People can and do sometimes do stupid things because they got the idea or inspiration from their entertainment.
We're getting dangerously close up "DOOM caused Columbine" levels of discourse.
Star Trek drove some kids to try to develop hyposprays and communicators, citing the show as their inspiration in adulthood.
The proximate cause for a marginal improvement to jet sprays is not Star Trek, I'm sorry. No more than the proximate cause to a marginally improved welding torch is Star Wars.
I'll give another example for you to shoot down: Tokyo Drift.
I've had coworkers in my past that liked that movie so much that they started "drifting" before parking their cars on the way to work. Your assumption that people would totally do the exact same things in the exact same way with or without their entertainment giving them ideas would imply that my coworkers, for material conditions reasons, would surely have started Tokyo Drifting before parking their cars even if they never saw that movie.
Again, proving a negative is a lot harder than my claim that there is some influence, intentional or not, that entertainment has on people.
Power sliding in the parking garage is certainly dumb. But I’ll note they didn’t quit their jobs to become professional car thieves.
You're willing to believe people power sliding into parking spaces but you're not willing to believe impressionable young people don't decide to enlist when they don't economically have to while barking out Starship Troopers quotes and even calling me from Basic to say "I'm doing my part" :im-doing-my-part: a few weeks in?
Incredible claims require incredible evidence.
I don't think my claim is incredible, however, I contend that your "no influence" claim is already showing cracks if you can already concede to my example of Tokyo Drifting.
You’re willing to believe people power sliding into parking spaces but you’re not willing to believe impressionable young people don’t decide to enlist
Yes. Because one is an trivial impulse decision and the other is a career choice five years minimum.
I don’t think my claim is incredible
I watched Hairy and the Hendersons once and now I think Bigfoot is real.
Yes. Because one is an trivial impulse decision and the other is a career choice five years minimum.
You have seriously never met or been related to someone making bad impulsive decisions with minimal forethought to them that had years of consequences before? :what-the-hell:
I watched Hairy and the Hendersons once and now I think Bigfoot is real.
That isn't the same thing as misunderstood satire being taken as actual fascist propaganda and getting internalized as such. If it was, apparently UKIP believes in Bigfoot.
You have seriously never met or been related to someone making bad impulsive decisions with minimal forethought to them that had years of consequences before?
There is an abundance of demographic data that predicts which kinds of people are most likely to enlist. Social and economic precarity. History of family enlistment. Access to higher education. Regional geopolitics (ie, 9/11).
I've yet to see a successful military recruitment drive that involved repeated screenings of Starship Troopers.
That isn’t the same thing
Its the same Culture War nonsense I've been seeing my entire life. Starship Troopers turned my daughter into a war criminal! Teletubbies made my son start wearing a purse! Showgirls turned me into a pole dancer!
apparently UKIP believes in Bigfoot
They are one of the worst-run parties in a country overflowing with dogshit politicians. It would not surprise me even slightly to find out half their leadership bought into some kind of Cryptid hoax.
I actually want you to be right about what you claim, because it would mean that the Department of Defense is really wasting its time and surely never has gotten a single recruit through coercive messaging in entertainment, never ever, and that would be a good thing. https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-tool/
Starship Troopers turned my daughter into a war criminal!
You're hyperbolizing what I said into something I never claimed. That isn't going to go anywhere good. On the other hand, you're continuing to claim there's no measurable influence from entertainment on its consumers, ever ever ever, because... vibes. I guess. :wall-talk:
I'm supposing Reese's Pieces didn't sell a single additional bag of candy after E.T. was a hit. And that Epic Meal Time didn't cause a spike in bacon consumption. And that "fight clubs" would have popped up on college campuses from the aether with or without the Brad Pitt movie because "material conditions." Anything, everything, but accepting that maybe entertainment can influence people. :debord-tired:
the Department of Defense is really wasting its time and surely never has gotten a single recruit through coercive messaging
The coercive messaging over the last 20 years has only gone up while recruitment has only gone down. There's definitely some value in the Pentagon reminding people that a career in the military exists. But if I had to guess how many people signed up to join the Navy after walking out of the the latest Top Gun versus how many joined the Navy because a recruiter showed up at their school and directly propositioned them, I'd consider a 1:100 spread generous on the side of direct recruitment.
You’re hyperbolizing what I said into something I never claimed.
Starship Troopers -> provoked me into joining the military -> So now I'm participating in war crimes...
Which step did I hyperbolize?
I’m supposing Reese’s Pieces didn’t sell a single additional bag of candy after E.T. was a hit.
Selecting a particular brand of candy to eat is not comparable to dedicating the next five years of your life to indentured servitude.
