so basically everything in leftist (classism/socialist) thought is excessive narcissism? cause it seems to be to me that whenever they say everything is political they tend to also say right after "...so do as *I* say". that is also sidetracking their obvious inclusion via everything is social and political... in other words "its all about me!" mentality. Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
R.J. Sorry that i write this way, but youtube damands it from me. First let me address the Se...t thing. If the only diverging variable is the s.. and yet it leads to two different outcomes, then it is s....t. But that is neither here and nor there and is totally unimportant. But to my problem: The persona as you know dervies from the mask or from per-sonare. A) In this case persona is the identity of an entity that interacts with other entities within a state or sozial context. Formal: p1 R p2, where p1.. pn is set of Personas and R is in the set of relations. There are different definitions what political means, but coming from the word it means: the affair / matter of the state or concerning the state. In other words: B) Political are the relations of the entities (juristical and natural personas / polites) in the state. Formal: Polical is the set R in a state, where p1 R p2 and p2 is not p1. A -> B and A is given so it is B. (modus ponens) Therefore the personal, which is the idententity we have while interacting with other entities of the state, is political. (Socrates is a athenian. Athenians are mortal. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.) To quote Niklas Luhman, where social is the keyword: "Politics is the complex of social processes that specifically serve to ensure the acceptance of administrative (factual) decisions. Politics should account for, legitimize and provide the necessary power base for the implementation of factual administrative decisions." What you also uncritical use is the m..xist definitions, without showing the borders of definition and observation, that will expose the fallacy of their definition. You know like the "Black Swan" example. I hope that this shows why Man vs Man is political and why Man vs Nature isn't necessary, while Man vs Himself or his nature isn't. I need to write this down, because of the recent discussion that i have or had on a Spector Creative v.d.o about He-Man. And where the question arises why He-Man doesn't dispose of Skeletor or Batman doesn't do it to the Joker or Superman to Lex Luthor. This persona arguments that the Superheroes exercise progressive justice.
@Creation Bros Zone couldn't agree more for if we did not follow kings and queens could we have war? though one thought I had was this: is communism and fascism really different? one takes the property whole forever and the other seems shrouded in mystery (possibly by said forces that work in secret combinations) but also merely having the property when looking at it as if it were the eye of Sauron. Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
they need to find politics in every story so they can find a excuse to be victimized. sad ppl who seek to turn things miserable like them. while we look for comics/etc for entertainment they look for narrative, this proves they never liked things we like, because if they did, they wouldn't try to change it.
Well, those people have been trained to be activists by the left leaning education system. So they think everything revolves around pushing politics...
politics is mainly people trying to get power over other people, not people trying to do what is right or what is most logical. Not every story is political because not every story thesis/morals supports a political ideology or how it goes in its way to support it, when it supports a political idea, that is called propaganda.
@@walterroche8192 Everything is political, an apple falling down a tree is political, but on its own the tree and the apple are not propaganda. Everything is political but on the same sense everything is about time, or everything about distances or everything is about forms, what really matters is whether or not the creators is if the creator is more interested in giving the viewer the tools to think about a certain subject or just rushing to the conclusion about said subject. You can said Mario is political but can't say it is in the same way old communist cartoons were.
Of course, there are those who would argue that being able to do what is right or what is logical necessitates power in order for ones goals to go through, or to not be altered by committee into either less efficiency or outright failure to launch.
That’s exactly why they say “everything is political”. Every story either bolsters their version of morality, bolsters their ideology; or it opposes their ideology (or worse, supports racist and sexist ideals like the Family and individualism). Thus they will always interpret every story, every work of entertainment, art, or escapism as a political statement.
That's great that you contributed to The Lotus Eaters! Good topic here too. I wanted to discuss this very notion on storytelling, in the next week or so.
RJ. I liked the touch with "Dredd" picture covers, for the political depiction. although there are few more categories on "The story telling" principles, that's been left out, due to time is of the essence. Everything you said, it does fall in due course on the story telling narrative and "post-modernism" with their political dictates. But these people don't realise, that it doesn't matter how much they push the narrative off course. The world and it's evolution, has a way correcting itself of poisonous conceited fallacy. How can "they" argue and say other-wise?! With thousand of years of constructive story-telling mechanism in place. Even the way we depict and shape the story today, which mirrors our reality and logic, with the morals that we aspire to, but mainly..... it's NOT POLITICAL!! I'm gonna say it again.......NOT POLITICAL!! Yes it MIRRORS our reality but still Fantasy. They need to learn.......The world will never revolve around "Them"!!
Such a pity. I used to respect him, especially his work on Mad TV. But the knowledge that he hates me because of the color of my skin, demonizes people of European background, and actively glorifies violence against them in the media he's produced since _Key and Peele_ went off the air taints pretty much everything he's ever produced. May God have mercy on his soul...
That's because politics are their religion. Yeah, they claim to be atheist, and "anti-religious," but they follow their politics, political party, and activism like they're a faith or worse, a cult. And they see anyone that disagrees, or are on the opposite side, or even aren't political as a "heretic."
I would love to see you debate these guys on your show. When they DO come to you, lets see how they react when you school them. It's not enough to criticise their work but to educate these people on what makes heroic virtues appealing to normal people who read comics. When I read about heroes sacrificing their own well being to save others, there is a moral lesson in there that if you give your strength to something higher than yourself, you change the world around you. If all the character exists is to punch and kick political opponents in the face, you basically may as well write a post apocalytpic mad max story where cops do not exist and heroes can act any way they want since they are basically gods. A post apoc setting makes more sense since if you are a tough person that must deal with a lawless world, there are no judges or court system or civilised people to catch bad guys so you have a legit excuse to play judge, jury, and executioner. That is why I like the Mad Max movies. Although he is an antihero Max would be a hero in a more civilised world. The radical left do not like right wing characters that are patriotic like Captain America. They do not like people with knightly codes like the Jedi in the Star Wars movies. They DO like rogues who do what they want if they can get away with it, because the radical left respect power not virtues. They like Captain Marvel simply because she is supposed to be more powerful than thor, hulk, and possibly thanos in the movies if she really tried hard. The idea here is it doesn't matter if she acts rude to innocent people since she is a goddess and can do no wrong. There is no moral lesson in the SJW version of heroes. It's just use the comic as a soap box to promote your worldview.
Yuri Bezmenov warned us about these useful idiots. Arguing with them serves no purpose beyond exposing naive onlookers to the depths of their madness. Only God can save these lost souls from their ideology/themselves.
I would've said that they think everything is political because politics are the public morality, aka the COLLECTIVE morality, and since everything must be controlled by the collective and nothing can be of the individual, everything is political in that it either supports and pushes their ideology or it does not, and thus is the enemy and must be changed. If anything is not a part of the collective, then that would mean it is SEPARATE from the collective, and if it is separate from the collective, it is not in ACCORDANCE with the collective. You are either for them or you are against them in their perspective. There is nothing else.
There are six more categories of "basic story" than the three you list. Off the top of my head, Man Vs God, Man Vs Society, Man Vs Nothing. Online you'll see these labeled as "postmodern" and "metamodern" but... they've really got nothing to do with the movements, they're just normal stories people have told since the birth of civilization.
You know, I didn't think I would be making a second comment on this video, but RJ, this was your best video. And you have had some great ones. The fact that you are talking about natural law is amazing as unfortunately most people have never even heard of it and have no clue about truth, how our reality is created, eternal laws, etc. For those who would like a deeper look at natural law I would HIGHLY suggest the work of Mark Passio. Specifically his lectures. He has a 7 hour lecture on natural law and it is must see material if you are unfamiliar. Once again, outstanding work good sir!
