It's a generic hero story to push pro-fascist speeches and politics. Defending it here is extremely sus for a 1 hour old account.
Instead, he made a “parody” movie that most people didn’t get. But hey, at least we got the unforgettable image of Doogie Howser, SS. Yay?
Satire is dead and ineffective everyone here already knows this. Anything you satire will always just be used unironically be the fash as aspirational and reinforce them. That doesn't change the fact that the original is a trashy generic pro-nazi book.
The book was tossed out for the satire of the movie because making the book as a movie would have been the production of fascist agitprop. Nobody really knew what we know now about satire not working.
Is Satire really pointless though? It reaches its intended audience very well.
Just because some chuds are too brain dead to realize they are being made fun of doesn’t change the fact that they are being made fun of.
The alternative is they rally around legit fascist agitprop like “day of the rope” or some nightmarish genocide fantasy - it’s not like they will waste away into dust.
It serves as entertainment for the people who already agree with the message of the satire. It achieves nothing with the people who take media at face value. And worse yet it becomes completely unironic media that the subjects of the satire use to promote themselves and be aspirational about.
If we score this, nothing is gained for group 1, nothing is gained for group 2 (and sometimes they like it which is really bad), something is gained for group 3. The fascists gain something from it.
It is far better for us to produce completely unambiguous good guys and bad guys content, rather than satire of the fascists as the ""good guys"". While the latter is very entertaining for us it is a mistake and a trap.
Can’t deny how crowded warhammer 40k has become with fascists though, so I’ve seen it in action.
(The lore of 40k has been retconned so that there is literal “tiers” of humanity with each tier being smarter, fitter, and taller than the last. And it’s unironically embraced.)
Satire is one of my favorite forms of media, but it eventually gets hollowed out with an unironic form over time.
Can’t deny how crowded warhammer 40k has become with fascists though, so I’ve seen it in action.
Exactly, you see the problem here right?
It either achieves nothing, or it actively converts the media illiterate into seeing the fascists as "cool". And any further iterations on a successful piece of satire may or may not be satire or completely unironic lionisation of fascism written by people who totally didn't get the message originally.
Satire is hugely entertaining because it's clever and it aligns with our politics. The problem however is that we have a mountain of evidence to show that it is not particularly beneficial. Entertainment is fun, but at the expense of helping the fascists we should be pushing against it. We would be better off if satire died entirely.
I haven't seen any solid defence of satire so far. At best it is neutral by not harming but not really helping us. At worst it actively harms us.
You're steering in to "i live in a tank and am the only true communist" territory. It's okay for entertainment to be entertaining. One sci fi movie that no one got isn't going to make things worse. The reason no one got it is bc the society was already so saturated with fascism to begin with.
Being joyless monks who never have anything to laugh at because humor supports fascism is not good for morale.
A defense of satire? Sneaking satire in to mass media is a dogwhistle for leftists and proto-leftists that says "you're not insane. Other people see it too. You're not alone. This isn't normal or acceptable and you are correct to oppose it."
Not everything can or should be come and see. The people who are already fascists in their hearts and wake up because they saw some movie and have 0 media literacy aren't a net loss. They were never ours to begin with and seeing your neighbors miss the point entirely and cheer for Dougie Howser, SS is wonderfully clarifying about the nature of the society you live in.
This movie was released in to a society that was already packed with fascists even if it didn't technically meet all the requirements to be called fascist in it's totality. Bush didn't launch the homicidal war in Iraq and the nightmarish global war on terror bc idiots thought Johnny Rico was aspirational, and nothing would be different if the movie hadn't been made except that leftists wouldn't have it as an example of the incoherence and stupidity of fascists.
America didn't need Mel Brooks or Verhoeven or Lucas or Tarentino or Chaplin to make them sympathetic to fascism. They already had John Wayne and Patton and untold other extremely famous and influential fascists to do that. Satire might not being a great weapon in the war on fascism, but it's not making things worse, either, and it provides rare moments of joy in the otherwise bleak nightmare we live in.
Humans like telling stories and having entertainment that entertains is good for morale. Regardless of what the fash are doing (which we have no control over) we do need to laugh at them, because the alternative is viewing them as inevitable and unstoppable, and just giving in to despair.
It's not a criticism of entertainment though, it's a criticism of satire that masquerades as doing something useful when it is in fact achieving the opposite.
One sci fi movie that no one got isn’t going to make things worse.
It objectively has though, because it functions to normalise the ultra nationalism depicted as somehow laudable and heroic. Because it creates fascist larpers out of people who have no idea they're larping fascism, and some of whom who do go on to discover this end up unironically becoming fascists.
