this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
231 points (97.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43916 readers
1091 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Media has been using nonviolence as a propaganda tool to quash rebellions and silence dissent in the U.S. for decades.
Think about it: almost every single story you ever see across all media that has the heroes using violence in a positive light, especially revenge content, will always portray that character's actions as a negative even when objectively they are not. They always look to the same playbook of cliched arguments, one-liners, and tropes to do this. They are all oversimplified caricatures of or misrepresentations of nonviolence, violence, and revenge, justice, forgiveness, etc. A lot are just outright lies or ad-homs.
It's even departmental policy in some companies to force writers to write their scripts in such a manner.
The only director I've ever seen rebel against it is Quentin Tarantino and I don't think he has been doing it deliberately.
It's definitely more complicated than this. A fundamental premise of enlightenment democracy is the establishment of a framework for the mediation of political power without the need for violence. So that ideal of nonviolence goes back much farther than both the US or the fourth estate, and it can be argued that it is actually a starting point for much of the modern world's political philosophy.
But in general, it doesn't take a ton of thought to imagine why cycles of political violence are unsustainable and unproductive. If violence becomes a primary form of political expression, then you will simply have every different group trying their hand. This is why we prescribe the state with a monopoly on violence - a principle even older than democracy.
That isn't to say that violence is never just. Ironically, contemporary existentialism tackles this issue pretty nicely by establishing some imperatives which revolve around the relationship between oppressor and oppressed. Primary among them is the acknowledgement that the most sustainable and desirable form of change is done through conversation with the oppressor (as in liberal democracy), and that anyone who rejects this imperative acts in bad faith, just as the oppressor does when they refuse to treat.
Simply put, to engage in violence is to ordain yourself the oppressor, and understanding the heavy implications of this action is critical to just violence. De Beauvoir argues that idealism is therefore one critical aspect of justice in all forms, as it seeks, by nature, to preserve transcendent humanity in others. And this is the ambiguity of the freedom fighter - the classic dialectical struggle will always reduce itself to mystification because ideals are not fixed like the flesh, against which violence acts. Therefore, while violence can be just, it cannot be justice, because it does not directly serve any ideal. As such, our morality must be "opposed to the totalitarian doctrines which raise up beyond man the mirage of Mankind" and "freedom can only be achieved through the freedom of others."
I'm talking specifically about modern media which is very plainly obviously propaganizing itself with the agenda I laid down. It's so obvious it's hard not to notice. Older media wasn't like that; there were anti-revenge stories back in the day but most were neutral or pro, and that only changed in like the mid 20th century when, for whatever dumbass reason, Hollywood and U.S. media in general decided to do this.
You don't even usually see it in other countries, though there are outliers like Hayao Miyazaki though that's easily chalked up to WW2 and how that war completely ratfucked Japan (and given what their government did, was well-deserved and a minority of their people like him knew it ...)
Oh, I get it. You're just one of those types out here defending it. ๐
No, I'm literally quoting a very well known, in depth discussion of the issue from Ethics of Ambiguity
Actually no, what you're doing is taking a specific claim about media exploiting nonviolence and using it as propaganda, to proselytize nonviolence itself, using an old book.
If what I am saying isn't true, why would you feel the need to do that?
Also, why would it even matter how old nonviolence is? I said media et al. is using nonviolence, not that they invented it.
Why are you assuming they're arguing in bad faith?
The age of the book is irrelevant, the philosophical ideas are still worth engaging with, even if you don't agree with them
Because of the fact he went off topic to proselytize, for one.
That and I have dealt with many of his ilk in my life. The reason why he did that is because he, like all of his kind, are fundamentally insecure in their position of moral and intellectual dominance over American discourse, and they fear anyone challenging or questioning their behavior. It's why so many social media sites ban such talk as mine under inciting violence, because it's an unspoken paradigm that's taboo to challenge in our culture. I saw it happen on Reddit all the time.
What he's really hankering after is to stop anybody else thinking about it or challenging nonviolence. It's how people like that operate. They don't care about the common man.
It's weird as fuck that they do this but it's true. You actually can get banned from Facebook or Reddit just from talking about violence in a philosophical light unlesss you're opposing it, and fuck your so-called freedom of speech in the process.
And whenever you do anyway, someone like him always slinks around to pander from what really comes off as a sales script. The same old tired arguments, most of them from movies or games because those are the means by which the media indoctrinates people with those beliefs.
If you don't believe me, try it.
I can't say I got that impression from them to be honest. Feels like you have assumed a lot from a couple of comments (though I totally get being jaded after a while of seeing the same kind of thing).
I think this could be a really interesting thing to explore both sides of the argument as I do think you have a point. Just seems like you're both interpreting it differently in terms of tone (which I guess fits in a way, given your stances)
There has to be an instance where it's possible to do it without risking being banned. I'm surprised the mods here didn't delete anything I said yet.