But you're right. We've definitely hit :wall-talk:
The coercive messaging over the last 20 years has only gone up while recruitment has only gone down. There’s definitely some value in the Pentagon reminding people that a career in the military exists. But if I had to guess how many people signed up to join the Navy after walking out of the the latest Top Gun versus how many joined the Navy because a recruiter showed up at their school and directly propositioned them, I’d consider a 1:100 spread generous on the side of direct recruitment.
It's possible that recruitment would have gone further down without such marketing gimmicks within entertainment. We don't live in that universe to know for sure, nor do we live in the universe where my most ignorant older cousin joined the military anyway, without that movie inspiring him, with him still quitting halfway through nursing school. Maybe a "material conditions" invisible hand would have caused spikes in Reese's Pieces sales with or without E.T. coming to theaters, spikes in bacon consumption with or without Epic Meal Time glorifying it, and "fight clubs" were inevitable with or without Brad Pitt's movie. Who's to say?
My argument is that it's a more extraordinary claim to say that there's no influence of any meaningful sort.
Which step did I hyperbolize?
Starship Troopers -> provoked me into joining the military -> So now I’m participating in war crimes…
Yes, my older cousin may very well have done those but I don't know the full extent of his participation. All I know is he was "doing his part!" :im-doing-my-part: last time he called me all those years ago.
Selecting a particular brand of candy to eat is not comparable to dedicating the next five years of your life to indentured servitude.
I think it's very optimistically presumptive of you to believe no one ever, ever makes long term commitments that start from brief impulsive decisions. Vegas marriages don't real either, I suppose.
You've already gone to "entertainment has no effect on the people that consume it" unprovable negatives in your discourse.
No one is immune to propaganda, and people don't come up with ideas entirely whole cloth in a vacuum.
I’m sorry.
You're not.
This is pure clickbait
I'm not going to take away your often-misunderstood Verhoeven satire movie. Pretending that other people didn't get bad ideas from it is wishful thinking.
I am certain that entertainment "does" have an impact on the people who consume it. However, the degree to which it impacts people varies and is probably pretty hard to gauge in most cases. I heavily doubt Starship Troopers turns people into Fascists by the droves but it might further enhance reactionary sentiments in people that already harbour them or that are responsive towards them. (Which I assume depends heavily on the individual and many other factors). What im saying is that while you have a point to some degree (I think) you basically have to look at every single case and I doubt that in "most" cases a single piece of propaganda (especially one of the quality of Starship Troopers) is the deciding factor that makes someone join the US Marine.
Like lets turn this around ...the reason I want to balkanize and demilitarize the USA is NOT "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" even if it might have nudged me towards thinking more critical of republicans. It was merely one step on a long road towards radicalization from a somewhat "centrist" person and I think its a process (most of the time)
Im sure there are instances in which one single piece of propaganda captures someones heart but I dont think they are "that" common.
The problem isn't really the individual piece of propaganda, but rather the fact that the entire culture is steeped in it.
Like lets be real Starship Troopers "might" influence some nerds but stuff like Fox News is a much bigger problem and rots the minds of entire generations on a nationwide scale.
I heavily doubt Starship Troopers turns people into Fascists by the droves but it might further enhance reactionary sentiments in people that already harbour them or that are responsive towards them.
This is actually where I stand. I don't say that a gross misunderstanding of the satire made them fascists but it gave shape and form and quotable slogans to the fascism that those chuds then internalized. And yes, some boot chuds do cite the movie as inspiration for enlisting, contrary to the dogmatic "that never happens" claim made elsewhere in this thread. I had an older cousin quit nursing school to jump at the chance to kill "bugs" (you can guess who the "bugs" were in the early 2000s) not long after he got introduced to that movie, for example. Maybe he would have done that anyway because something something material conditions, but considering his parents were well off and he wasn't in any particular precarity, it seemed weird to trade in what school he had for a small jump in starting pay grade, effectively throwing the rest of it away.
I'm wasn't making the argument you seem to be claiming I was making; I was mostly opposed to the dogmatic position that there's no measurable influence on people and that only bank statements and maybe choice of breakfast options factored into people's actives, behaviors, and choices.
Like lets be real Starship Troopers “might” influence some nerds but stuff like Fox News is a much bigger problem and rots the minds of entire generations on a nationwide scale.
