The Hunger Games: War Propaganda 101

In response to the YouTube plugs. There are two ways to stop the truth. The first is to simply ban it - censor and burn books that are forbidden. If this approach is not politically feasible, the second way is to flood the market with trash. Trash music, trash books, trash movies, trash “documentaries” (look at the “History” channel’s constant flood of Monsters, UFOs and Aliens). YouTube is a media landfill. The few bits of good content are usually illegal and aren’t supposed to be posted anyway. And, yes, once in a while there is a true diamond in the mountain of trash. But unless someone points you to the link, good luck finding it. The vast, vast majority of what is on YouTube is worse than the worst crap available on cable TV. YouTube is no beacon of media freedom.

Clayton -

No. The difference is money and power, which I demonstrated. Your mere challenge is no evidence of your correctness, although the fact that it is a mere baseless objection may indicate your awareness of your incorrectness.

EDIT: Ok, to be fair, competence and motivation do play a limited role. But then, it would make sense that Hollywood has a very real actual impact on, and a perfect incentive to directly influence the competence and motivation of people through propaganda.

I’m trying to recall the name for the type of fallacy Clayton is exhibiting, perhaps the community can help me identify it by name. It has to do with ignoring A (A being that Hollywood has never delivered because it is designed to block delivery), and then ignoring B (B being that Youtube has delivered because it isn’t designed to block delivery), and then making an irrelevant point, X (X being that the amount of trash on youtube is high relative to the amount of delivered goods).

EDIT: It seems there are anarchist materials in every medium except on the big screen. So maybe if we consider hollywood to be those people who work for or hope to work for those who make movies which make it to major theaters and television, as well as the actual content, then we may define “Hollywood” as: an organization designed and maintained to spread propaganda.

Interesting notes: It’s interesting you would cite The History Channel for distributing propaganda, when The History Channel is owned by Disney! Remeber earlier? I was arguing that Disney produces propaganda, and now you’re using The History Channel as an example of propaganda. I’m sure if I look, Lionsgate (the biggest and most successful distributor of propaganda in world history…?) has made plenty of the “Monsters, UFOs, and Aliens” propaganda you also mention.

Also, something else that I can’t remember right now :frowning:

It’s called the “Hashem is full of shit” fallacy.

False. I will direct you here to see a short list of libertarian movies. There is a longer list elsewhere but I can’t be bothered to go find it. I was quite surprised to see that V for Vendetta was not on the linked list.

False. Clayton acknowledged that youtube does in fact deliver, it just also has a lot of trash.

It’s amazing how you completely contradict yourself within the same sentence. First you say that Clayton claims youtube doesn’t deliver, but in the same breath you then say that Clayton does say that youtube delivers. Anyway, it’s not an irrelevant point. It is in fact quite an interesting point.

Go troll somewhere else.

The whole “YouTube represents media freedom!” meme goes back to the old, old myth of democracy originating at least since the French revolution. Bastiat points out the illogical nature of political populism:

On the one hand, hashem would have us believe that “the people” are a great source of valuable media and that “Hollywood” or the “Establishment” are responsible for suppressing this great well of beauty and wisdom from being widely accessible. On the other hand, he would have us believe that “the people” are so tender and helpless as to be unable to produce, find and distribute media without the help of either Hollywood or YouTube (Google, clearly an Establishment corporation).

The fact is that the independent media industry has long been producing and consuming its own media irrespective of what Hollywood does. Hollywood is, in fact, the very same model as YouTube: make tons of trash media cheaply and widely available. Nothing is censored! Everything is permitted! Yet, amazingly, we can find little of value in it. I think that the libertarian zeitgeist that says that YouTube is some kind of beacon of freedom is gravely mistaken. YouTube is the pilot model for a media takeover of the Internet. I personally believe it’s doomed to failure in the long-run but in the short-run they’re doing a pretty good job corralling almost all the video content on the Web into one, central location.

Clayton -

[INSULTS DELETED]

That’s why you’re talking in fallacies. I never said “youtube represents media freedom”, you said that. You are attacking your own argument, have fun. My argument is available for you or anyone to actually read.

I never argued that youtube is a bastion of freedom, and obviously I’m right in agreeing with you that Google would love to—and I’m sure they have every intention to and plans coming down the pipes to—dominate internet video content.

But your point that Hollywood has, at least in some cases, produced valid anarchist content by way of libertarian content is no objection. There has never been honest anarchist material out of hollywood because it is an objective, empirical fact that it is designed to block honest anarchist content. Whereas, you can go on youtube and find honest anarchist content right away because youtube isn’t designed to block legit content, like hollywood demonstrably, empirically, is.

Let me repeat that so you can’t twist my words again:

A) Hollywood has never delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it is designed expressly to deliver propaganda and prevent delivery of anarchist content.
B) Youtube has delivered anarchist content because (aka therefore we know) it isn’t designed expressly to prevent delivery of anarchist content.
X) Your fallacies. Irrelevant.

False. Previously addressed.

This is different from what you claimed Clayton was saying, as you were contradicting yourself. However, as it is stated now, I can agree to this.

You have yet to actually demonstrate that Clayton has used any logical fallacies…that is, if you were to accurately represent Clayton’s statements.

Keep it up!

This is a movie made for tweens, fellas. Congratulations on stooping to the level of the average sheep. They didn’t get you with Harry Potter, or Twilight, but boy did you tke the hook, line, and sinker on this one.

Because movies meant for teens can’t possibly have any sort of message in it whatsoever.

Way to miss the point, guy.

Spell it out for me, fella.

Thought it was pretty clear, friend.

Perhaps not, on second read. Quite simply, look at this entire page worth of posts, and even a few on the previous. Compare that to how adults, normally act.

Way to dodge. Keep it up.

Edited and thanks for proving my point.

