It's not "just a movie" or "just entertainment" - it is powerful propaganda


PDA






Golden Hound
December 23, 2008, 11:57 PM
One of the biggest mistakes that I see on this forum is people saying the following, or some variation thereof, with regard to some anti-gun message in a film or television show:

"It's just a movie, so it doesn't matter."

I touched on this same issue, although in a different way, in the thread about Henry Rollins. There, people argued that Rollins's opinion on guns was not relevant because he's "just" an entertainer. I contended that the opinion of an entertainer carries a tremendous amount of weight because of all of the fans of that entertainer who are going to be influenced by it.

The same concept applies to movies. And television, and cartoons. The thread about the Simpsons had a number of people saying that the anti-gun messages in Family Guy, The Simpsons, American Dad and other shows don't matter because "they're just cartoons."

Anyone who thinks this way is missing the point, big time. What do you think 99.9% of American kids and teenagers spend their time watching on TV? Do you think they're watching Fox News or CSPAN? No, they're watching The Simpsons and Family Guy. Millions of viewers are getting their information from these shows, even if they're "just" cartoons. The cartoons in question incorporate enough real-life ideology that if someone knows NOTHING about guns, and they hear Lisa Simpson or that dog on Family Guy say that most gun owners end up shooting themselves, or some other completely absurd and insane piece of anti propaganda, then this is the "fact" that they are going to come away with. If the overall message about guns that they get is "guns are bad," it doesn't matter WHERE that message is coming from as long as it's getting through their heads. It makes no difference whether the message is coming from a cartoon or a serious drama. The fact of the matter is, that people in America spend their lives glued to the television and WHAT COMES OUT OF THAT TELEVISION, GOES INTO THEIR BRAINS. And that is all there is to it.

The phrase "pop culture" is deceptively innocuous-sounding. The truth is that "pop culture" has the potential to be EXTREMELY powerful propaganda. Look at what happened with the presidential election this year. Barack Obama is going to be our president because he was marketable as a pop culture icon, and John McCain was not. We made the mistake of thinking that these perceptions didn't matter, fielding an unelectable candidate with a vice-presidential running mate who was totally lampooned by the media, and now look what we've got. We're going to be paying for that mistake, big time. All of this "panic buying," the fact that a stamped WASR now costs a thousand dollars - this would never have happened if Obama hadn't gotten elected, and THAT would never have happened if pop culture was on OUR side instead of THEIR side.

You think movies and TV don't matter? Look at how the antis paint this terrible picture of "assault weapons." Their perceptions are obviously drawn entirely from shootouts in movies and TV shows. They're clearly not getting their information from reality, since reality is on OUR side - reality shows that so-called assault weapons account for almost no gun crime - so where are they getting it if they're not getting it from reality? They're getting it from movies. All of this crap about cop-killer bullets and the infamous "Glock 7" - from movies. From TV shows.

You think movies don't matter? Next time you're in a movie theater and you see some scene where some female victim pulls out a gun, and the gun either jams or is taken away from her - reinforcing the message that a gun is not an effective tool for self-defense, which is as far-removed from reality as saying that the earth is flat - and take note of all the people in the theater. Chances are there are a lot of them in there with you. How many of those people do you think are THR members? Unless there is a really uncanny coincidence, chances are NONE of them. That means that every single person in that theater, most likely, beside you, of course, is going to come away from that movie with the idea that a gun is not an effective tool for self-defense for the average person, and that the only people who can be trusted with them are police or "heroes."

You don't think cartoons matter? Read about the phenomenon of the South Park Republican. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park_republican) "A term that was circulated in weblogs and articles on the Internet circa 2001 and 2002, to describe what authors claimed as a "new wave" of young adults and teenagers who hold political beliefs that are, in general, aligned with those that seem to underpin gags and storylines in the popular television cartoon." That is correct, people - a political movement that is based on a cartoon. So much for the idea that "mere cartoons" don't hold any weight for our cause.

Seriously, folks. If our movement is going to go anywhere - if this country is going to maintain our second amendment freedom instead of going the way of socialist Europe - we need to do two things. We need to try to get our message promoted in pop culture entertainment. And we need to vigorously fight against anti-gun propaganda in pop culture. Every time any form of pop culture entertainment promotes an anti-gun message - be it in a cartoon, a comedy, an action movie or a television show - we need to denounce it.

"It's just entertainment" is no longer an excuse.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's not "just a movie" or "just entertainment" - it is powerful propaganda" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
seale
December 24, 2008, 12:00 AM
Could not agree more.

Doc_Jude
December 24, 2008, 12:14 AM
Excellent post. Sticky This!!! :)

Sinixstar
December 24, 2008, 12:22 AM
it's a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!

Zundfolge
December 24, 2008, 12:25 AM
Problem is that most people cannot see beyond their own experience.

Most of the folk here (at least a higher percentage of folk here compared to the general population) are not influenced in the least by pop culture and as such assume everyone else is just as unaffected.

The reality is that the majority of people ARE heavily influenced by media, and for too long we have ceded that power to the left ... to the antis ... to a handful of people in Hollywood and New York that control much of what goes on in pop culture.

We have relegated ourselves to the sidelines thus making ourselves and our position irrelevant because we don't see the relevance of pop culture.

And maybe this means that the masses are a bunch of idiots and we shouldn't care what they think since their mush-brains are controlled by mass media and pop culture but the truth is it is US that suffer because of the crap that's poured into peoples' heads because these mush-brains VOTE based on what they see on the TV!

If WE had more control over how the issue of firearms is presented ... if we had more allies "inside the beast" then we wouldn't have to worry about stocking up on AR-15s and full capacity magazines just because a Democrat gets elected.


There are people "inside the beast" that are trying to push the entertainment media into the right direction. Andrew Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/bighollywood/) is one and his coming site should be a hub for folk trying to change media (John Nolte, his "Editor in Chief" has a great blog here (http://dirtyharrysplace.com/) for the time being).

heavyshooter
December 24, 2008, 02:46 AM
GH,

I can't add anything to your post. You said it all.

Double Naught Spy
December 24, 2008, 05:20 AM
You are right. If it wasn't for the movies, the bad guys would not know how to shoot so poorly.

carlrodd
December 24, 2008, 06:36 AM
it's a conspiracy!!!!!!!!! -sinixstar


great post sinixstar. you're a genius.

i actually would say it IS a conspiracy, just as it was described in the OP. there is a fairly organized, deliberate attempt on the part of much of the entertainment industry to demonize not only guns, but the whole concept of self-preservation. violence is so frequently painted as being "never the right choice".

Double Naught Spy
December 24, 2008, 07:29 AM
i actually would say it IS a conspiracy, just as it was described in the OP. there is a fairly organized, deliberate attempt on the part of much of the entertainment industry to demonize not only guns, but the whole concept of self-preservation. violence is so frequently painted as being "never the right choice".

Yes, and often those who portray "violence is never the right choice" in movies are also pinhead idiots who are shown to suffer as a result of their poor rationale.

Additionally, so many movies arrive at the final conclusion that guns were necessary to put down the evil threats and demonstrate that throughout the movie and usually (especially) in the critical climax of the movie.

Is it also a conspiracy through widespread propaganda to show how effectively guns can be used to thwart the bad guys?

Titan6
December 24, 2008, 07:59 AM
You don't think cartoons matter? Read about the phenomenon of the South Park Republican. "A term that was circulated in weblogs and articles on the Internet circa 2001 and 2002, to describe what authors claimed as a "new wave" of young adults and teenagers who hold political beliefs that are, in general, aligned with those that seem to underpin gags and storylines in the popular television cartoon." That is correct, people - a political movement that is based on a cartoon. So much for the idea that "mere cartoons" don't hold any weight for our cause.

If you let TV (childcare) raise your children you get what comes out of the idiot box.

Apple a Day
December 24, 2008, 08:25 AM
GH, well said.
As a teacher I can tell you from years of experience that
1) Parents DO let the idiot box babysit/educate their kids. I'm not talking about the minority any more, either.
2) Television shows absolutely DO form the 'knowledge base' for today's kids. It's what they know. Before cable TV and the Internet we used to go outside and play in the woods so real world experience informed us old crotchety farts. Today kids sit inside and plug themselves into an electronic device. Everything's all wrapped up in slick, sexy packaging for the kids to consume. They go to school and talk about it so it's what they have in common, it's the common foundation on which they communicate in this relationships-are-all-important generation. It's what they do so it's what they know.

Old Fuff
December 24, 2008, 09:06 AM
I agree with the observations, but not the idea that we must or should sit back and take it.

