On one hand, the movie does sorta point this out (although even then, that's just the movie version; I'm only a casual Marvel reader but I've never read any comics that address Wakanda's weird-isms).
On the other hand, even then, the movie stops at just saying that they need to allow refugees and give humanitarian aid. And not, you know, change the constitution so that they're not an absolute monarchy chosen through trial by combat.
There's a run by Ta-Nehasi Coates (God I hope I spelled that right) where T'Challa gives up a decent amount of his power to a council after a revolution (assuming I recall the run correctly) It's the arc right before The Intergalactic Empire of Wakanda
It really is.
(Looking at the first movie) The royal family and other heads of state are all interconnected and are inherited positions. The leaders of two branches of the government are actually married to each other. The throne is won by combat, but you can bet if anyone that wasn't supported by the heads tried to compete they wouldn't be allowed to. The Jabari are only really allowed to because it's a show fight. The head of science is a child and the daughter/brother of the king which is a huge conflict of interest.
Also they're as a culture kinda racist/xenophobic. They banished the Jabari for something their ancestors did and refuse to reintegrate them (to be honest the Jabari actually seem to be the best of Wakanda). Openly allow global famine, plague, and other issues that could almost instantly be solved by releasing technology. Stating as an example they wouldn't release a cure for cancer because people still sell cigarettes. Cool, so you're letting kids die of cancer because some a-hole is smoking. Despite the cure for cancer making the cigarettes much less of an issue.
Hell, just their jets and trains would allow so many resource problems to be solved as it would enable supply chains to flow multiple times better. Which would feed and improve the lives of so many people.
Not to mention that a lot of them were completely on board with Killmonger starting a literal race-war.
I'm surprised this is so far down. I never realized how full of British propaganda it was until my kid started watching it.
Thomas is a useful engine they are the useful crew.
Thomas must listen and obey Sir Topham hat (fat controller)
Percy was mischievous and didn't listen so he was punished.
Or the train that got a new coat of paint and was rebellious, locked away forever.
Not to mention all the songs that have subtle "you need to listen and be a productive member of society or you will be branded/punished"
In Day of the Diesels, Percy helps the Diesels start a race war against an apartheid state, which prompts Sir Toppam to give them new equipment and facilities. Proving that violence does work against authoritarianism.
The modern cartoon downplayed "The Sad Story of Henry".
Henry didn't want to run in the rain. In modern versions he has anxiety but older ones portrayed him as being vain/defiant.
Henry gets bricked up in that tunnel and stays imprisoned until he apologizes and promises to work.
They don't remove the bricks to get him out, they just run him in reverse. Madness.
And it's good to be a scab and cross the picket line "They say I have black wheels, I haven't have I?" "No Thomas, your wheels are perfectly fine." A black leg is a scab.
What's so funny is in my first preschool classroom, I had a Brio train set. It was mostly donated stuff so nothing was a complete set. I had multiple Thomas characters but all the little boys in my room fought over this plain black engine, the one that isn't associated with the series. They're creepy!
It's worth remembering that Thomas was created by an Anglican minister (Reverand Wilbert Awdry). And originally for his sick child. But there is an element of 'bad children will be punished!'
But the original stuff (iirc the first 18 books I think it was, and the first 5 tv seasons) was based primarily on what happened on the real British Railways, and other railways. Which were, honestly, very authoritarian (mostly to ensure safe operations, although it often went too far at times).
But, it’s TOTALLY GREAT that the Police will break half of the laws that protect the citizens and constantly wipe their asses with the Constitution, in order to catch the Bad Guy ™️!! It’s ACTUALLY GOOD that the Police have access to ALL of our personal information and use it to catch the Bad Guys! They won’t possibly ever abuse this power!
I always thought it would be awesome if in one of those shows the no-holds-barred cop/agent brutalizes someone only to discover it was a totally innocent person who they have now traumatized for life. I my mind, the first half of the episode would revolve around an everyday Joe going about their day and chilling at home with the kids when the hero kicks in the door holds a gun the their head screaming "WHERE'S THE BOMB, KRASINSKI!" The second half is the aftermath to this family's life.
Isn't Organized Crime just Stabler running around beating the shit out of random people in the name of justice and the constant will they/won't they between him and Benson?
Wait. They're *still* doing the will they won't they thing? I thought that was why they killed Stabler's wife off at the beginning of Organized Crime - to ship him and Benson without any guilt.
ETA: I actually love watching the old episodes of SVU and the original L&O, but I've never wanted to see Benson and Stabler romantically involved. Love them as detective partners but Stabler is way too rigid imo, I always wanted to see Benson and [whatever the name of the character played by Dean Winters] together.
I was a big Clint Eastwood fan when I was younger and especially liked his cop movies like the Dirty Harry movies and Coogan's Bluff.
I don't have a lot of interest in them any more due to the whole "Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights" attitude.
What is really funny is when you realize that the first two movies of the Dirty Harry franchise totally flip-flop their messaging. The first movie is about a cop who does illegal things to stop a serial killer, and tries to claim and to show that doing so is bad but sometimes a cop has to break the rules to ensure safety for all. And the second movie is when a bunch of cops start doing vigilante stuff and Dirty Harry Tries to tell them that that’s bad and that’s not how the police are supposed to function. Media literacy was not their strong suit I guess
And then it kind of develops into buddy cop movies like Lethal Weapon where the cops are the action heroes, judges, juries, and executioners, when in real life, they’re “tied up” with procedure and red tape.
To add on to NCIS, the early seasons of it and most of the other crime procedurals from the early 2000's are just blatant anti-terrorism propaganda. Lots of scenes seemed structured to justify the Patriot Act and other types of hyper-authoritarian measures.
My parents are rewatching that show, and I'm realizing that Gibbs is not that smart or useful in investigations, but is just an impatient, abusive, loud-mouthed asshole.
Its hard to watch. In Criminal Minds a person matching a vague demographic is often the entire basis for immediately breaking into their house, work, and wherever else the cops feel like going. Also they usually get that demographic info by illegally gaining access to dozens of people’s financial records/medical records/sealed juvenile records. For every suspect (whose rights are violated) there are usually a few fistfuls of innocent people who’s rights are also violated but less egregiously.
Ahh i forgot what video it was, but I watched some video on YouTube about how originally in media and shows, cops were the butt of the joke. Often shown as dumb and incompetent. But obviously the police did not care for this representation and I forget what exactly happened that gave them any say or influence but long story short, their butthurt asses pulled some hat trick to get the media to start portraying cops "better" in shows/not make them the joke.
Do you mean the [Hays Code](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code#:~:text=The%20Motion%20Picture%20Production%20Code,States%20from%201934%20to%201968)? It and its precursors address representations of police. But it wasn’t addressing an issue with *mocking* police or making fun of them specifically. The code was aimed at not portraying illegal and immoral activities in a positive light. In view of that, police were meant to be portrayed as the good guys.
I think he's referring to the rise of the Crime/Detective genre of tv shows. The producers wanted something more gritty and real so they used police and detectives as experts and pretty much just had them give the writers their experiences to write for the show (overhyped of course) and this required that the police be the heroes in every episode and not look bad or else the cops wouldn't work with the production team. Generations later and now the most popular shows on every major network are just circle jerks for law enforcement.
The video he might be referring to is by Skip Intro on YouTube. Does an entire video essay series on the subject. Pretty good, give it a watch
https://youtu.be/udhDawfCLHo?si=R9oG2HcTDPwsysXt
It's okay they broke the law because they got the bad guy! It will definitely hold up in court that you violated their civil liberties and the bad guy will still go to prison and not get off on a technicality and sue the city later.
I know we as the audience know the bad guy is the bad guy but in real life we don't know that and the police are not right all the time.
Not to mention how nearly every one of these shows makes jokes about how awful prisons are, and the audience goes along with it because "bad guy deserves to get raped and served spoiled food and be beaten by guards and inmates". It's shocking how persistent this is. Like cop shows have seriously dialed back depictions of police brutality in recent years, but for some reason the exact same behavior (and worse) from prison guards is still a-ok.
It happens in Law and Order SVU that an Assistant District Attorney violates the rights of a suspect and lies to a judge simply because she can't bear the thought of him getting scot-free. She gets caught, the case is thrown out and she gets disbarred.