Oh really? Because adults never act petty or rude? Do you have anything that you would actually like to contribute to the thread?

I think you’ve said all that needs to be said.

Thank you for your thoughts and observations. They were truly appreciated and this thread is better for them.

Diddo. This thread died a while ago.

gotlucky and hashem, you both need to stop with the insults.

This post contains spoilers

I just saw the movie tonight and thought about writing my thoughts down. I definitely see how The Hunger Games can be viewed as an anti-state movie if it is viewed from a political perspective.

The beginning starts with a script that states that the games were established as a consequence for some “uprising” that took place before the film’s start. These games were originally started as a means of quashing rebellion, but, long after they have served that purpose (the film acknowledges this point, if I recall correctly) the games are kept as tradition. The people in this territory, called Panem, have limited means; interestingly, as a post noted above, this name may come from the Latin phrase panem et circenses which translates to “bread and circuses” (the staple food for many in the dystopia Panem is bread, noting multiple flashbacks Katniss has regarding an instance of charity from Peeta). Many have to hunt in order to have food including the heroine Katniss who is angered when her deer, the first one she had seen in a year, is scared away from her by a friend; she is immediately concerned as to what she and her sister will eat.

After chatting with her friend for a bit, she tells him that she had been bribing the “Peace Keepers” (the term reminds me of the role NATO in Rwanda in 1994; if these authorities in the movie are district authorities, they could be seen as ineffective ‘peace keepers’ from the conscription and genocide committed on the people of their respective districts by the Panem state), for reasons I forget, with squirrels she had killed. The Peace Keepers are the ones who are constantly present at the district level and maintain a heavy, and implicitly violent, watch on the citizens.

Shortly thereafter, the Katniss and her sister dress as well as they can for selection of the “Tributes.” The ceremony, called the Reaping, is a lottery for two people and the woman in charge of the drawing is giddy in anticipation in juxtaposition to the dumbstruck children. Before the drawing takes place, she shows a brief propagandistic clip that displays the honor bestowed on the victors of the Hunger Games and how the Hunger Games are a tradition. In order to spare her sister who is drawn, Katniss “volunteers” herself to fight in lieu of her sister. The Peace Keepers -clad with white jumpsuits, helmets and night sticks- march Katniss forward to the stage with her arms held tightly as if she were a danger to someone.

After a pageant-like entry of the Tributes to the ominous Capitol -which, unlike the districts insofar as they are presented in the movie, seems very large and modern with skyscrapers and advanced computer technology- and a greeting from the President who cheers the Tributes with a familiar “May the odds ever be in your favor” (as is mocked by Katniss and Peeta, the other Tribute from her district), the Tributes are provided with a week of battle training.

Skipping ahead to where the Tributes are actually participating in The Hunger Games, various characters form bands to survive. As the OP notes, the best hunter of the games is immediately surrounded with others forming a strong retinue including Peeta, who admitted a few days before that he was in love with Katniss on national television, but this is not known until the group is hunting for Katniss in particular. Katniss is isolated from everyone until she finds a girl named Rue who helps her out in a pinch. These associations may fly in the face of Hobbes’ prediction of a war of all against all in the absence of government- this state literally being the one in which all Tributes are placed; what instead happened were groups of hunters voluntarily grouped together and defended each other in the interest of survival and of killing others outside the group. Of course, this interpretation is somewhat a refutation of Hobbes’ theory of the origin of the state and is somewhat grasping for a support of Oppenheimer’s account of the origins of such (the idea he advances being that states were originally groups of criminals who settled in lands of wealth for continuous plunder); understandably, this latter part of Oppenheimer’s theory does not come into fruition given the limited timeframe of the movie and of the lives of the members.

While the Tributes are killing each other, they are being actively watched by the Panem nation. There are constant conferences between the president and the man who is actively running the plot of the games. The conversation that the president has with this man that stands out is one in which he states the following with regards to the people of Panem:

The only thing that motivates people more than fear is hope. But too much hope is a dangerous thing. A little hope provides a spark that keeps people going, striving.

Indeed, it seems that the games are used as a ploy of control on the people rather than as the innocuous tradition that the state would have the people believe. The districts compete against each other -for honor and favor- much like political factions do (apart from the slaughtering each other in the wilderness part). In line with the divide et impera strategy used by states regarding political factions, these games benefit the image of the Panem state: The focus of the games shifts from whether such “games” or the sate are legitimate to a my district is better than yours! mentality as the constant mention of district honor of within the film implies.

Towards the end of the movie, the Tributes are promised that rather than having a single victor there may be two victors if both are from the same district (in the politics at the Capitol, this is to prevent potential uprisings if the apparent love story between Katniss and Peeta is ended by one’s untimely death; the citizens of Panem are already rioting due to the murder of Rue earlier in the film- to preserve the legitimacy of the games, the Panem state has no option, but to preserve the love story between Katniss and Peeta for as long as possible). Finally, Peeta and Katniss are the last two standing and are waiting to be brought home as victors of the Hunger Games.

Unfortunately, an announcement is made that the rules have been changed again such that there may be only one victor. After a brief pause -and many gasps in the theater I might add- there is a change in plans. Peeta says something to the effect of, “Go ahead and kill me. The Capitol needs a victor.” Katniss reaches in her pocket for poisonous berries and says something like, “No, they don’t.” The two are about to kill themselves together when an embarrassing announcement comes on saying, “STOP! STOP! Ladies and gentlemen, we have our victors.” Understandably the Capitol fears that uprisings will occur if the two are not prevented from killing themselves (out of love). The state has to preserve its supposed legitimacy.

I’d recommend the film for anyone to see. I’m going to have to read the series now, as I’ve read that the movie doesn’t capture the entirety of the book from which it is based- supposedly, it cuts out a lot.