Theater movies: Simply don't go, and use the Internet to make sure others of a like mind know about it. Then send a letter to the movie studio and explain why you and others are boycotting the show.

DVD sales: Don't buy if the content is anti-gun.

Anti-gun movies or shows on television: Watch, and make a list of the advertisers. They usually aren't anti-gun, and just bought time to sell they're product or service. They want you to be in a happy mood, not outraged - and if they get enough mail to indicate that the show upset potential customers the T.V. Network will hear from them. Of course most of the networks and show producers are left-wing and anti, but if money is involved they will back off. I've seen it happen.

Never forget that while most of the entertainment industry is made up of left-wing / anti-gun types they are still in the business to make money - so hit 'um in the pocketbook where they will feel it.

Walkalong
December 24, 2008, 09:11 AM
it's a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!Duh, been going on for years. Yes, it does matter because it influences people, just as it was intended.

Never forget that while most of the entertainment industry is made up of left-wing / anti-gun types they are still in the business to make money - so hit 'um in the pocketbook where they will feel it.
Absolutely they are, or they would never have shows with guns in them they might influence people to want to shoot, but they do because it makes them millions.

heavyshooter
December 24, 2008, 09:12 AM
I was watching "The Hunted" (Tommy Lee Jones, Benicio Del Toro) the other day. To all of the brethren here at THR, hear my plea - don't rent this movie! I could give you the list of reasons another time but I will mention one here. It epitomizes Hollywood's hatred of guns, while simultaneously showing their love of profit that is derived from violence. The main character hated guns, so he taught his men to kill with a knife. What the hell is that?!?:barf: First, if I am fighting with a knife it is because I ran out of bullets. In fact, if I am in a fight and all I have is a knife, my first instinct is to run.:D Second, the perceivable issue with a gun is that it causes deaths - at least that's what the opposers to guns would say; so why the hypocrisy of causing death with a knife? If you are going to hold true to your convictions, then we should be lobbying for knife ban laws. On that same note, how many actors have spoken out against guns while using them (ignorantly) to kill people in movies? Tom Cruise has one of the best quick shooting scenes of all time - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeNPJ0fgWVY&feature=related - H&K should be proud.;) But he then speaks critically of gun ownership. It's a trip.

AKGuy
December 24, 2008, 11:13 AM
Barack Obama is going to be our president because he was marketable as a pop culture icon, and John McCain was not....um, okay. :scrutiny:But believing that to be the underlying truth won't help anyone understand the dynamics of our country's political evolution because it is NOT why Obama was elected...which, in turn, means that responses and strategies based on the premise that erroneous premise aren't likely to be helpful, useful, or effective when it comes to actually fixing/solving anything. :banghead:

I agree that "entertainment products," whether they be movies, music, radio shows, etc, are indeed powerfully effective...but they are only effective to the extent that their various audiences are receptive. People tend to embrace ideas based on the degree to which those ideas are congruent with their own pre-existing ideas about things AND the degree to which people can see connections between their own concerns/ideas and the perceived ability of the messages to influence outcomes that those same people regard as helpful, favorable, etc.

For example...millions of kids aren't running around carjacking, murdering, or even joining the military even though millions of kids play hour after hour of video games based solely on carjacking, shooting, killing, warfighting, etc. And the few who do act up/out are acting on something that was "already there" inside of them, something that was empowered by what they were doing/seeing/experiencing by way of the video game.

Our lives are filled with examples of media influence upon us...but in order for the "light to come on," there has to be the switches and wiring "there" to begin with.

It's perilously simplistic to blame media for things, and does nothing to really solve or get at the root causes of Topic A to put too much emphasis on the media and inadequate emphasis on the nature of the media's various audiences.

Looking at it solely--or even primarily--as being a problem of the media and it's message(s) leads very quickly to fascist censorship. Whatever the prevailing power group disagrees with message-wise gets tossed into the bonfire. Surely we wouldn't be advocating that?

No...we need to spent time understanding what it is that non-gun and anti-gun folks are coming from rather than simplistically and foolishly trying to squelch images/messages that we don't like, regardless of how (in)accurate we know or believe those images/messages to be.;)

JWarren
December 24, 2008, 11:24 AM
Thank you for posting this, Golden Hound!

I posted this on the "Homer Simpson" thread a few days ago. My thinking is on your lines.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5172430#post5172430


While I watch, on ocassion, all of these shows I think we would be remiss if we failed to realize that a great portion of the USA actually formulates its opinions based upon what messages they get from TV-- often humorous TV.

While I don't see it as a contrived "plot," but rather the internal beliefs of the writers coming out, I do see that some shows have gained popularity only to begin their move to the left later on.

A perfect example is Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. I remember when it came out originally. Stewart really seemed to be "middle-of-the-road," He took shots at both sides with equal proportion. As seasons drew on, I noticed that his humor was more "harmless" towards the liberals and more scathing towards the conservatives. This reached its zenith in the months leading into this last Presidential election.

The exact same can me said of Stephen Cobert's The Cobert Nation. What is worse with him is that it is set up to be a parody of a conservative show.

At this point, neither Stewart nor Cobert make any special effort to veil their political leanings.

Many reports have indicated that a larger than expected percentage of Americans actually get their news from the above sources.

If I were to see this as an orchastrated plan, I would akin it to raking leaves. You reach out into your base and pull towards you. You won't get every leaf on each pull, but you will get a few. Now, do that for 120 episodes. See what I mean?

I almost want to believe that WAS the plan of Stewart and Cobert. It if WASN'T a plan, it, in effect, WAS the model that they followed.

Now... those are news parodies. But I mention them because they ARE entertainment-- just like the shows mentioned here.

Sadly, there will be a percentage of citizens that WILL forumulate opinions based upon the opinions delivered via the TV-- EVEN cartoons.

And then they go and either vote or spread that opinion. Eventually, it will spread to someone that actually does vote, or they will become an activated voter in a charged election such as we just experienced.


So, I do pay attention to the "messages" of shows.


-- John



-- John

Joe Demko
December 24, 2008, 11:27 AM
Assuming the OP is even correct on all counts, this thread still amounts to an impotent rant followed (mostly) by a bunch of +1's.
Got any solutions? Got anything, in fact, but whining and bitching to offer? Sitting in a circle feeding off each other's complaints may feel good, but it offers no hope for improvement.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 11:51 AM
What you have just said is just as impotent and useless as the rest of the thread, IF you don't offer some kind of a solution yourself. Which you haven't.

I, in fact, DID propose a specific plan of action, which was right in the OP:

If our movement is going to go anywhere - if this country is going to maintain our second amendment freedom instead of going the way of socialist Europe - we need to do two things. We need to try to get our message promoted in pop culture entertainment. And we need to vigorously fight against anti-gun propaganda in pop culture. Every time any form of pop culture entertainment promotes an anti-gun message - be it in a cartoon, a comedy, an action movie or a television show - we need to denounce it.

Seems like the point went over your head.

Kim
December 24, 2008, 12:14 PM
Anyone who has read history knows Hollywood is propaganda of the lefty kind. Heck Commies back in the day purposely infiltrated the dang place.Alot of their progeny are still there along with the MSM and academia. Much less education and arts. They did well.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 12:16 PM
This may be true on some levels but certainly in the past, Hollwood never had such an anti-gun agenda. I mean, in the days of John Wayne and Charlton Heston, you could still buy a rifle in a mail-order catalog from Sears or take it to school and put it in your locker or whatever, and schools had rifle teams, etc...the whole culture was more gun friendly in those days.

Neverwinter
December 24, 2008, 12:51 PM
While you bring up some good points, I think that the very nature of your awareness of gun-related politics primes you to notice the technical inaccuracies of the way guns are portrayed in entertainment. Guns are not the sole victim of wildly outlandish characterization in movies. Just about everything scientific or technical in nature is subject to massive exaggeration or fabrication. For example, have you seen the latest Die Hard? The retarded "plastic Glock invisible to X-Ray machines" line from Die Hard with a Vengeance is nothing compared to the role of computers in Live Free or Die Hard. While I can believe that some of the cases are due to deliberate malice on the part of the writers, I would also bet that much of it is ignorance or laziness.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 01:56 PM
This is definitely true and it's one of the things I hate most about movies. Specifically, the way every single computer, or any technology with a computer interface, in movies is constantly bleeping and blooping and making little R2-D2 noises all the time if someone is using it. Jeez, this is the year 2008, everyone and his dog has a computer and knows how it works - this constant beeping and bleeping and whirring and little "computer noises" might have fooled audiences who were watching The Fly in 1989, but now they're just totally stupid and pointless. Not to mention every computer in movies, especially a computer that controls a security system, having a ridiculous GUI (graphical user interface) that doesn't exist in real life - usually something with green text on a black background.