Ironic. Most of art in the ancient world was either tacit political propaganda commissioned by rulers and targeted at the society they ruled over, or privately commissioned by social elites as tangible expressions of wealth which they would show off. And in spite of all of that, that art still has a transcendent quality, and offers a glimpse into the souls and psyches of the artists, commissioners of the art pieces, and their cultures as a whole. Given the latter point, the picture this crop of media paints of its authors, artists, patrons, and their sheer cultural anachronism is not a flattering one. These people are at war with reality itself, and with that comes war against truth and beauty. The monsters they've spawned and continue to birth would make Echidna blush.
Indeed! And you bring up another angle on this. With all the philosophy and details aside, is this modern art actually quality art? We can discuss the feminism and politics of the Capt Marvel movie but at the end of the day, the movie isn’t a good movie.
@@J.B.1982 I have seen a lot of strange art over the years. At a recent visit to _Ripley's Believe It or Not,_ I saw a bigger than life portrait of Captain Jack Sparrow made entirely of welded bike chains, a strange totem pole-like effigy made from paper wasp nests, the original Lord's Prayer engraved on the head of a pin, celebrity portraits painted in barbecue sauce, and miniature paintings on Pringles potato chips. As bizarre as all those pieces were, all of them displayed an inner vitality, a character of their own, and the passion of the artist was visible for all to see. They were beautiful, and in ways that most so-called art critics and other would-be dictators of taste would never understand. Compare this with everything the big two have produced over the last decade. Actually, let's go a step further to another art genre that's allegedly "outside of the box" and "quirky": menstrual blood paintings. This is a pursuit only observed by avowed feminists, almost invariably done as a political statement about femininity, _designed_ to offend sensibilities, and with the artists obtusely interpreting the near-universal instinctive disgust as a commentary unto itself about how society views women. Let us ignore for a moment their solipsistic logic and how revolting we find their choice of material, and try to consider their art on its own merits... I have yet to see a single menstrual painting that doesn't redefine "phoning it in." The vast majority of the women _loudly undertaking_ such projects have mediocre talent at best, and most of their works look worse than the crap I painted in preschool. These artists display neither the talent nor passion needed to make their works come alive (to say nothing of the smell of these things without a frame and glass covering). This is understandable, as their choice of media is expressly political, to the exclusion of all else. There is little more than the underlying statement (an incredibly shallow and vapid one, no less), and no actual artistic window-dressing that might give the illusion of actual depth. I am reminded of a controversial art exhibition of an African artist in the late 90s. He courted controversy because he painted a portrait of the Virgin Mary using paints into which he mixed elephant dung. He did this not out of disrespect for Mary or Christianity, but because poverty and lack of art supplies left him with limited options of media to work with. From a purely chemical standpoint, his use of elephant dung in his paints makes sense given the circumstances. Most importantly, the final product displays a care and reverence for its subject. In contrast, menstrual blood is chosen when other materials are readily available, and tacitly done so by feminist artists as a symbolic middle finger aimed at the society they delusionally assume hates them. They are gratuitously disgusting out of misdirected spite, and have none of the actual passion or talent that might make their art at least somewhat palatable. Actual paintings _by_ elephants are objectively better than the entire corpus of menstrual paintings, and those elephants are heavily coached through the process. And like menstrual painters, the activists hired by the the big two have no idea what they're doing at best, or are iconoclasts hellbent on sabotaging the work of actual artists out of blind nihilism at worst. Fundamentally, both are dysfunctional cries for attention and praise from people lashing out at art and artists who are objectively better than them. In both current comics and menstrual paintings, these "artists" are effectively finger-painting with their own feces because they hate everyone. And comic writers and artists are doing it on original Mark Twain manuscripts and Rembrandts in art galleries.
Everything becomes political when we can no longer agree on basic principles of good and evil. When the definition of hero becomes a sticking point every story becomes an argument about what ought and ought not be done. Story cannot exist in a vacuum, and every story either points to the true and beautiful or it lies.
The only politics acceptable in stories are in-universe politics, such as the behind-the-scenes machinations in Dune which set the plot going. Anything based on real life politics may as well go in the non-fiction section.
Not everything is or has to be political and people who say otherwise are simply ideologues who have no life outside of politics. Moreover, even if one accepts the definition of politics as "public morals", political ideology is still very much a personal thing; i.e. YOU might think something is true, but that doesn't mean OTHER PEOPLE do as well, if that makes sense.
If anything, anyone that says that should be viewed as a threat, on par with a rabid animal, a deranged homeless person, or a meth addict. Do not let them into your house and avoid contact with them as much as possible.
"i.e. YOU might think something is true, but that doesn't mean OTHER PEOPLE do as well, if that makes sense." You're kind of undermining your own point there.
"Believing" is a strong word. If anything, it feels like most of it is active denial and attempts to magically alter reality through repeated incantation. All of which are part and parcel to Marxism, which itself has philosophical roots in Hermetic alchemy and Christian Gnosticism. Both traditions couch transcendence in terms of secret knowledge and the idea that with sufficient knowledge one can bend reality itself to one's will. Pure magical thinking, and utterly anathema to orthodox Judeo-Christian theology. These people are literally trying to follow the adage "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," either thinking that reality will change to fit their utopian vision _if they just want it enough,_ or that they will obtain sufficient power to define what the truth is and compel everyone else to accept what _they_ want to be true as the truth. It is beyond irrational, grossly immoral, and in many cases _actually heretical._
Just from that thumbnail I was able to come up with a story or comic called B.O.P.E.M ( Beauroe of paranormal Investigation And Management). The woman has a shadow demon haunting her since she was a kid who was the monster that was under her bed. They bonded Over the years and almost following her father's footsteps become apart of law enforcement. Investigating supernatural phenomenon and Incidents. Armed with her pistol and the ability to manifest her shadowy friend to provide support.
I agree with what your saying that not everything is political unfortunately there are people that don't think this way thus the conflict. I do think there are people that insert themselves into everything and claim it is political and are in denial about any other way of viewing it they just want every single thing and topic to reflect or promote their political ideas typically we've seen people inject politics into everything.
Great comments as usual. As a former atheist leftist turned god loving libertarian I agree with all of this. I’ll add some more thoughts. I’ve noticed in myself and others, there’s an emotional piece that usually involves some kind of self-hate and disempowerment. A lot of the men are checked out of the masculine experiences, and the women, the feminine. So the destruction gives a sense of power and the opposition to natural law creates their own validation to their disempowered state. Why be a man that rises into greater masculinity when I can mental gymnastics myself to validating being a lazy weak boy
I'd argue that progressive movements have worked very hard at making there be stories without morals. Sometimes, successfully. It's part of why their stories are so... the way they are.
Eric July's Rippaverse is not anti-woke or "apolitical". It's just normal, not trying to preach anything. This is something that the woke just can't comprehend. Oh by the way, R.J., I watched the video that you were in with Wes from Thinking Critical. That was a very good discussion. You should appear on his channel more. I would like to see how you would interact with the other people on Comics Afficionados, that show that Wes does every Saturday at 10:00 A.M.
@Heavy Metal Pulp I have no doubt that we'll soon see someone who is an artist, creator and writer within his Rippaverse Comics company who is a major fan of Bande Dessineé French comic books make something very, very European in style. I guarantee it.
The SJWs are so delusional they think "woke" means stuff like "anti-nazi", and they interpret everything that isn't "woke" as "pro nazis", "pro racism" and everything else they claim they are against as woke people. This is why they throw a fit every time someone say they don't want to be woke, since they interpret it as "I don't want to be a good person".
politics is a broad term for someone's ideals and beliefs. every single story is instilled with the politic's of person writing it. whether it's a moral lesson, or their view of an ideal world, every story no matter how unimportant does this. it's possible to tell your story without it being shoved down the audiences throat as the end all be all moral high horse we should all sit on is another thing entirely. the reason why so many modern stories are insufferable to sit through is that they take the latter approach, where they are actively trying to push their politics instead of letting it be a natural part of the story. allowing it to be told with a more ambitious approach to the morality of it all. letting the audience decide for themselves instead of it being the obvious road the author expects you to take. yes politics are uncomfortable at times, but it's also the concept that drives any and all change in our world, all your doing by trying to ignore it is taking yourself out of the picture ensuring that the change that does happen... wont suit you in the slightest.