A defense of satire? Sneaking satire in to mass media is a dogwhistle for leftists and proto-leftists that says “you’re not insane. Other people see it too. You’re not alone. This isn’t normal or acceptable and you are correct to oppose it.”
Why do you think satire is required to do this?
They were never ours to begin with and seeing your neighbors miss the point entirely and cheer for Dougie Howser, SS is wonderfully clarifying about the nature of the society you live in.
I completely disagree. This is just how propaganda functions, and you would never dismiss any other form of propaganda as "oh they were never ours to begin with therefore the propaganda affecting them doesn't matter".
it provides rare moments of joy in the otherwise bleak nightmare we live in.
The only thing here I agree with.
Humans like telling stories and having entertainment that entertains is good for morale. Regardless of what the fash are doing (which we have no control over) we do need to laugh at them, because the alternative is viewing them as inevitable and unstoppable, and just giving in to despair.
We can laugh at them without producing masturbatory satire that unintentionally functions as recruitment material.
There's more to entertainment than satire and you don't need satire to shit on fascists. Satire is completely impotent because the people being satirized just need to say, "This but unironically." In many ways, satire is the ultimate lib genre, a completely impotent genre that has absolutely no persuasive power. When was the last time you say someone on the fence get convinced by a satire because almost every single fence-sitter I've encountered always characterize that satire as "too preachy and smug." It's a genre for people who already buy into the belief/argument/ideology circlejerking about how smart they are for getting the satire and how their opponents are too stoopid for not getting the satire while their "stoopid" opponents use the aesthetics and selected parts of the satire to further push their agenda unironically. Who's the stupid one, the ones who don't get the satire or the ones who think not getting the satire actually matter?
Satire is so powerful, which is why brilliant satire Full Metal Jacket gets shown at Marines boot camp. When Asian women get annoyed by lone men shouting "me so horny me love you long time" at them, you see, it's actually Asian women who are stoopid for not getting that the men are just referencing a brilliant satire and totally not sexually harassing them.
GW has the problem with a lot of long-term media that the kids who grew up not getting the references ended up writing the story. I had some teenager jawing on about how the Imperium is socialism, totally talking over my attempts to explain that it's a parody of the Nazis, UK politics, the brainworms version of the Soviets, American fundies, etc.
Partially because it's not any more. The people writing genuinely think the space marines are cool good guys instead os psychopathic genocidal fanatics. Which sucks bc unhinged cranked up to 11 old school 40k was a lot of fun with it's vision of 20th century ideologies stretched out to their full illogical conclusions.
Also, they named Gazkul Mag Uruk Thracka after Thatcher and that will never not amuse me.
(The lore of 40k has been retconned so that there is literal “tiers” of humanity with each tier being smarter, fitter, and taller than the last. And it’s unironically embraced.)
No way, in the past everyone was a baseline human?? What the fuck... When did the ubermenschen retcon happen it's been like this for at least 20 years now. Legit erasure of history lol
This feels like "dirty ushanka" territory. Is there really no value in galvanizing support among the left by creating art depicting fascist ideologies, in giving people without lived experiences with fascism an emotional understanding of what it is and why is must be fought? Is there no value in creating a shared cultural language of antifascist symbols? Would the masses be willing to seek out and consume endless dry, polemic works? Would leftists even be allowed to create and disseminate unambiguous morality plays which cast their capitalist patrons as the enemies of humanity?
I think this dialog falls foul of a common fault in analysis on the left, where we ignore the sheer scale of our opposition's power and nitpick our own, convincing ourselves that if we just create the perfect work we'd sweep aside generations of propaganda and that anything less than perfect may as well be a tool of our enemies in the way that everything created under capitalism reenforces it. You could write "Fuck Fascism" on a piece of paper and a lib would say "oh yes, I too hate Stalin".
Do we as leftists give up on creating art that speaks to leftists on anything other than a surface level because a fascist might see it and be convinced we support them instead, when they are primed by a lifetime of propaganda to see that in every shadow?
If the treats are recruiting tools for fascists, the treats are bad. We can make treats that depict fascist ideologies without those treats also functioning in a positive way for them. That's the point.
No, and I resent the aggressive reductionism. If you aren't interested in engaging with my argument, don't.
There is no emotionally honest depiction of fascism which will not appeal to a fascist - that is what makes them a fascist. They like the things we hate.
The benefits being presented are "it makes leftists feel good".
The negatives being presented are "when this content is successful it clearly functions to grow fascist numbers".
There is no emotionally honest depiction of fascism which will not appeal to a fascist - that is what makes them a fascist. They like the things we hate.