Just Jim
December 24, 2008, 02:07 PM
Back in the day:banghead: (god I am old) TheFCC would watch over our tv programs because they knew how powerful a media can be. They used to set standards like a womans bellybutton couldn't be shown during prime time. Or the goodguys (lawenforcement) allways had to win in the end.

It all changed in the late 60s, early 70s. Socialst and commies came out of the woodwork and have turned our TVs into total crap unfit for our kids. They portray all normal actions of people like owning a gun for self defense as abnormal. Everything that conservatives hold respectful from the second amendment to religion and marriage has been trampled on.

We get what we allow to happen and we deserve the seed we sow.

jj

The_Shootist
December 24, 2008, 02:09 PM
Media influence is important. I almost bought an HK after watching Collateral.

Then I realized they hate me 'cause I suck :eek:

Seriously, the media "conspiracy" has a flip side too. I mean, have you ever watched a movie and thought "Yeah, that will be my next purchase."?

Joe Demko
December 24, 2008, 02:09 PM
Seems like the point went over your head.

Sure didn't. Here's the flaw in your "plan": coming here_or to similar places_to "denounce" anti-gun movies/celebrities/authors/et. al. is indistinguishable from impotent ranting. The +1's and "F*** yeah!" posts you collect here may make you feel like you are doing something, but you aren't. The people here largely already agree with you. What did you have in mind that would effect either the antis themselves or the great mass of people who just don't care about guns one way or the other? Fiery rhetoric and heartfelt oratory is a foot deep on the ground at every gunboard. Simply adding to that does nothing to advance your cause.

Mike2
December 24, 2008, 02:14 PM
You are totally correct. That being said, the last movie that I went to see was almost 15 years ago, "Necessary Roughness" (really sucked but the future wife and I enjoyed it) have not been back to a movie theatre since then (they all eventually make it to TV one day) If we as a society would stand together and buck the system, these problems would eventually go away. I know plenty of people who are hard core right wingers who walk it and talk it but they don't shop it. They will spend money on Hollywood made movies and financially support things they speak out against. I don't get it. I know that me personally not spending 40 bucks at the movie theatre will not make a differance but what if we all did this..........? ( cant a guy dream):)

Just Jim
December 24, 2008, 02:16 PM
"Yeah, that will be my next purchase."?


Yep, the Omega Man :D:D:what::scrutiny: Nothing like an early zombie move to inspire a gun purchase:D:D

jj

Just Jim
December 24, 2008, 02:22 PM
Of course this thread will be locked because it makes too much sense.

jj

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 02:29 PM
Sure didn't. Here's the flaw in your "plan": coming here_or to similar places_to "denounce" anti-gun movies/celebrities/authors/et. al. is indistinguishable from impotent ranting. The +1's and "F*** yeah!" posts you collect here may make you feel like you are doing something, but you aren't. The people here largely already agree with you. What did you have in mind that would effect either the antis themselves or the great mass of people who just don't care about guns one way or the other? Fiery rhetoric and heartfelt oratory is a foot deep on the ground at every gunboard. Simply adding to that does nothing to advance your cause.

You will notice that I mostly started this thread for the purpose of dispelling the idea put forth by people on this board that "entertainment doesn't matter." That in itself is an important thing to do, because the more people understand that, the fewer victories the anti-gun media will be able to score. For instance, maybe some of the people here on this forum saying "it's just entertainment" wouldn't take the time to pause a movie that their kid is watching and point out some anti-gun message. Say your kids, and your kids' friends (whose parents are antis) are sitting around watching a movie where there's some anti message. If "it's just a movie," then you might let it slide. If you realize how incredibly IMPORTANT movies are in shaping kids' perceptions, then you'll pause the movie and say, "hey, sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect." That will help not only your own kid but the friends who don't have the benefit of being raised by pro-gun parents.

That's just ONE example of how this is not just "preaching to the choir" because there are people here on this very forum who seem to think that movies and TV are not important. My main goal is to help THOSE people understand how it is important.

You really still don't understand what I'm getting at? Then there's nothing else I can say. Go on and think whatever you want to.

Just Jim
December 24, 2008, 02:36 PM
Some people use free speech just like others use the second amendment. I applaud Golden Hound for his efforts to bring to light the actions of Hollywood.

Silence hurts our cause and those who would shut up the truth are unworthing of the men who died to defend it.

jj

CentralTexas
December 24, 2008, 02:36 PM
But gun forums, (including this one) are full of closed minded folks. There are virtually no threads involving "other possibilities" of an issue, without several posts saying "conspiracy", "tinfoil hat", "doesn't matter" and other statements discounting anything that doesn't fit their world view.

This forum should be open to discourse even when you disagree.Most of the membership here favors private gun rights, that's our common ground. In this country we used to disagree without animosity. It seems we are too willing to fall into a "Us Vs. Them" mentality which has divided this country into left and right, rich and poor etc.

There needs to be more leeway in supporting a free exchange of ideas here. We spend too much time trying to tear ideas down instead of discussing them or being open to them.

There are conspiracies afoot in America, some people just call them a plan or an agenda, but be assured they exist. If I'm wrong, lot's of us are wasting our money supporting the NRA or our political party...

Just Jim
December 24, 2008, 02:43 PM
There needs to be more leeway in supporting a free exchange of ideas here. We spend too much time trying to tear ideas down instead of discussing them or being open to them.



EEERRRRR AAAAHHHH maybe the truth isn't considered "high road". Maybe it's all just about the guns you own and has nothing to do with the life we live as gun owners.

jj

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 03:01 PM
So how is it that THR members -- or at least the ones that agree with "Golden Hound" -- are able to see through the "anti-gun lies" presented in Simpsons and Family Guy, but nobody else can?

That's the trouble with the OP's post: its basic premise is that everyone but us is stupid. Good luck winning support with that one.

yokel
December 24, 2008, 03:09 PM
I would submit that it only really matters insofar as the person who is media illiterate is more vulnerable to being influenced by messages in all kinds of media.

Just because the folks can use media and technology doesn't mean they are effective at critically analyzing and evaluating the messages they receive. One needs a set of skills to ask important questions about what they watch, see, listen to and read. Often called media literacy, these skills include the ability to critically analyze media messages and the ability to use different kinds of communication technologies for self-expression and communication.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 03:10 PM
So how is it that THR members -- or at least the ones that agree with "Golden Hound" -- are able to see through the "anti-gun lies" presented in Simpsons and Family Guy, but nobody else can?

That's the trouble with the OP's post: its basic premise is that everyone but us is stupid. Good luck winning support with that one.

Uh, it's very simple, really. We know about guns. Most people don't. That's a very basic but very important part of the whole issue.

If someone in a movie says a Glock can pass through metal detectors, WE KNOW that it's not true. They don't. If someone in a movie says that the 7.62x39 round is a cop killer bullet, we know this isn't true. They don't. If someone in a movie says that the Barret .50 is the preferred rifle of terrorists, we know this isn't true. They don't.

See where I'm going with this?

My basic premise isn't that everyone but us is stupid. It's that everyone but us (most people, anyway) is vulnerable to anti-gun lies because they don't know any better. Don't take my words and twist them into something else.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 03:11 PM
Short version: everyone is stupid but us.

We do have all the guns. Maybe we should start rounding folks up and sending them to reeducation camps?

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 03:15 PM
Are you kidding me?

After what I just wrote, you're really going to say that again?

Could you please explain how you got that out of what I just typed above your last post?

CentralTexas
December 24, 2008, 03:16 PM
It's simple, we see through the lies because we are educated and involved with the subject

Just like when my medical professionals watch medical shows and they pick out things the average Joe doesn't.
The average Joe isn't stupid, but after watching a few medical shows may think that in real life surgical masks are never worn in an O.R.,Or that you can place defibillator paddles almost anywhere on the chest and save a life etc.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 03:19 PM
Thank you.

There is a big difference between saying "everyone is stupid" and "most people are unaware of basic facts about guns and are therefore susceptible to gun-related myths and lies in popular entertainment." I did say the latter - I did not say the former. Don't put words in my mouth.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 03:23 PM
Are you kidding me?

After what I just wrote, you're really going to say that again?

Could you please explain how you got that out of what I just typed above your last post?

Note the time stamps. My post was in response to the one above yours.

