Political Event Horizon

[FluffyMcDeath]

 

[redrumloa]

About a third way through but so far he is correct. He hasn't explained why there is such a disconnect between the critic score and the viewer score though. That reason would be the reason this would fit in the Globalism thread. They aren't whining about movies with guns that feature certain actors, only one that features a white right-leaning Bruce Willis. Hollywood has always glorified guns, extreme violence and will continue to, as long as it is certain actors with certain political leanings.

 

[ilwrath]

I'm not sure movie review scores are the best proxy for capturing the split between the red and blue bubbles. Movie reviewers have always panned movies that turned out to be hugely popular and are now considered classics. See Jaws reviews.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jaws-original-review-20150619-story.html

The real fact is that reviewers just look for different things in movies than the people who want to be entertained care about.
For the Last Jedi, reviewers love it because it portrays something new and different in Star Wars. A generation later, the accidental hero, now a regretful recluse after losing his nephew to the dark side. That is a bold thing to try with one of the most beloved characters of all time. Critics love bold new things. But they're watching because they have to do a review. Anything new or unexpected is welcomed. Regular people watch to be entertained. And it turns out sometimes they don't want anything new. They didn't want to see their hero question the Force at the end. They didn't want to see pyro Yoda spirit light a sacred tree on fire. Maybe it just wasn't that entertaining. Or maybe people just wanted a few hours of the "comfort food" that was the traditional Star Wars formula. Maybe they just wanted a couple hours of escapism to a universe where everything was as it was. Those are things reviewers almost never consider, because they are watching for entirely different reasons.

But, going back to the rest of the concept of the video... I understand the concept he's going for. And I think he correctly identified the trend we're on right now. But I don't agree with the conclusion that there is an unrecoverable event horizon. I don't think that there is a certain point where, past which, people divided can no longer begin to heal. A point where people cannot begin again to care enough about each other to listen to and understand a view that is different from their own. I just don't buy it. Do I think things will continue to get worse for quite some time before they start getting better? Yes, unfortunately, I do. But, ultimately, I think they will get better. Don't get me wrong, there will be some bad times before it. And there will be a lot of inertia. Will there need to be some type of massive upheaval? A civil war? A dark age? Maybe. I don't think Capitalism will live through it. At least not in it's current form. But, in addition to discrimination, empathy is also a deeply rooted human condition. And throughout history, empathy has tended to be the dominant force over time. It might just take a long time to get there. :/

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

IDo I think things will continue to get worse for quite some time before they start getting better? Yes, unfortunately, I do. But, ultimately, I think they will get better. Don't get me wrong, there will be some bad times before it. And there will be a lot of inertia. Will there need to be some type of massive upheaval? A civil war? A dark age? Maybe. I don't think Capitalism will live through it. At least not in it's current form. But, in addition to discrimination, empathy is also a deeply rooted human condition. And throughout history, empathy has tended to be the dominant force over time. It might just take a long time to get there. :/

I agree to a certain extent that there is a repressive culture war on at the moment and I and many people I know express concern under our breathes with each other - and I know other people who think that everything is peachy. But, in all repressive regimes, it is never uncomfortable to agree with the regime - it's having a different opinion that is dangerous. I feel like there is a new theocracy arising - not a religious one, but it very much acts like one, with unquestionable yet contradictory tenets wrapped in weaponized good intentions - and it is showing up in the media space which is always a battleground that needs to be captured in any attempt to rule. The YouTube shooting mentioned in another thread is symptomatic. On the one hand, it results from YouTube's attempt to shape its own media to certain ideological content, and it also reflects media itself in that a shooting/suicide at YouTube with a toll of about 3 dead and a dozen or so injured is more newsworthy than the 15 dead and 1000 injured Palestinians who were shot by Israeli security for holding a peaceful protest in their own territory. Stories are elevated or repressed not because of their intrinsic newsworthiness or impact but for their level of interest to the media companies and their owners. The fewer owners there are and the more insular their interests become, the more dissociated from reality the media becomes and whether we are all living in a dream world because of some nefarious plot in the media or because we are pandering to the egos of a diminishing number of owners is moot. Over time more and more people are feeling on the outside. If people can still speak freely then we can rebuild those bridges by respectfully disagreeing and debating and getting over ourselves when we hear an opinion we don't agree with right away. On the other hand, if disagreeing become career or freedom threatening hate speech then we may have to go to full blown tyranny for a few hundred years until it gets bad enough that people are willing to die for freedom again.