Satire like Warhammer 40k and Starship Troopers is NOT an emotionally honest depiction of fascism. It presents the enemy as monsters. It justifies the foundational root of fascism being that there are monsters that must be destroyed.
An emotionally honest depiction of fascism would have the enemies fascism seeks to destroy be actually marginalised people that are the weakest in society being actively destroyed and brutalised. This of course would not be very fun to watch or play though would it? And thus would be less successful, both with leftists and with the wider audience, it would in fact stop being satirical altogether if you did this. Satire inherently has emotional dishonesty embedded in it for the sake of making it fun entertainment and audience reach.
The benefits go beyond making leftists feel good, it makes them feel like part of a larger group within society that can and should effect change. It gives them a structure around which to understand what they oppose and why. It literally grows the number of active leftists in exactly the same way as it grows the number of fascists - by giving them a nucleus around which to form a coherent ideology distinct from the background radiation of disaffected liberalism. The difference is that the fascist gets this anyway, from the news, from every blockbuster film, from every war game.
I would also argue that there is emotional honesty there, because fascism sees itself as fighting monsters, part of inoculating against fascism is understanding that no perceived enemy justifies it's existence. However I do agree that it is a serious weakness of both 40k and Starship Troopers that this idea, that fascism creates it's monsters, is never explored. If it was I think it would be harder, but still not impossible, to co-opt them. I'm not arguing that these pieces of media cannot be criticized though, I am arguing that satire should not be declared tainted and abandoned to the right. It's is a tool in the belt of leftist artists and is no more vulnerable to co-opting than any other media dealing with the subject of fascism.
Fascists are also quite capable of taking media that explicitly shows them attacking humanized, marginalized, non-threatening people and understanding it as aspirational.
I am arguing that satire should not be declared tainted and abandoned to the right
I can't think of any popular right wing satire of the left. The closest thing I can come up with is Monty Python's occasional jab leftwards with extremely accurate criticisms that leftists would make themselves. That's not to say that right wing comedy doesn't exist. But that's not the same as satire is it?
This feels like “dirty ushanka” territory. Is there really no value in galvanizing support among the left by creating art depicting fascist ideologies, in giving people without lived experiences with fascism an emotional understanding of what it is and why is must be fought? Is there no value in creating a shared cultural language of antifascist symbols? Would the masses be willing to seek out and consume endless dry, polemic works? Would leftists even be allowed to create and disseminate unambiguous morality plays which cast their capitalist patrons as the enemies of humanity?
Awoo's point is that it doesn't have to be through satire. What's wrong with something like Wolfenstein 3d? Fascists are scum and the universal truth of fascists being the scum of society holding humanity back is expressed through the mechanics and lore of the FPS. What's wrong with something like Come and See, where fascist scum is portrayed as they really are, a bunch of drunk, incompetent, genocidal monsters who gets got at the end. And before you wave your "not every movie needs to be as heavy as Come and See" objection, even the Indiana Jones series treated Nazis better than virtually all useless satirical depictions of fascists. In the films involving Nazis, they are either depicted as incompetent or completely creepy and unhinged, nameless mooks that gets owned by the protagonists. The climax of the first film is basically Yahweh smiting a bunch of Nazis for being Nazis.
But all that Starship Trooper/WH40k "uh ignore how we made the fascists look cool it's acktually satire stoopid" satire is complete bullshit.
Safire is the highest form of posting. As posters that appeals to us. It however is not effective. There is something g called there mere exposure effect. It is a marketing term. Just being exposed to a thing increases people's tendency to like it. Satire devote brain wrinkles to the bad stuff, and they are happy brain wrinkles. Without specific work your brain tends to like things it has more wrinkles for. So in agregste it creates more harm that good.
Look at The Producer's. Alot of people have very fond memories of Hitler now. Around the edges your brain will start to forget why it has fond memories of Hitler and it might soften your negative associations. Across a population effects like that can produce shifts that are big enough people make marketing careers off them.
No, not specifically. For sure that is part of of that five decade mission of rounding the sharp edges off the nazis. You simply wouldn't have made a cute Hitler dance number if you weren't in that stream already.
I have serious objections to the idea that Mel Brooks, and other Jewish artists, making the fash look like a pack of deranged buffoons is somehow contributing to the acceptance of fascism.
Skewering fascism by making it's adherents look like complete idiots is one of the few ways in media that you can fight them. Any other depiction just makes them look cool to people already primed to like them.
That does not seem to actually be true. It feels true. However it seems the best way is simply to not talk about them. Say they were bad and move on to talking about good things that deserve attention. Positivity is the way forward.
How does the influence of the occasional leftist satire hold up against the vast sea of excrement constantly being churned out by the mass media?