It still applies, however, and I think the post by CentralTexas unwittingly illustrates my point: yes, a medical doctor may watch "House" and see all sorts of technical inaccuracies. But if you, the medical layman, watch "House" and believe that it represents the truth about the medical profession, are you "Unaware of the basic facts of medicine"? Or just stupid?

It's entertainment. If a person doesn't realize that, he's got more wrong than just "Unaware of the basic facts of ____ ". The argument that the average person gets his "facts" from a cartoon show is a pretty serious insult to his intelligence.

CentralTexas
December 24, 2008, 03:32 PM
Why do people fall for advertising? Cigarettes used to be touted for their health benefits with doctor testimonials. It's a matter of trust, gullibility, lack of education, lack of reasoning ability etc.
I think critical thinking is a lost art in the world. It's a CONSPIRACY of the government, politicians and big business. ;)
Whatever you think, I think that the majority of people fall for what they see and hear. Ask P.T. Barnum, the New York Times and Washington.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 03:35 PM
You may actually be right. But it still falls under the heading of "Everyone is stupid but us".

CentralTexas
December 24, 2008, 03:39 PM
but what about "Documentaries" by Micheal Moore and Al Gore or ________?
WHat about A&E shows about weapons or history -that have their facts wrong, and seem to be educational programs? What about childrens education programs on TV and in school that teach fiction or bias as fact. What about college textbooks like one I own that uses the example of percentages of certain crimes linked to gunstore sales to teach Algebra?

It would seem to carry the argument to the extreme, every source is suspect.

SuperNaut
December 24, 2008, 03:40 PM
I don't understand the "everyone is stupid but us" criticism .38 Special. It seems to me that the OP is actually saying that the people who manipulate the messaging in the media are smarter than we are, and we need to get hip to that fact.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 03:46 PM
It boils down to the argument that people are getting their facts from the Simpsons. Do any of you watch an animated cartoon show and believe that anything you see thereupon is factual? Would you go onto an online bulletin board for car enthusiasts and tell them that the Lamborghatti Fasterosa is the best car in the world because you saw it on the Simpsons? No? Then why assume that other people are so much dumber than you that they would?

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 03:47 PM
It's entertainment. If a person doesn't realize that, he's got more wrong than just "Unaware of the basic facts of ____ ". The argument that the average person gets his "facts" from a cartoon show is a pretty serious insult to his intelligence.


Did I ever say I'm just talking about cartoon shows? I think they can be a powerful force but I'm also referring to movies, everything from dramas to thrillers and everything in between, as well as TV shows, particularly cop shows and action shows.

I can just about guarantee you that the average American spends more time watching television than he does reading the Encyclopedia Britannica. That would mean that, yes, the average person gets a large portion of his facts from television and movies. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

CentralTexas
December 24, 2008, 03:52 PM
that people learn from cartoons. Political cartoons have always been used to sum up a larger picture into a one frame statement. I also find that the Simpsons and shows like Southpark (like them are not) are sometimes brilliant satire and a reflection of American thought to a large degree.
Getting a common sense message from a cartoon, a painting or whatever does happen. The Greeks had morality plays, our failing culture has the Simpsons.....

SuperNaut
December 24, 2008, 03:52 PM
It boils down to the argument that people are getting their facts from the Simpsons. Do any of you watch an animated cartoon show and believe that anything you see thereupon is factual? Would you go onto an online bulletin board for car enthusiasts and tell them that the Lamborghatti Fasterosa is the best car in the world because you saw it on the Simpsons? No? Then why assume that other people are so much dumber than you that they would?

People do that all the time on this very board, and the philosophy boards I frequent, and the Harley boards I frequent, and the gamer boards I frequent, and so on and so on. BTW, why do you keep conflating ignorant with stupid? They mean different things.

muddywatters
December 24, 2008, 05:03 PM
Have to hand it to Golden Hound for starting the conversation but I don't agree with the conclusion.

"Seriously, folks. If our movement is going to go anywhere - if this country is going to maintain our second amendment freedom instead of going the way of socialist Europe - we need to do two things. We need to try to get our message promoted in pop culture entertainment. And we need to vigorously fight against anti-gun propaganda in pop culture. Every time any form of pop culture entertainment promotes an anti-gun message - be it in a cartoon, a comedy, an action movie or a television show - we need to denounce it."

I respect the idea of more reasonable/rational firearm messaging from our entertainment industry but I don't see it actually happening. Main reason would be the folks who create the entertainment products just aren't the type (mostly -- exceptions have been noted in this thread) who would/could comment thoughtfully on guns and their place in our society.

I used to work in advertising/communications and had several clients in the entertainment industry. The people who make up the creative teams who actually produce and market these products are mostly artists, writers and communications specialists. In my experience, these folks are college educated, upper middle class, white and liberal. They are brought up to fear guns and that fear pervades the products they produce. I don't see this changing in fact I see it increasing.

I'm now in the aerospace industry doing the same kind of work. My colleagues are much more widely dispersed across the political spectrum and the messaging they produce reflects this diversity of opinion.

Put simply, you can't expect people who loathe guns to produce anything gun positive or even gun neutral. That may frustrate you but it's our reality.

My second gripe would be with the suggested action of denouncing any anti-gun rhetoric. Denounce where? Here on this (pro-gun) board? On the street corner? Take out an advertisement in the (anti-gun) New York Times? Any action you would take would pale in comparison with the deluge of miss information that's being produced right now by the entertainment industry.

So, what do do? Shoot often. Hunt if you can. Vote. And teach your children well.

-mud

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 05:26 PM
BTW, why do you keep conflating ignorant with stupid? They mean different things.

I have intentionally avoided the word "ignorant". I am ignorant of all sorts of things. When I see a reference on a cartoon show about something of which I am ignorant, I realize that the reference may or may not be factually accurate. To do otherwise would be stupid, and to assume that other people do is to assume that they are stupid too.

<edit> I'd be impressed if you can find even a single instance on this board of someone seeing something on a cartoon show and believing it is factual.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 05:31 PM
I can just about guarantee you that the average American spends more time watching television than he does reading the Encyclopedia Britannica. That would mean that, yes, the average person gets a large portion of his facts from television and movies. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

Do you spend more time in the encyclopedia than in front of the TV? I surely don't, but I am perfectly capable of understanding that entertainment shows on TV are not good sources of fact.

The human trait of assuming that the "average person" is significantly different from you continues to fascinate me.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 05:36 PM
I watch TV once a year - when the World Series is on. I watch it with my dad at his house. My TV isn't hooked up to the cable. If I see anything on TV at any time other than that, it's because there's a TV on in someone else's house. Also, this year I watched the presidential debates. Other than that, no TV.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 05:40 PM
Well that makes you smarter than me, anyway.

Where do I report for reeducation? :p

<edit> Although hopefully you were smart enough to avoid taking anything seen on the presidential debates as fact.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 05:47 PM
I don't think that TV makes people stupid - it's just that it provides a lot of opportunities for people who are ill-informed to get the wrong information. Ergo, if they don't understand firearms, how they work, how they are useful, the laws surrounding them, et cetera, then the mis-information on television will fill in the gaps for them. So, you'll have a bunch of people who think that AK-47s are the weapon of choice for gangsters because they see it on TV.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 05:55 PM
Which again brings us right back to the idea that the average person is so stupid that he or she will hear something on the Simpsons and take it as fact. Even though you wouldn't and neither would I.

danweasel
December 24, 2008, 06:00 PM
Oh Lord...

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 06:26 PM
The average KID might take something on the Simpsons as fact.

As for adults, I'm not really talking about cartoons with them so much as I am other forms of entertainment like movies and televison shows.

.38, you have got to win some kind of award for missing my point over and over again.

AllAmerican
December 24, 2008, 06:39 PM
Hmmmm. Family Guy and South Park are 2 of my favorite shows.

Old Dog
December 24, 2008, 06:52 PM
This statement caught my eye ...
... I am perfectly capable of understanding that entertainment shows on TV are not good sources of fact.
You may understand this ... but I believe that what's happening in many courtrooms today somewhat underscores the basis of the OP's thesis, and that is what's become known as the "CSI effect," where these juries composed of your "average citizens" seemingly can't understand why what they experience in court doesn't match up with how forensics is depicted on television ... and not a few people in the law enforcement and legal professions are concerned that this impacts not a few verdicts.

I understand what the OP is saying and share his concern about the entertainment industry's bias, but as some have noted, there's no one we can "denounce" all the nonsense to ... It all comes down to educating our kids.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
December 24, 2008, 06:58 PM
The O.P. is exactly correct; thank you.