I have mixed feelings about people who think that everything is political, on one hand these people are just sad since they have to make everything in their life from the shows they watch, food they eat, clothes they wear, and who they should associate with a political statement. On the other the people who do this are the also the ones that feel entitled to do things like swat, dox, get fired, and or beat up anyone that disagree with, or criticize them.
Hi there. I love your work. This is what I think. A person can write a letter or a resume trying their hardest to describe themself, and still completely fail to convey their own essence, but if you ever write a work of fiction, your essence is somehow paraded in all its naked glory. And these woke writers are riddled with every sort of character disorder, they hardly know what honesty is, they're like toddlers, so of course their stories are going to be drivel. It's like they're depicting a Lego world.
It's interesting how people who seemingly 'need' classification to thrive/have meaning yet are also of the same people who demand no such classification. Raw power via labels.
I'll slightly agree that all stories are political only so far as the background goes. Wherever people interact, wherever there is concern over law, wherever there is a city - there will be politics. Yet politics serves only to help ground the story in reality. Yet to make politics the foreground is to make the story actually political in the way the progressives have been doing.
(EDIT: My bad, the way the video started off gave the impression you wouldn’t touch on etymology, but then you actually did. Good stuff, I’ll still leave my comment up regardless) - - - While it’s true that not everything is political, you should have led with the actual etymology of the word “politics” (which of course is Hellenic in origin). Sticking to definitions isn’t really good enough in a matter of trying to relay original meaning. Definitions actually change all the time, and depend mostly on who has the most power to push through with a new or false meaning. Etymology and origins or original meanings don’t change - not least due to the fact that the meanings are imprinted within the words themselves (especially with Hellenic, or Greek as most know it as). “Politics” essentially derives itself from the the Hellenic word for “citizen” and “city” (“polis” in Hellenic) and is not directly tied to “party politics”, as most people think. It is in fact pertaining more so to public life. That’s where you get words like “Metropolis” or “Cosmopolite”. Directly tying the word “politics” to “party politics” is a definition that came along far later. These leftist, agents of chaos, let’s call em, don’t understand any of this by any means (except for their leaders), so don’t assume I’m trying to cut them any slack here. I’m just being accurate.
Well.. RJ making some bald statement about USSR starving humans to death by making farmers plant crops in socialist manner, but in reality they were just taking all of thier crops specifically to make them starve))
100% there's no need for a story to be political. How stupid/ignorant does a person need to be to believe it has to? If you stick to actions and events flowing from one another you can end up with a story without it entirely. It's like many old mini stories, anecdotes, fables, etc. Though the real issue here is the really twisted views the woke have on what "politics" on a story really means. What they see as politics is just current time worries and conflicts of ideas. But in a story the only valid politics are the worries and conflicts of ideas directly related to the story's world and population. Current politics have no place in most scifi and fantasy stories (much less in any story from hundreds of years ago), because politics in a story have to be about what the people of those worlds/times are worried or conflicted about at the time, not what some idiot in California or New York is worrying about today.
I want to make a quip about erotic fanfic being non-political, but these reprobates write actual doctoral theses on political analysis of fanfics and pornography.
Even if you take the most apolitical story ever... then if just one character in that story has a family, then today's activists will claim its inherently political. Because that family is based on certain values, and exists in certain society that is more or less in line with those values. Previously, we didn't see this as political, because most people discussing or pushing politics were normal. But today, people who discus or push politics are on the fringe. So a story that depicts events from normal times is an assault on how they want the world to be depicted.
All fiction is about communication and interaction between being. Even it's an account of geological or astronomical history in which nothing with a brain is discussed, there is still the monologue between the author and the the audience. Politics at it's essence is the interactions between beings writ large. Little Steve and Little Sally work together to get cookies from a Jar and Steve gets 80% of the cookies and Sally gets 20%. Steve things he deserves all the cookies and Sally thinks that Steve hogged them for himself. This interaction can be directly scaled up and translated to 200,000 adult humans in which half of them do well and the other half suffer. At the same time, attempting to "Depoliticize" fiction is in of itself making a political stance. Imagine writing a book set in 1942 France which only focused on people growing flowers and the difficulties in producing the best roses. Such a book overlooks that France is being occupied by the Nazis. Omitting the fact would be like taking a photograph of the New York skyline and whiting out everything but the Chrysler building. The phrase "Keep Politics out of Fiction" is in the end Not Even Wrong. Also the environment itself is effected by human behaviour. That's what humans do. Wheat Fields don't happen by themselves and skyscrapers don't sprout out of the ground on their own. Similarly it's been proven time and time again that carbon dioxide does result in higher temperatures and there has been a major spike since 1750 when the Industrial Revolution began in England.
My two cents. I disagree, in many good stories there is politics, but wokeism is above all religion, now it could be said that religion can also be in good stories but wokeism is blind and fanatic sectarianism made up of obedience, homologation and hatred, so for me there is too much woke religious fanaticism and paradoxically little real politics these days in certain stories.
Funny enough that’s exactly the part that I said I was going to make a video on some time in the future (while I was talking about Heroes in this video). It deserves it’s own analysis, and you’re quite right.
From a Traditionalist standpoint, I'd quibble on the notion that certain aspects of an individual are merely accidents; I think I know what you mean, as I expect that as a religious man you don't mean that in the way a secular Materialist would, but I don't want to put words in your mouth either. Specifically, I would note that being a man or a woman is an essential part of our Nature that informs our experiences on this Earth nigh as much as simply being Humaninthe first place. The difference is that Traditionalists believe in a Hierarchy of Nature, and we can always go up a level in order to find common ground. That's how we "transcend" ourselves, if you want to call it that, but our starting point does not suddenly become irrelevant. If we share nothing else in common - not culture, not language, not upbringing, not sex - we can still relate to others by virtue of being Human Beings. If we don't even have that, we can relate to an elephant or a dog or a cat by virtue of being mammals. If we don't even have that, we can relate to a frog or a lizard, to some extent, by virtue of being animals. As base we can to a certain extent relate to plants just by virtue of being alive, although that's about as far as it goes. We start at the core, the individual, the particular, and move out in concentric rings further and further from ourselves. From the individual to the nuclear family to the community to the greater tribe/nation and so on. Many Radicals start in the same general position (I think), the difference lies in their outlook and their goals. They believe all Hierarchy is bad and must be destroyed, and their goal is to fundamentally alter Human Nature, which includes those "accidents" and all. The problem is that calling them "accidents" plays into their hands, and I believe it is unintentional overcorrection. From a religious standpoint, a Traditionalist should not consider these things accidental at all; whatever Creator you believe in will have intentionally made each of us a certain way, or the Universe did it, however you want to look at it. And in your other videos you've expressed very clearly how fundamentally different men and women are. I don't think it is wise to lose sight of that message. We are fundamentally different, and that's a good thing, as we still need each other and we absolutely need what the Other Half offers that our Half does not. That's the way God intended it. Joining hands with others who are different from ourselves to advance a Higher Cause is the Unity of the Multiplicity, and is the core ideal embodied within the slogan "One Nation, Under God". And it is how we differ from radical Socialists, who would erase all differences abd nuance in favour of a flat, boring, ugly, uniform "grey".
The Only Good Politics in a Story are the Fictional In Universe ones (Ex. The Earth Federation War Against Zeon from Gundam, The Laguz Discrimination and Racism from Fire Emblem's Jugdral Duology, The Political Intrigues of Game of Thrones before it went to shit) If you make a Story deliberately About Modern Political Analogies that more resembles a Missionary's Philippic against 'The Evils of Sin' more than a Story. It is not a Story anymore but instead Political Propaganda.
