5 ms·

There's really no such thing as apolitical media. "Apolitical", escapist entertainment assumes a default political context (in the USA, white-normative and cish

There's really no such thing as apolitical media. "Apolitical", escapist entertainment assumes a default political context (in the USA, white-normative and cisheteronormative). Not having the politics of the day affect you on a deep personal level is a luxury of privilege. For the marginalized, politics reaches out and touches them whether they want it or not.

mandmandam 3y ago
[flagged]
- flumpcakes 3y ago
  > The US is funding an openly genocidal regime that is killing a child every ten minutes, saying there's "no red line". That's your political opinion. > Maybe if the wilfully politically ignorant could figure out how to write good character driven stories, those people would have options. But for some reason, people with good souls and hearts write the best stories... And people without them write inane drivel that fails to connect on any deep level, ever. That's your political opinion. I don't see why it's not an obvious truth that sometimes people prefer not to have to think about politics or political ideology. And to suggest art or entertainment devoid of political ideology is "drivel" or for people without "good souls and hearts" is baffling.
  - treyd 3y ago
    > That's your political opinion [that the US is funding a regime] https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143772 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143772 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinian-children-death-trauma-israel-bombing-hamas-rcna122113 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinian-children-deat... It seems like a pretty apolitical and objective statement to me. Perhaps not as fast as every 10 minutes but probably not far off.
    - flumpcakes 3y ago
      Where in those articles is the conclusive fact that Israel is an "openly genocidal regime". Was America openly genocidal for the civilian deaths in WW2? I would say Russia is openly genocidal, but ask a Russian and they say they are saving their Ukrainian cousins and it's Kyiv that is openly genocidal to Russians. If dead children makes a genocide then nearly every war ever fought was genocide. Israel will say they have teams of lawyers reviewing every strike and if the civilian to combatant or military objective ratio is within the bounds of international law then they will strike. The geneva convention is pretty clear on when civilian areas stop becoming protected.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    They are facts; what your reaction or feelings about those facts are, is not a question of opinion and/or politics, but of morals and values. The question is not "is the murder of a child in line with my political views", it's "is the murder of a child in line with my own morals", which transcends politics.
    - flumpcakes 3y ago
      The death of a child in a war can be against someones' morals but legal and not an act of genocide. For example, when fighting child soldiers, or human shields, etc.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        What's your definition of genocide? Surely when every major genocide researcher and lawyer, human rights groups, etc are all shouting at the top of their lungs that this is the worst genocide this century, you'd try a little harder to make your case. I call what's happening in Gaza and the WB genocide. Clearly, and to a horrific degree. I have nightmares about it that linger with me for weeks. I've seen full HD horrors and atrocities being committed for 92 days now. I've seen outrageous lies - beheaded babies, mass rapes - promulgated by corporate media and even the POTUS, all as a thousand very real babies have been murdered. Netanyahu is still repeating the beheaded babies lie. It's farcical, and I truly believe that only a highly deranged mind could fall for it. And yet at least 80% of Israelis think there hasn't been enough violence. It's a horror beyond comprehension. I don't get why people are tolerating such genocide denial tbh. It's nice that we're so polite here, but like ... read the room. And by the room, I mean the vast majority of every single population outside of Israel; who all want the same thing: just stop killing so many people Israel, ffs. Just stop killing people, and treat them like humans. It's not a big ask. It's not political. It's important, and if you try to tell people not to talk about it you can expect pushback.