Leanwolf
December 24, 2008, 08:16 PM
SINIXSTAR - "It's a conspiracy."

Well, not really. Not within the definition of "conspiracy." "An agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act...," but the denigration of gun owners and firearms at large, the lies and half lies constantly put forth in flicks and on teeeveee shows, yes, it is very deliberate.

I have been since early 1973, and am presently a current member of the Writers Guild of America, west. I've written many episodes for primetime network shows and also syndicated shows on teeeveee, mainly in the cops-'n-robbers genre. I've had one feature script produced for "big screen." (There are a couple of people on this forum who know I am not B.S'ing.)

I know many writers, directors, producers, actors, etc., who are as anti-firearms and Second Amendment as one can get. That is most of Hollywood. I've discussed and debated the issue many times with these people, and got literally nowhere. They have, in the main, been brainwashed from the crib to today by their parents, their teachers, college professors, the media, their peers, etc. They feed on each other's prejudices and reinforce their ignorance and hatred of not only firearms, but "the unwashed," so to speak, who own firearms and "prevent" "meaningful, reasonable, common sense" gun laws.

Facts, truth, real statistics, the Bill of Rights, are meaningless to them. In their idealism and blinding denial, they are locked into believing that "guns are evil," and "if we just get rid of guns, criminals won't be criminals," and "the world will be at peace."

It's a fantasy world in which they believe and no matter what, there is a happy ending with all living happily ever after. Why?? Well... 'cause the script writer wrote that happy ending on page 119, so all's well that ends well.

What is the answer?? Hell, I don't know. After 45 years of trying to convince my peers of the truth, using reason, facts, etc., I know that it is almost impossible to change the convoluted, naive, childlike media members, not only Hollywood, but the other members of the print medium, etc.

Anyone who thinks that movies, teeeveee, etc., are not extremely powerful propaganda tools to influence masses of people... never heard of Adolph Hitler, V.I. Lenin, Joe Stalin, etc.

That's just my take on it. Wish I could be more positive, but in my opinion, it ain't a'gonna change.

L.W.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 08:39 PM
As for adults, I'm not really talking about cartoons with them so much as I am other forms of entertainment like movies and televison shows.

You singled out Simpsons and Family Guy repeatedly in your OP. But so be it. We'll ignore the cartoons. So a question, open to answer from you or anyone else: if you see an actor on ER say that 360 joules is the appropriate level for the initial defibrillation attempt, do you accept it as fact? Or do you understand that this is make-believe and may or not be accurate?

.38, you have got to win some kind of award for missing my point over and over again.

There's a difference between "not getting it" and "not buying it".

Joe Demko
December 24, 2008, 08:44 PM
I don't buy it, either.

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 09:32 PM
So a question, open to answer from you or anyone else: if you see an actor on ER say that 360 joules is the appropriate level for the initial defibrillation attempt, do you accept it as fact? Or do you understand that this is make-believe and may or not be accurate?


I've never seen actually seen ER, but I would have to say that I would assume it to be true, because I would assume that a television show completely dedicated to the work of doctors in a hospital would try to get something like that accurate. I would assume that they have consultants and other people that give them information to make it as accurate as possible.

The difference here is that a television show, or television writers and producers, would not have an anti-defibrillator agenda. They would have no reason to consciously put out incorrect information about how defibrillators work. But it IS possible for people to have an anti-gun agenda and to thus deliberately put out incorrect information about how guns work.

I would say there are probably even fewer people out there who really know about defibrillators than there are who know about guns. So maybe a lot of people are getting incorrect information about the energy of a defibrillator. OK, fine. That's kind of bad, in the sense that I think that movies and shows should strive for realism, but I can live with it. In the case of firearms, we have a RIGHT, in the constitution, that is closer and closer to slipping away each day, especially with our next president. And so every bit of gun misinformation out there matters eminently.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 09:36 PM
I hope you warmed up before attempting that stretch. Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself!

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 09:41 PM
What exactly is your point?

I have pretty clearly outlined mine. I'm still trying to figure out yours. I could definitely do without the sarcasm. What are you trying to say here, beyond a very nebulous and vague accusation of me "thinking that everyone else is stupid?"

If you're not going to agree with me, fine. Don't agree with me. But your opinion is obviously in the minority here.

I'm trying to keep this thread gun-related by bringing up specific things as they relate to peoples' perceptions of firearms and how they can be changed and influenced by film and television. You bringing up some weird analogy about a defibrillator is not on track here.

This thread is not about whether or not people accept every single thing that they see on TV as fact. This thread is specifically about the portrayal of GUNS in entertainment. Do you have anything to contribute to that topic?

MIL-DOT
December 24, 2008, 09:45 PM
I read some, but not nearly every post in this thread, so apologies if this this has been touched on already.
All I can say is that I can almost completely and totally guarantee that anyone that would say, "It's just a movie, so it doesn't matter," would be the very first to scream bloody murder if these shows were advocating a point of view that they deemed racist. All of a sudden, it wouldn't simply be
"entertainment that has no real impact", it would now be, "hate speech that is influencing society and poisoning the minds of our children".
Well,they can't have it both ways.
The video media is among the most powerful and potentially destructive forces in our society, and "the Left" dominates 90% of it. But boy do they pitch a fit over that other 10%.
Sinixstar, I'm guessing you have brilliant something to say.

.38 Special
December 24, 2008, 09:56 PM
What exactly is your point?

That the average person is not stupid enough to believe that things presented on entertainment shows are necessarily factually accurate.

I have pretty clearly outlined mine. I'm still trying to figure out yours. I could definitely do without the sarcasm. What are you trying to say here, beyond a very nebulous and vague accusation of me "thinking that everyone else is stupid?"

I don't see that accusation as being either nebulous or vague.

If you're not going to agree with me, fine. Don't agree with me. But your opinion is obviously in the minority here.

Argumentum ad populum.

I'm trying to keep this thread gun-related by bringing up specific things as they relate to peoples' perceptions of firearms and how they can be changed and influenced by film and television. You bringing up some weird analogy about a defibrillator is not on track here.

Which is why you wrote up a couple of hundred words addressing it?

This thread is not about whether or not people accept every single thing that they see on TV as fact. This thread is specifically about the portrayal of GUNS in entertainment. Do you have anything to contribute to that topic?

If you were only interested in hearing from folks who agree with you, you should have said so right up front. Could have saved a lot of effort...

Golden Hound
December 24, 2008, 09:58 PM
OK. You are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for making it more clear.

MIL-DOT
December 24, 2008, 10:27 PM
(QUOTE)"That the average person is not stupid enough to believe that things presented on entertainment shows are necessarily factually accurate."

I believe the average person IS "stupid enough to believe that things presented on entertainment shows are necessarily factually accurate".
I'll let our most recent election serve as a prime example. And yes, I'm counting most of our major news programs as "entertainment shows".

danweasel
December 24, 2008, 10:31 PM
I was watching the Simpsons the other day and Homer shot out his bedroom light at night. I do the same thing now! Because I am exactly the type of far-fetched moron that this post is afraid of!

The message presented in "Dirty Sexy Money" forced me to make a lot of illegal investments! Good thing I have also watched "Prison Break"!

MIL-DOT
December 24, 2008, 10:51 PM
(QUOTE)" I was watching the Simpsons the other day and Homer shot out his bedroom light at night. I do the same thing now! Because I am exactly the type of far-fetched moron that this post is afraid of!"

That post was totally stupid and shows a complete misunderstanding of what's actually being discussed. No one here thinks that any TV viewer believes there's really a guy in a red shirt named Gilligan stranded on a desert isle somewhere. The point is that a frighteningly large percentage of people DO adopt views and attitudes from what they see on the boob-tube, and that those views are suspiciously consistent.

Just Jim
December 24, 2008, 11:58 PM
Got to laugh real hard here, a real belly laugh.

That the average person is not stupid enough to believe that things presented on entertainment shows are necessarily factually accurate.

Heck the news isn't factually accurate yet still over 50 million people voted for BHO the gun grabber. You got a real stretch there telling me people are not stupid. Vote for a man that is going to steal your guns just because he looked good on TV...

I also get tired of liberals who say we have to reach across the isle if we want to keep our rights. McCain reached across and lost, just the same as we will. We need to protect our rights not deminish them.

jj

HeavenlySword
December 25, 2008, 12:11 AM
You do realize the average IQ in america is around 87...

