Mike_L wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

purplerat wrote:FFS, this is like when people see pictures of kids in a bathtub and think it's child pornography.

Or pictures of children seated in adult's laps. That worries us too now. It could mean something funny is going on.

Won't anybody think of the children! But don't think of them too much or else you are a perv.

The DOD thinks about the children...

<snip>

Then there's sponsoring and consulting on Hollywood films (a partnership that goes back to the dawn of the film industry). Journalist Nick Turse, in his book The Complex, quotes Transformers (2007) producer Ian Bryce enthusing about the movie's Pentagon ties: "We want to cooperate with the Pentagon to show them off in the most positive light, and the Pentagon likewise wants to give us the resources to be able to do that."

[OP article]

Just to address this as I’m a fan of war movies, mostly the older ones.

Some of the classic war films simply couldn’t have been made without the cooperation of the military. The film’s budget would skyrocket to the point where a studio would nip it in the bud. Take an aircraft carrier as an example. Now granted, with enough CGI it may well be possible, but for older films they had to rely on the real thing. The only way to do it was through mutual cooperation between the studio and the military. I see nothing wrong with that. The military provided ships, planes, military equipment and sometimes actual military personnel. The old adage... ‘Don’t bite the hand...’ fits the bill.

Naturally the military will be shown in a good light, but movies aren’t history, and regardless of the liberties taken with a story to show a positive image, Hollywood has never been known for accurate history, and why should they? A movie theatre isn’t where one goes for an education, it’s for entertainment and enjoyment only.

I simply fail to see why Nick Turse is trying to score points on this issue. It’s never been a secret to movie buffs or even to the casual movie goer. Many of the films during the opening credits, thank whatever branch(s) sponsored them, and in the closing credits, they credit the military advisors and the bases etc. that were used during filming.

I can only assume that he’s simply throwing shit against the wall and hoping that some of it will stick.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

Or pictures of children seated in adult's laps. That worries us too now. It could mean something funny is going on.

Won't anybody think of the children! But don't think of them too much or else you are a perv.

The DOD thinks about the children...

<snip>

Then there's sponsoring and consulting on Hollywood films (a partnership that goes back to the dawn of the film industry). Journalist Nick Turse, in his book The Complex, quotes Transformers (2007) producer Ian Bryce enthusing about the movie's Pentagon ties: "We want to cooperate with the Pentagon to show them off in the most positive light, and the Pentagon likewise wants to give us the resources to be able to do that."

[OP article]

Just to address this as I’m a fan of war movies, mostly the older ones.

Some of the classic war films simply couldn’t have been made without the cooperation of the military. The film’s budget would skyrocket to the point where a studio would nip it in the bud. Take an aircraft carrier as an example. Now granted, with enough CGI it may well be possible, but for older films they had to rely on the real thing. The only way to do it was through mutual cooperation between the studio and the military. I see nothing wrong with that. The military provided ships, planes, military equipment and sometimes actual military personnel. The old adage... ‘Don’t bite the hand...’ fits the bill.

Naturally the military will be shown in a good light, but movies aren’t history, and regardless of the liberties taken with a story to show a positive image, Hollywood has never been known for accurate history, and why should they? A movie theatre isn’t where one goes for an education, it’s for entertainment and enjoyment only.

I simply fail to see why Nick Turse is trying to score points on this issue. It’s never been a secret to movie buffs or even to the casual movie goer. Many of the films during the opening credits, thank whatever branch(s) sponsored them, and in the closing credits, they credit the military advisors and the bases etc. that were used during filming.

I can only assume that he’s simply throwing shit against the wall and hoping that some of it will stick.

Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

Ya, he's clearly relying on people's ignorance to score points rather than actually discuss anything honestly. I'm not a huge movie buff but I follow the video game industry close enough to know that "billions each year on video game development" is laughable. Only a handful of the most expensive games ever made crack $100m on development and that is with multi-year development cycles. But the average Joe knows that the video game industry is a multi-billion dollar industry without knowing exactly how that money is spread out so the "billions each year on video game development" is just believable enough to the ignorant while also being shocking to anybody stupid enough to believe it.

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

Since when has disagreement been the same thing as denial? Or is any form of disagreement just "proof" of this massive propaganda?

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda. When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda. Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality. Try watching the inglorious bastards. They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

This is starting to sound like conspiracy theory speak.

willhud9 wrote:Since when has disagreement been the same thing as denial? Or is any form of disagreement just "proof" of this massive propaganda?

