|
Jaxyon posted:Get TV networks to agree to not show blatant cop propaganda. It doesn't have to be a government decree. That's fine, but it isn't a ban. OwlFancier posted:Again I have no particular interest in it, I think it would happen anyway, you already see plenty of outlets restricting their content because they can see which way the wind is blowing and performative wokeness is a good marketing strategy nowadays. I also don't think that state censorship would happen before individual providers decided to do it of their own volition either, because law enforcement is the arm of the state and the state are the last people who want to get rid of it, they certainly won't pass a law to abolish its propaganda before they abolish it. I'd strongly object to it. There should be very few limits on what we shouldn't allow filmmakers/television producers to create, even if we call it propaganda. As long as it isn't racially vilifying anyone or causing active violence, we shouldn't stop people from creating the projects they want to make. Whether or not the networks want to show it is a different question. This is getting into dicey territory where we start banning material based on it depicting a world that we don't particularly like.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Law enforcement against individuals is not a necessary government function, law enforcement against capitalist organizations, however, I am quite in favour of Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Who's arguing against law enforcement in this thread? lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I'd strongly object to it. There should be very few limits on what we shouldn't allow filmmakers/television producers to create, even if we call it propaganda. As long as it isn't racially vilifying anyone or causing active violence, we shouldn't stop people from creating the projects they want to make. What do think the police are doing based on your participation in this thread so far? Why what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:lmao Sounds like somebody confused "abolish police" with "end any enforcement of laws" because they watched enough copaganda that they can only conceptualize law enforcement through our current model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What do think the police are doing based on your participation in this thread so far? I don't understand this question. quote:Why what? It seems a double standard to say that individuals can police themselves but organizations can't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sounds like somebody confused "abolish police" with "end any enforcement of laws" because they watched enough copaganda that they can only conceptualize law enforcement through our current model. Oh, so you when you and others in this thread say that you want to abolish law enforcement, you really mean that you want to reform law enforcement. Ok, well that is a billion times more reasonable position
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I don't understand this question. Do you think that the cops are not racially vilifiyng people or doing violence? Because if you acknowledge that cop shows support the institution of the cops by providing cover for their failings, then I do not understand how you can argue that they are not racially vilifying people or causing active violence. I literally posted a quote from a supreme court judge justifying torture by saying he watched 24 and thought it was cool and necessary. The causal link seems extremely clear. CelestialScribe posted:It seems a double standard to say that individuals can police themselves but organizations can't. Do you think that firearm ownership should be regulated. Do you think that driving a car should be regulated. Do you subscribe to the general idea that the more power someone or something controls, the more important it is to subject it to public scrutiny to ensure that it does not become a law unto itself? silence_kit posted:Oh, so you when you and others in this thread say that you want to abolish law enforcement, you really mean that you want to reform law enforcement. Ok, well that is a billion times more reasonable position When you say you want to abolish slavery, you really mean you want to reform it into "monetary compensation in exchange for nomianlly voluntary labour".