I actually agree with you there too, and it's also a blurry area on purpose because of the "this is entertainment not news wink wink" legal defense which coincidentially ties into the "entertainment has no effect on people" dogma that exists outside of this site too. MAGA chuds in my own family claim that they "know" Fox News is bullshitting them if I press them but they still believe the bullshit when it suits them. :brainworms:
I think it is a really interesting topic, and I don't consider myself above or free from the influence of propaganda. However, you would have to get people on board with the idea that everything is propaganda. While it is true that liberals may agree that "Mein Kampf" is propaganda, they perceive the New York Times or the BBC as unbiased, factual sources that serve the common good. Which sure it might be better than Fox News but come on.
you would have to get people on board with the idea that everything is propaganda
In a way that is actually true. Even the pretense of "this is objective news presented objectively" is a propaganda statement.
Arrogant statements that no one could be fooled by something or have it influence their behavior are a personal internalized triumph of "I got mine" Burgerland exceptionalist propaganda which influences the individual to dismiss the possibility or risk of other people being influenced by propaganda as impossible, beneath their notice, or even just desserts for the unworthy.
Propaganda doesn't have to be false (often the most effective propaganda is a deliberately presented truth) or even have to be bad. What is AgitProp but propaganda, after all?
We're getting dangerously close up "DOOM caused Columbine" levels of discourse.
The proximate cause for a marginal improvement to jet sprays is not Star Trek, I'm sorry. No more than the proximate cause to a marginally improved welding torch is Star Wars.
This is pure clickbait
I'll give another example for you to shoot down: Tokyo Drift.
I've had coworkers in my past that liked that movie so much that they started "drifting" before parking their cars on the way to work. Your assumption that people would totally do the exact same things in the exact same way with or without their entertainment giving them ideas would imply that my coworkers, for material conditions reasons, would surely have started Tokyo Drifting before parking their cars even if they never saw that movie.
Again, proving a negative is a lot harder than my claim that there is some influence, intentional or not, that entertainment has on people.
Power sliding in the parking garage is certainly dumb. But I'll note they didn't quit their jobs to become professional car thieves.
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. The relationship between Verhovan films and military enlistment is casual at best
You're willing to believe people power sliding into parking spaces but you're not willing to believe impressionable young people don't decide to enlist when they don't economically have to while barking out Starship Troopers quotes and even calling me from Basic to say "I'm doing my part" :im-doing-my-part: a few weeks in?
I don't think my claim is incredible, however, I contend that your "no influence" claim is already showing cracks if you can already concede to my example of Tokyo Drifting.
Yes. Because one is an trivial impulse decision and the other is a career choice five years minimum.
I watched Hairy and the Hendersons once and now I think Bigfoot is real.
You have seriously never met or been related to someone making bad impulsive decisions with minimal forethought to them that had years of consequences before? :what-the-hell:
That isn't the same thing as misunderstood satire being taken as actual fascist propaganda and getting internalized as such. If it was, apparently UKIP believes in Bigfoot.
https://twitter.com/eds209/status/1031122253461811200
There is an abundance of demographic data that predicts which kinds of people are most likely to enlist. Social and economic precarity. History of family enlistment. Access to higher education. Regional geopolitics (ie, 9/11).
I've yet to see a successful military recruitment drive that involved repeated screenings of Starship Troopers.
Its the same Culture War nonsense I've been seeing my entire life. Starship Troopers turned my daughter into a war criminal! Teletubbies made my son start wearing a purse! Showgirls turned me into a pole dancer!
They are one of the worst-run parties in a country overflowing with dogshit politicians. It would not surprise me even slightly to find out half their leadership bought into some kind of Cryptid hoax.
I actually want you to be right about what you claim, because it would mean that the Department of Defense is really wasting its time and surely never has gotten a single recruit through coercive messaging in entertainment, never ever, and that would be a good thing. https://gamerant.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-recruitment-tool/
You're hyperbolizing what I said into something I never claimed. That isn't going to go anywhere good. On the other hand, you're continuing to claim there's no measurable influence from entertainment on its consumers, ever ever ever, because... vibes. I guess. :wall-talk:
I'm supposing Reese's Pieces didn't sell a single additional bag of candy after E.T. was a hit. And that Epic Meal Time didn't cause a spike in bacon consumption. And that "fight clubs" would have popped up on college campuses from the aether with or without the Brad Pitt movie because "material conditions." Anything, everything, but accepting that maybe entertainment can influence people. :debord-tired:
The coercive messaging over the last 20 years has only gone up while recruitment has only gone down. There's definitely some value in the Pentagon reminding people that a career in the military exists. But if I had to guess how many people signed up to join the Navy after walking out of the the latest Top Gun versus how many joined the Navy because a recruiter showed up at their school and directly propositioned them, I'd consider a 1:100 spread generous on the side of direct recruitment.
Starship Troopers -> provoked me into joining the military -> So now I'm participating in war crimes...
Which step did I hyperbolize?
Selecting a particular brand of candy to eat is not comparable to dedicating the next five years of your life to indentured servitude.