So this is kinda how I see it, lemme know if I'm understanding this correct, because I aspire to be a storyteller. Star Wars, the original six films. Heaped with politics, but not political. It's anti-war, it cautions about religious institutions and dogma, it shows the lethargy of bureaucracy, it detests tyranny. You see a lot of George Lucas's beliefs reflected in these films. They are reflections of our world, given back to us for us to contemplate. However, these ideas, these politics, in the original six are effectively translated from real life, into Star Wars. The politics of the world impact the characters and how they change and grow. They are contained to that story. To simplify, the Star Wars films tell us what "they" think, rather than tell us what "we should" think. They allow us to opt out of the moral, or take nothing away from them at all should we so choose. The original six films are allowed to be just entertainment from which deeper meaning can be derived. They do not seek to educate but they can be educational. That's basically what I'm taking away.
You don't understand. There is no negotiating. For people who have nothing in their life but power everything is political because everything is another avenue for power. Even the transcendent like beauty and meaning and truth is subject to their whims. You will never argue this with them because their only goal is to win.
If you are arguing with someone and they tell you that "everything is political" do not expect to have a sincere conversation because when he says that, by that "everything" he also means the discussion you are having and it is in the nature of an ideologist to preserve his cause. and politics. But if you want to prove not to an ideologist how much "everything is political" is dishonest and only sentence to effect I suggest you use it as an argument in your turn: try to use it next time a progressive will complain about how certain minorities are represented or some other bullshit, try to tell him "everything is political and try to see if he is convinced, of course it is not, as you said they accuse you of wanting to insert your policy instead of theirs in the comics, so why your policy is not good if it's all political? I don't even waste time discussing whether or not everything is political because it's not the point, it's a dishonest argument because it's not a question of what is or isn't political, the point is that not all politics is the same. Not all political discussions are divisive, offensive and topical in the same way. Many of the stories are about personal conflict and often the authors try to make it as less like reality as possible. If modern propaganda is inserted nowadays it is mainly for drama and easy advertising, the problem is that now everyone is doing it and many of us just want great stories so as not to always have to think about certain issues, it does not mean that we are against them, we just want to be able to have some entertainment.
I feel like what you said about far left-wing people thinking Heroes are inherently political/ pro establishment is why we’ve recently seen the rise of trying to make villains into anti-heroes or making heroes do things that a traditional villain would do.
Wouldn't mind conservative stories, which they would brand as political. The market is so oversaturated with left-leaning stories, truly based stuff would be a nice change.
I'm right wing trump supporter. what if the political message that you already agree with would you even think it was political while reading/watching it
SJW's: Theres always been politics in comics Me: Yes but in allegory to events in history with exception to blatant propaganda during WW2 with its use with Captain America. The politics nowadays are personal political beliefs entranced with emotions and forced diversity and inclusion along with exaggerated premises.
Gotta becareful with the idea that Reality is Truth, because these guys believe that reality is subjective and their truth matters just as much as yours
@@Xbalanque84 Long story short its a form of political art rebellion against Logic and science due to the fact that WW1 happened. They are way better explanations you can find and I recommend you to look them up because it's a really cool movement.
I find it troublesome that you don't update your definition and vocabulary. The comment of using old dictionarys seems like a failure to reach a wider audience and I a simple way to discount your self. Language is always evolving so it would be prudent to evolve beside it so you can get your ideas off more clearly. Often it seems like you put up the No true Scotsman fallacy. Maybe you should take your time and really under your opponents instead of demonize them. I will admit I'm only self educated and a tradesmen by nature but what's the uses of being so educated if you can't talk to the masses.
People shouldn't be chained to the equivocation and linguistic dodges of their ideological opponents. Further, you do not reach a larger audience by hopping on the latest neologism crafted by academic ideologues; you in fact divide your audience and enter the kafkatraps of those without actual arguments. Point at one No True Scotsman from this video, and one where he 'demonizes' his opponents.
@@mudageki This is a perfect example of academic elitism. I'm a tradesmen and a part of the masses and I had to Google half of what you said . Which you could have said "he shouldn't have to change his language because he's not try to chase fads of academia" but it just sounds like you like the smell of your own farts.
Authorial intent is critically important, as is _understanding the history and trajectory of the changing definitions of words._ Our ideological enemies are cheating in their argumentation by selectively redefining words in whatever way gives them a rhetorical edge or a veneer of legitimacy. "Updating one's language" does nothing but play into their rigged game, because _they are the ones constantly "updating" the language!_ Language only enables communication so long as those speaking share a common consensus about what given words mean. Redefining words on a whim or just to win an argument breaks one of the cardinal unwritten laws of human communication. And even in surviving tribal societies, the inability to speak a common language can have deadly consequences, if for no other reason than territorial disputes and The Dark Forest solution to the Fermi Paradox. There are tribes in New Guinea where it is custom to greet a stranger in the forest by rattling off one's lineage and relatives, _in order to warn that stranger of people he might know and enemies he'd make if the stranger decided to kill him._ And that's _with_ shared languages handy. History is replete with countless tragedies that have resulted from either an inability to communicate or when communication breaks down. Not only are these self-serving linguistic games played for overtly personal gain and the pushing of political agendas, *they are a form of psychological warfare aimed at unassuming civilians with the intent to redefine some of the most fundamental concepts imaginable, so that the words we use conflict not only with their original meaning **_but objective reality itself!_* No human language has words that adequately describe how dangerous this is! I don't know whether you're doing damage control, or were genuinely tricked into playing the woke's insidious game. Either way, you would do well to stop playing immediately. The horrors of newspeak in Orwell's _1984_ pale in comparison to the actual results of trying to enact them.
@@Xbalanque84 I may not be a super educated man just a few years of trade school and a CC. But none of that make a ton of sense from my rudimentary understanding of how language is formed is mostly by Writers and poets and the working man. Trade school has taught me the easiest way to explain something is the best way. Who are our ideological enemies this all seem comes off as kind of like a cult. You doing good man everything ok? Well I don't know know what to unplug from I like to read comicbooks and fiction. Enjoy some PBS to help culture myself. It's rough out there and I know it might seem like everyone out to get ya but know your not alone.
Something I meant to include in the video.
Everything is Sexist (Music Video) - ua-cam.com/video/vRquPxdHNGE/v-deo.html
A la Sargon
so basically everything in leftist (classism/socialist) thought is excessive narcissism? cause it seems to be to me that whenever they say everything is political they tend to also say right after "...so do as *I* say". that is also sidetracking their obvious inclusion via everything is social and political... in other words "its all about me!" mentality.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
He can you please promote my publisher by forwarding these # #MediaEvalInc #TheHolyLion #MediaEval
R.J. Sorry that i write this way, but youtube damands it from me. First let me address the Se...t thing. If the only diverging variable is the s.. and yet it leads to two different outcomes, then it is s....t. But that is neither here and nor there and is totally unimportant.
But to my problem:
The persona as you know dervies from the mask or from per-sonare.
A) In this case persona is the identity of an entity that interacts with other entities within a state or sozial context.
Formal: p1 R p2, where p1.. pn is set of Personas and R is in the set of relations.
There are different definitions what political means, but coming from the word it means: the affair / matter of the state or concerning the state. In other words:
B) Political are the relations of the entities (juristical and natural personas / polites) in the state.
Formal: Polical is the set R in a state, where p1 R p2 and p2 is not p1.
A -> B and A is given so it is B. (modus ponens)
Therefore the personal, which is the idententity we have while interacting with other entities of the state, is political.
(Socrates is a athenian. Athenians are mortal. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.)
To quote Niklas Luhman, where social is the keyword:
"Politics is the complex of social processes that specifically serve to ensure the acceptance of administrative (factual) decisions. Politics should account for, legitimize and provide the necessary power base for the implementation of factual administrative decisions."