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh, so you when you and others in this thread say that you want to abolish law enforcement, you really mean that you want to reform law enforcement. Ok, well that is a billion times more reasonable position Who's saying that? Even OF above, who was making a joke, said he still wants law enforcement of capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Do you think that the cops are not racially vilifiyng people or doing violence? Because if you acknowledge that cop shows support the institution of the cops by providing cover for their failings, then I do not understand how you can argue that they are not racially vilifying people or causing active violence. I literally posted a quote from a supreme court judge justifying torture by saying he watched 24 and thought it was cool and necessary. The causal link seems extremely clear. I think those things are true. I don't think that justifies a blanket ban on art that depicts police doing things in a way that we don't like. It would be like a communist country placing a ban on books that depict capitalism as a utopia. quote:Do you think that firearm ownership should be regulated. Do you think that driving a car should be regulated. Do you subscribe to the general idea that the more power someone or something controls, the more important it is to subject it to public scrutiny to ensure that it does not become a law unto itself? Oh I absolutely believe those things. Which is why I believe we need law enforcement at the individual level as well, because left to their own devices, individuals will come together and seek even more power within their own communities. I don't want to have to repeat myself, so I'll just say again that I don't believe in keeping the police as they are. I've made numerous posts to that point in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Get TV networks to agree to not show blatant cop propaganda. It doesn't have to be a government decree. Aren't they already doing this? COPS is cancelled and studios are "re-evaluating" how figures of authority are displayed. The NY Times had a huge article how Law and Order often had this them were good cops were held back by the "system" and it was okay to occasionally go around that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I think those things are true. I don't think that justifies a blanket ban on art that depicts police doing things in a way that we don't like. It would be like a communist country placing a ban on books that depict capitalism as a utopia. If you hold that view a priori then I am sure there is nothing I can do to convince you, however personally I would suggest that art is not separate from society and is a tool just like any other part. It has a function and an effect and to suggest it can only be governed by our collective societal perceptions and desires while simultaneously: CelestialScribe posted:Oh I absolutely believe those things. Which is why I believe we need law enforcement at the individual level as well, because left to their own devices, individuals will come together and seek even more power within their own communities. Believing that individuals can not be governed solely by our collective social interaction and desire and must be controlled by the state and by force, seems a little odd to me. If it is good enough for mass media that has a huge amount of weight on our society, one would think it is good enough for the individual. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jun 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you hold that view a priori then I am sure there is nothing I can do to convince you, however personally I would suggest that art is not separate from society and is a tool just like any other part. It has a function and an effect and to suggest it can only be governed by our collective societal perceptions and desires while simultaneously: So, what's the threshold? If there is a cop show that exists in a society without cops, isn't that literally a "fantasy" show? Why bother banning it if that society doesn't even exist? And I didn't say it shouldn't be governed, only that we should be thoughtful and considerate about what type of material we should or shouldn't show in art. Where is the line for you? quote:Believing that individuals can not be governed solely by our collective social interaction and desire and must be controlled by the state and by force, seems a little odd to me. I think we can in some circumstances, and not in others. All social interaction and all communities are not equal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Aren't they already doing this? COPS is cancelled and studios are "re-evaluating" how figures of authority are displayed. The NY Times had a huge article how Law and Order often had this them were good cops were held back by the "system" and it was okay to occasionally go around that. Yes cancelling LivePD and COPS is a great start, but there's so much cop show poo poo, and many shows that aren't strictly based in reality(fantasy/scifi) that use the same tropes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Nobody thinks Law & Order is a realistic portrayal of the justice system just like no one thinks House is an accurate portrayal of the medical system or the X-Files of the FBI or whatever, it's entertainment, we all know it's bullshit. Tackle the actual propaganda in the news and poo poo, like parroting whatever BS the police provide and using the passive voice in every incident where a cop kills somebody. Law and Order absolutely is propoganda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Law and Order absolutely is propoganda. And people absolutely internalize things they see in fictional shows. Like, people think all sorts of stuff about forensic "science" and nearly all of it is totally unscientific crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:And people absolutely internalize things they see in fictional shows. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but we shouldn't be banning House or Grey's Anatomy or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:So, what's the threshold? If there is a cop show that exists in a society without cops, isn't that literally a "fantasy" show? Why bother banning it if that society doesn't even exist? And I didn't say it shouldn't be governed, only that we should be thoughtful and considerate about what type of material we should or shouldn't show in art. Where is the line for you? I think that cop shows are bad and propaganda for a very dangerous and harmful institution, and that they very effectively prohibit criticism of the police by bombarding people with an already fantastical notion of what they spend their time doing and how they conduct themselves. Fantasy can be extremely harmful if people do not realise that it is a fantasy. As to other things? Well I'm sure I can decide on a case by case basis. But I think the correct decision is quite clear as regards cop shows. CelestialScribe posted:I think we can in some circumstances, and not in others. All social interaction and all communities are not equal. I agree, specifically I think that massive media corporations are sufficiently divorced from society (as are all people with enough wealth, that is what wealth facilitates, the stratification and isolation of parts of society) that they must be subject to far greater restrictions than individuals. As individuals can be (and are) largely governed by their participation in society, they do not need cops controlling their lives. CelestialScribe posted:I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but we shouldn't be banning House or Grey's Anatomy or whatever. If someone suggests that cop shows are bad and harmful and you respond with "Why do you want to ban Grey's Anatomy" then you just look like a lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh, so you when you and others in this thread say that you want to abolish law enforcement, you really mean that you want to reform law enforcement. Ok, well that is a billion times more reasonable position It helps to read the thread before posting in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that cop shows are bad and propaganda for a very dangerous and harmful institution, and that they very effectively prohibit criticism of the police by bombarding people with an already fantastical notion of what they spend their time doing and how they conduct themselves. Fantasy can be extremely harmful if people do not realise that it is a fantasy. As to other things? Well I'm sure I can decide on a case by case basis. But I think the correct decision is quite clear as regards cop shows. So, what is your ideal solution to this problem? Given that you know, banning this type of material would be a pretty serious breach of the first amendment. quote:As individuals can be (and are) largely governed by their participation in society, they do not need cops controlling their lives. This is where we disagree. I don't trust society to govern people nearly as much as you do. (Don't disagree about the cops part).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If someone suggests that cop shows are bad and harmful and you respond with "Why do you want to ban Grey's Anatomy" then you just look like a lunatic. You literally said you want to ban cop shows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but we shouldn't be banning House or Grey's Anatomy or whatever. Yes tons of people disagree with this. People disagreed in this thread. People go into careers based on bullshit cop propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
Also apropos to this thread, apparently Atlanta PD is trying to do a work stoppage right now, because one of their people might actually see some repercussions for murdering someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:So, what is your ideal solution to this problem? Given that you know, banning this type of material would be a pretty serious breach of the first amendment. I have already said, I think the state as currently structured is fundamentally incapable of passing laws that limit its own power until long after they are overdue. But if you are able, by any means, to restrict the visibility of harmful propaganda, you should. CelestialScribe posted:This is where we disagree. I don't trust society to govern people nearly as much as you do. (Don't disagree about the cops part). Yes, that much is evident, what I think is rather strange is that you trust it to govern people and organizations who can dictate what ideas and perceptions millions, even billions of people across the world are exposed to. And that idea of "rules for the plebs but not for the rulers" is not one that paints you in a favorable light. CelestialScribe posted:You literally said you want to ban cop shows. Not that I've ever watched them but I thought grey's anatomy and house were medical shows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I have already said, I think the state as currently structured is fundamentally incapable of passing laws that limit its own power until long after they are overdue. But if you are able, by any means, to restrict the visibility of harmful propaganda, you should. The problem here is what you're calling propaganda. I mean, I think a lot of shows are propaganda that have negative impacts on peoples' lives. Doesn't mean I think they should be banned. quote:Yes, that much is evident, what I think is rather strange is that you trust it to govern people and organizations who can dictate what ideas and perceptions millions, even billions of people across the world are exposed to. And that idea of "rules for the plebs but not for the rulers" is not one that paints you in a favorable light. If saying, "I don't know if we should be banning the type of art people make" puts me in a bad light, then, okay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