Joe Demko
December 25, 2008, 12:13 AM
If you believe that the average person is that stupid, then I don't understand your motivation in wanting to continue making guns easily available to them. It seems to me that anybody as stupid as Mil-Dot and Golden Hound believe the average American to be can't be trusted with a gun. Why on Urth aren't you guys pushing for reasonable restrictions_tied to IQ_on gun ownership? Then wicked smart fellows like you would have guns while the great mass of dumbasses i.e. everybody else wouldn't be endangering themselves or you.

heavyshooter
December 25, 2008, 12:22 AM
Assuming the OP is even correct on all counts, this thread still amounts to an impotent rant followed (mostly) by a bunch of +1's.
Got any solutions? Got anything, in fact, but whining and bitching to offer? Sitting in a circle feeding off each other's complaints may feel good, but it offers no hope for improvement.


Joe Demko,

While I do appreciate your point in that GH may be preaching to the choir, I want to point out 3 things.

1) Not everyone on THR is going to +1 this thread. After posting a criticism about CSI Miami, I received several posts that told me to lighten up. "It's just television." The OP is, at the very least, questioning this position among THR members.

2) The thread may not be educating all, but it may be stimulating thought. Sometimes you have to remind your peers that they are in fact you peers. The OP may be reminding its readers of a very important point. Some readers may have read it and said, "Oh Yeah, our culture is molded by television. I have always known that but I have been ignoring it. Maybe I should do something????????"

3) There is nothing more therapeutic than a good rant every now and then. :D

Heavy

RedLion
December 25, 2008, 12:29 AM
well, one of my best friends is going to buy a 9mm just because of hearing about them so much in RAP MUSIC. HA, imagine that!

And lets not forget about the original brainwasher THE SMURFS which has turned my generation into a bunch of mindless antisemitic commies:rolleyes:. (I'll always love that show btw)

So don't be the same people that blame T.V., Video Games and Rap/Dark Music for the problems in society.

Cel
December 25, 2008, 01:32 AM
Why does it seem that some of you on here are missing the entire point of Golden Hound's post? There are plenty of snide remarks being made about people being influenced by media but the fact is and continues to be that this is true. You can deny it to the apocalypse but it is the truth. Why do we have so many youtube videos of gun owners dual-wielding pistols knowing that it is pointless? I can gurantee because they saw it on TV or in a movie and thought that it might be cool to try.

The medical show analogy was very relevant to the discussion. I WOULD like to think that a show depicting life or death operations would show the correct methods for using equipment, CPR, etc. How long will it be before someone gets sued for not properly saving someone's life? Defense: "Well, they did it like that on TV". Regardless if the defense is/sounds dumb the point is that the person was INFLUENCED. As somebody previously mentioned, many courtrooms are having to deal with the "CSI Effect" on forensic evidence. Many people expect things to be done quickly like they are on CSI. All the evidence will be found, everything will be figured out, and the suspect will be arrested within an hour. This is very real. Why? People are INFLUENCED by the media. The "CSI Effect" is not a joke, it is reality brought on by the INFLUENCE of media.

I have actually heard people say, in a half joking manner, that they could get away with a crime because they saw it on CSI. :banghead: Stupid as it sounds, it is real. The influence is real. People remember and repeat what they see or hear from the media. I have heard plenty of people, in gunshops mind you, say things like "Yeah, that shotgun will blow them clean off their feet and send em flying through the air". "All AR's are fully automatic". Blah, blah, blah. The problem is, people DO get a lot of their information, whether factual or otherwise, from TV shows and movies. If you do not know about guns from a first person perspective, you WILL be influenced by the negative information. I have spoken to A LOT of people who believe that hollowpoints are illegal. Where did they get this information from? That's right TV shows and movies. I have spoekn to A LOT of people who believe that hollowpoints are made to go through and "Blow away your back/chest" upon exit. And I have had to tell them that hollowpoints are made to STAY in the body.

In any event, you can keep believing that media does not influence people, but for our cause that is a very dangerous belief to have. Make all the jokes and sarcastic remarks that you want to make but it is the truth. By the way, how many PRO-GUN cartoons have you seen for young people?

.38 Special
December 25, 2008, 01:33 AM
And the pretense is finally dropped. "You're stupid and I'm not". Let me know how that works out for you fellows. :cool:

heavyshooter
December 25, 2008, 01:42 AM
I cannot help but have a martyr moment right now. :) If I had initiated a thread that resulted in some of these exchanges, the moderator would have locked it long ago – Merry Christmas from THR. :) Since he has not locked it I’ll jump in.

.38 Special and GH,

I think you both agree that television is often guilty of, shall we say, a misrepresentation of the facts. Your disagreement is the nature of those who are watching the misrepresentations. I am under the impression that .38 is arguing that those who are watching are smart enough to know that television is not a good source of truth (I intentionally avoided the word “stupid” because GH did not use it). GH is saying that those who are watching television - yes even the smart ones - are being influenced by what they see. They are being affected by the fictional truths of television. .38’s repeated response to this is essentially, those who think like GH are treating everyone as though they are stupid. Here is the settling question. Do we have evidence that television is affecting the worldviews of “smart people?” My experinces have made me suspicious. ;)

1) CSI definitely changed the jury selection process.

2) The kids in my neighborhood started holding their guns horizontally because they saw movie gangsters doing it.

3) I had a professor ask why it is necessary to wear ear protection at the shooting range. She asked because she saw the cops from Law and Order have a casual conversation at the shooting range and they were not wearing ear protection.

4) I recently heard a young lady shriek in fear when a box of ammo was dropped to the floor at the gun shop. She expected it to explode because “it happened when Calleigh Duquesne dropped a bullet.” Coincidentally, her embarrassed husband responded by saying, “You are too smart to believe what you see on television.”

5) I will tell you that it was a common belief at my high school (many moons ago) that Glocks are invisible to metal detectors because they are made of plastic.

6) Your semi-auto tactical rifle is considered a weapon of mass destruction because television has portrayed it as such.

Whether you agree with him or not, it seems to me that GH may be on to something. I believe that we can all agree that smart people can be ignorant (read "uninformed") and, therefore, easily misinformed. And television/movies are often a means of the misinformation.

BTW - With all due respect .38 Special, your repeated use of the word "stupid" is a Red Herring. GH is referring to the misinformation of television, not the IQ’s of the television watchers. I appreciate your point when you say that people are smart enough to avoid this, but you distract us from your point by imposing the word stupid on GH in spite of his attempts to reject it.

When it is all said and done, we have to admit that television and its philosophers (aka actors) are negatively affecting the firearms understanding in our country. But then again, so is the internet. HMMM, what you gone do about that GH?

Now that I have spoken, I am certain that the thread will be locked.:D:neener::D Seriously guys, lighten up, it's just a thread.

Heavy

.38 Special
December 25, 2008, 01:50 AM
BTW - With all due respect .38 Special, your repeated use of the "word stupid" is a Red Herring. GH is referring to the misinformation of television, not the IQ’s of the television watchers. I appreciate your point when you say that people are smart enough to avoid this, but you distract us from your point by imposing the word stupid on GH in spite of his attempts to reject it.

Too late for that, mate. "You got a real stretch there telling me people are not stupid." The rest of this thread is just lipstick on a pig.

Golden Hound
December 25, 2008, 05:12 AM
This thread was never intended as a rant. It was intended to try to fight what I believe is a common misconception.

To all who responded, thank you for your input. And I do mean everyone, even those who didn't agree.

notorious
December 25, 2008, 05:24 AM
The influence of pop culture is what is responsible for the next 4 years of our conservative downfall. Every celebrity type is out hyping up the liberal agenda and reaching out to everyone that gives them any time to do so. It is truly fighting a rising tide and it's almost hopeless because it is akin to brainwashing on a massive scale.

I just wonder what the true agenda is other than telling everyone to live as they say while the ruling class of rich liberals in politics and entertainment has their own set of rules.

Don't believe me, just run a total of how much our president-elect is spending on his nice little vacation from all his non-working. How many of the little people that identifies with him or fell for the liberal "we feel your pain" line can afford even 1 day at that resort? Meanwhile the Republicans are reviled for being successful because it is greedy for us and not for them.

Joe Demko
December 25, 2008, 09:33 AM
Got any solutions for any of that, notorious? Impotent whining, bitching, and doomsaying has not made things one iota better for gun owners in this country.
Expanded ccw, the failure to resurrect the AWB,and arguably the Heller decision were all because people did something substantive and productive. Griping on a discussion board about liberals, the new POTUS, the stupidity of the common man, and the evil machinations of Hollywood is neither substantive nor productive. There is a forum here call Activism. Go there to see what at least a few people are doing to really protect and advance the rights of gun owners.

