to the successive generations getting dumber.
• The only things the film that is applicable is how corporate culture had taken control of politics and is infiltrating every part of personal life, albeit to lesser extents than the film depicts (for now). And how much of the public perception of politics became about theater rather than policy.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Apr 13th 2019 at 11:17:42 AM

I felt Idiocracy reeked of liberal ideals of white supremacy.

Which isn't as overt as Right wing but still exists.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 13th 2019 at 11:21:02 AM

With the core concept of Idiocracy's premise, it's more or less eugenicist propaganda.

For the record, the premise is absurd for a few reasons:

-The lack of environmental pressures is because of "smart" people. Once smart people become rare, stupid people die off rapidly.

-There actually is quite a bit of natural selection on the stupid. People often think of warning labels as protecting the stupid, but the truth is the opposite: only smart people ever bother to heed warning labels. Stupid people ignore them, and get killed as a result.

-Stupidity is not entirely genetic. People who believe in conspiracy theories, for example, do not necessarily have genetic defects. On the flipside, a person can have a genetic defect and be intelligent despite it-especially if it's a sort of Rainman-like condition. For example, I have a very average IQ overall, though different areas of my intelligence range from 65 to 130.

Edited by Protagonist506 on Apr 13th 2019 at 11:47:46 AM

Yeah, warning labels don't protect the stupid, they protect the ignorant. And while there's overlap between stupidity and ignorance (particularly willful ignrorance), they are not the same thing.

This panel◊ from Superman: Peace on Earth hit me hardest that it would have done years before, or heck, a year ago.

I know that is a common strategy from dictators and that's exactly the point, but now it's feeling...personal, which makes that particular scene stronger for me IMO, after all, it's mean to be a history covering multiple situations, one of them should hit strongest depending of the public.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Apr 13th 2019 at 1:15:11 PM

Warning labels don't protect the stupid, nor the ignorant, they protect the corporation from liability.

This is why you have things like cotton swabs carrying a warning not to put them in your ear even though cleaning one's ears is what 99% of people use them for exclusively and the manufacturers know this.

Edited by Robrecht on Apr 13th 2019 at 8:10:48 PM

Wait... Cotton swabs are not supposed to be put into ears...? But what else are they supposed to be for?

Taking DNA samples from the inside of one's cheek?

I thought they used something special for sampling (risk of the cotton swab being contaminated beforehand or so I assumed.)

Corporations actually resist adding warning labels for as much as possible. Because they know scary warning labels may scare off customers. Tobacco companies famously resisted adding warning labels at all, and continue to resist adding graphic warning labels.

The warning labels aren't even always enough to avoid liability either.

Here's an article explaining how a warning label needs to be written to avoid litigation.

Even then, it's not guaranteed.

Warning labels are something that exist for the sake of both consumers and the producers.

Edited by M84 on Apr 14th 2019 at 4:33:56 PM

Yep I remember there was a pretty huge uproar when the government in Hungary decided that all tobacco products (except for the lighters and the empty hulls you can fill tobacco with) have to have one of the preapproved warning labels (some coming with pics such as the x-ray of a lung with tumor, or a picture of someone's chest after a lung surgery) or one side, and phone numbers/weblinks to programmes designed to help you stop smoking. This was back in 2016, and since then they've been thinking of only allowing tobacco products to be sold in uniform packaging (no, not uniform in size/the amount of product within. Uniform in appearance. Down to a uniform typeface and font), which, no way the tobacco companies will agree to not use their brands' iconic colours, symbols and fonts.

You say that, but they literally do just that here in the UK. No distinct branding allowed - cigarettes and rolling tobacco are all sold in uniform black packaging with the actual brand in plain text on the top, and graphic imagery of destroyed lungs, people on operating tables or impotent men on it. The only exception are cigars, weirdly enough. And on top of that, stores that sell tobacco aren't allowed to have it on display out in the open, even if it's behind the counter - it must be kept hidden behind a door or in a drawer.

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Apr 14th 2019 at 1:20:18 PM

Whoa. Ok I stand corrected.

As for selling it at all, in Hungary you have to go to specialized tobacco shops, where nobody under 18 is allowed. Which results in a logic bomb if a parent with no other adult around out with their small child/baby wants to buy anything there. They can't take the child in, because the child being inside the shop is illegal. But they can't leave the child outside alone either because that would be child abandonment/endangerment.

As much as I dislike big tobacco, there's very little reason that they should want to put horrifying skulls and dessicated lungs on cigarette packs. Especially since they don't do that to alcohol bottles.

Well I mean if you already are smoking the pictures don't really deter you, as far as I saw. The raising of the prices does a better job at that.

Indeed. From what I can tell, all these measures aren't really meant to sway people who are already addicted to tobacco, they're meant to discourage people who don't smoke from buying them on an impulse and/or through peer pressure.

I guess they may be good against just impulse buying, but not sure about them being good against peer pressure. Depends on if the pressuring peers are with you when you're buying it.

On a similar note: the "Caution: Hot" labels on all of those to-go drinks.

Those exist for good reason and do protect from some liability, but it's still entirely possible to sue Starbucks if you get burned by their hot coffee.

Warning labels are not a total "100% get out of being sued" card, especially if they are not specific enough about what they are warning against.

Maybe they'd be more effective if instead of "Caution: Hot", the warning instead read "Caution: Do not expose to bare skin. May cause second or third degree burns."

But if you read that on your coffee cup, would you still be willing to keep buying coffee to-go?

Edited by M84 on Apr 14th 2019 at 9:04:26 PM

Yes because I want coffee.

There's a certain level of, "Stop treating us like idiots."

Sadly there are a bunch of idiots out there.

Wait, are you actually personally offended by the existence of warning labels?

Companies have a legal duty to inform consumers of any foreseeable dangers their product poses. If they don’t, they’re on the hook for the damages.

What do you mean?

What I mean is that warning labels are helpful but you don't need a dessicated lung to explain the dangers.

You just need the actual effects on the bottle.