The most glaring example of that for me would be the 90s movie "PCU." It is an incredibly :LIB: piece of enlightened centrist propaganda, portraying black activism, feminism, veganism, even concern about endangered species as absurd and stupid, at least as bad as the cryptofascist white fratboys that are (of course) in league with the university's leader, who has two last names with a hyphen (the horror!) and had a whooping crane as a mascot (which is supposed to be a punchline as it wanders off and presumably dies off camera).
The chuds I knew back in the 90s loved it and there were moments that, if pressed, I would still grudgingly accept were cleverly written even if they are like peanuts sticking out of a steaming pile of ironically-:LIB: anti-:LIB: propaganda manure.
Lower key than that, the Indiana Jones movies are much harder to watch with all of the "all the girls in the professor's class want to bang him and also he is a lowkey child molester and it's just a quirky plot point."
I've talked about the Mass Effect series before and I'll bring it up again: being an extrajudicial special forces agent that acts above the law and working with (and effectively joining) a cryptofascist human supremacist organization ran by a rich techbro psychopath and it's all seen as sensible enough to have no opt-out, well, fuck that. "Humanity fuck yeah" stories are also tiresome to me.
and in the first one, a 50% chance that your declaration of war would be overruled by congress, to represent the peaceful nature of dEmOcRaCy
ive always kinda wanted to write a bit of an essay on the intense liberal ideology baked into almost every facet of the civ series (and not just its laughable 'government types'), but never quite got around to it. theres so much, down to how nomadic and non-urban peoples are 'barbarians' to be destroyed so their land can be properly tamed, to the linear flow of technological and social progress as represented by government-allocated beakers or whatever, to even just the conception of the city as the atomic unit of human societal organisation, etc etc etc. and of course the complete lack of any vision of the future or 'victory' beyond either military or soft-power conquest of the globe, or liberal democracy in space for no discernible reason, like it cant even conceive of any greater goal for humanity, like it might as well be francis fukuyamas civilization
I know the dogma for some people here is "politics always flows downstream to culture" but I personally know people that played enough Civ games where they really do seem to believe that the way to get their Martian colonial "win state" in real life is to give :my-hero: as much money as possible, as if that was science beakers allocated toward the universal progress bar. They even called it a "science victory" directly referring to Civ games.
I think that's one thing that a lot of people really take too far, in the same way a disdain for "Great Man Thinking" can get taken too far to the point where people genuinely think that no individual leader can be important or have an outsized influence. Culture is shaped by politics and the ideological environment it's created in, but it also serves the same by spreading the ideas that made it. Like South Park didn't create edgy "the status quo is normal and good and completely apolitical and everything that seeks to change it is cringe politics and bad" chud thinking, but it certainly helped to teach that pre-existing ideological stance to a generation. Similarly, Civ didn't create its terminal lib-brain thinking, but it helped propagate it and teach it to a new generation of nerds.
I actually believe "politics is (usually) downstream from culture" is a useful and often correct guideline, but the dogma of it is thought-terminating and often used to selfish ends, usually some form of "stop criticizing the ideology in my treats."
I think its more likely that culture polishes a person who's shaoe us given by the material conditions of society. Like I don't think south park made anyone a reactionary, but it definitely made a bunch I'd people who were going to be reactionaries anyway into a specific brand of reactionary.
Strong disagree from me, from the words of people I roomed with that credited South Park for their contemporary word views by direct reference.
I mean if you want to doubt that and say "material conditions only, down river only," I can't stop you, but when someone tells me, for example, "I didn't know what to think of (trans slur here) until I saw the Jenner episode" I believe them. It's hard to see what material conditions made that person decide to hate trans people, but when their entertainment makes trans people seem like vain and grotesque body horror monsters, denying that influence and saying "material conditions only" just seems dogmatic.
It's kind of hard to prove a negative, and saying that people's entertainment does absolutely nothing to influence their views sounds like an incredible stretch. Advertising works, so why wouldn't entertainment media messaging influence people to at least some extent?
Oh no I am not saying it doesn't affect people's views and influence people. What I am saying is that reactionary media doesn't create reactionaries ex nilio, like if you see transphobic garbage and go "lol yeah that's right" you were already in a place where you find it acceptable to doubt the value of people to begin with. It's also all statistical in nature like the material conditions determine the likelihood distribution of ideological outcomes for a given population.
It is also definitely a reciprocal relationship where being materially more prone to reactionary ideology makes those cultural products more effective, which in turn leads ideologically radicalized people to reinforce the material structure. I just think the process starts at the material.
Fair take.