Golden Hound
December 25, 2008, 09:41 AM
This is absolutely unbelievable. After three or four times of me going over and over this, explaining it as clearly as I can, people are still not understanding my point. My OP was not intended to be bitching and whining, it wasn't intended to just be a rant about Hollywood or Liberals - there is a specific point I am trying to make which ties into a direct issue that needs to be addressed right here in this section on this forum. How many times are you going to say "impotent whining," anyway? Why do you so desperately feel the need to try to undermine my point? I've been on other forums before and they have a word for what you're doing: "threadsh*tting."

Maybe if I gave a concrete example of how my point has PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS that actually tie into REAL LIFE - but oh wait, I already did that, with the example about pausing your kids' and his friends' DVD to correct some kind of anti-gun nonsense in a movie. Here's another one: you and several friends of yours who don't know anything about guns are watching a movie where a guy is violating the 4 rules. Say, he has his finger on the trigger. You can do one of two things:

1. If you're in the "entertainment doesn't matter" camp, you can sit there and say nothing.

2. If you're in MY camp, you can say, "hey, I just want you guys to know, that's not how you're supposed to hold a gun. You're never supposed to put your finger in the trigger guard until you're ready to fire." VOILA! MAGIC! You just taught a LESSON IN GUN SAFETY to some other people!

People are being so small-minded about my OP, it's absolutely dumbfounding for me to witness. It's not just an "impotent rant" if I'm offering specific ways in which to combat the gun-ignorance put forth by movies and television.

You still don't get it? If you still don't get it, after everything I've just explained, you're never going to get it.

Joe Demko
December 25, 2008, 10:24 AM
Yeah, people love to have their movie viewing interrupted to hear what they will perceive as pedantic nit-picking from a geek. Imagine how grateful you would be if you were watching The Patriot (a movie generally loved by gun buffs) and somebody who loves colonial history paused the movie to tell you how it is all wrong for Mel Gibson to be wearing a shirt made from a fabric with a particular weave because that weave hadn't been invented during the period in which the movie is set. I'm sure you'd find it so frightfully interesting you'd be grateful for the interruption. I know I love to have my movies, especially ones at the theater, accompanied by a running commentary. Guns aren't as important or interesting to most people as they are to you. That is a fact. If you really believe they are going to treat everything they see on TV as factually correct, you need to work at a far more fundamental level than being the irritating gun-geek who talks during the movie. The real problem you are claiming exists is a fundamental lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the general populace. Correct that and the guns will take care of themselves.

jorb
December 25, 2008, 11:44 AM
I don't think the average person seeing an anti gun scene or three in a movie is going to automatically become anti. I DO believe that if they see the same message repeated endlessly, they WILL become anti. Repeat a message often and widely enough and it will be accepted as true. Thats what propaganda is all about.

.38 Special
December 25, 2008, 11:53 AM
The real problem you are claiming exists is a fundamental lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the general populace. Correct that and the guns will take care of themselves.

Give that man a cee-gar!

GaryL
December 25, 2008, 12:09 PM
Didn't read the whole thing, didn't happen to see this point made, so:
Q: Why do companies spend so much $ on advertising?
A: Because it works

That alone should be proof enough that the impressions made in movies do matter.

Did anyone point out the difference in the numbers of deer hunters in the field in the years immediately before and after the movie Bambi was released?

Just Jim
December 25, 2008, 12:59 PM
You still don't get it? If you still don't get it, after everything I've just explained, you're never going to get it.

They are called socialized lemmings. It matters little if you speak the truth about guns it only matters that you said it and you can't be right because the socialist didn't say you were.

It isn't about the message but about the messenger, they can't allow an outsider to spout the truth. It just isn't done because it makes them wrong and they can't be wrong.

Untill, and it is comming with the depression, they are forced to the truth about guns and their own survival they will believe the media. After all, your not a star so why would anyone believe you.:banghead:

Your OP was well written and to the point.

jj

Joe Demko
December 25, 2008, 01:09 PM
They are called socialized lemmings.

Owning guns doesn't mean you are smart, independent, or free thinking. It simply means you own guns.

RP88
December 25, 2008, 02:02 PM
I don't know if this has been said or not, but who here has reminded their kids that it's "just" entertainment?

that it isnt okay for a quartet of fourth-grade kids to cuss

that it isnt okay to drive a stolen car and kill prostitutes for a high score

that the gangsta life will put your ass in prison or get you killed

that Keanu Reeves can't really dodge bullets

that war is not as cool as its four-star movie rating suggests

I'm just sayin'. If you can make someone figure out that, then I'm sure you can make someone with any sort of grasp of the political scope (and an ounce of mental maturity) understand that gun ownership/control is a political issue with two sides. Just like how the entertainment industry gets their chance to glamorize and make money off of sex, violence, and angsty we're-going-against-the-grain-here entertainment, then make sure you take the time to teach the other, more appropriate side to that kind of stuff.

Also, I'd say that the entertainment propoganda has backfired. Because of their portrayal of good guys always using guns to defeat the real bad guys, and how fun first-person shooters are, and considering how guns don't seem to be going away and that most people aren't shocked by guns (despite the anti's of course)... Maybe it really is "just" entertainment. Maybe.

notorious
December 25, 2008, 04:16 PM
Joe, what do you do for the cause other than rail against those who have issues?

I am a NRA Life Member and I have recruited a lot of new shooters into the sport recently with people who never thought they would enjoy it. I also dispel all the myths about guns everytime I can in discussions with friends. It's not on any grand level but if everyone of us just converts one or two a month, across the country, it could be something meaningful.

Heck, I even got a staunch liberal to come shooting with us and he now regularly attends our shoots. This is a guy who previously was anti-gun in every form and called every gun an assault weapon and wouldn't even use a non-firearm in self-defense. Now he's got a proud pic of himself holding a Desert Eagle 50cal. He's still a liberal but at least he's a pro-2nd amendment liberal.

I ask you again, what have you done, Joe, other than being antagonistic towards other gun owners?

Just Jim
December 25, 2008, 04:38 PM
That was worth repeating 4 times, thanks for making the point.

jj

Guns and more
December 25, 2008, 05:24 PM
In today's culture, people get their "history" from movies. That's what is dangerous. Hollywood says, "based on a true story" and people think that's the way it happened.
Movies like "Frost/Nixon" or "W" have an agenda, and that's all that matters to the producers. Even "The China Syndrome" was anti nuke power.

notorious
December 25, 2008, 05:31 PM
That was worth repeating 4 times, thanks for making the point.

jj

Sorry, internet connection had a hang-up and I didn't realize it tried to post 4 times when it kept going to a 404 page.

Just Jim
December 26, 2008, 02:26 AM
Sorry, internet connection had a hang-up and I didn't realize it tried to post 4 times when it kept going to a 404 page.

Was still a good point to make.

jj

Joe Demko
December 26, 2008, 10:07 AM
Joe, what do you do for the cause other than rail against those who have issues?

I am an NRA Life Member; have been since Shrub's daddy was POTUS. I also regularly donate money to the NRA. My legislators are, no doubt, sick of hearing from me on gun issues.
Perhaps more importantly, I work at divorcing gun issues from the idiot liberal/conservative dichotomy. During the Clinton administration, we allowed the NRA to essentially become the National Republican Administration. They profitted by coming to just automatically expect the "gun vote" though all they could honestly claim was that they were marginally better than the Democrats on gun rights. See, most of the folks you run into in this life just aren't single-issue voters who can gag down the total package of what a candidate stands for just for the sake of his stance on a single issue. I know a good many Democrats who like guns quite well, but vote for the anti-gun party because too many other things about the Republican party turn them away. So I make it a point to take Liberals, Democrats, Greens, and all the others that Conservatives love to hate to the shooting range. I have made gifts of firearms to several formerly anti-gun people who became enthusiasts under my tutelage. My goal is to, eventually, take gun rights away from both political parties as a political tool. Ideally, both parties will learn to leave the issue the hell alone, unless they are planning to make the laws less restrictive.
Further, I work at teaching all my students critical thinking skills. I push no particular political agenda. Nor do I address guns specifically. My goal is to give them the tools to make their own, informed decisions; not to tell them what that decision should be.
Whether you think that is "enough" or even worthwhile, I submit that it is more substantive and more effective than fulminating on message boards for an audience of people who already agree with you.

Oleg Volk
December 26, 2008, 10:21 AM
An otherwise forgettable movie "The Sleeping Dictionary" is a good example of retarded but believable propaganda against defensive uses of guns. The heroine is given a Webley for self-defense without even the bebefit of an explanation of how it works. She fires at the villain from close range and wings him just enough to get noticed. Then she has five misfires in a row.

