| |
| ▲ | JuniperMesos an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Basically skeptical of common forms in modernity, that is very clearly the intention. However, I have also seen that in extreme far-right communities this film represents how Jewish people control the world... somehow I don't think that is what Carpenter was going for. Say what you will about claiming that the Jews secretly control the world like the aliens in the 1988 John Carpenter movie They Live, the people making this claim are certainly not obeying, conforming, or refraining from questioning authority. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > the people making this claim are certainly not obeying, conforming, or refraining from questioning authority. In my experience racists tend to just latch on to different authorities to blindly follow and obedience and conformity are even more strongly enforced. I've had long discussions with racists over the "rebel" identity they see in the confederate flag who shortly after demonstrated incredible amounts of boot-licking when it came to police. Most of the racists I've meet were very dedicated to hierarchies, a select set of social norms, old-fashioned gender roles, etc. and conformance was absolutely seen as mandatory. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos" -- The Big Lebowski, another influential film to many people. | | |
| ▲ | subroutine 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And let's also not forget that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, within the city isn't legal either. |
|
| |
| ▲ | robot-wrangler 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's interesting right? Now there's too much distrust of authority and also not enough. Even the word "skeptic" is sometimes used to refer to people who "do their own research" and doggedly latch on to wild conspiracy theories. Avoiding groupthink is another slightly different positive spin on (my read of) the underlying message. There's such a thing as toxic individualism too, but if there's a "bad" way to be a free-thinker then you could say it usually has a pretty limited blast radius for society in general and it isn't a contagious kind of madness either | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | So.. a lot of this is "negative polarisation" combined with "exactly wrong". People see something bad happening, or come to distrust a piece of mainstream belief/reporting when it gets caught in a contradiction or turns out on subsequent evidence to be wrong. That is the healthy side of skepticism. The problem comes in this causing people to do one or both of: - immediately flip to believing the direct opposite, without evidence that's true either (most things are not excluded-middle) - immediately imprint on the first non-mainstream source they find and start treating it as gospel > but if there's a "bad" way to be a free-thinker then you could say it usually has a pretty limited blast radius for society in general and it isn't a contagious kind of madness either It absolutely can be contagious. Sometimes that's for the good, sometimes bad, quite often the mixed result of getting to the right place only after a fraught disruptive time. Martin Luther, originator of the listicle, was correct in a lot of the theses but also started the domino chain for some of the most lethal wars in Europe. VI Lenin was right about the problems and wrong about the solutions. And so on. | |
| ▲ | qsera 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >wild conspiracy theories. Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person? For a "conspiracy nut", understanding that there is sufficient incentive (also implies a lack of deterrent) for X to do Y is proof enough that X is doing Y. For a "mainstream" person, that is not enough. They require real, solid proof to consider that X is doing Y. Note that this is about deciding their own behavior, and not about handing capital punishment for X. I ll let you decide who is smarter... | | |
| ▲ | M95D 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A "mainstream" person can also consider past evidence of A, B and C doing Y and assume that X is doing Y too without any evidence about Y. | | |
| ▲ | jjcob 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Mainstream" people will also look at past evidence that A, B and C did Y, and say something like "that was N years ago, surely nobody would do this today". |
| |
| ▲ | robot-wrangler 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not sure you can purely talk about "is the motivation likely?" and end up with qanon stuff. This leaves out motivated reasoning coming from the rube, plus a bunch of other things like narratives that are sufficiently fun / scandalous /surprising | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The difference is that one follows the collective/reactive order of things, and the other doesn't. "Everyone knows" is the greatest conspiracy of all. Its quite possible to be a 'nut' simply by referring to what "everyone knows" ... this is a thought-stopping meme designed to end challenge to authority, since "everyone" is the ultimate authority. | |
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person? The former is trivially manipulated, can be made to believe anything by appealing to their inherent obvious biases, and will double down on their beliefs even when presented with irrefutable proof to the contrary. The latter can detect false dichotomies, understands answers are often nuanced instead of black and white, and is capable of changing their mind when new evidence comes to light. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, these categories are sometimes simply separated by what they considers as "irrefutable proof". |
| |
| ▲ | secretsatan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Looking at conspiracy nuts joining ice and gleefully celebrating unidentified armed goons abducting people, i think they more likely think, well, i would do y, so they must be doing it against me. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Nasrudith 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Meanwhile I've personally found myself completely unable to take it seriously due to the subliminal messages being "marry and reproduce" and "consume". Like people need sinister brainwashing to fall in love, have sex, or engage in hedonistic consumption. These are base biological urges that have existed regardless of societal economy for millennia! By casting it as something from a sinister conspiracy it makes the creator come across as someone completely insane from being so swallowed by their ideology. The sheer ridiculousness of it it brings to mind the "Mortal Engines" series and its incredibly dumb basic premise and the critical panning that it received. The lesson being, that just because something is an allegory or metaphor doesn't prevent it from being so incredibly stupid that it completely derails the message it is trying to send. Imagine if the billboards instead said. I recognize that this is certainly a minority view given how influential the film is. But I just plain cannot unsee it, like a Lovecraftian revelation and that ruins it for me from the start. Short of thinking Jodie Foster is talking to you through screens, it is very hard to look like an outright unhinged anti-Reaganist given the many legitimate things to object to about the man and his policies. Even if you agree with some of it, you can easily see where others would reasonably disagree. But this 'basic urges are part of a sinister conspiracy' sort of message? This managed to do it. | | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, thats the point of the movie - human beings' most banal desires can be and are weaponized against them. That you reject the entire premise of the movie because you can't "get over" this particular aspect, just means you've got your own loaded revolver in your pocket. | |
| ▲ | MagicMoonlight 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it was a basic biological function then the marketing department wouldn’t exist. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Consumption and love/sex are things we tend to do naturally, but marketing just ramps it up to a level we probably wouldn't reach if we weren't forced or manipulated into it. Just about anybody can fall in love, but marketing can pressure you into thinking that not falling in love and being with someone means you've failed at life and marketing can fill with you anxiety if you aren't in love, or haven't had sex, or you've had sex too early, or not early enough, or not often enough, etc. Naturally they've got all kinds of things to sell you to help. |
|
| |
| ▲ | huijzer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > extreme far-right communities Extreme libertarian seems a more apt description for those groups since they severely distrust government often also criticizing Trump and Netanyahu for example. | | |
|