What you also uncritical use is the m..xist definitions, without showing the borders of definition and observation, that will expose the fallacy of their definition. You know like the "Black Swan" example. I hope that this shows why Man vs Man is political and why Man vs Nature isn't necessary, while Man vs Himself or his nature isn't.
I need to write this down, because of the recent discussion that i have or had on a Spector Creative v.d.o about He-Man. And where the question arises why He-Man doesn't dispose of Skeletor or Batman doesn't do it to the Joker or Superman to Lex Luthor. This persona arguments that the Superheroes exercise progressive justice.
I prefer the Rucka Rucka Ali version, _Everything is Racist._ I'm particularly fond of his revised Pledge of Allegiance.
@Creation Bros Zone couldn't agree more for if we did not follow kings and queens could we have war? though one thought I had was this: is communism and fascism really different? one takes the property whole forever and the other seems shrouded in mystery (possibly by said forces that work in secret combinations) but also merely having the property when looking at it as if it were the eye of Sauron.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
they need to find politics in every story so they can find a excuse to be victimized. sad ppl who seek to turn things miserable like them. while we look for comics/etc for entertainment they look for narrative, this proves they never liked things we like, because if they did, they wouldn't try to change it.
This! People like them were and still are trying to change the lore of the (my) comic, The Pensuke Files but I am still resisting!
Well, those people have been trained to be activists by the left leaning education system. So they think everything revolves around pushing politics...
@@mikeluna2026 well, that sucks. anyway, i'm not bending the knee to them, and i'm not willing to be lectured. i did nothing wrong.
@@gundamdetractor337 same! I will keep standing my ground as well!
A story can relate to the real world or be an allegory for events in the real world. But that’s not the same thing as being political.
politics is mainly people trying to get power over other people, not people trying to do what is right or what is most logical. Not every story is political because not every story thesis/morals supports a political ideology or how it goes in its way to support it, when it supports a political idea, that is called propaganda.
With that viewpoint then everything is political, because anything can be used as 'power' over others.
@@walterroche8192 Everything is political, an apple falling down a tree is political, but on its own the tree and the apple are not propaganda. Everything is political but on the same sense everything is about time, or everything about distances or everything is about forms, what really matters is whether or not the creators is if the creator is more interested in giving the viewer the tools to think about a certain subject or just rushing to the conclusion about said subject.
You can said Mario is political but can't say it is in the same way old communist cartoons were.
Of course, there are those who would argue that being able to do what is right or what is logical necessitates power in order for ones goals to go through, or to not be altered by committee into either less efficiency or outright failure to launch.
That’s exactly why they say “everything is political”. Every story either bolsters their version of morality, bolsters their ideology; or it opposes their ideology (or worse, supports racist and sexist ideals like the Family and individualism). Thus they will always interpret every story, every work of entertainment, art, or escapism as a political statement.
Polyticks.
That's great that you contributed to The Lotus Eaters! Good topic here too. I wanted to discuss this very notion on storytelling, in the next week or so.
RJ. I liked the touch with "Dredd" picture covers, for the political depiction. although there are few more categories on "The story telling" principles, that's been left out, due to time is of the essence. Everything you said, it does fall in due course on the story telling narrative and "post-modernism" with their political dictates. But these people don't realise, that it doesn't matter how much they push the narrative off course. The world and it's evolution, has a way correcting itself of poisonous conceited fallacy. How can "they" argue and say other-wise?! With thousand of years of constructive story-telling mechanism in place. Even the way we depict and shape the story today, which mirrors our reality and logic, with the morals that we aspire to, but mainly..... it's NOT POLITICAL!! I'm gonna say it again.......NOT POLITICAL!! Yes it MIRRORS our reality but still Fantasy. They need to learn.......The world will never revolve around "Them"!!
I can't see myself casting a white dude as the lead - Jordan Peele
Such a pity. I used to respect him, especially his work on Mad TV. But the knowledge that he hates me because of the color of my skin, demonizes people of European background, and actively glorifies violence against them in the media he's produced since _Key and Peele_ went off the air taints pretty much everything he's ever produced.
May God have mercy on his soul...
Bottom Line: People who claim "everything is political" want everything to be propaganda promoting their beliefs.
That's because politics are their religion. Yeah, they claim to be atheist, and "anti-religious," but they follow their politics, political party, and activism like they're a faith or worse, a cult.
And they see anyone that disagrees, or are on the opposite side, or even aren't political as a "heretic."
I enjoy watching them reee any time someone rejects the everything is political and other progressive things. I will always like and share.
Love the content, thank you for being a reasonable voice in these crazy times.
Like the judge Dredd images by the way
I would love to see you debate these guys on your show. When they DO come to you, lets see how they react when you school them. It's not enough to criticise their work but to educate these people on what makes heroic virtues appealing to normal people who read comics. When I read about heroes sacrificing their own well being to save others, there is a moral lesson in there that if you give your strength to something higher than yourself, you change the world around you. If all the character exists is to punch and kick political opponents in the face, you basically may as well write a post apocalytpic mad max story where cops do not exist and heroes can act any way they want since they are basically gods. A post apoc setting makes more sense since if you are a tough person that must deal with a lawless world, there are no judges or court system or civilised people to catch bad guys so you have a legit excuse to play judge, jury, and executioner. That is why I like the Mad Max movies. Although he is an antihero Max would be a hero in a more civilised world. The radical left do not like right wing characters that are patriotic like Captain America. They do not like people with knightly codes like the Jedi in the Star Wars movies. They DO like rogues who do what they want if they can get away with it, because the radical left respect power not virtues. They like Captain Marvel simply because she is supposed to be more powerful than thor, hulk, and possibly thanos in the movies if she really tried hard. The idea here is it doesn't matter if she acts rude to innocent people since she is a goddess and can do no wrong. There is no moral lesson in the SJW version of heroes. It's just use the comic as a soap box to promote your worldview.
Yuri Bezmenov warned us about these useful idiots. Arguing with them serves no purpose beyond exposing naive onlookers to the depths of their madness. Only God can save these lost souls from their ideology/themselves.
I would've said that they think everything is political because politics are the public morality, aka the COLLECTIVE morality, and since everything must be controlled by the collective and nothing can be of the individual, everything is political in that it either supports and pushes their ideology or it does not, and thus is the enemy and must be changed. If anything is not a part of the collective, then that would mean it is SEPARATE from the collective, and if it is separate from the collective, it is not in ACCORDANCE with the collective. You are either for them or you are against them in their perspective. There is nothing else.
the only politics I enjoy in stories is good vs evil
Wow. Quite the mic drop at the end. Well done.
There are six more categories of "basic story" than the three you list. Off the top of my head, Man Vs God, Man Vs Society, Man Vs Nothing. Online you'll see these labeled as "postmodern" and "metamodern" but... they've really got nothing to do with the movements, they're just normal stories people have told since the birth of civilization.
Noice
You forgot Man vs Nature, Man vs Man, and Man vs Self
There are really many narrative theories, several that overlap.
You know, I didn't think I would be making a second comment on this video, but RJ, this was your best video. And you have had some great ones. The fact that you are talking about natural law is amazing as unfortunately most people have never even heard of it and have no clue about truth, how our reality is created, eternal laws, etc. For those who would like a deeper look at natural law I would HIGHLY suggest the work of Mark Passio. Specifically his lectures. He has a 7 hour lecture on natural law and it is must see material if you are unfamiliar. Once again, outstanding work good sir!
RJ??? Working with _The_ Lotus Eaters???? Dangerously Based!!!
Ironic. Most of art in the ancient world was either tacit political propaganda commissioned by rulers and targeted at the society they ruled over, or privately commissioned by social elites as tangible expressions of wealth which they would show off. And in spite of all of that, that art still has a transcendent quality, and offers a glimpse into the souls and psyches of the artists, commissioners of the art pieces, and their cultures as a whole. Given the latter point, the picture this crop of media paints of its authors, artists, patrons, and their sheer cultural anachronism is not a flattering one.