(Although latter it gets retconned as simply getting a three year suspension and then returning)
I preferred the way Law & Order portrayed these ethical questions. It’s still cop propaganda but they sprinkled in that that cops are fallible and law enforcement can be corrupt. Was always solid TV which end of the day is all the mattered. My brain was still able to disconnect cop shows from the reality of police growing up.
Yeah. You're right. I guess the era of 24 was just my generation's time for that kind of stuff. Plus, it was sort of a cultural phenomenon, for a bit.
So that one just sticks out, when I think about it. Everyone loved them some Jack Bauer.
I agree, but the original law& order gets a special nod...
Because police breaking the law always comes back to bite them. And lawyers bending the rules is not shown as a good thing.
The show still sides with the law of course but it hits different when you know things are going to come back around.
And criminals don't always get convicted
I think Invincible explores this well. "If you're willing to accept super powered people, it's only natural for some super powered people to be evil, who cannot be held accountable by the average person, so it might not be ideal but in the face of planet smashing race-supremacists it would be very lucky if we had someone just as strong but who has morals we agree with who can fight". It obviously depends on the story but the crux of what makes or breaks it for me is the whole "lack of accountability".
I enjoy that "anti" superhero media has become as popular as the icons that made superheroes as culturally relevant as they are now. The Boys is more shock value with irl pulls for the satire but it also explores the lack of accountability in many different nuanced situations. It also feels like the characters in both shows are far less revered by the narrative and characters than in Marvel and DC. A result of this is them telling stories that explore the human condition on a relatable level rather than making divine caricatures clash that can only be relatable in a delusional matter.
That world at least paid lip service tp having accountability in the original system. It got upended because the accountability was too lopsided in favor of punishing villains or people with villain-like powers while skating by heroes' personal behavior off the job.
as far as I’m aware so far in the series, this seems like the pivotal plot point of X-men too, except Magneto vs X differ in their hope (or not) of how humanity would react when given such a choice. Do you think humanity would accept that some are good and there to help, or would humanity view it as something to fix/cure/exterminate/control. And if they do, then how do YOU react to that? Make the first move, or try and reason with them?
This is why I'm so frustrated with Lex Luthor. Fundamentally, *he's right*. Allowing one God like person free reign to police the world is a *terrible* idea and the DC earth is lucky that Superman is a good person. But what happens if he changes his mind? What happens when what he feels is "right" differs from everyone else? He's still a person, so what would happen if he became radicalized by propaganda?
However Lex's solution is... Become a god like person and rule the world
Honestly so much of fantasy and fairy tales romanticize absolute monarchy and portray the solution to problems as "We just need to put the *rightful* king in power and everything will be great!"
I'd like to see less monarchist propaganda in the stories we tell our children at bedtime, please.
One actually decent joke in the GoT finale was when Samwell Tarly suggested *"hey democracy maybe?"* and everyone laughed at him.
Way too tongue in cheek to be on tone with the rest of the show, but the writers had stopped caring long before that anyway
Absolutely, it’s one of my favorite bits.
Bonus points to when they’re heading towards the knights who say Ni and those same two peasants are walking away while bickering about power dynamics
You should read *Dune*. It's a cautionary tale about how even the most altruistic, benevolent ruler will cause untold death and destruction merely by their existence. Paul Atreides is a genuinely good dude who really *does not* want to cause a Jihad. It's basically *Life of Brian* but with billions dying and almost 100 planets completely sterilized of life.
And then his son is like, "You think *that's* bad..."
>And then his son is like, "You think *that's* bad..."
If the movies get to *God Emperor of Dune* and actually adapt it, I'll die happy.
I don't even care if it's bad. I just want to witness the balls of a studio trying.
To quote myself: I'm already struggling to get friends invested in watching a 2.5 hour scifi drama with a convoluted plot and not a lot of action. General audiences are not prepared for Leto II berating Moneo while lesbians wet themselves over Duncan and Hwi stands quietly in the background accomplishing absolutely nothing for 4 and a half solid hours.
But yes, it would be fun to see them try.
Yeah the Golden Path is essentially 'If I'm a really extra horrible piece of shit brutal absolute dictator for a few thousand years humans will finally, finally learn to not give dictators too much power and survive the future'.
Tolkien aside, Fantasy's monarchy focuses mostly for the sake of writing and thematic convenience. It's put more stakes and agency into in the moment decisions to singular characters rather than drawn out multilayered procedures. At the same time, most authors portray monarchy as dysfunctional and bloody 9 out of 10 times with whatever hero is the exception rather than the rule. I love how the light bringer series depicts the feudal system as so fucked up that the most powerful character spends 17 yesrs trying and failing to unfuck it.
What makes LotR so great in this regard (especially the films IMO) is that Aragorn’s status as the rightful heir isn’t worth anything for the majority of the story. It’s his strength of character and quality as a leader that makes people want to follow him, not his blood.
I love that when Borimir is first told who he is his response is "this guy?! Gondor doesn't want him. Gondor doesn't need him." After a few months with him he dies proclaiming Aragorn as the hope of his country and all men
To be fair, I grew up with fantasy books with lots of those tropes and not once in my entire life have I thought "You know what, we should go back to doing it that way"
Her economic policies are fucking fantastic because she's magic so you can pretty much assume at least one critical constraint of society will be solved via magic.
Natural disaster? Nah, magic Queen will stop the earthquake or whatever. Other kingdoms would spend a decade rebuilding, not us.
Insufficient civil infrastructure? Magical waste disposal. Or magical portals, etc. No need for multi-generational labour projects that eat up your labour force, spend that time producing goods and services instead.
Bad crop yield? Magical cupcakes. Other kingdoms are starving to death, we're just sick of all these candy sprinkles.
Even if she only delivers on one of those campaign promises, reliably being able to ignore a critical constraint of civilization means that more attention and resources are available to deal with, or to improve, everything else.
Yeah, I don't think most modern authors are doing it on purpose but comics started out as Captain America, who was explicitly pro-war propaganda; and Superman, an overt Moses allegory
As a result superheros have just become cops or vigilantes
Yes, hence why he's pro-war propaganda
Marvel wanted the US to get involved in WW2 so they drew a guy dressed in the American flag punching Hitler
(Not necessarily criticizing that decision but pointing it out)
Babar the elephant is adopted by a human and is brought up in the ways of civilization. So when he returns to the jungle, the other animals recognize his superiority and make him king so that he may help to civilize them as well. You might even say that he is chosen to carry the white elephant's burden.
Babar's mother gets murdered by a hunter. But it turns out okay because a rich old lady adopts him and buys him expensive clothes. Mother is immediately forgotten in the name of fashion.
Came here to say this, except that I think it really was explicitly colonial propaganda.
Which is a shame, because I always really liked those books!
Maybe I’ll teach my grandchildren about colonialism with them!
In beauty and the beast's Be our Guest there is the line
> Life gets so unnerving for a servant who is not serving. he's not whole without a soul to wait upon
They're trapped there by a spell in their workplace though.
>Ah, those good old days when we were useful. Suddenly those good old days are gone.
>Ten years, we've been rusting! Needing so much more than dusting, needing exercise! A chance to use our skills!
>Most days, we just lay around the castle. Flabby, fat and lazy, you walked in and ups-a-daisy!
I mean, if I was magically trapped in my workplace for 10 years with not dick to do, surrounded by people with skills that complemented my own, I would say that performing our skills would probably be the best way to stay sane.
It's like, jesus, Lumiere, get a job at a cabaret that serves dinner
Don't let the wolf-buffalo in a cape gaslight you into staying with his abusive ass
Black Panther, where the most technologically advanced nation in the world can upend its entire political system by hand to hand combat for some reason.
I love me some Law & Order SVU, but that show is about as blatantly pro-authoritarian as it gets.
Basically every single episode is saying, "wouldn't it be awesome if Ice T could just crack this perv's skull instead of having to get a search warrant first?"
Its cathartic though i enjoy it its not terribly realistic but im pretty sure most of the cases would be thrown out of court how many times has stabler assaulted someone or just ignored Someone asking for a laywer etc etc.
A lot of 40k fans unironically agree with the Imperium. To the point Games Workshop had to publicly state that the Imperium is unambiguously evil. Satire is dead.
