Avatar

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You just assert and assert and assert. You really should be aware that assertions without support mean almost nothing.

When people refuse to face the obvious, there's no argumentation possible. For example, you can see how I provide arguments when I exchange posts with Freaky.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you started repeating assertions and posting random links. I pointed this out earlier. After that, you only get what you deserve.

I heard a rumour that MR. Cameron is going to to turn Joe Haldeman's "Forever War" into a 3dD film. Anyone else heard about this?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why are you still responding to me? You wrote:

Seriously, you don't deserve any more. For example, when you start to make sense instead of just blabbing about my proficiency in English (despite being clearly superior to yours).

Besides, Starrman had already stated the obvious so I didn't feel compelled to repeat what we wrote.

See? Again you fail to understand plain English.

I said you didn't deserve any more arguments on the topic of propaganda, I didn't say you didn't deserve to be mocked.

Originally posted by Palynka
In this last humorous line you actually highlight how any statement of opinion in a debate would fit such a definition of propaganda.

The only reason anyone would then label opinion as "propaganda" is simply for the purpose of using loaded language (i.e. appealing to emotion). It seems obvious to me that the washing down of what propaganda consists on is ...[text shortened]... aganda). Yet this is what people like ATY try to convey when they label opinion as propaganda.

In this last humorous line you actually highlight how any statement of opinion in a debate would fit such a definition of propaganda.
Kinda the point, really!

The only reason anyone would then label opinion as "propaganda" is simply for the purpose of using loaded language (i.e. appealing to emotion).
I agree. However, I think that most folks use the term when they sense undercurrents of other, equally-loaded topics within the subtext of the expression. For instance, this film has been unfavorably/favorably compared to "Dances With Wolves," with an environmental twist.

To those who found DWW a compelling portrait of self-discovery and honest humanity, this is seen as positive reinforcement of a valued dynamic. To those who found the film a despicable example of anti-authority and abandonment of duties, this comparison is taken as propaganda. However, both are propaganda in the truest, purest sense of the term. As stated, the original purpose of the term came from a group of cardinals who were charged with propagating their beliefs in foreign countries.

My humorous post could be construed to be propaganda for, at minimum, objectivity and polite discourse. Who could possibly be against polite discourse? Well, they're out there, possibly disconnected by anything other than a penchant for trolling, and they would all consider my stab at reconciliation as propaganda. Those who are for such standards take my post as reasoned thinking. But both groups must still concede that my post is propaganda, nonetheless, regardless of its leanings.

For example, I think nobody sane would consider Avatar as propaganda on the same level as Triumph of the Will (to quote the most obvious example of film as part of propaganda).
The level of ones distaste for the message does nothing to diminish its purpose. A fart's a fart, whether it started as peppermints or Sam Adams and Taco Bell.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In this last humorous line you actually highlight how any statement of opinion in a debate would fit such a definition of propaganda.
Kinda the point, really!

The only reason anyone would then label opinion as "propaganda" is simply for the purpose of using loaded language (i.e. appealing to emotion).
I agree. However, I think that most s purpose. A fart's a fart, whether it started as peppermints or Sam Adams and Taco Bell.[/b]

You didn't get my point. It has nothing to do with my taste for TotW's message. It has to do with the political machine that ordered, financed and distributed the film as part of a clear process to gain political power.

Edit:
Palynka:The only reason anyone would then label opinion as "propaganda" is simply for the purpose of using loaded language (i.e. appealing to emotion).
Freaky: I agree.

Yet you go on to say that opinion is propaganda. Are you labeling it for the purpose of using loaded language? I don't think so. So which one is it?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Neither 1 nor 2 addresses the phrasing "Propaganda posters". It is written similarly to "blue cars".

It's not written anything like 'blue cars'. You can't just take a couple of random nouns and insert them. 'Blue cars' is a statement of description and is not associated with intention by the government, 'propaganda posters' carries a direct link to the government's intention and requires a functionality. You can't create a series of blue in the shape of cars, it's nonsensical.

The latter phrase does not mean "a blue group of cars which are not individually blue". I'm not saying it would, even if 'blue cars' was a suitable distinction, not sure how you think otherwise.

I couldn't give a damn about what you think constitutes propaganda, but you certainly cannot assert that the production process of a film constitutes the necessary procedure for propaganda and your appeal to grammar is seriously weak. Even if there were a distinction between the two, under strict literary ruling, I'd bet my life that 99% of all such sentences were written generally intending exactly the same thing due to colloquialism and the need for simplicity. To suggest there's a complex grammatical distinction in everyday writing is folly.

Originally posted by Palynka
You didn't get my point. It has nothing to do with my taste for TotW's message. It has to do with the political machine that ordered, financed and distributed the film as part of a clear process to gain political power.

Edit:
Palynka:The only reason anyone would then label opinion as "propaganda" is simply for the purpose of using loaded language (i.e. a ...[text shortened]... labeling it for the purpose of using loaded language? I don't think so. So which one is it?

