6 ms·

> Homeland isn't a documentary ... True, but I don't feel it's not enough for Homeland's producers, or anyone, to say 'it's not our problem'. We all live in a

> Homeland isn't a documentary ... True, but I don't feel it's not enough for Homeland's producers, or anyone, to say 'it's not our problem'. We all live in a community and are responsible for taking care of it and for the consequences of what we do. "No man is an island." People absorb their views of the world from TV, in part. With widespread prejudice against people who believe in Islam, portraying stereotypes of that prejudice worsens a dangerous situation. Many, many very bad things in history have resulted and are resulting from that kind of prejudice. It's similar to portraying all black skinned people on TV as drug dealers; many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them.

dalke 11y ago
For an example of how the fake TV world can be used to justify real world beliefs: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-jack-bauer/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-ja... > The Globe and Mail reported that Scalia came to the defense of Jack Bauer and his torture tactics during an Ottawa conference of international jurists and national security officials last week. During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ” > Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?” > “I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - dalke 11y ago
    "it's just a way of relating" Yes, I believe that it my point. By creating constructs like Bauer, the underlying topic that torture is justifiable became easier to relate to. Thus, it's not correct to absolve the creators of those shows simply, as drzaiusapelord did, because 'Its a dramatic show'. I have no idea what your last line means.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - justizin 11y ago
    You do know that the CFAA was authored in response to the fictional threats depicted in, "War Games", right?
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    Hello, Star Wars.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It also provides anchors and examples for availability heuristic[0]. It then leads some people to generalize from fictional evidence[1]. [0] - http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Availability_heuristic [1] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    If you don't think art has an ideological function then you are my target audience. Manipulating political discourse is a major motivation for my creative activities, probably the primary one in fact - I falsify the world in order to improve upon it.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them. Seems like the local education system has failed if people can't think critically or rationally. Blaming the arts is wrong and only treats the symptom. Do you believe that all information needs to be carefully controlled so that people don't get the wrong ideas? If so, what are you doing on an open/liberal/libertarian forum like HN then? Anyone can post anything here, pretty much. Seems to me that you're going your own advice by being present here.
- ashwinaj 11y ago
  This. Thanks for posting this. Everyone likes to shirk personal responsibility and put the blame on others. If you are too challenged to distinguish between real life vs reel life, you should excuse yourself from such matters. EDIT: Thanks for the down votes, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't it?
  - lotyrin 11y ago
    And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. The simple facts are that we have a huge amount of ignorance in the audience for this show, this show takes advantage of that (it is targeted to folks who are not informed about the places and people and groups depicted, otherwise it wouldn't take such extreme artistic license with them) and will have an effect on the views of its audience. It doesn't matter what society we'd like to live in or how that might play out in theory.
    - ashwinaj 11y ago
      > And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. My point goes back to personal responsibility. Whose fault is it if you're surrounded by flammables labeled appropriately? The analogy is that this is labeled as a "TV show" not a documentary.
      - lotyrin 11y ago
        You seem to have gotten caught on the analogy and failed to read my argument. It doesn't matter if something is fiction, the reality is that fiction has a great impact on its audience, and that impact comes with proportional responsibility. It does not matter what ideal rational actors should theoretically do when it comes to managing their opinions and knowledge about the world in the face of fiction, we don't have any of those. We don't get to pretend society works a particular way, just so we can justify bad television that uses real places and real names of groups in a farcical way because it's capitalizing on a contemporary societal phenomenon of fear and ignorance of those things.

dalke 11y ago

For an example of how the fake TV world can be used to justify real world beliefs: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-jack-bauer/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-ja... > The Globe and Mail reported that Scalia came to the defense of Jack Bauer and his torture tactics during an Ottawa conference of international jurists and national security officials last week. During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ” > Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?” > “I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- dalke 11y ago
  "it's just a way of relating" Yes, I believe that it my point. By creating constructs like Bauer, the underlying topic that torture is justifiable became easier to relate to. Thus, it's not correct to absolve the creators of those shows simply, as drzaiusapelord did, because 'Its a dramatic show'. I have no idea what your last line means.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- justizin 11y ago
  You do know that the CFAA was authored in response to the fictional threats depicted in, "War Games", right?
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  Hello, Star Wars.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It also provides anchors and examples for availability heuristic[0]. It then leads some people to generalize from fictional evidence[1]. [0] - http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Availability_heuristic [1] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  If you don't think art has an ideological function then you are my target audience. Manipulating political discourse is a major motivation for my creative activities, probably the primary one in fact - I falsify the world in order to improve upon it.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them. Seems like the local education system has failed if people can't think critically or rationally. Blaming the arts is wrong and only treats the symptom. Do you believe that all information needs to be carefully controlled so that people don't get the wrong ideas? If so, what are you doing on an open/liberal/libertarian forum like HN then? Anyone can post anything here, pretty much. Seems to me that you're going your own advice by being present here.

ashwinaj 11y ago
This. Thanks for posting this. Everyone likes to shirk personal responsibility and put the blame on others. If you are too challenged to distinguish between real life vs reel life, you should excuse yourself from such matters. EDIT: Thanks for the down votes, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't it?
- lotyrin 11y ago
  And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. The simple facts are that we have a huge amount of ignorance in the audience for this show, this show takes advantage of that (it is targeted to folks who are not informed about the places and people and groups depicted, otherwise it wouldn't take such extreme artistic license with them) and will have an effect on the views of its audience. It doesn't matter what society we'd like to live in or how that might play out in theory.
  - ashwinaj 11y ago
    > And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. My point goes back to personal responsibility. Whose fault is it if you're surrounded by flammables labeled appropriately? The analogy is that this is labeled as a "TV show" not a documentary.
    - lotyrin 11y ago
      You seem to have gotten caught on the analogy and failed to read my argument. It doesn't matter if something is fiction, the reality is that fiction has a great impact on its audience, and that impact comes with proportional responsibility. It does not matter what ideal rational actors should theoretically do when it comes to managing their opinions and knowledge about the world in the face of fiction, we don't have any of those. We don't get to pretend society works a particular way, just so we can justify bad television that uses real places and real names of groups in a farcical way because it's capitalizing on a contemporary societal phenomenon of fear and ignorance of those things.