These people are at war with reality itself, and with that comes war against truth and beauty. The monsters they've spawned and continue to birth would make Echidna blush.
Indeed!
And you bring up another angle on this. With all the philosophy and details aside, is this modern art actually quality art?
We can discuss the feminism and politics of the Capt Marvel movie but at the end of the day, the movie isn’t a good movie.
@@J.B.1982
I have seen a lot of strange art over the years. At a recent visit to _Ripley's Believe It or Not,_ I saw a bigger than life portrait of Captain Jack Sparrow made entirely of welded bike chains, a strange totem pole-like effigy made from paper wasp nests, the original Lord's Prayer engraved on the head of a pin, celebrity portraits painted in barbecue sauce, and miniature paintings on Pringles potato chips. As bizarre as all those pieces were, all of them displayed an inner vitality, a character of their own, and the passion of the artist was visible for all to see. They were beautiful, and in ways that most so-called art critics and other would-be dictators of taste would never understand.
Compare this with everything the big two have produced over the last decade. Actually, let's go a step further to another art genre that's allegedly "outside of the box" and "quirky": menstrual blood paintings. This is a pursuit only observed by avowed feminists, almost invariably done as a political statement about femininity, _designed_ to offend sensibilities, and with the artists obtusely interpreting the near-universal instinctive disgust as a commentary unto itself about how society views women. Let us ignore for a moment their solipsistic logic and how revolting we find their choice of material, and try to consider their art on its own merits... I have yet to see a single menstrual painting that doesn't redefine "phoning it in." The vast majority of the women _loudly undertaking_ such projects have mediocre talent at best, and most of their works look worse than the crap I painted in preschool. These artists display neither the talent nor passion needed to make their works come alive (to say nothing of the smell of these things without a frame and glass covering). This is understandable, as their choice of media is expressly political, to the exclusion of all else. There is little more than the underlying statement (an incredibly shallow and vapid one, no less), and no actual artistic window-dressing that might give the illusion of actual depth.
I am reminded of a controversial art exhibition of an African artist in the late 90s. He courted controversy because he painted a portrait of the Virgin Mary using paints into which he mixed elephant dung. He did this not out of disrespect for Mary or Christianity, but because poverty and lack of art supplies left him with limited options of media to work with. From a purely chemical standpoint, his use of elephant dung in his paints makes sense given the circumstances. Most importantly, the final product displays a care and reverence for its subject. In contrast, menstrual blood is chosen when other materials are readily available, and tacitly done so by feminist artists as a symbolic middle finger aimed at the society they delusionally assume hates them. They are gratuitously disgusting out of misdirected spite, and have none of the actual passion or talent that might make their art at least somewhat palatable.
Actual paintings _by_ elephants are objectively better than the entire corpus of menstrual paintings, and those elephants are heavily coached through the process. And like menstrual painters, the activists hired by the the big two have no idea what they're doing at best, or are iconoclasts hellbent on sabotaging the work of actual artists out of blind nihilism at worst. Fundamentally, both are dysfunctional cries for attention and praise from people lashing out at art and artists who are objectively better than them. In both current comics and menstrual paintings, these "artists" are effectively finger-painting with their own feces because they hate everyone. And comic writers and artists are doing it on original Mark Twain manuscripts and Rembrandts in art galleries.
Being right dose not mean you will win the argument. Ones debate skills are typically the deciding factor.
Everything becomes political when we can no longer agree on basic principles of good and evil. When the definition of hero becomes a sticking point every story becomes an argument about what ought and ought not be done. Story cannot exist in a vacuum, and every story either points to the true and beautiful or it lies.
The only politics acceptable in stories are in-universe politics, such as the behind-the-scenes machinations in Dune which set the plot going. Anything based on real life politics may as well go in the non-fiction section.
@Heavy Metal Pulp Thanks for expanding.
It's only a straw man if you're presenting a caricature of your opponents position.
Karl Urban nailed the role of Judge Dredd! Man, I wish I was a Street Judge in Mega-City Three!🤠
Personally I'd like to be one in Cassablanca Mega City.
Not everything is or has to be political and people who say otherwise are simply ideologues who have no life outside of politics. Moreover, even if one accepts the definition of politics as "public morals", political ideology is still very much a personal thing; i.e. YOU might think something is true, but that doesn't mean OTHER PEOPLE do as well, if that makes sense.
Makes sense! You don't forcefully impose truth upon people.
If anything, anyone that says that should be viewed as a threat, on par with a rabid animal, a deranged homeless person, or a meth addict. Do not let them into your house and avoid contact with them as much as possible.
"i.e. YOU might think something is true, but that doesn't mean OTHER PEOPLE do as well, if that makes sense."
You're kind of undermining your own point there.
@@mahguvnah7403 Cool pfp
...anyone else feels the utter insanity that these people seem to believe is real?
"Believing" is a strong word. If anything, it feels like most of it is active denial and attempts to magically alter reality through repeated incantation. All of which are part and parcel to Marxism, which itself has philosophical roots in Hermetic alchemy and Christian Gnosticism. Both traditions couch transcendence in terms of secret knowledge and the idea that with sufficient knowledge one can bend reality itself to one's will. Pure magical thinking, and utterly anathema to orthodox Judeo-Christian theology.
These people are literally trying to follow the adage "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," either thinking that reality will change to fit their utopian vision _if they just want it enough,_ or that they will obtain sufficient power to define what the truth is and compel everyone else to accept what _they_ want to be true as the truth. It is beyond irrational, grossly immoral, and in many cases _actually heretical._
Just from that thumbnail I was able to come up with a story or comic called B.O.P.E.M ( Beauroe of paranormal Investigation And Management). The woman has a shadow demon haunting her since she was a kid who was the monster that was under her bed. They bonded Over the years and almost following her father's footsteps become apart of law enforcement. Investigating supernatural phenomenon and Incidents. Armed with her pistol and the ability to manifest her shadowy friend to provide support.
Actually it's about a psychic super-cop fighting an undead ghost cop from another dimension where they made life illegal.
I agree with what your saying that not everything is political unfortunately there are people that don't think this way thus the conflict. I do think there are people that insert themselves into everything and claim it is political and are in denial about any other way of viewing it they just want every single thing and topic to reflect or promote their political ideas typically we've seen people inject politics into everything.
Great comments as usual.
As a former atheist leftist turned god loving libertarian I agree with all of this.
I’ll add some more thoughts.
I’ve noticed in myself and others, there’s an emotional piece that usually involves some kind of self-hate and disempowerment. A lot of the men are checked out of the masculine experiences, and the women, the feminine. So the destruction gives a sense of power and the opposition to natural law creates their own validation to their disempowered state.
Why be a man that rises into greater masculinity when I can mental gymnastics myself to validating being a lazy weak boy
Out of curiosity, what brought about your conversion/change in worldview?
I'd argue that progressive movements have worked very hard at making there be stories without morals. Sometimes, successfully. It's part of why their stories are so... the way they are.
Eric July's Rippaverse is not anti-woke or "apolitical". It's just normal, not trying to preach anything. This is something that the woke just can't comprehend. Oh by the way, R.J., I watched the video that you were in with Wes from Thinking Critical. That was a very good discussion. You should appear on his channel more. I would like to see how you would interact with the other people on Comics Afficionados, that show that Wes does every Saturday at 10:00 A.M.
@Heavy Metal Pulp I have no doubt that we'll soon see someone who is an artist, creator and writer within his Rippaverse Comics company who is a major fan of Bande Dessineé French comic books make something very, very European in style. I guarantee it.
The SJWs are so delusional they think "woke" means stuff like "anti-nazi", and they interpret everything that isn't "woke" as "pro nazis", "pro racism" and everything else they claim they are against as woke people. This is why they throw a fit every time someone say they don't want to be woke, since they interpret it as "I don't want to be a good person".