This whole argument that satire is too dangerous to produce vastly, vastly over estimates our power to influence society. To whit; we don't have any. Sorry to bother you and the producers and inglorious basterds are such rare points in a vast sea of neoliberalism and overt fascism that worrying about them is pointless hand wringing. There's a very good reason why we're talking about one specific 30 year old piece of anti-fascist propaganda; there have only been a handful of similarly impactful anti-fascist films since then, out of untold thousands of entirely sincere fash or fash adjacent or turbolib action movies. For every dork who joined the marines because they saw the movie, we've got people who realized heinlein was a shitty incoherent :libertarian-approaching: chud because Verhoeven's movie got them to reexamine their beliefs.
Being worried that once in a decade anti-fascist movies are somehow instrumental to the march of fascism when we've got like thirty Transformers movies, that American Sniper trash, all the dark gritty batman capeshit, and endless cop dramas is self indulgent. They don't matter. Nothing would have changed if they hadn't been made. Laugh, enjoy that brief moment of levity and humor in the sea of nightmares that is our lives, and move on.
P good as far as I can tell. Like star trek, showing people what a good world could be inspires more people towards our side than watching liberals make fun of other liberals. There is a reason we don't see more solar punk stuff. That is actually upsetting to the project butterfly types. I am not saying to banish the producer's. I am just saying don't pin your artistic hopes on it.
Satire is dead and ineffective everyone here already knows this.
I think satire for any broader audience needs to clearly include and demonstrate the contradiction of what it's seeking to satirize: simply showing something that's absurd and awful and trusting people to realize it's mocking it is bad practice, especially when its mockery is only a little exaggerated from reality. Starship Troopers is bad satire because it doesn't refute the system it is satirizing, and it just comes across as generic corny military sci-fi with a similar fascistic tone to normal American slop if someone isn't already aware of its goals. All the nationalism and bloodlust in it is just a clearer statement of what most American theater-goers already expected from media.
To be effective it would have had to be more overt and actively spell out what it's implying: include a scene establishing the meteor was a natural phenomenon and the government knew it, hell establish that they decided against having asteroid-defense-systems because it would have meant raising taxes or diverting half a percent of military funding or something, and so clearly establish that the ridiculous casus belli is explicitly a lie; establish that the pointless invasion of the bug worlds is failing and the war is going poorly overall so that it doesn't look like they're just winning a hard fought victory against a monstrous foe; hell establish the bugs as individually smarter and more concerned with their own lives with something like a direct attack on a nest being met with a holding action from worker forms who fall back when actual soldier forms arrive and repel the attack; etc.
It basically needed to make it clear that the humans were in the wrong and the villain was the Fascist regime behind the war in the first place, and that they're losing because they're disorganized and launching a genocidal war against an entrenched foe over literally nothing but sheer stupid bloodlust.
Intellectual people LIKE media that trusts its audience to understand it is satire without the overt spelling out of it. Without the explanation. The intellectual audience that satire targets prefers not to have it so they can have they're "i'm clever for getting it" feeling.
This is the trap of satire. The trap of intellectual entertainment. It is masturbation and because it feels good it is so easy to make the mistake of helping the fascists while making the content feel as good as possible for its intended target audience. This isn't helped by the fact that doing so not only nets you more viewers from the intellectuals but also more viewers from the fash.
This is why all good communists in history just slam bullshit out of the air and mock anyone who disagrees with them relentlessly.
Just read any of the stuff Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, etc. said when talking to heads of state. There's never any sarcasm or couching of ideas, only blatantly stating the consequences of the other person's ideological position and following up with clarity of their ideological position.
There were absolutely Soviet satirists, and the USSR produced satirical media alongside its other entertainment productions. While I argue constantly that satire shouldn't be subtle and should instead be a polemic utilizing satire, one really can't compare theorists and leaders making direct statements or writing on a topic with artists producing entertainment media.
Agreed, satire has its place, but it's not a revolutionary way to communicate. It's a way to filter out people who are in the "in" crowd. Stuff like Soviet satire wasn't convincing people to become communists, it was playing on the fact that they were already communist or had delt with the Soviet system at some point.
The heavy handed propagandist satire, like this was less to convince American's that America was bad, and more to entertain Soviet citizens who understood the context and message that the satire was presenting.
Basically, satire is fine, but you can't fight fascism with satire. You also can't lead a revolutionary movement with satire and satirical propaganda only works when the satirist is coming from the position of the dominant political ideology of the time and re-enforcing the "in group" mentality that satire re-enforces.