 

[ilwrath]

I agree to a certain extent that there is a repressive culture war on at the moment and I and many people I know express concern under our breathes with each other - and I know other people who think that everything is peachy. But, in all repressive regimes, it is never uncomfortable to agree with the regime - it's having a different opinion that is dangerous.

Well, there is a lot going on. I can't even seem to succinctly summarize the mess we're in. A lot of things seem to keep approaching it at oblique angles, but it is a really hard thing to grasp the entirety of.

I feel like there is a new theocracy arising - not a religious one, but it very much acts like one, with unquestionable yet contradictory tenets wrapped in weaponized good intentions - and it is showing up in the media space which is always a battleground that needs to be captured in any attempt to rule.

Well, the sort of traditional "left" suddenly went very close-minded and intolerant, yet still claim that everyone who isn't on board with them are the ones who are close-minded and intolerant. It's pretty bizarre.

To me, the media space, in general, has gone full-on bonkers. Voices of reason and understanding are drowned out by partisan entertainment, potshots, and name calling. It is truly depressing how quickly almost everyone falls in with one camp or the other, and never questions their own side.

When it's Glenn Beck who starts making sense, you know you've either lost it, or the world has gone full crazy.

On the other hand, if disagreeing become career or freedom threatening hate speech then we may have to go to full blown tyranny for a few hundred years until it gets bad enough that people are willing to die for freedom again.

And, boy, there sure is a massive push to have any dissenting view become hate speech, huh? I don't like it. A disagreement isn't hate, and treating it as such is so dangerous.

I doubt it would be hundreds of years before people start waking up to the problem, and it probably won't come to dying for freedom again. The cycles of change keep picking up speed. I could see it still taking somewhere between a decade and a generation or two, though. I probably won't live to see the end of it. But I doubt it would come to a real full-on civil war. I have to think that the ruling class realize that letting things go that far would definitely NOT be in their own interests of staying on top through the change. If you try to go full civil war rural vs urban... Urban is gonna starve in pretty short order. And it gets real ugly, real quick, from there.
​

 

[redrumloa]

When it's Glenn Beck who starts making sense, you know you've either lost it, or the world has gone full crazy.

I agree with almost all of your post except this. Glenn Beck outed himself as a total fraud a few years back. I am embarrassed that I ever listened to the man. He's nothing more than an actor and a conman. For all his faults, Rush Limbaugh would even be a better example.

 

[ilwrath]

I agree with almost all of your post except this. Glenn Beck outed himself as a total fraud a few years back. I am embarrassed that I ever listened to the man. He's nothing more than an actor and a conman. For all his faults, Rush Limbaugh would even be a better example.

Well, that is kind of what I'm saying. He is the fraud and conman that admits he's a fraud and conman. And he seems to comprehend that he was a trendsetter in news media hyper-partisanship. He actually admits that the role he played in hyper-partisan news entertainment caused real damage to the communication between sides and drove politicians further away from bi-partisan efforts (that were already struggling mightily due to many other problems.) And now that others have followed his lead in on-air personality style, he recognizes that the style he mastered so well during his heyday, ultimately leads the country to a bad place. He understands he's a lousy messenger, but he's one of the few people talking sense. Which, is crazy. But he admits he steered people wrong. Not necessarily wrong in facts, but in style and in results. And that is something pretty powerful that not too many people are willing to admit to.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

But I doubt it would come to a real full-on civil war. I have to think that the ruling class realize that letting things go that far would definitely NOT be in their own interests of staying on top through the change. If you try to go full civil war rural vs urban... Urban is gonna starve in pretty short order. And it gets real ugly, real quick, from there.

​

I think they HAVE realized that. The number of farmers that own farms has really fallen. Those that still do are at the mercy of the banks and usage rights granted by the states. Both bank loans and usage rights can be revoked or called with enforcement up to and including national guards and federal forces - and they've tried to prove it already. I think that they have discovered the militias are still a bit too willing to get into the mix - so they will have to be disarmed and dismantled. So long as there are crazy redneck rambos willing to die for freedom so that I don't have to... well, I don't have to like them to start feeling like I appreciate them. :/

 

[redrumloa]

I think they HAVE realized that. The number of farmers that own farms has really fallen. Those that still do are at the mercy of the banks and usage rights granted by the states. Both bank loans and usage rights can be revoked or called with enforcement up to and including national guards and federal forces - and they've tried to prove it already.

The situation with farmers has gotten ridiculous. By design only corporate factory farms can compete. Hell, home vegetable gardens are under attack in most cities these days.