GW couldn't decide how seriously to take itself and accidentally made the Imperium \*incompetent\* but not really wrong. Praying to the Emperor in 1e, when it was ambiguous is there was anything of him left or if he had even ever existed at all was satire. Praying to the Emperor in the current edition might genuinely summon an angel who will protect you from the literal demon that literally wants to eat your soul, which is a real thing that you do have and really \*do not\* want to be eaten in the setting.
thank fuck i didn't google this. not falling for [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2pkkyp/comment/cmxlwgk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) again
I've never really been exposed to the finer details of 40k, but is there any good faction in that universe? It seems completely grimdark from the outside looking in
As the other commenter said, the T'au are probably the closest thing to good guys. But, in general, 40k does *not* do good guys. Just different flavors of evil fighting each other in an eternal conflict.
It would be a horrible place to live.
WH40k's Imperium was going to be my comment, as they are essentially setup like a militaristic feudal society, where even some of the worlds are described as Feudal Worlds and Knight Worlds.
300 has so many pro-authoritarian/fascist details that it's honestly surprising that it isn't completely derided. The irony is that they shit on Athenians throughout the story, despite the fact that the 300 Spartans weren't the ones who turned the tide of the war; it was the forces under Themistocles, an Athenian, that made that happen.
If I remember correctly, didn't the original use the frame device that "this is the story Spartans say about themselves", so it's indicating to the reader that it's Spartan propaganda basically and not an account of the truth.
That's made apparent in the film as well. The fellow with the eyepatch who witnesses Leonidas's death is tasked with sharing the story to boost the morale of the other Greek city-states to fight against the Persians. The same actor is the narrator of the story. Also explains the 'monstrous' appearance of some of Immortals. It is *literally* propaganda.
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a cautionary tale about how individual deviation from accepted social norms will be ridiculed and excluded, unless and until it can be commodified and exploited. Also, the North Pole forced labor camp.
Unionize, elves.
I've been told about some private schools in the USA where they teach that the moral of *Lord of the Flies* is that kids in particular need strict rules (and to slavishly obey authority) otherwise they will fall prey to their base natures and start killing each other.
Inadvertent because, by all accounts, that's *not* the message that William Golding was trying to get across.
About a decade after that book was published, a group of school aged boys were stranded on an island for about 15 months. The exact opposite happened to the kids in reality. They worked cooperatively, shared power, and created a garden to grow food.
[Not my source but an article about it.](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months)
They built guitars and things as well, if I remember right.
You can imagine the rescuers turning up and being like, "hey guys, where's all the death and devastation and impalement?!? And you mean... Piggy is alive and well and still has his glasses?!?"
specifically lacking *sticks sharpened at both ends*
reminds me of that experiment this one guy did.
he had a bunch of people all stranded on a boat in the hope that they would eventually kill eachother but he got disappointed when he found out that they were co-operative and formed a community instead.
he put himself on the boat so he tried to sabotage things but all he did was make himself the most hated guy on the boat
Oh yeah, the sex raft experiment, theres a couple YouTube videos about that.
Sex definitely did not happen on the raft, its just what the media reported hyped up what was happening when the unhinged professors plot was discovered after they shoved off.
[Wendigoon video on the subject.](https://youtu.be/BHXw3E1VqK4?si=0c_Vl7vablAoKxHK)
I wish more of our "*fierce individualists*" would remember that. We definitely don't have to all be the same--the world would be dull af if we were--but we do need to try to work towards a better, more cooperative shared reality.
The kids were rescued by a naval vessel during World War II. AKA the children created elaborate social conventions and rituals that made them feel justified to fight and kill each other. They were then rescued by adults with elaborate social conventions and rituals that made them feel justified to fight and kill each other.
It's very much supposed to be a "the children were obviously savage when they left Civilization, but are those of us within Civilization actually any less savage?"
I could understand this reading of it. Golding was definitely suggesting that in the absence of civilization that we return to a more tribal and animistic state.
I wouldn't equate that with strict rules per se though.
it was inspired by Goldings' observations at a private boys' school in Britain. The boys treated each other poorly because of how they were socialized. But teachers prevented kids from escalating too far. Then the students in the story found themselves with no adults holding them back so they became more violent. World War II, the backdrop of the story, shows what happens when people socialized this way grow to adulthood.
Santa Claus. He’s an all-seeing authority figure who spends his time making sure that children are 100% in adherence to a strict moral code. Elf on the Shelf reinforces this. Think about the song “Santa Claus is coming to town.” It starts off by telling children that crying, a very natural human response to feelings of sadness and pain, is considered bad behavior and will result in punishment. The underlying messages here are that it’s good to live in a surveillance state and you can be punished for even just feeling, let alone behaving, in a way that one supreme authority figure finds unacceptable. Betray your own emotions for material gain, kiddies!
“Thomas (the tank engine) and friends” is a lovely children’s story that is deeply classist, reflecting Tory views of proper society where everyone knows their place and is properly deferential to their betters.
Not entirely related.. I hate that humdinger is so blatantly selfish and dumb and does greedy or mean things and everyone's just like "awe humdinger you silly" and just gloss over it.. like no, keep him away or be suspicious, don't ignore him or expect him to be good, dont you remember last episode??
Listen, it's one of my all-time favorite shows and I think it did the best it could to address its own flaws, but Brooklyn 99.
The cops make mistakes but they're just good, goofy guys, y'all!! Even their episode called "good cop" inadvertently was all about how Jake and co are actually.... the 'good' cops.
I remember one episode where Holt gets furious at Hitchcock & Scully for not meeting their "quota" of arrests, and like...maybe the problem is that cops have *quotas* for the amount of people they have to arrest in the first place?
They addressed that in the last season. I don’t recall the exact reasoning but holy was in a fight with the police union and they had officers intentionally not meet their quotas which seem to exist to try and show a cop isn’t lazy and actually working. Holt thanked him in the end because he said that while arrests were down reports of crime were the same and the precinct had its lowest ever number of complaints from the public about harassment and the least cases dismissed in years. He was intending to use those stats as a case for lowering or removing arrest quotas as a metric of an officer’s usefulness and work ethic all together
It's been a while since I watched it, but my recollection of Brooklyn 99 was that Captain Holt's 99th Precinct was filled with decent officers, but the rest of the NYPD was a goddamned cesspool.
I'll never forget that time Marvel put out a Punisher comic where two cops are idolizing Frank, and he tells them point blank that they're horrible cops and if they want a role model, his name is Captain America.
Yeah there’s an interesting angle in Marvel where Punisher has idolized Captain America since childhood but simultaneously thinks “I can’t be like him, because of ______ circumstances. I HAVE to do things the way I’m doing them!” in order to rationalize why his own actions are VERY unlike his idol’s.
Meanwhile, Captain America himself is flat out disgusted by Punisher and wants nothing to do with him.
The Punisher is never portrayed in an aspirational light; the message is that he's a deeply damaged and deranged individual, and his way is not the right way. Readers are never meant to go "Yeah, I like what this guy is doing!"
It's just a case of stupid people taking it the wrong way. Same as the people who root for Walter White in Breaking Bad, or who think Rorschach was the hero of Watchmen. None of these stories are pro-those characters' worldviews, inadvertently or otherwise. You're supposed to be horrified at what they stand for, people just have no media literacy.
No kidding I've heard it used as part of a 4th of July fireworks show where they only used the chorus and somehow segwayed into freaking Miley Cyrus's "Party in the USA". It was comical.
A lot of the times a Punisher story is just a badass lone wolf gunning down a strawman criminal. This looks pretty awesome and is written 100% in an aspirational light. The problem with comics is that they go through multiple hands over the decades and more than a couple of writers have thought Frank was right.
Specially when Marvel throws him a bone. They said multiple times he never killed an innocent and always investigates deeply each case, but it's clearly bullshit to make him more likeable
The Lion King. It's complicated by the fact that the villains are portrayed with explicitly fascist imagery, but the good characters are trying to keep a system in place where a powerful monarch has the rest of the population literally bow down to him and his progeny. The hyenas (who are also coded as sort of "ghetto") quite reasonably want a more egalitarian society than the current one where they are treated as inferior to the lions and have to scrounge for scraps, but the movie portrays their goal as literally against the natural order.
Not defending monarchies, but in the canon of the universe the reason the hyenas are not part of the Pridelands is because they hunt for sport. This is stated in both the first movie as well as The Lion Guard TV show. The Pridelands were established as a sort of balanced haven for the animals, where the first King made sure that everyone only took what they needed and no more. In The Lion Guard it's also stated that the outsider lions from the second movie have been raised to believe that it's "Lions over all," meaning that they're species supremacists. They believe they should be able to harshly subjugate all other animals and kill them as they please.
The Pridelands actually also has what is more or less a parliament, with leaders of all the other animals meeting regularly with the current ruler to discuss any issues and problems. They even vote on things, though each species has their own realistic ways of deciding their leaders (the crocodiles have trial by combat). The animals also are free to leave the Pridelands at anytime, and have canonically more than once, but they choose not to because the Prideland society is safer than the "wild" areas outside of it.
Tl;dr the hyenas and other outlanders for the most part are outsiders because they're supremacists and murderers. The animals are safer within the Pridelands because the lions punish other predators who take more than their fair share of food. Yes, the original movie doesn't give a lot of depth on this, but it does mention it.
Harry Potter is about a boy who has to fight against a complicit government that seamlessly transitions into pure fascism when Voldemort shows up. He then becomes a cop.
And Hermione campaigns against this slavery and gets laughed at by everyone and ignored.
And then later on when there was the controversy about Hermione being played by a black actress, JK Rowling said that you could just read Hermione as black all along as her race was never specified.
So now you have a black character saying that slavery is bad and everyone laughs at them.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she was possibly thinking of shackling/cuffing prisoners considering he's the head of the wizard police when first introduced.
But her other name choices are also pretty bad so she might have done it on purpose. Cho Chang, the one Jewish character being named Goldstein, etc. Remus Lupin is basically "Wolfy McWolf-face" and he wasn't even born a werewolf.
How about Charlie and the chocolate factory? The explicit backstory in the text is about wonka going to a foreign nation and essentially kidnapping the oompa loompas so they can do his labor for him. I can’t remember if it talks about the working conditions or anything but the optics on that are not great
The first edition was even worse, so bad in fact that Dahl went back and changed it to make it less racist
>“They are real people! They are some of my workers!” He advised the group that these tiny black people had been “Imported direct from Africa!” They belonged to “a tribe of tiny miniature pygmies known as Oompa-Loompas. I discovered them myself. I brought them over from Africa myself—the whole tribe of them, three thousand in all. I found them in the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had ever been before.”
>Wonka explained that the tribe had been starving, subsisting on green caterpillars, but longing for cacao beans, “oh how they craved them.” He bargained with the tribe and promised that if they agreed to “live in my factory” they could have all the cacao beans they wanted: “I’ll even pay your wages in cacao beans if you wish!” So, the black pygmies traded their freedom for permanent enslavement and all the cacao beans they could eat. After the tribal leader agreed to stop eating green caterpillars and work for “beans,” Wonka “shipped them over here, every man, woman, and child in the Oompa-Loompa tribe. It was easy. I smuggled them over in large packing cases with holes in them, and they all got here safely.” As Britain had outlawed the slave trade in 1807, Wonka had to smuggle them to England in packing cases, in conditions that sounded almost as horrific as the Middle Passage.
>Willy Wonka embraced the role of master. If he clicked his fingers three times an Oompa-Loompa would appear and quiver at his loin. He “bowed and smiled, showing beautiful white teeth. His skin was almost pure black, and the top of his fuzzy head came just above the height of Mr. Wonka’s knee. He wore the usual deerskin slung over his shoulder.” A slave galley even made an appearance in the book, one powered by pygmies who rowed on a river of chocolate. Just to further highlight the slave analogy, Dahl deviously introduced whips, “WHIPS—ALL SHAPES AND SIZES.”
Except that Dahl was always a satirist and never condoned what happened with the Oompa Loompa's in the story. The entire point behind the Oompa Loompa's was to satirize and criticize the candy and chocolate industry's tendency to use third world labour to get the ingredients (mostly cocoa) needed for their product. The fact that Wonka just uproots an entire civilization is only taken lightly to show how said companies also hand wave away that they use said labor. The original designs of the Oompa Loompa's drove this point home even more, before controversy had Dahl agree to the more well known designs that people know today.
Willy Wonka lured people under false pretenses into his home, which was filled with elaborate death traps that exploited their individual character flaws, and systematically eliminated them until the only one remaining was the person he deemed virtuous enough to become his successor & inherit his work.
This is the exact same plot as *Saw*.
Almost every Batman story ever written. Basically, Batman is a superhero whose power is to violate people's civil rights with impunity. Even in fiction billionaires are above the law.
But that's the deal right. It's saying that the world is a billionaires playground and it's all up to the good billionaires to stand up against the bad billionaires.
Basically any story where it’s important that the characters get their powers or authority through inheritance.
Say what you will about The Last Jedi, but at least they tried to make the Force be something that anyone could have. Then Episode IX went out of its way to be like “no no, she’s better than everyone else because of her birth.”
Wakanda is essentially a military dictatorship with unelected rulers who spend the nations wealth on maintaining the status quo.
On one hand, the movie does sorta point this out (although even then, that's just the movie version; I'm only a casual Marvel reader but I've never read any comics that address Wakanda's weird-isms). On the other hand, even then, the movie stops at just saying that they need to allow refugees and give humanitarian aid. And not, you know, change the constitution so that they're not an absolute monarchy chosen through trial by combat.
There's a run by Ta-Nehasi Coates (God I hope I spelled that right) where T'Challa gives up a decent amount of his power to a council after a revolution (assuming I recall the run correctly) It's the arc right before The Intergalactic Empire of Wakanda
It really is. (Looking at the first movie) The royal family and other heads of state are all interconnected and are inherited positions. The leaders of two branches of the government are actually married to each other. The throne is won by combat, but you can bet if anyone that wasn't supported by the heads tried to compete they wouldn't be allowed to. The Jabari are only really allowed to because it's a show fight. The head of science is a child and the daughter/brother of the king which is a huge conflict of interest. Also they're as a culture kinda racist/xenophobic. They banished the Jabari for something their ancestors did and refuse to reintegrate them (to be honest the Jabari actually seem to be the best of Wakanda). Openly allow global famine, plague, and other issues that could almost instantly be solved by releasing technology. Stating as an example they wouldn't release a cure for cancer because people still sell cigarettes. Cool, so you're letting kids die of cancer because some a-hole is smoking. Despite the cure for cancer making the cigarettes much less of an issue. Hell, just their jets and trains would allow so many resource problems to be solved as it would enable supply chains to flow multiple times better. Which would feed and improve the lives of so many people. Not to mention that a lot of them were completely on board with Killmonger starting a literal race-war.
I can't wait for it to become a more accepted form of government where the winner of UFC is president. What a utopia.
The entire series of Thomas the Tank Engine.
I'm surprised this is so far down. I never realized how full of British propaganda it was until my kid started watching it. Thomas is a useful engine they are the useful crew. Thomas must listen and obey Sir Topham hat (fat controller) Percy was mischievous and didn't listen so he was punished. Or the train that got a new coat of paint and was rebellious, locked away forever. Not to mention all the songs that have subtle "you need to listen and be a productive member of society or you will be branded/punished"
In Day of the Diesels, Percy helps the Diesels start a race war against an apartheid state, which prompts Sir Toppam to give them new equipment and facilities. Proving that violence does work against authoritarianism.
WHAT THE FUCK This episode exists!?
A movie I have it on VHS
The modern cartoon downplayed "The Sad Story of Henry". Henry didn't want to run in the rain. In modern versions he has anxiety but older ones portrayed him as being vain/defiant. Henry gets bricked up in that tunnel and stays imprisoned until he apologizes and promises to work. They don't remove the bricks to get him out, they just run him in reverse. Madness.
There's one episode with a diesel that gets his wheels removed, and then he's locked into a shed as a generator. That was a bit harsh.
And it's good to be a scab and cross the picket line "They say I have black wheels, I haven't have I?" "No Thomas, your wheels are perfectly fine." A black leg is a scab.
(A scab is a worker who crosses union lines and works during a strike)
What's so funny is in my first preschool classroom, I had a Brio train set. It was mostly donated stuff so nothing was a complete set. I had multiple Thomas characters but all the little boys in my room fought over this plain black engine, the one that isn't associated with the series. They're creepy!
It's worth remembering that Thomas was created by an Anglican minister (Reverand Wilbert Awdry). And originally for his sick child. But there is an element of 'bad children will be punished!' But the original stuff (iirc the first 18 books I think it was, and the first 5 tv seasons) was based primarily on what happened on the real British Railways, and other railways. Which were, honestly, very authoritarian (mostly to ensure safe operations, although it often went too far at times).
Most procedural tv shows.
NCIS has an antagonistic defense attorney who really just wants Gibbs to not break ALL the laws when interrogating suspects
Most shows pay lip service to adherence to the law. Then completely ignore it a second later.
But, it’s TOTALLY GREAT that the Police will break half of the laws that protect the citizens and constantly wipe their asses with the Constitution, in order to catch the Bad Guy ™️!! It’s ACTUALLY GOOD that the Police have access to ALL of our personal information and use it to catch the Bad Guys! They won’t possibly ever abuse this power!
I always thought it would be awesome if in one of those shows the no-holds-barred cop/agent brutalizes someone only to discover it was a totally innocent person who they have now traumatized for life. I my mind, the first half of the episode would revolve around an everyday Joe going about their day and chilling at home with the kids when the hero kicks in the door holds a gun the their head screaming "WHERE'S THE BOMB, KRASINSKI!" The second half is the aftermath to this family's life.
I would bet that Law & Order did something similar at some point. They were on for 20 years and they liked introducing ethical complications
I remember Stabler's whole deal involved him being in mandated therapy because of how rough he was with suspects
Isn't Organized Crime just Stabler running around beating the shit out of random people in the name of justice and the constant will they/won't they between him and Benson?
Wait. They're *still* doing the will they won't they thing? I thought that was why they killed Stabler's wife off at the beginning of Organized Crime - to ship him and Benson without any guilt. ETA: I actually love watching the old episodes of SVU and the original L&O, but I've never wanted to see Benson and Stabler romantically involved. Love them as detective partners but Stabler is way too rigid imo, I always wanted to see Benson and [whatever the name of the character played by Dean Winters] together.
It's not quite the same, but there's an episode of Criminal: UK with something along those lines.
I was a big Clint Eastwood fan when I was younger and especially liked his cop movies like the Dirty Harry movies and Coogan's Bluff. I don't have a lot of interest in them any more due to the whole "Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights" attitude.
What is really funny is when you realize that the first two movies of the Dirty Harry franchise totally flip-flop their messaging. The first movie is about a cop who does illegal things to stop a serial killer, and tries to claim and to show that doing so is bad but sometimes a cop has to break the rules to ensure safety for all. And the second movie is when a bunch of cops start doing vigilante stuff and Dirty Harry Tries to tell them that that’s bad and that’s not how the police are supposed to function. Media literacy was not their strong suit I guess
And then it kind of develops into buddy cop movies like Lethal Weapon where the cops are the action heroes, judges, juries, and executioners, when in real life, they’re “tied up” with procedure and red tape.
To add on to NCIS, the early seasons of it and most of the other crime procedurals from the early 2000's are just blatant anti-terrorism propaganda. Lots of scenes seemed structured to justify the Patriot Act and other types of hyper-authoritarian measures.
It’s weird they all end up with an Israeli Mossad agent on the team like in NCIS and Blacklist.
My parents are rewatching that show, and I'm realizing that Gibbs is not that smart or useful in investigations, but is just an impatient, abusive, loud-mouthed asshole.
But he thought to unplug a computer that one time, in one of the greatest scenes in TV history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl6rsi7BEtk
Pretty sure he just unplugged the monitor. Plot twist- Gibbs *was* the hacker
I don’t think NCIS is *inadvertently* authoritarian propaganda. It’s very deliberate.
Gibbs is the definition of "rules for thee, but not for me"
this is one of the many reasons I can't stand that show
Its hard to watch. In Criminal Minds a person matching a vague demographic is often the entire basis for immediately breaking into their house, work, and wherever else the cops feel like going. Also they usually get that demographic info by illegally gaining access to dozens of people’s financial records/medical records/sealed juvenile records. For every suspect (whose rights are violated) there are usually a few fistfuls of innocent people who’s rights are also violated but less egregiously.
Ahh i forgot what video it was, but I watched some video on YouTube about how originally in media and shows, cops were the butt of the joke. Often shown as dumb and incompetent. But obviously the police did not care for this representation and I forget what exactly happened that gave them any say or influence but long story short, their butthurt asses pulled some hat trick to get the media to start portraying cops "better" in shows/not make them the joke.
Do you mean the [Hays Code](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code#:~:text=The%20Motion%20Picture%20Production%20Code,States%20from%201934%20to%201968)? It and its precursors address representations of police. But it wasn’t addressing an issue with *mocking* police or making fun of them specifically. The code was aimed at not portraying illegal and immoral activities in a positive light. In view of that, police were meant to be portrayed as the good guys.
I think he's referring to the rise of the Crime/Detective genre of tv shows. The producers wanted something more gritty and real so they used police and detectives as experts and pretty much just had them give the writers their experiences to write for the show (overhyped of course) and this required that the police be the heroes in every episode and not look bad or else the cops wouldn't work with the production team. Generations later and now the most popular shows on every major network are just circle jerks for law enforcement. The video he might be referring to is by Skip Intro on YouTube. Does an entire video essay series on the subject. Pretty good, give it a watch https://youtu.be/udhDawfCLHo?si=R9oG2HcTDPwsysXt
It's okay they broke the law because they got the bad guy! It will definitely hold up in court that you violated their civil liberties and the bad guy will still go to prison and not get off on a technicality and sue the city later. I know we as the audience know the bad guy is the bad guy but in real life we don't know that and the police are not right all the time.
Not to mention how nearly every one of these shows makes jokes about how awful prisons are, and the audience goes along with it because "bad guy deserves to get raped and served spoiled food and be beaten by guards and inmates". It's shocking how persistent this is. Like cop shows have seriously dialed back depictions of police brutality in recent years, but for some reason the exact same behavior (and worse) from prison guards is still a-ok.
Yep, people are INCREDIBLY focused on revenge, it's sad
Having your civil rights violated isn’t ‘getting off on a technicality.’ That’s how it’s supposed to work. Fruit of the forbidden tree and all that.
It happens in Law and Order SVU that an Assistant District Attorney violates the rights of a suspect and lies to a judge simply because she can't bear the thought of him getting scot-free. She gets caught, the case is thrown out and she gets disbarred. (Although latter it gets retconned as simply getting a three year suspension and then returning)
I preferred the way Law & Order portrayed these ethical questions. It’s still cop propaganda but they sprinkled in that that cops are fallible and law enforcement can be corrupt. Was always solid TV which end of the day is all the mattered. My brain was still able to disconnect cop shows from the reality of police growing up.
I've been saying for years. 24 made a lot of people cool with extrajudicial torture.
It's been ok well before 24. 80's cop shows and 70's cop movies did that.
Yeah. You're right. I guess the era of 24 was just my generation's time for that kind of stuff. Plus, it was sort of a cultural phenomenon, for a bit. So that one just sticks out, when I think about it. Everyone loved them some Jack Bauer.
Me, after finishing every episode of white collar, "that guys getting off".
I enjoy watching it for the cons. One guy being an expert in everything is a little hard to believe.
I agree, but the original law& order gets a special nod... Because police breaking the law always comes back to bite them. And lawyers bending the rules is not shown as a good thing. The show still sides with the law of course but it hits different when you know things are going to come back around. And criminals don't always get convicted
Most superhero stories are about a powerful strongman using extrajudicial force to restore order.
I think Invincible explores this well. "If you're willing to accept super powered people, it's only natural for some super powered people to be evil, who cannot be held accountable by the average person, so it might not be ideal but in the face of planet smashing race-supremacists it would be very lucky if we had someone just as strong but who has morals we agree with who can fight". It obviously depends on the story but the crux of what makes or breaks it for me is the whole "lack of accountability".
I enjoy that "anti" superhero media has become as popular as the icons that made superheroes as culturally relevant as they are now. The Boys is more shock value with irl pulls for the satire but it also explores the lack of accountability in many different nuanced situations. It also feels like the characters in both shows are far less revered by the narrative and characters than in Marvel and DC. A result of this is them telling stories that explore the human condition on a relatable level rather than making divine caricatures clash that can only be relatable in a delusional matter.
Seriously. Superman could just vaporize Earth and then go live on another planet.
He can, but that's what makes him so special. He's built like a tank, but acts like an ambulance.
I like this
Thanks. I'm actually paraphrasing Lex in the DC reborn run of Superman. I thought it was fitting.
Superman usually aims to stay within the law and refrains from interfering with human affairs. Just don't read Injustice.
This is also a pivotal theme in My Hero Academia.
That world at least paid lip service tp having accountability in the original system. It got upended because the accountability was too lopsided in favor of punishing villains or people with villain-like powers while skating by heroes' personal behavior off the job.
as far as I’m aware so far in the series, this seems like the pivotal plot point of X-men too, except Magneto vs X differ in their hope (or not) of how humanity would react when given such a choice. Do you think humanity would accept that some are good and there to help, or would humanity view it as something to fix/cure/exterminate/control. And if they do, then how do YOU react to that? Make the first move, or try and reason with them?
This is why I'm so frustrated with Lex Luthor. Fundamentally, *he's right*. Allowing one God like person free reign to police the world is a *terrible* idea and the DC earth is lucky that Superman is a good person. But what happens if he changes his mind? What happens when what he feels is "right" differs from everyone else? He's still a person, so what would happen if he became radicalized by propaganda? However Lex's solution is... Become a god like person and rule the world
[удалено]
There's a reason Batman has a contingency plan for every member of the Justice League. Including himself.
Honestly so much of fantasy and fairy tales romanticize absolute monarchy and portray the solution to problems as "We just need to put the *rightful* king in power and everything will be great!" I'd like to see less monarchist propaganda in the stories we tell our children at bedtime, please.
One actually decent joke in the GoT finale was when Samwell Tarly suggested *"hey democracy maybe?"* and everyone laughed at him. Way too tongue in cheek to be on tone with the rest of the show, but the writers had stopped caring long before that anyway
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Especially one I didn't vote for. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Strange women laying in ponds is no basis for a system of government!
THERES SOME LOVELY FILTH DOWN ‘ERE
Those dudes just picking up mud and skipping it back down is so funny
Absolutely, it’s one of my favorite bits. Bonus points to when they’re heading towards the knights who say Ni and those same two peasants are walking away while bickering about power dynamics
You should read *Dune*. It's a cautionary tale about how even the most altruistic, benevolent ruler will cause untold death and destruction merely by their existence. Paul Atreides is a genuinely good dude who really *does not* want to cause a Jihad. It's basically *Life of Brian* but with billions dying and almost 100 planets completely sterilized of life. And then his son is like, "You think *that's* bad..."
>And then his son is like, "You think *that's* bad..." If the movies get to *God Emperor of Dune* and actually adapt it, I'll die happy. I don't even care if it's bad. I just want to witness the balls of a studio trying.
To quote myself: I'm already struggling to get friends invested in watching a 2.5 hour scifi drama with a convoluted plot and not a lot of action. General audiences are not prepared for Leto II berating Moneo while lesbians wet themselves over Duncan and Hwi stands quietly in the background accomplishing absolutely nothing for 4 and a half solid hours. But yes, it would be fun to see them try.
Yeah the Golden Path is essentially 'If I'm a really extra horrible piece of shit brutal absolute dictator for a few thousand years humans will finally, finally learn to not give dictators too much power and survive the future'.
Tolkien aside, Fantasy's monarchy focuses mostly for the sake of writing and thematic convenience. It's put more stakes and agency into in the moment decisions to singular characters rather than drawn out multilayered procedures. At the same time, most authors portray monarchy as dysfunctional and bloody 9 out of 10 times with whatever hero is the exception rather than the rule. I love how the light bringer series depicts the feudal system as so fucked up that the most powerful character spends 17 yesrs trying and failing to unfuck it.
What makes LotR so great in this regard (especially the films IMO) is that Aragorn’s status as the rightful heir isn’t worth anything for the majority of the story. It’s his strength of character and quality as a leader that makes people want to follow him, not his blood.
I love that when Borimir is first told who he is his response is "this guy?! Gondor doesn't want him. Gondor doesn't need him." After a few months with him he dies proclaiming Aragorn as the hope of his country and all men
To be fair, I grew up with fantasy books with lots of those tropes and not once in my entire life have I thought "You know what, we should go back to doing it that way"
I mean, I might go to war for a magic, beautiful, elf queen trying to regain her throne. Depending on her social and economic policies of course
Her economic policies are fucking fantastic because she's magic so you can pretty much assume at least one critical constraint of society will be solved via magic. Natural disaster? Nah, magic Queen will stop the earthquake or whatever. Other kingdoms would spend a decade rebuilding, not us. Insufficient civil infrastructure? Magical waste disposal. Or magical portals, etc. No need for multi-generational labour projects that eat up your labour force, spend that time producing goods and services instead. Bad crop yield? Magical cupcakes. Other kingdoms are starving to death, we're just sick of all these candy sprinkles. Even if she only delivers on one of those campaign promises, reliably being able to ignore a critical constraint of civilization means that more attention and resources are available to deal with, or to improve, everything else.
Alan Moore commented on this in Illuminations. "The “superhero dream” is a dangerous thing, because essentially it's fascism."
Yeah, I don't think most modern authors are doing it on purpose but comics started out as Captain America, who was explicitly pro-war propaganda; and Superman, an overt Moses allegory As a result superheros have just become cops or vigilantes
Funny enough Captain America was made prior to the US joining the war
Yes, hence why he's pro-war propaganda Marvel wanted the US to get involved in WW2 so they drew a guy dressed in the American flag punching Hitler (Not necessarily criticizing that decision but pointing it out)
Created by Jewish American creators who were obviously antifascist.
Babar the Elephant
I know that this character exists, but beyond that nothing. Can you give me explanation?
Babar the elephant is adopted by a human and is brought up in the ways of civilization. So when he returns to the jungle, the other animals recognize his superiority and make him king so that he may help to civilize them as well. You might even say that he is chosen to carry the white elephant's burden.
Babar's mother gets murdered by a hunter. But it turns out okay because a rich old lady adopts him and buys him expensive clothes. Mother is immediately forgotten in the name of fashion.
Came here to say this, except that I think it really was explicitly colonial propaganda. Which is a shame, because I always really liked those books! Maybe I’ll teach my grandchildren about colonialism with them!
The Lion King Edit: who needs a king?
In beauty and the beast's Be our Guest there is the line > Life gets so unnerving for a servant who is not serving. he's not whole without a soul to wait upon
They're trapped there by a spell in their workplace though. >Ah, those good old days when we were useful. Suddenly those good old days are gone. >Ten years, we've been rusting! Needing so much more than dusting, needing exercise! A chance to use our skills! >Most days, we just lay around the castle. Flabby, fat and lazy, you walked in and ups-a-daisy! I mean, if I was magically trapped in my workplace for 10 years with not dick to do, surrounded by people with skills that complemented my own, I would say that performing our skills would probably be the best way to stay sane.
I think in one version of the story if they lose their will to go on/humanity they become mundane furniture. So serving literally gives them purpose
House elves be like;
It's like, jesus, Lumiere, get a job at a cabaret that serves dinner Don't let the wolf-buffalo in a cape gaslight you into staying with his abusive ass
Finally a good "inadvertently" one.
monarchist propaganda
"It's ok if it's in Africa"
Cough cough Black Panther
Black Panther, where the most technologically advanced nation in the world can upend its entire political system by hand to hand combat for some reason.
And they built a wall around their borders
Just the opening scene is kinda messed up. Everyone, come bow before my new kid, who will grow up to eat you!
Just about every comment is ignoring the word "inadvertently".
The TV show Law & Order
I love me some Law & Order SVU, but that show is about as blatantly pro-authoritarian as it gets. Basically every single episode is saying, "wouldn't it be awesome if Ice T could just crack this perv's skull instead of having to get a search warrant first?"
Its cathartic though i enjoy it its not terribly realistic but im pretty sure most of the cases would be thrown out of court how many times has stabler assaulted someone or just ignored Someone asking for a laywer etc etc.
I just watched it for Alex Cabot and Mariska Hargitay. Never could stand Elliott. What an asshole.
A lot of 40k fans unironically agree with the Imperium. To the point Games Workshop had to publicly state that the Imperium is unambiguously evil. Satire is dead.
GW made an edgy lore as a justification for why everyone is at war in their *wargame* and it got the community filled with Joker-cosplaying edgelords
GW couldn't decide how seriously to take itself and accidentally made the Imperium \*incompetent\* but not really wrong. Praying to the Emperor in 1e, when it was ambiguous is there was anything of him left or if he had even ever existed at all was satire. Praying to the Emperor in the current edition might genuinely summon an angel who will protect you from the literal demon that literally wants to eat your soul, which is a real thing that you do have and really \*do not\* want to be eaten in the setting.
Poe's Law.
Not familiar with it, what is it?
No matter how ridiculous your parody is, someone is going to take it seriously.
Oh that one, sorry I haven't heard it by name before
Have you ever heard of Cole's Law?
Given the last one I probably know it and just don't know the name
It's a salad made out of thinly sliced cabbage and a mayo or yogurt dressing. (Been waiting years to use this one!)
Well played. Well played
Got'em
Bravo. Bravo. 👏 👏
thank fuck i didn't google this. not falling for [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2pkkyp/comment/cmxlwgk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) again
I've never really been exposed to the finer details of 40k, but is there any good faction in that universe? It seems completely grimdark from the outside looking in
As the other commenter said, the T'au are probably the closest thing to good guys. But, in general, 40k does *not* do good guys. Just different flavors of evil fighting each other in an eternal conflict. It would be a horrible place to live.
The least evil is probably the T'au Empire. But they would easily be the bad guy in other sci fi. They're basically the Covenant from Halo.
WH40k's Imperium was going to be my comment, as they are essentially setup like a militaristic feudal society, where even some of the worlds are described as Feudal Worlds and Knight Worlds.
The takeaway I've gotten is that they are so willing to do anything to resist Chaos, they do Chaos level horrible things to their own people.
Comment reported to the inquisition
Living Saints are just Emperor aligned Daemon Princes.
Gonna need the double inquisition over here for this level of heresy.
The Imperial Officers wearing Nazi SS uniforms should be a big clue to anyone paying attention
300 Sparta was a diarchy, and slaves were the backbone of the kingdom’s success.
300 has so many pro-authoritarian/fascist details that it's honestly surprising that it isn't completely derided. The irony is that they shit on Athenians throughout the story, despite the fact that the 300 Spartans weren't the ones who turned the tide of the war; it was the forces under Themistocles, an Athenian, that made that happen.
If I remember correctly, didn't the original use the frame device that "this is the story Spartans say about themselves", so it's indicating to the reader that it's Spartan propaganda basically and not an account of the truth.
That's made apparent in the film as well. The fellow with the eyepatch who witnesses Leonidas's death is tasked with sharing the story to boost the morale of the other Greek city-states to fight against the Persians. The same actor is the narrator of the story. Also explains the 'monstrous' appearance of some of Immortals. It is *literally* propaganda.
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a cautionary tale about how individual deviation from accepted social norms will be ridiculed and excluded, unless and until it can be commodified and exploited. Also, the North Pole forced labor camp. Unionize, elves.
I've been told about some private schools in the USA where they teach that the moral of *Lord of the Flies* is that kids in particular need strict rules (and to slavishly obey authority) otherwise they will fall prey to their base natures and start killing each other. Inadvertent because, by all accounts, that's *not* the message that William Golding was trying to get across.
About a decade after that book was published, a group of school aged boys were stranded on an island for about 15 months. The exact opposite happened to the kids in reality. They worked cooperatively, shared power, and created a garden to grow food. [Not my source but an article about it.](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months)
They built guitars and things as well, if I remember right. You can imagine the rescuers turning up and being like, "hey guys, where's all the death and devastation and impalement?!? And you mean... Piggy is alive and well and still has his glasses?!?" specifically lacking *sticks sharpened at both ends*
reminds me of that experiment this one guy did. he had a bunch of people all stranded on a boat in the hope that they would eventually kill eachother but he got disappointed when he found out that they were co-operative and formed a community instead. he put himself on the boat so he tried to sabotage things but all he did was make himself the most hated guy on the boat
Oh yeah, the sex raft experiment, theres a couple YouTube videos about that. Sex definitely did not happen on the raft, its just what the media reported hyped up what was happening when the unhinged professors plot was discovered after they shoved off. [Wendigoon video on the subject.](https://youtu.be/BHXw3E1VqK4?si=0c_Vl7vablAoKxHK)
Collaboration is innate in humans. Its literally the trait most responsible for our survival.
I wish more of our "*fierce individualists*" would remember that. We definitely don't have to all be the same--the world would be dull af if we were--but we do need to try to work towards a better, more cooperative shared reality.
Well that’s beautiful. 🥺❤️
The kids were rescued by a naval vessel during World War II. AKA the children created elaborate social conventions and rituals that made them feel justified to fight and kill each other. They were then rescued by adults with elaborate social conventions and rituals that made them feel justified to fight and kill each other. It's very much supposed to be a "the children were obviously savage when they left Civilization, but are those of us within Civilization actually any less savage?"
I could understand this reading of it. Golding was definitely suggesting that in the absence of civilization that we return to a more tribal and animistic state. I wouldn't equate that with strict rules per se though.
it was inspired by Goldings' observations at a private boys' school in Britain. The boys treated each other poorly because of how they were socialized. But teachers prevented kids from escalating too far. Then the students in the story found themselves with no adults holding them back so they became more violent. World War II, the backdrop of the story, shows what happens when people socialized this way grow to adulthood.
Soooooo many books are just coded indictments of the British boys' private school system.
I'm pretty sure his message was that prep/boarding school boys were a result of a violent and broken educational system.
24 was a civil liberties nightmare.
Santa Claus. He’s an all-seeing authority figure who spends his time making sure that children are 100% in adherence to a strict moral code. Elf on the Shelf reinforces this. Think about the song “Santa Claus is coming to town.” It starts off by telling children that crying, a very natural human response to feelings of sadness and pain, is considered bad behavior and will result in punishment. The underlying messages here are that it’s good to live in a surveillance state and you can be punished for even just feeling, let alone behaving, in a way that one supreme authority figure finds unacceptable. Betray your own emotions for material gain, kiddies!
Absolutely!!! I'll keep saying it. Santa is mass surveillance propaganda
“Thomas (the tank engine) and friends” is a lovely children’s story that is deeply classist, reflecting Tory views of proper society where everyone knows their place and is properly deferential to their betters.
Paw Patrol
The theme song says something along the lines of “no job too big, no pup too small” I asked my wife if that means the Paw Patrol condones child labor
I mean the dude running the op is a child, so...
Not entirely related.. I hate that humdinger is so blatantly selfish and dumb and does greedy or mean things and everyone's just like "awe humdinger you silly" and just gloss over it.. like no, keep him away or be suspicious, don't ignore him or expect him to be good, dont you remember last episode??
All Chases Are Bastards
Listen, it's one of my all-time favorite shows and I think it did the best it could to address its own flaws, but Brooklyn 99. The cops make mistakes but they're just good, goofy guys, y'all!! Even their episode called "good cop" inadvertently was all about how Jake and co are actually.... the 'good' cops.
I remember one episode where Holt gets furious at Hitchcock & Scully for not meeting their "quota" of arrests, and like...maybe the problem is that cops have *quotas* for the amount of people they have to arrest in the first place?
They addressed that in the last season. I don’t recall the exact reasoning but holy was in a fight with the police union and they had officers intentionally not meet their quotas which seem to exist to try and show a cop isn’t lazy and actually working. Holt thanked him in the end because he said that while arrests were down reports of crime were the same and the precinct had its lowest ever number of complaints from the public about harassment and the least cases dismissed in years. He was intending to use those stats as a case for lowering or removing arrest quotas as a metric of an officer’s usefulness and work ethic all together
Truth be told I'm not sure you *can* make a comedy about likeable cops without following those themes.