Wow, reactionaries were able to recuperate They Live and Starship Trooper and Full Metal Jacket and American History X and Fight Club and American Psycho and Judge Dredd and WH40k to serve reactionary ends, but surely, surely this time it'll be different.
The 'value in satire' is that it makes leftist criticisms accessible for children of politically illiterate parents
I wasn't 'in the know' when I saw (like three of) those movies. I was an impressionable child whose father liked them unironically. They all helped me me to establish different opinions from him.
It's a generic hero story to push pro-fascist speeches and politics. Defending it here is extremely sus for a 1 hour old account.
Satire is dead and ineffective everyone here already knows this. Anything you satire will always just be used unironically be the fash as aspirational and reinforce them. That doesn't change the fact that the original is a trashy generic pro-nazi book.
The book was tossed out for the satire of the movie because making the book as a movie would have been the production of fascist agitprop. Nobody really knew what we know now about satire not working.
Is Satire really pointless though? It reaches its intended audience very well.
Just because some chuds are too brain dead to realize they are being made fun of doesn’t change the fact that they are being made fun of.
The alternative is they rally around legit fascist agitprop like “day of the rope” or some nightmarish genocide fantasy - it’s not like they will waste away into dust.
In my opinion yes, it's pointless.
It serves as entertainment for the people who already agree with the message of the satire. It achieves nothing with the people who take media at face value. And worse yet it becomes completely unironic media that the subjects of the satire use to promote themselves and be aspirational about.
If we score this, nothing is gained for group 1, nothing is gained for group 2 (and sometimes they like it which is really bad), something is gained for group 3. The fascists gain something from it.
It is far better for us to produce completely unambiguous good guys and bad guys content, rather than satire of the fascists as the ""good guys"". While the latter is very entertaining for us it is a mistake and a trap.
That’s fucking bleak.
Can’t deny how crowded warhammer 40k has become with fascists though, so I’ve seen it in action.
(The lore of 40k has been retconned so that there is literal “tiers” of humanity with each tier being smarter, fitter, and taller than the last. And it’s unironically embraced.)
Satire is one of my favorite forms of media, but it eventually gets hollowed out with an unironic form over time.
Exactly, you see the problem here right?
It either achieves nothing, or it actively converts the media illiterate into seeing the fascists as "cool". And any further iterations on a successful piece of satire may or may not be satire or completely unironic lionisation of fascism written by people who totally didn't get the message originally.
Satire is hugely entertaining because it's clever and it aligns with our politics. The problem however is that we have a mountain of evidence to show that it is not particularly beneficial. Entertainment is fun, but at the expense of helping the fascists we should be pushing against it. We would be better off if satire died entirely.
I haven't seen any solid defence of satire so far. At best it is neutral by not harming but not really helping us. At worst it actively harms us.
Has The Onion really been a net negative for the world? :powercry-1:
They did offer a public apology for making Biden seem like a harmless but well meaning old man.
You're steering in to "i live in a tank and am the only true communist" territory. It's okay for entertainment to be entertaining. One sci fi movie that no one got isn't going to make things worse. The reason no one got it is bc the society was already so saturated with fascism to begin with.
Being joyless monks who never have anything to laugh at because humor supports fascism is not good for morale.
A defense of satire? Sneaking satire in to mass media is a dogwhistle for leftists and proto-leftists that says "you're not insane. Other people see it too. You're not alone. This isn't normal or acceptable and you are correct to oppose it."
Not everything can or should be come and see. The people who are already fascists in their hearts and wake up because they saw some movie and have 0 media literacy aren't a net loss. They were never ours to begin with and seeing your neighbors miss the point entirely and cheer for Dougie Howser, SS is wonderfully clarifying about the nature of the society you live in.
This movie was released in to a society that was already packed with fascists even if it didn't technically meet all the requirements to be called fascist in it's totality. Bush didn't launch the homicidal war in Iraq and the nightmarish global war on terror bc idiots thought Johnny Rico was aspirational, and nothing would be different if the movie hadn't been made except that leftists wouldn't have it as an example of the incoherence and stupidity of fascists.
America didn't need Mel Brooks or Verhoeven or Lucas or Tarentino or Chaplin to make them sympathetic to fascism. They already had John Wayne and Patton and untold other extremely famous and influential fascists to do that. Satire might not being a great weapon in the war on fascism, but it's not making things worse, either, and it provides rare moments of joy in the otherwise bleak nightmare we live in.
Humans like telling stories and having entertainment that entertains is good for morale. Regardless of what the fash are doing (which we have no control over) we do need to laugh at them, because the alternative is viewing them as inevitable and unstoppable, and just giving in to despair.