I think that you are not engaging with my positions there and are instead trying to reframe your position as a thought terminating cliche to avoid engaging with the exploration of what it means in practice, and I can't really have a conversation if you're going to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that you are not engaging with my positions there and are instead trying to reframe your position as a truism to avoid engaging with the exploration of what it means in practice, and I can't really have a conversation if you're going to do that. I'm merely responding to your original position, which was that cop shows should be banned. If you want to reframe that argument, feel free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
I've spent a fair few posts going into detail about what your position means in practice, exploring its consequences and application in this specific instance, and if you're going to respond to that when it gets difficult by just wheeling back around to "OK well I don't think we should limit the kind of art people produce" in an attempt to just completely ignore all of that exploration and to suggest an equivalence between shows which depict the racist, murdering police as noble heroes consistently helping the victims of personal crimes, an equivalence between that and a landscape painting, as if those two are both commensurable because they are both "kinds of art people make" then that is an extremely dishonest form of argumentation and I'm going to need you to stop doing it because I think I am putting in some effort here to try and explain things and you're not meeting it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh, so you when you and others in this thread say that you want to abolish law enforcement, you really mean that you want to reform law enforcement. Ok, well that is a billion times more reasonable position I genuinely don't understand why people keep acting like this is some sort of gotcha. We recognize that something that nominally, should uphold communal defense and ensure people aren't getting hurt, but the modern concept of policing as we know it should be abolished because *holy* gently caress, they are murdering so many people for no loving reason. This is like going up to someone who is protesting Donald Trump and is suggesting that he should be removed, so a new leader could be elected, and saying they're not for impeaching the president, they're for reforming him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I literally posted a quote from a supreme court judge justifying torture by saying he watched 24 and thought it was cool and necessary. The causal link seems extremely clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
It's telling how much you care about this discussion CS, because rather than talk about the points raised in the previous ten pages, or raise your own solutions, or really contribute anything, you have now spent a page or so of discussion nitpicking about the word ban to defend the existence of cop shows. For what it's worth, I don't think an actual, government backed ban of an entire genre would be feasible or desirable, how do you decide what a cop show is? Anything showing cops in a positive light? Anything showing cops at all? Any show focused on cops? However society doesn't need those shows to exist either. Rebuilding the concept of law enforcement from the ground up will mean the shows quickly lose any relevance and die off. And honestly, the current environment isn't healthy for them either. This is an issue that one could reasonably assume the free market would take care of, assuming our main goal is met. CelestialScribe, you've asked a boatload of questions, argued a lot of terminology, nitpicked a bunch of irrelevant crap, but we haven't heard from you, give us some ideas. You say you think policing needs to change, but you have yet to give any concrete idea of what that would be like to you while insisting on all kinds of details from the rest of us, which you then ignore, so give us some thoughts, what do you want to see with police reform?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I genuinely don't understand why people keep acting like this is some sort of gotcha. We recognize that something that nominally, should uphold communal defense and ensure people aren't getting hurt, but the modern concept of policing as we know it should be abolished because *holy* gently caress, they are murdering so many people for no loving reason. Because it doesn't make sense? And that analogy doesn't work. A better would be organization to organization. Anyone who said something like "We should defund the executive branch!" would be dismissed as ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:43
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but we shouldn't be banning House or Grey's Anatomy or whatever. There are some unique factors to police shows there. Random citizens don't end up sitting on juries which determine how hospital patients should be treated. But they absolutely do end up on juries which a have to determine how much "reasonable doubt" is left by the results of a fingerprint or fiber analysis, whether the improbability of a witness's claim is outweighed by the witness being a cop and therefore reliable, or whether an officer who broke procedures should be punished as abusive or celebrated as willing to go the extra mile to get justice. That's before you even get to the race of the defendant or how trendy the crime is in current procedurals. I'm not saying to ban anything or not, but people internalizing fictional depiction of law enforcement and the legal system has a very direct effect on people's lives via trial outcomes, in ways that other genres do not. It even has a chilling effect on cases which don't go to trial, since for example if the evidence against you would look slam-dunk in a CSI show even though it isn't, and if a jury would be more likely to convict because of it? That's going to make a plea bargain sound all the better, especially if you can't afford an attorney who can really drive the "TV isn't real" argument home for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Trapick posted:This is the part I find incredibly spurious. Do you think Scalia was driven to think torture was good because he watched 24? I think it's infinitely more likely he thought that anyway (because he was a garbage human) and happened to like 24 and use it as an example. To say there's any causal link there is a really strong claim. It doesn't really matter what Scalia, noted dipshit, was thinking because the post you quoted was trying to help you understand that your original position was bad. There are many studies that show TV, even fiction, influences perceptions and opinions. Here's one of them. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854815604180