        sigzero 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    > > The US is funding an openly genocidal regime that is killing a child every ten minutes, saying there's "no red line". > That's your political opinion. Not really, no. They have said as much themselves. "There is no red line" is a direct quote. Zionists, aka the ones committing and supporting this particularly heinous genocide, consider it a political view - no one else. Zionists say it's complicated, it's self defense; even as they openly state their true intent [0]. But the entire rest of the fucking planet considers it wanton murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. We're heartbroken, we're furious, and we'll not stop talking about it until it ends. > I don't see why it's not an obvious truth that sometimes people prefer not to have to think about politics or political ideology. I explained why, as did other commenters. If you want to be ignorant and apathetic towards 'politics' (inequality and genocide and the planet burning for profit) that's your problem. Not mine. But it's a bit rich to then complain that you can't find good character driven stories, that enable and support such an apathetic and delusional choice of worldview. > to suggest art or entertainment devoid of political ideology is "drivel" or for people without "good souls and hearts" is baffling. I didn't. I 'suggested' that if you want good stories devoid of 'political content' then maybe you can't find them because vapid and ignorant and soulless people don't write very good stories. If you can find them, then why bother complaining that other people are discussing and enjoying 'political' content. 0 - https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas...
    - flumpcakes 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - anjel 3y ago
      As a thought exercise: What would happen next if the Palestinians laid down their arms and renowned warfare? What would happen next if the Israelis laid down their arms and renounced warfare?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- dash2 3y ago
  Inequality is not at record levels, it's decreased since around 2016 in the US and it has substantially decreased globally (see recent work by Milanovic). Israel is not "openly genocidal". I disagree that it is genocidal at all; certainly not openly. Arguments that Israel's policy is genocidal do not tend to survive acquaintance with a serious international lawyer. Human rights violations, maybe. It is simply false that 92% of people have no effect on policy. (They elect presidents.) Maybe you think that 92% of people's preferences don't affect policy. That's almost certainly also false - use common sense - and based on correlational polisci work, in a setting where correlations are not very persuasive (I am thinking of Gilens and Page) and where the very idea of preferences is pretty suspect. Nobody in this thread has complained about the existence of political work. They've complained about politics making the art worse. I'd say there are many cases of art which has been made worse by the clumsy addition of politics, or of bad art being praised because it had the right politics. Have you never seen that? I think your opinions are much stronger and more certain than your knowledge base warrants.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    That last line: not great.
    - throwitaway1123 3y ago
      Is it just me or are these sorts of statements becoming more common? Another commenter on this post told someone he was lacking reading comprehension skills in an argument about the political implications of the children's novel Harry Potter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272
      - tptacek 3y ago
        They're common enough to be explicitly proscribed by the guidelines.
    - dash2 3y ago
      I thought it was reasonable, and my post gives the evidence to back it up.
flumpcakes 3y ago
> There's really no such thing as apolitical media. You can make anything fit any narrative you want if you want to analyse something closely enough, but this statement isn't true in good faith. What's the political statement of Japan's Ringu? Or Swiss' Pingu? > a default political context (in the USA, white-normative and cisheteronormative) I don't see why the statistically likely (white, cis, hetero) is a "political context"? white-cis-heteros disagree on politics all the time. > For the marginalized, politics reaches out and touches them whether they want it or not. Politics touches everyone. I am already living with politics for 80% of my waking life, I would prefer my entertainment time not also reflect that unless I want to. Lazy writing and characterisation since the mid-2000s has made politics a character trait rather than a plot point and it's boring. I fundamentally disagree that art is inherently political.
johnnyworker 3y ago
> War, Fascism, concentration camps, rubber truncheons, atomic bombs, etc., are what we daily think about, and therefore to a great extent what we write about, even when we do not name them openly. We cannot help this. When you are on a sinking ship, your thoughts will be about sinking ships. -- George Orwell