It's not a criticism of entertainment though, it's a criticism of satire that masquerades as doing something useful when it is in fact achieving the opposite.
It objectively has though, because it functions to normalise the ultra nationalism depicted as somehow laudable and heroic. Because it creates fascist larpers out of people who have no idea they're larping fascism, and some of whom who do go on to discover this end up unironically becoming fascists.
Why do you think satire is required to do this?
I completely disagree. This is just how propaganda functions, and you would never dismiss any other form of propaganda as "oh they were never ours to begin with therefore the propaganda affecting them doesn't matter".
The only thing here I agree with.
We can laugh at them without producing masturbatory satire that unintentionally functions as recruitment material.
There's more to entertainment than satire and you don't need satire to shit on fascists. Satire is completely impotent because the people being satirized just need to say, "This but unironically." In many ways, satire is the ultimate lib genre, a completely impotent genre that has absolutely no persuasive power. When was the last time you say someone on the fence get convinced by a satire because almost every single fence-sitter I've encountered always characterize that satire as "too preachy and smug." It's a genre for people who already buy into the belief/argument/ideology circlejerking about how smart they are for getting the satire and how their opponents are too stoopid for not getting the satire while their "stoopid" opponents use the aesthetics and selected parts of the satire to further push their agenda unironically. Who's the stupid one, the ones who don't get the satire or the ones who think not getting the satire actually matter?
deleted by creator
Satire is so powerful, which is why brilliant satire Full Metal Jacket gets shown at Marines boot camp. When Asian women get annoyed by lone men shouting "me so horny me love you long time" at them, you see, it's actually Asian women who are stoopid for not getting that the men are just referencing a brilliant satire and totally not sexually harassing them.
GW has the problem with a lot of long-term media that the kids who grew up not getting the references ended up writing the story. I had some teenager jawing on about how the Imperium is socialism, totally talking over my attempts to explain that it's a parody of the Nazis, UK politics, the brainworms version of the Soviets, American fundies, etc.
Partially because it's not any more. The people writing genuinely think the space marines are cool good guys instead os psychopathic genocidal fanatics. Which sucks bc unhinged cranked up to 11 old school 40k was a lot of fun with it's vision of 20th century ideologies stretched out to their full illogical conclusions.
Also, they named Gazkul Mag Uruk Thracka after Thatcher and that will never not amuse me.
There's an internet term for when people who get the joke are gradually replaced with true believers who don't get the joke.
deleted by creator
R u referring to the primaries marines?
Humans > Space Marines > Custodes > Primarchs > Emperor
Back in the day all these “tiers” were just humans, with no weird biological supremacy stuff going on.
Like, Primarchs were just basic (if famous) human generals back in the original lore.
No way, in the past everyone was a baseline human?? What the fuck... When did the ubermenschen retcon happen it's been like this for at least 20 years now. Legit erasure of history lol
deleted by creator
This feels like "dirty ushanka" territory. Is there really no value in galvanizing support among the left by creating art depicting fascist ideologies, in giving people without lived experiences with fascism an emotional understanding of what it is and why is must be fought? Is there no value in creating a shared cultural language of antifascist symbols? Would the masses be willing to seek out and consume endless dry, polemic works? Would leftists even be allowed to create and disseminate unambiguous morality plays which cast their capitalist patrons as the enemies of humanity?
I think this dialog falls foul of a common fault in analysis on the left, where we ignore the sheer scale of our opposition's power and nitpick our own, convincing ourselves that if we just create the perfect work we'd sweep aside generations of propaganda and that anything less than perfect may as well be a tool of our enemies in the way that everything created under capitalism reenforces it. You could write "Fuck Fascism" on a piece of paper and a lib would say "oh yes, I too hate Stalin".
Do we as leftists give up on creating art that speaks to leftists on anything other than a surface level because a fascist might see it and be convinced we support them instead, when they are primed by a lifetime of propaganda to see that in every shadow?
Is this not a "my treeeeeats" argument?
If the treats are recruiting tools for fascists, the treats are bad. We can make treats that depict fascist ideologies without those treats also functioning in a positive way for them. That's the point.
No, and I resent the aggressive reductionism. If you aren't interested in engaging with my argument, don't.
There is no emotionally honest depiction of fascism which will not appeal to a fascist - that is what makes them a fascist. They like the things we hate.
The benefits being presented are "it makes leftists feel good".
The negatives being presented are "when this content is successful it clearly functions to grow fascist numbers".
Satire like Warhammer 40k and Starship Troopers is NOT an emotionally honest depiction of fascism. It presents the enemy as monsters. It justifies the foundational root of fascism being that there are monsters that must be destroyed.
