4 ms·
> Basically what this means is they are teaching people really sht lessons now, and if this sort of thing continues for too long, it's going to produce an entir
by a257 5y ago
> Basically what this means is they are teaching people really sht lessons now, and if this sort of thing continues for too long, it's going to produce an entire generation of shtty people.
Out of curiosity, how much influence do movies/tv shows have in shaping society? Could it be that the seemingly casual link between movies and culture be opposite? Or, in other words:
B (bad movies) = "this sort of thing continues for too long"
S (shtty people) = "produce an entire generation of shtty people"
B -> S is claimed in the video, is !B || S always true? Could it be B <- S instead? B <-> S?
- makeitdouble 5y agoI’d see this as an already well established field we call either “propaganda” or “advertisement. No need to go real deep, with a “follow the money” approach, the amounts that are spent im product placement and effort to shape narratives through work of art speak for themselves.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoThis gets pondered everywhere but product placement was worse in the beginning of television like the "The Colgate Comedy Hour" and it's abbreviations from Coke etc. or the characters from sponsors directly integrated into the plot of a tv show. Imagine your favorite character going into the kitchen making a coffee and the coffee salesperson comes in and makes a 5-minute pitch. You can say about modern advertisement what you want but it was way more subliminal in the beginning.
- makeitdouble 5y agoI hear you. France had to pass rulings limiting the frequency you can say a product name on tv. Advertisement and propaganda have always been the bread and butter of tvs (and to a lesser extent movies). The whole industry grew leaps and bounds during the last century, yet people still dismiss it as low brow, or only care about images/narratives influence when it’s children looking at boobs or games that are supposed to be too violent. On getting better or worse, I think it got more sophisticated as the reach increased and the market for attention became more competitive. All in all I don’t think the core of it changes much, the army is still heavily supporting war movies and games to the same extent for instance, the landscape just got more diverse making it less prominent.
- carapace 5y agoThis is something I ponder pretty often, and I think the best you can say is that there are causal loops. Certainly, planned media campaigns seem to cause (in some but not all cases) large shifts in mass behavior. (E.g. Bernays getting women to smoke cigarettes[1], or pedestrians being removed from the streets to make way for automobiles by deriding them as "jaywalkers" and then criminalizing the until-then ancient and universal custom[2].) On the other hand, as much as I don't like to "blame the user" I can't help but feel like we have personal responsibility for our behavior. E.g. on the individual level it feel to me like a "cop out" to say, e.g. advertising made me eat this junk food and get fat (or whatever.) In any event, if you want to study this sort of thing using formal symbolic systems, you have to use systems that can handle causal loops, i.e. Cybernetics: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf [1] I view Edward Bernays as a mass murderer for his largely successful efforts in this regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Tobacco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Tobacco [2] The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM