• david plumb
    75


    "Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?"

    Sadly that was simply a reaction to the reactionary left. The left are still a long way from achieving their aims but, to be fair to them, they seem to be in it for the long term and short term hiccoughs seem to spur them on. Super heroes alone won't achieve their aims and they know that.
  • Nils Loc
    769


    Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.

    Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change.
  • praxis
    2.9k


    I’m currently rather fond of a series called “The Boys.” The boys are a ragtag group of malcontents who’s intent is to kill-off all the superheroes. They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially. Those elite Hollywood righties really know how to give a good mind fuck.
  • Nils Loc
    769
    They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially.praxis

    Ha!

    This inversion is interesting. The superheros as loved by the public are deeply corrupt figures who have a public persona (celebrity) geared toward manipulation in service of their private lives. The outward persona is the public superhero which belies what they actually are, supervillans.

    The same relationship is at play. The heros are mortals with exceptional qualities (perseverance, skill, moral sense) who seek to eliminate the unjust tyranny of gods. The Boys (the group) have all been deeply harmed by the powers that be and this motivates their collaboration toward acts of justice.
  • praxis
    2.9k


    Perhaps this is evidence to support to the Plumb theory then, superheroes being super-leftist-villains. On the other hand, the top superhero is called Homelander and supports a xenophobic agenda making him a super-righty-villain. The Hollywood Lefty Elite is super insidious.
  • Sir2u
    2.3k
    So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god.


    Transfer that to the God/super heroes question. To you God has x.y and z as you see it but to others the definition of God may not necessarily have the x,y and z as you see it but to them it is God per se.david plumb

    So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses.

    GOD
    1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god"

    The super heroes of the movies do not even fit in the second category, because no no worships them as having any power over anything at all. They have no effect on peoples everyday lives such as the rain gods are supposed to have.

    The fact that the State is using the movies to mind wash the idiots just as they have done with the churches for centuries speaks more to the stupidity of the people than the astuteness of the people running the State.
    Supermarket commercials do as much in controlling the masses as any superhero movie does. Do you remember the commercials for cigarettes and booze back in the 60's and 70's, so many people would have thought those actors were gods according to your definition.

    If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss.
  • david plumb
    75


    "So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god"

    You do like to dumb it all down to the smallest common denominator. Your interpretation of God is your interpretation of God, nothing more and nothing less. Equally you are what I say you are, you are what someone else says you are but you would, naturally due to the subjective manner of your thought processes, say you are what you say you are. There is no getting away with the fact that you are what I say you are. Take for example that someone thinks I am a simpleton but I think I am a genius-in their world I am a simpleton and thus it remains, definition closed with me the simpleton.

    "So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses"

    Therein lies the problem. You are in a cul de sac of swarming confusion. On the one hand you accept the propaganda with regards to commercials, the subliminal way in which they tell you how glamorous it is to smoke without telling you how bad smoking is for your health. The propaganda is so entrenched that smoking adverts were banned and the government have used all kinds of ways to prevent the active participation of smoking. .

    "If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss."

    "I have nothing more to discuss"- best to continue the subjective ,as I see it/ objective as you see it way of thinking. A closed mind is a trapped mind. Proof that God exists is there for all to see unless you rely solely on your senses. Proof is not a simple process of scientific data.
  • david plumb
    75


    "Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.

    Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change"

    That makes a lot of sense. In an Orwellian way it seems control is easy to achieve without the need to be violent. The intelligentsia need to mask this intelligence as controlling them is difficult.
  • praxis
    2.9k
    @david plumb

    I don’t think anyone would argue that politicians, ad agencies, think tanks, etc., don’t effectively manipulate the public. What’s unclear is how superheroes in popular culture have usurped God, and if this is the case, and the coup d’état was executed by liberals, how liberalism or a liberal agenda is promoted via the superhero franchise. An explanation of that would be interesting.

    From what I remember of the last superhero movie that I watched, the super-villain, I think his name was Thanos, was basically an overzealous ecologist who wanted to half the universal population in the interest of sustainability. The super-heroes fought for a more conservative approach and were vehemently against Thanos's super-radical progressivism. So if anything it seems like conservatism is being championed in this story.
  • Sir2u
    2.3k
    An explanation of that would be interesting.praxis

    He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us.

    Proof that God exists is there for all to see unless you rely solely on your senses. Proof is not a simple process of scientific data.david plumb

    This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What doe that tell us about him?
  • praxis
    2.9k
    This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What does that tell us about him?Sir2u

    He's religious, is somewhat concerning to others, and has some grammar skillz.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.