An emotionally honest depiction of fascism would have the enemies fascism seeks to destroy be actually marginalised people that are the weakest in society being actively destroyed and brutalised. This of course would not be very fun to watch or play though would it? And thus would be less successful, both with leftists and with the wider audience, it would in fact stop being satirical altogether if you did this. Satire inherently has emotional dishonesty embedded in it for the sake of making it fun entertainment and audience reach.
The benefits go beyond making leftists feel good, it makes them feel like part of a larger group within society that can and should effect change. It gives them a structure around which to understand what they oppose and why. It literally grows the number of active leftists in exactly the same way as it grows the number of fascists - by giving them a nucleus around which to form a coherent ideology distinct from the background radiation of disaffected liberalism. The difference is that the fascist gets this anyway, from the news, from every blockbuster film, from every war game.
I would also argue that there is emotional honesty there, because fascism sees itself as fighting monsters, part of inoculating against fascism is understanding that no perceived enemy justifies it's existence. However I do agree that it is a serious weakness of both 40k and Starship Troopers that this idea, that fascism creates it's monsters, is never explored. If it was I think it would be harder, but still not impossible, to co-opt them. I'm not arguing that these pieces of media cannot be criticized though, I am arguing that satire should not be declared tainted and abandoned to the right. It's is a tool in the belt of leftist artists and is no more vulnerable to co-opting than any other media dealing with the subject of fascism.
Fascists are also quite capable of taking media that explicitly shows them attacking humanized, marginalized, non-threatening people and understanding it as aspirational.
I can't think of any popular right wing satire of the left. The closest thing I can come up with is Monty Python's occasional jab leftwards with extremely accurate criticisms that leftists would make themselves. That's not to say that right wing comedy doesn't exist. But that's not the same as satire is it?
Awoo's point is that it doesn't have to be through satire. What's wrong with something like Wolfenstein 3d? Fascists are scum and the universal truth of fascists being the scum of society holding humanity back is expressed through the mechanics and lore of the FPS. What's wrong with something like Come and See, where fascist scum is portrayed as they really are, a bunch of drunk, incompetent, genocidal monsters who gets got at the end. And before you wave your "not every movie needs to be as heavy as Come and See" objection, even the Indiana Jones series treated Nazis better than virtually all useless satirical depictions of fascists. In the films involving Nazis, they are either depicted as incompetent or completely creepy and unhinged, nameless mooks that gets owned by the protagonists. The climax of the first film is basically Yahweh smiting a bunch of Nazis for being Nazis.
But all that Starship Trooper/WH40k "uh ignore how we made the fascists look cool it's acktually satire stoopid" satire is complete bullshit.
Safire is the highest form of posting. As posters that appeals to us. It however is not effective. There is something g called there mere exposure effect. It is a marketing term. Just being exposed to a thing increases people's tendency to like it. Satire devote brain wrinkles to the bad stuff, and they are happy brain wrinkles. Without specific work your brain tends to like things it has more wrinkles for. So in agregste it creates more harm that good.
Look at The Producer's. Alot of people have very fond memories of Hitler now. Around the edges your brain will start to forget why it has fond memories of Hitler and it might soften your negative associations. Across a population effects like that can produce shifts that are big enough people make marketing careers off them.
I’m sorry but Springtime for Hitler did not rehabilitate Hitler’s image, 5 decades of Cold War propaganda and conspiracy theory nonsense did that.
No, not specifically. For sure that is part of of that five decade mission of rounding the sharp edges off the nazis. You simply wouldn't have made a cute Hitler dance number if you weren't in that stream already.
I have serious objections to the idea that Mel Brooks, and other Jewish artists, making the fash look like a pack of deranged buffoons is somehow contributing to the acceptance of fascism.
Skewering fascism by making it's adherents look like complete idiots is one of the few ways in media that you can fight them. Any other depiction just makes them look cool to people already primed to like them.
That does not seem to actually be true. It feels true. However it seems the best way is simply to not talk about them. Say they were bad and move on to talking about good things that deserve attention. Positivity is the way forward.
And how has that worked out in the real world?
How does the influence of the occasional leftist satire hold up against the vast sea of excrement constantly being churned out by the mass media?
This whole argument that satire is too dangerous to produce vastly, vastly over estimates our power to influence society. To whit; we don't have any. Sorry to bother you and the producers and inglorious basterds are such rare points in a vast sea of neoliberalism and overt fascism that worrying about them is pointless hand wringing. There's a very good reason why we're talking about one specific 30 year old piece of anti-fascist propaganda; there have only been a handful of similarly impactful anti-fascist films since then, out of untold thousands of entirely sincere fash or fash adjacent or turbolib action movies. For every dork who joined the marines because they saw the movie, we've got people who realized heinlein was a shitty incoherent :libertarian-approaching: chud because Verhoeven's movie got them to reexamine their beliefs.