It's been a while since I watched it, but my recollection of Brooklyn 99 was that Captain Holt's 99th Precinct was filled with decent officers, but the rest of the NYPD was a goddamned cesspool.
Maybe not the story, but The Punisher has to be the most inadvertently pro-authoritarian propaganda figure.
I'll never forget that time Marvel put out a Punisher comic where two cops are idolizing Frank, and he tells them point blank that they're horrible cops and if they want a role model, his name is Captain America.
Yeah there’s an interesting angle in Marvel where Punisher has idolized Captain America since childhood but simultaneously thinks “I can’t be like him, because of ______ circumstances. I HAVE to do things the way I’m doing them!” in order to rationalize why his own actions are VERY unlike his idol’s. Meanwhile, Captain America himself is flat out disgusted by Punisher and wants nothing to do with him.
If Punisher idolizers could read, they'd be very angry with Marvel for that.
The Punisher is never portrayed in an aspirational light; the message is that he's a deeply damaged and deranged individual, and his way is not the right way. Readers are never meant to go "Yeah, I like what this guy is doing!" It's just a case of stupid people taking it the wrong way. Same as the people who root for Walter White in Breaking Bad, or who think Rorschach was the hero of Watchmen. None of these stories are pro-those characters' worldviews, inadvertently or otherwise. You're supposed to be horrified at what they stand for, people just have no media literacy.
Just like people who think Bruce Springsteen's song "born in the USA" is patriotic
No kidding I've heard it used as part of a 4th of July fireworks show where they only used the chorus and somehow segwayed into freaking Miley Cyrus's "Party in the USA". It was comical.
A lot of the times a Punisher story is just a badass lone wolf gunning down a strawman criminal. This looks pretty awesome and is written 100% in an aspirational light. The problem with comics is that they go through multiple hands over the decades and more than a couple of writers have thought Frank was right. Specially when Marvel throws him a bone. They said multiple times he never killed an innocent and always investigates deeply each case, but it's clearly bullshit to make him more likeable
Like 90% of cop shows
The Lion King. It's complicated by the fact that the villains are portrayed with explicitly fascist imagery, but the good characters are trying to keep a system in place where a powerful monarch has the rest of the population literally bow down to him and his progeny. The hyenas (who are also coded as sort of "ghetto") quite reasonably want a more egalitarian society than the current one where they are treated as inferior to the lions and have to scrounge for scraps, but the movie portrays their goal as literally against the natural order.
Fun fact lions steal food from hyenas
Not defending monarchies, but in the canon of the universe the reason the hyenas are not part of the Pridelands is because they hunt for sport. This is stated in both the first movie as well as The Lion Guard TV show. The Pridelands were established as a sort of balanced haven for the animals, where the first King made sure that everyone only took what they needed and no more. In The Lion Guard it's also stated that the outsider lions from the second movie have been raised to believe that it's "Lions over all," meaning that they're species supremacists. They believe they should be able to harshly subjugate all other animals and kill them as they please. The Pridelands actually also has what is more or less a parliament, with leaders of all the other animals meeting regularly with the current ruler to discuss any issues and problems. They even vote on things, though each species has their own realistic ways of deciding their leaders (the crocodiles have trial by combat). The animals also are free to leave the Pridelands at anytime, and have canonically more than once, but they choose not to because the Prideland society is safer than the "wild" areas outside of it. Tl;dr the hyenas and other outlanders for the most part are outsiders because they're supremacists and murderers. The animals are safer within the Pridelands because the lions punish other predators who take more than their fair share of food. Yes, the original movie doesn't give a lot of depth on this, but it does mention it.
This is my favorite ACKSHUALLY ever. Hell yeah educate these subversive vermin.
I just have a pervasive life-long Lion King hyperfixation lol
I don’t think the creators of *The Boys* expected so many doofuses to think Homelander and Stormfront were the true heroes
Stormfront stating that people love Nazi propaganda, but only didn't like being called Nazis was a little on the nose.
Harry Potter is about a boy who has to fight against a complicit government that seamlessly transitions into pure fascism when Voldemort shows up. He then becomes a cop.
Aren't there slaves who like being slaves, too? Which is obviously pro-authoritarian.
And Hermione campaigns against this slavery and gets laughed at by everyone and ignored. And then later on when there was the controversy about Hermione being played by a black actress, JK Rowling said that you could just read Hermione as black all along as her race was never specified. So now you have a black character saying that slavery is bad and everyone laughs at them.
I mean.... Kingsley Shacklebolt. Like. Seriously, that's the name you gave him?
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she was possibly thinking of shackling/cuffing prisoners considering he's the head of the wizard police when first introduced. But her other name choices are also pretty bad so she might have done it on purpose. Cho Chang, the one Jewish character being named Goldstein, etc. Remus Lupin is basically "Wolfy McWolf-face" and he wasn't even born a werewolf.
How about Charlie and the chocolate factory? The explicit backstory in the text is about wonka going to a foreign nation and essentially kidnapping the oompa loompas so they can do his labor for him. I can’t remember if it talks about the working conditions or anything but the optics on that are not great
The first edition was even worse, so bad in fact that Dahl went back and changed it to make it less racist >“They are real people! They are some of my workers!” He advised the group that these tiny black people had been “Imported direct from Africa!” They belonged to “a tribe of tiny miniature pygmies known as Oompa-Loompas. I discovered them myself. I brought them over from Africa myself—the whole tribe of them, three thousand in all. I found them in the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had ever been before.” >Wonka explained that the tribe had been starving, subsisting on green caterpillars, but longing for cacao beans, “oh how they craved them.” He bargained with the tribe and promised that if they agreed to “live in my factory” they could have all the cacao beans they wanted: “I’ll even pay your wages in cacao beans if you wish!” So, the black pygmies traded their freedom for permanent enslavement and all the cacao beans they could eat. After the tribal leader agreed to stop eating green caterpillars and work for “beans,” Wonka “shipped them over here, every man, woman, and child in the Oompa-Loompa tribe. It was easy. I smuggled them over in large packing cases with holes in them, and they all got here safely.” As Britain had outlawed the slave trade in 1807, Wonka had to smuggle them to England in packing cases, in conditions that sounded almost as horrific as the Middle Passage. >Willy Wonka embraced the role of master. If he clicked his fingers three times an Oompa-Loompa would appear and quiver at his loin. He “bowed and smiled, showing beautiful white teeth. His skin was almost pure black, and the top of his fuzzy head came just above the height of Mr. Wonka’s knee. He wore the usual deerskin slung over his shoulder.” A slave galley even made an appearance in the book, one powered by pygmies who rowed on a river of chocolate. Just to further highlight the slave analogy, Dahl deviously introduced whips, “WHIPS—ALL SHAPES AND SIZES.”
Jesus I didn’t know that about the first draft. Yeah that’s all really bad, what a time the 20th century was
Yeah this was beyond acceptable public discourse even for the 1960s.
Except that Dahl was always a satirist and never condoned what happened with the Oompa Loompa's in the story. The entire point behind the Oompa Loompa's was to satirize and criticize the candy and chocolate industry's tendency to use third world labour to get the ingredients (mostly cocoa) needed for their product. The fact that Wonka just uproots an entire civilization is only taken lightly to show how said companies also hand wave away that they use said labor. The original designs of the Oompa Loompa's drove this point home even more, before controversy had Dahl agree to the more well known designs that people know today.
Willy Wonka lured people under false pretenses into his home, which was filled with elaborate death traps that exploited their individual character flaws, and systematically eliminated them until the only one remaining was the person he deemed virtuous enough to become his successor & inherit his work. This is the exact same plot as *Saw*.
If you give a mouse a cookie
Almost every Batman story ever written. Basically, Batman is a superhero whose power is to violate people's civil rights with impunity. Even in fiction billionaires are above the law.
I mean, they do arrest Lex Luthor a bunch.
But that's the deal right. It's saying that the world is a billionaires playground and it's all up to the good billionaires to stand up against the bad billionaires.
Basically any story where it’s important that the characters get their powers or authority through inheritance. Say what you will about The Last Jedi, but at least they tried to make the Force be something that anyone could have. Then Episode IX went out of its way to be like “no no, she’s better than everyone else because of her birth.”