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I've spent a fair few posts going into detail about what your position means in practice, exploring its consequences and application in this specific instance, and if you're going to respond to that when it gets difficult by just wheeling back around to "OK well I don't think we should limit the kind of art people produce" in an attempt to just completely ignore all of that exploration and to suggest an equivalence between shows which depict the racist, murdering police as noble heroes consistently helping the victims of personal crimes, an equivalence between that and a landscape painting, as if those two are both commensurable because they are both "kinds of art people make" then that is an extremely dishonest form of argumentation and I'm going to need you to stop doing it because I think I am putting in some effort here to try and explain things and you're not meeting it. You started with a point: cop shows should be banned. If you want to focus on the harm they cause, that's a different point altogether. You shouldn't start with a ridiculous point if you don't want people to focus on it. Pustulio posted:It's telling how much you care about this discussion CS, because rather than talk about the points raised in the previous ten pages, or raise your own solutions, or really contribute anything, you have now spent a page or so of discussion nitpicking about the word ban to defend the existence of cop shows. Read the thread. I made a detailed post outlining some examples of I would imagine a new type of law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Trapick posted:This is the part I find incredibly spurious. Do you think Scalia was driven to think torture was good because he watched 24? I think it's infinitely more likely he thought that anyway (because he was a garbage human) and happened to like 24 and use it as an example. To say there's any causal link there is a really strong claim. Do you think perhaps there is a reason why he thinks like that, do you think perhaps he has spent his life immersed in a media environment of Dirty Harry's and Paul Kersey's and all the other movies that came out during the reagan years which depicted murderous crime waves that could only be stopped by even more ovewhelming force in the hands of a vigilante or loose cannon cop? Do you think that might be why he reaches for them to justify his position? Do you think he just came out of the womb a garbage human or do you think his environment made him one? CelestialScribe posted:You started with a point: cop shows should be banned. If you want to focus on the harm they cause, that's a different point altogether. You shouldn't start with a ridiculous point if you don't want people to focus on it. Do... you think that my view of the harm they cause has no relation to why I think it would be beneficial if they were banned..? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jun 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
Trapick posted:This is the part I find incredibly spurious. Do you think Scalia was driven to think torture was good because he watched 24? I think it's infinitely more likely he thought that anyway (because he was a garbage human) and happened to like 24 and use it as an example. To say there's any causal link there is a really strong claim. You're not wrong, but the fact that he chose 24 as an example was surely felt by other people, he had an example from popular culture to hand that backed up his opinion. The causal link would be the their combined influence on anyone else paying attention to him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Because it doesn't make sense? Abolish the police. Abolish everything about them. Burn it all down, and start over again from a new starting point. Defund, tear them all down. How does not make any sense? Like in the same way we want to abolish prisons. But there'll still be a place for people who need to be kept safe either for others or themselves, we'll just make them not be anything like prisons as we know them right now. I am struggling to make sense of why all this sudden loving pedantry. It makes me wonder if the arguments are really in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
Pustulio posted:CelestialScribe, you've asked a boatload of questions, argued a lot of terminology, nitpicked a bunch of irrelevant crap, but we haven't heard from you, give us some ideas. You say you think policing needs to change, but you have yet to give any concrete idea of what that would be like to you while insisting on all kinds of details from the rest of us, which you then ignore, so give us some thoughts, what do you want to see with police reform? This dude is a wealthy Australian, he's just trolling you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
24 is actually a great example because many many people think torture is an effective means of getting information, and it turns up in TV, Movies, video games, and text. And every single expert on it says it's incredibly bad at doing that. But basically everyone thinks it's actually effective, if distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2020 03:50
|
|