Being worried that once in a decade anti-fascist movies are somehow instrumental to the march of fascism when we've got like thirty Transformers movies, that American Sniper trash, all the dark gritty batman capeshit, and endless cop dramas is self indulgent. They don't matter. Nothing would have changed if they hadn't been made. Laugh, enjoy that brief moment of levity and humor in the sea of nightmares that is our lives, and move on.
P good as far as I can tell. Like star trek, showing people what a good world could be inspires more people towards our side than watching liberals make fun of other liberals. There is a reason we don't see more solar punk stuff. That is actually upsetting to the project butterfly types. I am not saying to banish the producer's. I am just saying don't pin your artistic hopes on it.
I think satire for any broader audience needs to clearly include and demonstrate the contradiction of what it's seeking to satirize: simply showing something that's absurd and awful and trusting people to realize it's mocking it is bad practice, especially when its mockery is only a little exaggerated from reality. Starship Troopers is bad satire because it doesn't refute the system it is satirizing, and it just comes across as generic corny military sci-fi with a similar fascistic tone to normal American slop if someone isn't already aware of its goals. All the nationalism and bloodlust in it is just a clearer statement of what most American theater-goers already expected from media.
To be effective it would have had to be more overt and actively spell out what it's implying: include a scene establishing the meteor was a natural phenomenon and the government knew it, hell establish that they decided against having asteroid-defense-systems because it would have meant raising taxes or diverting half a percent of military funding or something, and so clearly establish that the ridiculous casus belli is explicitly a lie; establish that the pointless invasion of the bug worlds is failing and the war is going poorly overall so that it doesn't look like they're just winning a hard fought victory against a monstrous foe; hell establish the bugs as individually smarter and more concerned with their own lives with something like a direct attack on a nest being met with a holding action from worker forms who fall back when actual soldier forms arrive and repel the attack; etc.
It basically needed to make it clear that the humans were in the wrong and the villain was the Fascist regime behind the war in the first place, and that they're losing because they're disorganized and launching a genocidal war against an entrenched foe over literally nothing but sheer stupid bloodlust.
The problem here is the intellectual trap.
Intellectual people LIKE media that trusts its audience to understand it is satire without the overt spelling out of it. Without the explanation. The intellectual audience that satire targets prefers not to have it so they can have they're "i'm clever for getting it" feeling.
This is the trap of satire. The trap of intellectual entertainment. It is masturbation and because it feels good it is so easy to make the mistake of helping the fascists while making the content feel as good as possible for its intended target audience. This isn't helped by the fact that doing so not only nets you more viewers from the intellectuals but also more viewers from the fash.
This is why all good communists in history just slam bullshit out of the air and mock anyone who disagrees with them relentlessly.
Just read any of the stuff Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, etc. said when talking to heads of state. There's never any sarcasm or couching of ideas, only blatantly stating the consequences of the other person's ideological position and following up with clarity of their ideological position.
There were absolutely Soviet satirists, and the USSR produced satirical media alongside its other entertainment productions. While I argue constantly that satire shouldn't be subtle and should instead be a polemic utilizing satire, one really can't compare theorists and leaders making direct statements or writing on a topic with artists producing entertainment media.
Agreed, satire has its place, but it's not a revolutionary way to communicate. It's a way to filter out people who are in the "in" crowd. Stuff like Soviet satire wasn't convincing people to become communists, it was playing on the fact that they were already communist or had delt with the Soviet system at some point.
The heavy handed propagandist satire, like this was less to convince American's that America was bad, and more to entertain Soviet citizens who understood the context and message that the satire was presenting.
Basically, satire is fine, but you can't fight fascism with satire. You also can't lead a revolutionary movement with satire and satirical propaganda only works when the satirist is coming from the position of the dominant political ideology of the time and re-enforcing the "in group" mentality that satire re-enforces.
Reminds me of how many people, then and now, got extremely mad at "a Modest Proposal" for... it's endorsement of cannibalism.
deleted by creator
Wow, reactionaries were able to recuperate They Live and Starship Trooper and Full Metal Jacket and American History X and Fight Club and American Psycho and Judge Dredd and WH40k to serve reactionary ends, but surely, surely this time it'll be different.
deleted by creator
The 'value in satire' is that it makes leftist criticisms accessible for children of politically illiterate parents
I wasn't 'in the know' when I saw (like three of) those movies. I was an impressionable child whose father liked them unironically. They all helped me me to establish different opinions from him.