Eternals: Marvel's lowest rated film to date

[Winter]

Winter's an adult, if she's offended I'm sure she'll tell you.

I just wish somebody had told me how I was coming off when I talked like that in my New Atheist phase, is all. You do you.

Honestly, Frustration hasn't done anything to offend me. Annoy, maybe a little, but nothing I'm going to lose sleep over. JK Rowling's anti-trans tweets offended me and Frustration has yet to do anything like that, Mind you, I wasn't fond of the whole delusional bit but I'm trans and dyslexic, I've heard worse.

[Frustration]

Returning to the recent point:

Anything intended to persuade or induce a change in position is propaganda; if we decide to limit the field somewhat by eliminating statement about objective facts, then anything that attempts to affect people's subjective opinions still count. And since it's not uncommon for people to present subjective judgments and perceptions as if they represented objective truths, that narrowing of the concept is still perilous.

'Propaganda' is a very inclusive category. Like 'story' or 'text' or 'media'. That's the point.

Does anyone have any problems with this?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yes it has inherent innocuousness to it.

[Winter]

Returning to the recent point:

Anything intended to persuade or induce a change in position is propaganda; if we decide to limit the field somewhat by eliminating statement about objective facts, then anything that attempts to affect people's subjective opinions still count. And since it's not uncommon for people to present subjective judgments and perceptions as if they represented objective truths, that narrowing of the concept is still perilous.

'Propaganda' is a very inclusive category. Like 'story' or 'text' or 'media'. That's the point.

Does anyone have any problems with this?

Then the question remains if anything is propaganda then how do we distinguish what is meant as propaganda in a negative term vs. a regular term. Just as an example, I'm annoyed and offended at Rowling for her anti-trans tweets but I still love the Harry Potter books and with one or two minor exceptions Rowling's anti-trans views aren't present in HP. By contrast, her murder mystery novel Troubled Blood does have HEAVY anti-trans views and embody Rowling's beliefs, at least in part, of transwomen and transmen.

And since this is a core part of the book released after the author's tweets makes this a form of propaganda as it's intention is to scare the reader into fearing someone of one gender dressing up as another. There's also Psycho, a film where man dresses up as a woman who kills people, one of which being a woman who is taking a shower. But the film and the novel it is based on go to great lengths to point out that the killer is NOT trans but just insane.

But, anti-trans community use this film to support their side of the argument that transwomen are monsters and should be treated with fear and mistrust. They're using and spreading misinformation to support their argument to better manipulate people to their side of the argument.

Back to Eternals, the movie presents a same sex couple, a diverse cast of characters and also basically presents the protagonist as unwitting minions of evil who choose to defy their god and save those they have unknowingly been sworn to destroy.

If both Troubled Blood and Eternals are propaganda, and one is spreading a VERY hurtful and dangerous message against the trans community while the other is attempting to present itself as a story of redemption that supporting the LGBT community while NOT discriminating against those who would be the allies of said community then isn't calling both propaganda harmful.

A story seeks to draw you in emotionally and in so doing must manipulate your emotions but something like Trouble Blood is insidious because it seeks to turn you against a community that is, for the most part, regular people due to the author's own bigotry.

[hammerofglass]

You could say it's pushing a hurtful and dangerous message and give specific examples. Which is both more informative and more persuasive, and which is clearly within your abilities because you just did it.

[Riedquat]

Returning to the recent point:

Anything intended to persuade or induce a change in position is propaganda; if we decide to limit the field somewhat by eliminating statement about objective facts, then anything that attempts to affect people's subjective opinions still count. And since it's not uncommon for people to present subjective judgments and perceptions as if they represented objective truths, that narrowing of the concept is still perilous.

'Propaganda' is a very inclusive category. Like 'story' or 'text' or 'media'. That's the point.

Does anyone have any problems with this?

Well firstly you need to be careful with objective facts, since on their own they mean precisely zilch anyway. Everything, and I mean everything, boils down to subjectivity - the importance and relevance of the objective is subjective, it's the subjective that decides which facts are important and which are not (as long as they have some influence at all). So I wouldn't necessarily limit the field by eliminating statements about them, they're intrinsically tied and a good understanding of both is necessary for a clear, honest view.

I'd probably say propaganda, as opposed to merely pushing an opinion, attempts to mislead and has little interest in accuracy.

Objective facts ultimately define the constraints and boundaries of the possible, no more; propaganda happily crosses over them.

[Frustration]

Well firstly you need to be careful with objective facts, since on their own they mean precisely zilch anyway. Everything, and I mean everything, boils down to subjectivity

Communication between us is impossible.

[McAvoy]

Oh nice now we are actually arguing about the word propaganda and it's use in a movie to... Promote inclusion? To promote equal rights, equal representation or at least visible representation? Among others?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I feel like RQ is overstating the role of subjectivity. Objectivity isn't important because of subjectivity, subjectivity just describes emotional processing. Subjectivity is only the reason why one person may care. Objectivity is the reason why multiple people care as it outlines justice through logic.

[McAvoy]

I feel like RQ is overstating the role of subjectivity. Objectivity isn't important because of subjectivity, subjectivity just describes emotional processing. Subjectivity is only the reason why one person may care. Objectivity is the reason why multiple people care as it outlines justice through logic.

You know what they say between a debate and an argument?