I'd just laugh at this fucking dork if he wasn't a perpetrator and promoter of sexual violence and slavery. Real monsters exist, and he is one of them.
I'd just laugh at this fucking dork if he wasn't a perpetrator and promoter of sexual violence and slavery. Real monsters exist, and he is one of them.
I'm not even arguing against that and I conditionally agree.
I just don't like when someone gets so knee-jerk about defending the slop they consume that they claim that the propaganda in their slop has no effect on its consumers whatsoever and that people would think, believe, behave, and act exactly the same way without the presence of that propaganda.
Those people either don't have Fox News relatives or refuse to believe that being told hateful conspiracy theory shit all day every day can have an effect on people, because they might feel guilty about something else they themselves watch.
deleted by creator
I would wish for the same but I know it's not the case.
In the past I've been dogmatically told that people would do exactly the same things with or without their entertainment's messaging/propaganda, no matter what, as a sort of material-deterministic absolutist statement. The example I gave in the past was the "fight clubs" that broke out after the Brad Pitt movie became popular. The dogmatic and unprovable claim was that those "fight clubs" would have appeared anyway, out of the aether, all on their own because of "material conditions."
It just seemed like an excuse to consume trash without feeling bad about it.
The alternative I always propose is to consume that trash while being aware of the propaganda and accepting that it's there and that it can influence people. After all, the con artist rulebook states that one of the easiest ways to spot a sucker is to find (or make) someone that believes that they can't be a sucker.