Realistic? Heck, no! Believable to the uninitiated? Yes.

Much the same in the latest version of Four Feathers. A British officer has a Kaboom with a Martini rifle which blinds him. The location of the pyrotechnicals relative to the rifle was unrealistic and the entire concept far-fetched...but it made for more drama than blindness due to overexposure to sun and brilliant sand, as in the book.

What can we do? We can point out these unrealistic aspects to others. We can also create media which would more realitically show how arms work and characters who embody their ethical use.

Golden Hound
December 26, 2008, 10:49 AM
Thank you, Oleg...it's always great to hear from you (although I'm used to seeing you on the other forum.)

Neverwinter
December 26, 2008, 02:06 PM
They are called socialized lemmings. It matters little if you speak the truth about guns it only matters that you said it and you can't be right because the socialist didn't say you were.
Owning guns doesn't mean you are smart, independent, or free thinking. It simply means you own guns.
I agree. Owning guns tells me nothing about your psychological faculties. Succumbing to the manufactured prejudices of the entertainment industry and media does.


Although hopefully you were smart enough to avoid taking anything seen on the presidential debates as fact.
And the pretense is finally dropped. "You're stupid and I'm not".

Just Jim
December 26, 2008, 02:27 PM
Owning guns doesn't mean you are smart

Being a liberal democrat that bans guns proves you are not smart, same as voting for one. Some people you can trust more with their gun than their vote. To use a gun there is a fear factor that has to be dealt with but to use your vote doesn't seem to matter much at all but both can cause alot of damage....

The media seems to make it all right though. The diversity shown in all things dealing with life is acceptable accept legal gun ownership.

jj

geronimo13
December 26, 2008, 03:28 PM
I think the issue isn't the propaganda that is everywhere. Why don't we teach everyone to question where their ideas come from?? They come from their parents, their school, their church, the news on media, etc. That's easily defeated by questioning why the opinions expressed are presented?? The bailout is needed to keep the economy afloat. WHY?? If we spend anytime thinking about who benefits and who loses from different courses of action it becomes clear to us. If not we just parrot the lines repeated in the media, mindlessly. It's about self respect and being free. The media manipulation works as long as no one questions the motives. The last thing the manipulators want is a questioning, free thinking society.

notorious
December 26, 2008, 04:11 PM
I am an NRA Life Member; have been since Shrub's daddy was POTUS. I also regularly donate money to the NRA. My legislators are, no doubt, sick of hearing from me on gun issues.
Perhaps more importantly, I work at divorcing gun issues from the idiot liberal/conservative dichotomy. During the Clinton administration, we allowed the NRA to essentially become the National Republican Administration. They profitted by coming to just automatically expect the "gun vote" though all they could honestly claim was that they were marginally better than the Democrats on gun rights. See, most of the folks you run into in this life just aren't single-issue voters who can gag down the total package of what a candidate stands for just for the sake of his stance on a single issue. I know a good many Democrats who like guns quite well, but vote for the anti-gun party because too many other things about the Republican party turn them away. So I make it a point to take Liberals, Democrats, Greens, and all the others that Conservatives love to hate to the shooting range. I have made gifts of firearms to several formerly anti-gun people who became enthusiasts under my tutelage. My goal is to, eventually, take gun rights away from both political parties as a political tool. Ideally, both parties will learn to leave the issue the hell alone, unless they are planning to make the laws less restrictive.
Further, I work at teaching all my students critical thinking skills. I push no particular political agenda. Nor do I address guns specifically. My goal is to give them the tools to make their own, informed decisions; not to tell them what that decision should be.
Whether you think that is "enough" or even worthwhile, I submit that it is more substantive and more effective than fulminating on message boards for an audience of people who already agree with you.

You and I have more in common than I previously thought. Some people won't be changed in my experience, but at least I got them to be less paranoid about guns being magical killing objects.

For those who are open, I put a fully loaded gun on a desk, (in a safe direction, of course) and just sit there and tell the irrational gun fearing lemmings to be patient and see if anyone mysteriously dies from being in the presence of a loaded firearm.

It's a slow process, but it's like that psychological desensitizing to phobia tactic and it works, provided that the person doesn't run screaming from the room at the sight of a gun.

I know what you are saying, it's the same as politicos complaining to each other on talk radio or forums but sometimes it just feels good to rant. I take my fight to the other side daily but where I work... it's an uphill battle but I have converted quite a few coworkers who were just following popular rhetoric without critical thinking.

I simply asked why and pointed out some facts and over a few weeks, a few of them came around and said thanks for giving them more to think about.

AKGuy
December 26, 2008, 04:39 PM
The issue isn't the media's message(s). If it were, violent video games would have precipitated massive amounts of "copycat" violence.

The real issue is an audience's receptivity to whatever message(s) end up being put out there for consideration/consumption. And, in this case, if the non-gun public is receptive to anti-gun messages then it's up to us to intelligently craft strategies and responses aimed at teaching otherwise.

Funny how sex is typically considered "obscene," but mindless shoot-em-up gun violence isn't...

Until RTKBA folks "get" this crucial difference--and until RTKBA folks quit calling everyone who disagrees with them "not smart"--then erosion is almost guaranteed.

Joe Demko
December 26, 2008, 06:13 PM
Being a liberal democrat that bans guns proves you are not smart, same as voting for one. Some people you can trust more with their gun than their vote.

You've drunk the whole punchbowl of kool-aid, it's clear. Continue clinging to the idea that guns are a conservative thing and you are pretty well guaranteed to lose your rights in your lifetime. This is exactly why gun-owning democrats, at least the ones who don't have skins thicker than rhinocerous hide, avoid gun boards and gun clubs. They get tired of getting slammed and called names for their political affiliation when they should be welcomed as brothers-in-arms. Your attitude is toxic to the long-term protection of our gun rights. Spout the "democrats are teh sukk" dogma on dedicated conservative discussion boards, not gun boards.

subierex
December 26, 2008, 06:35 PM
Reminds me. I need to re-up my NRA membership.

notorious
December 26, 2008, 06:36 PM
Trudat! Guns are an AMERICAN thing and no party, regardless of affiliation, can take that away. However, it has been politicized to the point that it is almost impossible to separate. It doesn't help that the gunban groups have clung to the left and the left has embraced it as their shining cause, thereby deepening the ties and associations.

AKGuy
December 26, 2008, 09:48 PM
Notorious...I agree that gun ownership issues have been largely turned into something synonymous with right-vs-left. But...I don't think that we as pro-RTKBA's can say that the debate has been stolen or hijacked away from us. Rather, I suspect that it's been a combination of things that has led to the present state of affairs, not the least of which are tendencies to be REactive instead of PROactive on the part of pro-gun folks...and by proactive I don't mean extolling survivalist-type mentality stuff such as claiming that the general public MUST have access to AK47s, silencers, and 50cal thunderguns (and I don't mean 50cal blackpowder, either!), insisting that ALL gun control is bad and evil and some kind of harbinger of apocalypse, etc. In fact, I daresay we enable anti-gun folks by insisting on focusing on things that really aren't at the root of the problem as far as any public perception of gun ownership. Once things get to a certain tipping point, there will be nothing we can do, which is why I'm willing to :banghead: and "suggest" that we focus on what's real and on issues that will really favorably influence undecided folks rather than scare them away. Anybody can check into this board and read what's posted...and there's a fair amount of stuff on here that would scare the beejeezus outta a whole lotta folks and lead them away from where we want things to stay, much less go.

AKGuy
December 26, 2008, 09:53 PM
...oops...I hit the post button too soon...So long as we have RTKBA supporters willing to call anyone/everyone who votes Democratic "stupid" etc then at that point WE are the ones who are being divisive. The issue really isn't Democrat-vs-Republican-vs-Libertarian...so why do so many in our own ranks insist on that? I daresay a whole lotta blue collar folks voted Democrat this time because they perceived it to be in their best interest to do so, NOT because they are stupid or because they are so simpleminded that they only vote on the basis of one issue (and saying that Obama=All guns taken away is silly at best) to the exclusion of everything else.

notorious
December 27, 2008, 12:46 AM
True true... firearms are not the main issue on most people's minds when they pull the lever, especially in the midst of the worst economy thanks to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and their patronage of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As long as we can separate the issues and make guns an American thing and those who don't like guns an Anti-American thing, we will surely win the long fight. That's just me.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's not "just a movie" or "just entertainment" - it is powerful propaganda" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!