mandmandam 3y ago

[flagged]

flumpcakes 3y ago
> The US is funding an openly genocidal regime that is killing a child every ten minutes, saying there's "no red line". That's your political opinion. > Maybe if the wilfully politically ignorant could figure out how to write good character driven stories, those people would have options. But for some reason, people with good souls and hearts write the best stories... And people without them write inane drivel that fails to connect on any deep level, ever. That's your political opinion. I don't see why it's not an obvious truth that sometimes people prefer not to have to think about politics or political ideology. And to suggest art or entertainment devoid of political ideology is "drivel" or for people without "good souls and hearts" is baffling.
- treyd 3y ago
  > That's your political opinion [that the US is funding a regime] https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143772 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143772 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinian-children-death-trauma-israel-bombing-hamas-rcna122113 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinian-children-deat... It seems like a pretty apolitical and objective statement to me. Perhaps not as fast as every 10 minutes but probably not far off.
  - flumpcakes 3y ago
    Where in those articles is the conclusive fact that Israel is an "openly genocidal regime". Was America openly genocidal for the civilian deaths in WW2? I would say Russia is openly genocidal, but ask a Russian and they say they are saving their Ukrainian cousins and it's Kyiv that is openly genocidal to Russians. If dead children makes a genocide then nearly every war ever fought was genocide. Israel will say they have teams of lawyers reviewing every strike and if the civilian to combatant or military objective ratio is within the bounds of international law then they will strike. The geneva convention is pretty clear on when civilian areas stop becoming protected.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  They are facts; what your reaction or feelings about those facts are, is not a question of opinion and/or politics, but of morals and values. The question is not "is the murder of a child in line with my political views", it's "is the murder of a child in line with my own morals", which transcends politics.
  - flumpcakes 3y ago
    The death of a child in a war can be against someones' morals but legal and not an act of genocide. For example, when fighting child soldiers, or human shields, etc.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      What's your definition of genocide? Surely when every major genocide researcher and lawyer, human rights groups, etc are all shouting at the top of their lungs that this is the worst genocide this century, you'd try a little harder to make your case. I call what's happening in Gaza and the WB genocide. Clearly, and to a horrific degree. I have nightmares about it that linger with me for weeks. I've seen full HD horrors and atrocities being committed for 92 days now. I've seen outrageous lies - beheaded babies, mass rapes - promulgated by corporate media and even the POTUS, all as a thousand very real babies have been murdered. Netanyahu is still repeating the beheaded babies lie. It's farcical, and I truly believe that only a highly deranged mind could fall for it. And yet at least 80% of Israelis think there hasn't been enough violence. It's a horror beyond comprehension. I don't get why people are tolerating such genocide denial tbh. It's nice that we're so polite here, but like ... read the room. And by the room, I mean the vast majority of every single population outside of Israel; who all want the same thing: just stop killing so many people Israel, ffs. Just stop killing people, and treat them like humans. It's not a big ask. It's not political. It's important, and if you try to tell people not to talk about it you can expect pushback.
      - sigzero 3y ago
        [flagged]
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > > The US is funding an openly genocidal regime that is killing a child every ten minutes, saying there's "no red line". > That's your political opinion. Not really, no. They have said as much themselves. "There is no red line" is a direct quote. Zionists, aka the ones committing and supporting this particularly heinous genocide, consider it a political view - no one else. Zionists say it's complicated, it's self defense; even as they openly state their true intent [0]. But the entire rest of the fucking planet considers it wanton murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. We're heartbroken, we're furious, and we'll not stop talking about it until it ends. > I don't see why it's not an obvious truth that sometimes people prefer not to have to think about politics or political ideology. I explained why, as did other commenters. If you want to be ignorant and apathetic towards 'politics' (inequality and genocide and the planet burning for profit) that's your problem. Not mine. But it's a bit rich to then complain that you can't find good character driven stories, that enable and support such an apathetic and delusional choice of worldview. > to suggest art or entertainment devoid of political ideology is "drivel" or for people without "good souls and hearts" is baffling. I didn't. I 'suggested' that if you want good stories devoid of 'political content' then maybe you can't find them because vapid and ignorant and soulless people don't write very good stories. If you can find them, then why bother complaining that other people are discussing and enjoying 'political' content. 0 - https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/ https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas...
  - flumpcakes 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - anjel 3y ago
    As a thought exercise: What would happen next if the Palestinians laid down their arms and renowned warfare? What would happen next if the Israelis laid down their arms and renounced warfare?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
dash2 3y ago
Inequality is not at record levels, it's decreased since around 2016 in the US and it has substantially decreased globally (see recent work by Milanovic). Israel is not "openly genocidal". I disagree that it is genocidal at all; certainly not openly. Arguments that Israel's policy is genocidal do not tend to survive acquaintance with a serious international lawyer. Human rights violations, maybe. It is simply false that 92% of people have no effect on policy. (They elect presidents.) Maybe you think that 92% of people's preferences don't affect policy. That's almost certainly also false - use common sense - and based on correlational polisci work, in a setting where correlations are not very persuasive (I am thinking of Gilens and Page) and where the very idea of preferences is pretty suspect. Nobody in this thread has complained about the existence of political work. They've complained about politics making the art worse. I'd say there are many cases of art which has been made worse by the clumsy addition of politics, or of bad art being praised because it had the right politics. Have you never seen that? I think your opinions are much stronger and more certain than your knowledge base warrants.
- tptacek 3y ago
  That last line: not great.
  - throwitaway1123 3y ago
    Is it just me or are these sorts of statements becoming more common? Another commenter on this post told someone he was lacking reading comprehension skills in an argument about the political implications of the children's novel Harry Potter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38904272
    - tptacek 3y ago
      They're common enough to be explicitly proscribed by the guidelines.
  - dash2 3y ago
    I thought it was reasonable, and my post gives the evidence to back it up.

flumpcakes 3y ago

> There's really no such thing as apolitical media. You can make anything fit any narrative you want if you want to analyse something closely enough, but this statement isn't true in good faith. What's the political statement of Japan's Ringu? Or Swiss' Pingu? > a default political context (in the USA, white-normative and cisheteronormative) I don't see why the statistically likely (white, cis, hetero) is a "political context"? white-cis-heteros disagree on politics all the time. > For the marginalized, politics reaches out and touches them whether they want it or not. Politics touches everyone. I am already living with politics for 80% of my waking life, I would prefer my entertainment time not also reflect that unless I want to. Lazy writing and characterisation since the mid-2000s has made politics a character trait rather than a plot point and it's boring. I fundamentally disagree that art is inherently political.

johnnyworker 3y ago

> War, Fascism, concentration camps, rubber truncheons, atomic bombs, etc., are what we daily think about, and therefore to a great extent what we write about, even when we do not name them openly. We cannot help this. When you are on a sinking ship, your thoughts will be about sinking ships. -- George Orwell