I thought I got the point. Maybe I didn't.

I agreed that most people bandy about the term for when they find the message (or the group behind the message) an affront to their own sensibilities. The remainder of my post drew the distinctions between use and origination, as well as pointed to my own message as being a tool for objectivity and polite discourse--- assuming there exists a group of like-minded folks, of course.

Cameron's early was funded by a group of dentists, but I doubt anyone could consider his stuff dentistry propaganda. The imagery he's used in his various films haven't been undeniably specific enough for anyone to get a clear-cut message other than the story itself. This film probably wasn't funded by PETA, Earth First! or any other like-minded group, but it really didn't need to be, since he's clearly drinking the Kool-Aid with or without their support.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And it's incomparably better than 2010 or Independence Day or many other blockbusters, in my opinion.

Beginning sentences with "and" is incorrect.

No, it's not. Some people think it's poor style, but that's about it.

I guess it depends on your definition of propaganda. ATY's weak definition makes all films, all intentional images, propaganda; personally, I regard propaganda as 'political advertising' deliberately orchestrated by an organisation to further a specific political outcome. I don't see that Avatar is intended to further a specific political outcome.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, it's not. Some people think it's poor style, but that's about it.

Oops, you're right.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I guess it depends on your definition of propaganda. ATY's weak definition makes all films, all intentional images, propaganda; personally, I regard propaganda as 'political advertising' deliberately orchestrated by an organisation to further a specific political outcome. I don't see that Avatar is intended to further a specific political outcome.

No, the definition I provided does not make all films etc propaganda. A film like Rocky does not attempt to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of a specified audience via the controlled distribution of one sided messages that may be nonfactual. There is no message in Rocky. It's just entertainment. The creators did not create it to manipulate public political (or even commercial) opinion as Cameron did with Avatar.

They created it to use existing commercial opinion to make some money.

A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_film
[3]Bennett, Todd. "The celluloid war: state and studio in Anglo-American propaganda film-making, 1939-1941." The International History Review 24.1 (March 2002): 64(34).

That's Avatar!

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Neither 1 nor 2 addresses the phrasing "Propaganda posters". It is written similarly to "blue cars".

It's not written anything like 'blue cars'. You can't just take a couple of random nouns and insert them. 'Blue cars' is a statement of description and is not associated with intention by the government t there's a complex grammatical distinction in everyday writing is folly.[/b]

Adjective - Noun. You're blind.

Blue - Cars. Propaganda - Posters.

Blue - Posters. Propaganda - Cars (specifically, Propaganda Truck in the example):

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2009/04/grigory_pasko_the_nord_stream_propaganda_truck.htm

Blue elephant. Propaganda elephant. Each describes how the elephant has been painted; solid blue or "Democrats are Commies!" spray painted on it's side. You can put any random noun in there.

I don't see that Avatar is intended to further a specific political outcome.

Bosse de Nage

Cameron is trying to influence the Western public into electing/pressuring representatives/government such that our nations who will not do "imperialistic" actions (which in Cameron's view, are also naturally "anti-environment" actions).

the film's writer and director James Cameron responded that he hoped to create an emotional reaction and make the public conversation gravitate towards socio-political, cultural, environmental, and spiritual topics.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Avatar
[3]http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10866#frame_top

I highly recommend the above interview. Cameron specifically talks about how he hoped to change peoples' opinions about environmentalism.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Adjective - Noun. You're blind.

Blue - Cars. Propaganda - Posters.

Blue - Posters. Propaganda - Cars (specifically, Propaganda Truck in the example):

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2009/04/grigory_pasko_the_nord_stream_propaganda_truck.htm

Blue elephant. Propaganda elephant. Each describes how the elephant has been painted; solid bl ...[text shortened]... "Democrats are Commies!" spray painted on it's side. You can put any random noun in there.

I was referring to the two nouns 'propaganda' and 'posters'. You can't use 'blue' as an adjective and then claim it replaces 'posters'. Not only this, but your example would have to read 'cars blue' to fit the original post, which clearly doesn't make sense.

And why is it that you continue to post links to sites that contain the word propaganda as if they somehow support an argument on the grammar you're using. They don't. Unless you're trying to prove something else towards the propaganda definition, of which I've already mentioned I have no concern.

Maybe I underestimate the power of popular cinema to politically manipulate, or maybe I'm just not moved by the pathetically shallow and cringingly obvious bad-guys-pick-on-good-guys for their oil...I mean unobtainium (god what a name!) message, but I just don't get it with this film.

Avatar is silly fictional CGI hokum, carrying a storyline that makes Bambi look like an Ingmar Bergman film; not exactly your ideal vehicle for a serious political message. Claiming it achieves this, reminds me of the Christians who damn the Harry Potter movies for turning their kids into witches.