But Im afraid that many people will buy his Rippaverse not because of quality, but just because is different than the wokes, thus making it anti-woke.
Every video feels very familiar but always has another idea to chew on!
It would be nice to see a show pushes back on leftist politics
"Everything is political" ok then, please explain the politics of tetris.
politics is a broad term for someone's ideals and beliefs. every single story is instilled with the politic's of person writing it. whether it's a moral lesson, or their view of an ideal world, every story no matter how unimportant does this. it's possible to tell your story without it being shoved down the audiences throat as the end all be all moral high horse we should all sit on is another thing entirely.
the reason why so many modern stories are insufferable to sit through is that they take the latter approach, where they are actively trying to push their politics instead of letting it be a natural part of the story. allowing it to be told with a more ambitious approach to the morality of it all. letting the audience decide for themselves instead of it being the obvious road the author expects you to take.
yes politics are uncomfortable at times, but it's also the concept that drives any and all change in our world, all your doing by trying to ignore it is taking yourself out of the picture ensuring that the change that does happen... wont suit you in the slightest.
I have mixed feelings about people who think that everything is political, on one hand these people are just sad since they have to make everything in their life from the shows they watch, food they eat, clothes they wear, and who they should associate with a political statement. On the other the people who do this are the also the ones that feel entitled to do things like swat, dox, get fired, and or beat up anyone that disagree with, or criticize them.
Tell it to Netdette. She is lost right now
Who?
I was wondering how should a person include diversity in media. how do you think it should be done? How do you do a political stoiy well?
Is that an Arthur Adams art on cover?
Hi there. I love your work. This is what I think.
A person can write a letter or a resume trying their hardest to describe themself, and still completely fail to convey their own essence, but if you ever write a work of fiction, your essence is somehow paraded in all its naked glory. And these woke writers are riddled with every sort of character disorder, they hardly know what honesty is, they're like toddlers, so of course their stories are going to be drivel. It's like they're depicting a Lego world.
Yes you can make stories that are not political.
It's interesting how people who seemingly 'need' classification to thrive/have meaning yet are also of the same people who demand no such classification.
Raw power via labels.
"I don't say 'apolitical'", he said.
I'll slightly agree that all stories are political only so far as the background goes. Wherever people interact, wherever there is concern over law, wherever there is a city - there will be politics. Yet politics serves only to help ground the story in reality. Yet to make politics the foreground is to make the story actually political in the way the progressives have been doing.
This is true for any normal political stance. But to a totalitarian political stance, everything and everyone is political.
(EDIT: My bad, the way the video started off gave the impression you wouldn’t touch on etymology, but then you actually did. Good stuff, I’ll still leave my comment up regardless) - - - While it’s true that not everything is political, you should have led with the actual etymology of the word “politics” (which of course is Hellenic in origin). Sticking to definitions isn’t really good enough in a matter of trying to relay original meaning. Definitions actually change all the time, and depend mostly on who has the most power to push through with a new or false meaning. Etymology and origins or original meanings don’t change - not least due to the fact that the meanings are imprinted within the words themselves (especially with Hellenic, or Greek as most know it as). “Politics” essentially derives itself from the the Hellenic word for “citizen” and “city” (“polis” in Hellenic) and is not directly tied to “party politics”, as most people think. It is in fact pertaining more so to public life. That’s where you get words like “Metropolis” or “Cosmopolite”. Directly tying the word “politics” to “party politics” is a definition that came along far later. These leftist, agents of chaos, let’s call em, don’t understand any of this by any means (except for their leaders), so don’t assume I’m trying to cut them any slack here. I’m just being accurate.
I've got confused at the end.
Well.. RJ making some bald statement about USSR starving humans to death by making farmers plant crops in socialist manner, but in reality they were just taking all of thier crops specifically to make them starve))
100% there's no need for a story to be political. How stupid/ignorant does a person need to be to believe it has to? If you stick to actions and events flowing from one another you can end up with a story without it entirely. It's like many old mini stories, anecdotes, fables, etc. Though the real issue here is the really twisted views the woke have on what "politics" on a story really means. What they see as politics is just current time worries and conflicts of ideas. But in a story the only valid politics are the worries and conflicts of ideas directly related to the story's world and population. Current politics have no place in most scifi and fantasy stories (much less in any story from hundreds of years ago), because politics in a story have to be about what the people of those worlds/times are worried or conflicted about at the time, not what some idiot in California or New York is worrying about today.
I want to make a quip about erotic fanfic being non-political, but these reprobates write actual doctoral theses on political analysis of fanfics and pornography.
I wonder where the politics in Super Mario are
Even if you take the most apolitical story ever... then if just one character in that story has a family, then today's activists will claim its inherently political. Because that family is based on certain values, and exists in certain society that is more or less in line with those values.
Previously, we didn't see this as political, because most people discussing or pushing politics were normal. But today, people who discus or push politics are on the fringe. So a story that depicts events from normal times is an assault on how they want the world to be depicted.
The personal *is* the political.
All fiction is about communication and interaction between being. Even it's an account of geological or astronomical history in which nothing with a brain is discussed, there is still the monologue between the author and the the audience. Politics at it's essence is the interactions between beings writ large. Little Steve and Little Sally work together to get cookies from a Jar and Steve gets 80% of the cookies and Sally gets 20%. Steve things he deserves all the cookies and Sally thinks that Steve hogged them for himself. This interaction can be directly scaled up and translated to 200,000 adult humans in which half of them do well and the other half suffer.
At the same time, attempting to "Depoliticize" fiction is in of itself making a political stance. Imagine writing a book set in 1942 France which only focused on people growing flowers and the difficulties in producing the best roses. Such a book overlooks that France is being occupied by the Nazis. Omitting the fact would be like taking a photograph of the New York skyline and whiting out everything but the Chrysler building.
The phrase "Keep Politics out of Fiction" is in the end Not Even Wrong.
Also the environment itself is effected by human behaviour. That's what humans do. Wheat Fields don't happen by themselves and skyscrapers don't sprout out of the ground on their own. Similarly it's been proven time and time again that carbon dioxide does result in higher temperatures and there has been a major spike since 1750 when the Industrial Revolution began in England.
I just read your article.
Will there be more?
Not that it's a complicated idea to grasp, but something can have internal politics while not being political.
My two cents.
I disagree, in many good stories there is politics, but wokeism is above all religion, now it could be said that religion can also be in good stories but wokeism is blind and fanatic sectarianism made up of obedience, homologation and hatred, so for me there is too much woke religious fanaticism and paradoxically little real politics these days in certain stories.
Funny enough that’s exactly the part that I said I was going to make a video on some time in the future (while I was talking about Heroes in this video). It deserves it’s own analysis, and you’re quite right.
@@RJStheFourthAge My bad.
Yup. Nearly all of Western entertainment has been warped into their cult's version of Chick Tracts.
Thank you
From a Traditionalist standpoint, I'd quibble on the notion that certain aspects of an individual are merely accidents; I think I know what you mean, as I expect that as a religious man you don't mean that in the way a secular Materialist would, but I don't want to put words in your mouth either.
Specifically, I would note that being a man or a woman is an essential part of our Nature that informs our experiences on this Earth nigh as much as simply being Humaninthe first place. The difference is that Traditionalists believe in a Hierarchy of Nature, and we can always go up a level in order to find common ground. That's how we "transcend" ourselves, if you want to call it that, but our starting point does not suddenly become irrelevant. If we share nothing else in common - not culture, not language, not upbringing, not sex - we can still relate to others by virtue of being Human Beings. If we don't even have that, we can relate to an elephant or a dog or a cat by virtue of being mammals. If we don't even have that, we can relate to a frog or a lizard, to some extent, by virtue of being animals. As base we can to a certain extent relate to plants just by virtue of being alive, although that's about as far as it goes. We start at the core, the individual, the particular, and move out in concentric rings further and further from ourselves. From the individual to the nuclear family to the community to the greater tribe/nation and so on.