But you're right. We've definitely hit :wall-talk:
It's possible that recruitment would have gone further down without such marketing gimmicks within entertainment. We don't live in that universe to know for sure, nor do we live in the universe where my most ignorant older cousin joined the military anyway, without that movie inspiring him, with him still quitting halfway through nursing school. Maybe a "material conditions" invisible hand would have caused spikes in Reese's Pieces sales with or without E.T. coming to theaters, spikes in bacon consumption with or without Epic Meal Time glorifying it, and "fight clubs" were inevitable with or without Brad Pitt's movie. Who's to say?
My argument is that it's a more extraordinary claim to say that there's no influence of any meaningful sort.
Yes, my older cousin may very well have done those but I don't know the full extent of his participation. All I know is he was "doing his part!" :im-doing-my-part: last time he called me all those years ago.
I think it's very optimistically presumptive of you to believe no one ever, ever makes long term commitments that start from brief impulsive decisions. Vegas marriages don't real either, I suppose.
How are the bricks on your side? :wall-talk:
You've already gone to "entertainment has no effect on the people that consume it" unprovable negatives in your discourse.
No one is immune to propaganda, and people don't come up with ideas entirely whole cloth in a vacuum.
You're not.
I'm not going to take away your often-misunderstood Verhoeven satire movie. Pretending that other people didn't get bad ideas from it is wishful thinking.
I am certain that entertainment "does" have an impact on the people who consume it. However, the degree to which it impacts people varies and is probably pretty hard to gauge in most cases. I heavily doubt Starship Troopers turns people into Fascists by the droves but it might further enhance reactionary sentiments in people that already harbour them or that are responsive towards them. (Which I assume depends heavily on the individual and many other factors). What im saying is that while you have a point to some degree (I think) you basically have to look at every single case and I doubt that in "most" cases a single piece of propaganda (especially one of the quality of Starship Troopers) is the deciding factor that makes someone join the US Marine.
Like lets turn this around ...the reason I want to balkanize and demilitarize the USA is NOT "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" even if it might have nudged me towards thinking more critical of republicans. It was merely one step on a long road towards radicalization from a somewhat "centrist" person and I think its a process (most of the time)
Im sure there are instances in which one single piece of propaganda captures someones heart but I dont think they are "that" common. The problem isn't really the individual piece of propaganda, but rather the fact that the entire culture is steeped in it.
Like lets be real Starship Troopers "might" influence some nerds but stuff like Fox News is a much bigger problem and rots the minds of entire generations on a nationwide scale.
This is actually where I stand. I don't say that a gross misunderstanding of the satire made them fascists but it gave shape and form and quotable slogans to the fascism that those chuds then internalized. And yes, some boot chuds do cite the movie as inspiration for enlisting, contrary to the dogmatic "that never happens" claim made elsewhere in this thread. I had an older cousin quit nursing school to jump at the chance to kill "bugs" (you can guess who the "bugs" were in the early 2000s) not long after he got introduced to that movie, for example. Maybe he would have done that anyway because something something material conditions, but considering his parents were well off and he wasn't in any particular precarity, it seemed weird to trade in what school he had for a small jump in starting pay grade, effectively throwing the rest of it away.
I'm wasn't making the argument you seem to be claiming I was making; I was mostly opposed to the dogmatic position that there's no measurable influence on people and that only bank statements and maybe choice of breakfast options factored into people's actives, behaviors, and choices.
I actually agree with you there too, and it's also a blurry area on purpose because of the "this is entertainment not news wink wink" legal defense which coincidentially ties into the "entertainment has no effect on people" dogma that exists outside of this site too. MAGA chuds in my own family claim that they "know" Fox News is bullshitting them if I press them but they still believe the bullshit when it suits them. :brainworms:
I think it is a really interesting topic, and I don't consider myself above or free from the influence of propaganda. However, you would have to get people on board with the idea that everything is propaganda. While it is true that liberals may agree that "Mein Kampf" is propaganda, they perceive the New York Times or the BBC as unbiased, factual sources that serve the common good. Which sure it might be better than Fox News but come on.
In a way that is actually true. Even the pretense of "this is objective news presented objectively" is a propaganda statement.
Arrogant statements that no one could be fooled by something or have it influence their behavior are a personal internalized triumph of "I got mine" Burgerland exceptionalist propaganda which influences the individual to dismiss the possibility or risk of other people being influenced by propaganda as impossible, beneath their notice, or even just desserts for the unworthy.
Propaganda doesn't have to be false (often the most effective propaganda is a deliberately presented truth) or even have to be bad. What is AgitProp but propaganda, after all?