Many Radicals start in the same general position (I think), the difference lies in their outlook and their goals. They believe all Hierarchy is bad and must be destroyed, and their goal is to fundamentally alter Human Nature, which includes those "accidents" and all. The problem is that calling them "accidents" plays into their hands, and I believe it is unintentional overcorrection. From a religious standpoint, a Traditionalist should not consider these things accidental at all; whatever Creator you believe in will have intentionally made each of us a certain way, or the Universe did it, however you want to look at it. And in your other videos you've expressed very clearly how fundamentally different men and women are. I don't think it is wise to lose sight of that message. We are fundamentally different, and that's a good thing, as we still need each other and we absolutely need what the Other Half offers that our Half does not. That's the way God intended it. Joining hands with others who are different from ourselves to advance a Higher Cause is the Unity of the Multiplicity, and is the core ideal embodied within the slogan "One Nation, Under God". And it is how we differ from radical Socialists, who would erase all differences abd nuance in favour of a flat, boring, ugly, uniform "grey".
He doesn’t mean accidents as in “a mistake”
Very interesting.
The Only Good Politics in a Story are the Fictional In Universe ones (Ex. The Earth Federation War Against Zeon from Gundam, The Laguz Discrimination and Racism from Fire Emblem's Jugdral Duology, The Political Intrigues of Game of Thrones before it went to shit)
If you make a Story deliberately About Modern Political Analogies that more resembles a Missionary's Philippic against 'The Evils of Sin' more than a Story. It is not a Story anymore but instead Political Propaganda.
I love your content.
So this is kinda how I see it, lemme know if I'm understanding this correct, because I aspire to be a storyteller. Star Wars, the original six films. Heaped with politics, but not political. It's anti-war, it cautions about religious institutions and dogma, it shows the lethargy of bureaucracy, it detests tyranny. You see a lot of George Lucas's beliefs reflected in these films. They are reflections of our world, given back to us for us to contemplate. However, these ideas, these politics, in the original six are effectively translated from real life, into Star Wars. The politics of the world impact the characters and how they change and grow. They are contained to that story. To simplify, the Star Wars films tell us what "they" think, rather than tell us what "we should" think. They allow us to opt out of the moral, or take nothing away from them at all should we so choose. The original six films are allowed to be just entertainment from which deeper meaning can be derived. They do not seek to educate but they can be educational. That's basically what I'm taking away.
You don't understand. There is no negotiating. For people who have nothing in their life but power everything is political because everything is another avenue for power. Even the transcendent like beauty and meaning and truth is subject to their whims. You will never argue this with them because their only goal is to win.
If you are arguing with someone and they tell you that "everything is political" do not expect to have a sincere conversation because when he says that, by that "everything" he also means the discussion you are having and it is in the nature of an ideologist to preserve his cause. and politics. But if you want to prove not to an ideologist how much "everything is political" is dishonest and only sentence to effect I suggest you use it as an argument in your turn: try to use it next time a progressive will complain about how certain minorities are represented or some other bullshit, try to tell him "everything is political and try to see if he is convinced, of course it is not, as you said they accuse you of wanting to insert your policy instead of theirs in the comics, so why your policy is not good if it's all political? I don't even waste time discussing whether or not everything is political because it's not the point, it's a dishonest argument because it's not a question of what is or isn't political, the point is that not all politics is the same. Not all political discussions are divisive, offensive and topical in the same way. Many of the stories are about personal conflict and often the authors try to make it as less like reality as possible. If modern propaganda is inserted nowadays it is mainly for drama and easy advertising, the problem is that now everyone is doing it and many of us just want great stories so as not to always have to think about certain issues, it does not mean that we are against them, we just want to be able to have some entertainment.
I feel like what you said about far left-wing people thinking Heroes are inherently political/ pro establishment is why we’ve recently seen the rise of trying to make villains into anti-heroes or making heroes do things that a traditional villain would do.
Wouldn't mind conservative stories, which they would brand as political. The market is so oversaturated with left-leaning stories, truly based stuff would be a nice change.
I'm right wing trump supporter. what if the political message that you already agree with would you even think it was political while reading/watching it
Don't infest my entertainment with polyticks please, thanks.
SJW's: Theres always been politics in comics
Me: Yes but in allegory to events in history with exception to blatant propaganda during WW2 with its use with Captain America. The politics nowadays are personal political beliefs entranced with emotions and forced diversity and inclusion along with exaggerated premises.
Old movie
Gotta becareful with the idea that Reality is Truth, because these guys believe that reality is subjective and their truth matters just as much as yours
You must hate dadaisum.
That sounds familiar. What is it?
@@Xbalanque84 Long story short its a form of political art rebellion against Logic and science due to the fact that WW1 happened. They are way better explanations you can find and I recommend you to look them up because it's a really cool movement.
I find it troublesome that you don't update your definition and vocabulary. The comment of using old dictionarys seems like a failure to reach a wider audience and I a simple way to discount your self. Language is always evolving so it would be prudent to evolve beside it so you can get your ideas off more clearly. Often it seems like you put up the No true Scotsman fallacy. Maybe you should take your time and really under your opponents instead of demonize them. I will admit I'm only self educated and a tradesmen by nature but what's the uses of being so educated if you can't talk to the masses.
People shouldn't be chained to the equivocation and linguistic dodges of their ideological opponents. Further, you do not reach a larger audience by hopping on the latest neologism crafted by academic ideologues; you in fact divide your audience and enter the kafkatraps of those without actual arguments.
Point at one No True Scotsman from this video, and one where he 'demonizes' his opponents.
@@mudageki This is a perfect example of academic elitism. I'm a tradesmen and a part of the masses and I had to Google half of what you said . Which you could have said "he shouldn't have to change his language because he's not try to chase fads of academia" but it just sounds like you like the smell of your own farts.
Authorial intent is critically important, as is _understanding the history and trajectory of the changing definitions of words._ Our ideological enemies are cheating in their argumentation by selectively redefining words in whatever way gives them a rhetorical edge or a veneer of legitimacy. "Updating one's language" does nothing but play into their rigged game, because _they are the ones constantly "updating" the language!_
Language only enables communication so long as those speaking share a common consensus about what given words mean. Redefining words on a whim or just to win an argument breaks one of the cardinal unwritten laws of human communication. And even in surviving tribal societies, the inability to speak a common language can have deadly consequences, if for no other reason than territorial disputes and The Dark Forest solution to the Fermi Paradox. There are tribes in New Guinea where it is custom to greet a stranger in the forest by rattling off one's lineage and relatives, _in order to warn that stranger of people he might know and enemies he'd make if the stranger decided to kill him._ And that's _with_ shared languages handy. History is replete with countless tragedies that have resulted from either an inability to communicate or when communication breaks down. Not only are these self-serving linguistic games played for overtly personal gain and the pushing of political agendas, *they are a form of psychological warfare aimed at unassuming civilians with the intent to redefine some of the most fundamental concepts imaginable, so that the words we use conflict not only with their original meaning **_but objective reality itself!_* No human language has words that adequately describe how dangerous this is!
I don't know whether you're doing damage control, or were genuinely tricked into playing the woke's insidious game. Either way, you would do well to stop playing immediately. The horrors of newspeak in Orwell's _1984_ pale in comparison to the actual results of trying to enact them.
@@Xbalanque84 I may not be a super educated man just a few years of trade school and a CC. But none of that make a ton of sense from my rudimentary understanding of how language is formed is mostly by Writers and poets and the working man. Trade school has taught me the easiest way to explain something is the best way. Who are our ideological enemies this all seem comes off as kind of like a cult. You doing good man everything ok? Well I don't know know what to unplug from I like to read comicbooks and fiction. Enjoy some PBS to help culture myself. It's rough out there and I know it might seem like everyone out to get ya but know your not alone.