Nonsense goes in, nonsense comes out... you can’t explain that.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda. When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda. Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality. Try watching the inglorious bastards. They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

It's not a hard concept. It's just that I don't believe that every representation of the US military is tied into some massive conspiracy/propaganda.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda. When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda. Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality. Try watching the inglorious bastards. They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

Not every portrayal of the military in a positive light is propaganda. Unless the specific use of that image was to directly promote the good of the military/war than it is not propaganda. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor was a bad movie, but just because it depicted our soldiers as good guys does not mean it was automatically propaganda.

You are the one who just keeps making assumptions that this is so.

If you actually watched movies like American Sniper, or The Last Survivor you would know that they are not hero worshipping films or at all propaganda. They show the violent and cruel part of war including the fact that oftentimes soldiers become so desensitized to the killing it directly affects their lives.

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda. When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda. Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality. Try watching the inglorious bastards. They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

It's not a hard concept. It's just that I don't believe that every representation of the US military is tied into some massive conspiracy/propaganda.

What is this "every" bullshit? There is a well documented propaganda campaign, described in policy by the military, described by well known propaganda technique, and your way of exp,aiming this away is "I don't believe EVERY representation is tied to propaganda. No one made that claim. If your claim is that none are part of propaganda, you would clearly be wrong. Since no one can prove any ONE example, there isn't propaganda? Is that your claim?

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda. When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda. Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality. Try watching the inglorious bastards. They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

Not every portrayal of the military in a positive light is propaganda. Unless the specific use of that image was to directly promote the good of the military/war than it is not propaganda. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor was a bad movie, but just because it depicted our soldiers as good guys does not mean it was automatically propaganda.

You are the one who just keeps making assumptions that this is so.

If you actually watched movies like American Sniper, or The Last Survivor you would know that they are not hero worshipping films or at all propaganda. They show the violent and cruel part of war including the fact that oftentimes soldiers become so desensitized to the killing it directly affects their lives.

American sniper is clearly propaganda. It claimed a moral superiority of the American forces. They are the invading force, and committed atrocious war crimes. There is ZERO moral superiority there. Yes, I read the book. It's pathetic.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda.

So the military must always act positive at all times, every time, or any positive representation of it, even if there actually are positive instances of it, is propaganda.

Here's your tinfoil hat, sir

When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda.

So every representation of the military must include examples of collateral damage, torture and bombing of hospitals, even if those things aren't the topic of the representation, otherwise it's propaganda.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality.

Indeed, you require only negative representations of the military, otherwise it's propaganda. That doesn't reflect reality.

Try watching the inglorious bastards.

You mean the movie where they cartoonishly buffoon their way through their missions, doing an excellent job of lambasting the military in an incredibly funny way? Yeah, that's totally propaganda What are you going to do next, tell us Starship Troopers is pro-military propaganda?

They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

I agree that the Chris Kyle stuff is chocked full of military propaganda. Then again, I can actually see things for what they are, since I don't have an axe to grind.

The_Metatron wrote:You're better than me. I got about twenty pages in, and had enough of that bigoted, hateful little prick. I threw the book away.

I don't think I finished it. It was the most pathetic jingoistic piece of crap I've ever tried to read. Had it on audiobook on a road trip. I kept asking myself who would be.ieve this crap?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:
Or he could be pointing out that representing the military in a positive light is propaganda. It's actually one of the propaganda techniques ffs. Your denial of the clearly shown propaganda, even when you describe the technique while denying the label is fascinating to watch.

So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda.

So the military must always act positive at all times, every time, or any positive representation of it, even if there actually are positive instances of it, is propaganda.

Here's your tinfoil hat, sir

When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda.

So every representation of the military must include examples of collateral damage, torture and bombing of hospitals, even if those things aren't the topic of the representation, otherwise it's propaganda.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality.

Indeed, you require only negative representations of the military, otherwise it's propaganda. That doesn't reflect reality.

Try watching the inglorious bastards.

You mean the movie where they cartoonishly buffoon their way through their missions, doing an excellent job of lambasting the military in an incredibly funny way? Yeah, that's totally propaganda What are you going to do next, tell us Starship Troopers is pro-military propaganda?

They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

I agree that the Chris Kyle stuff is chocked full of military propaganda. Then again, I can actually see things for what they are, since I don't have an axe to grind.

If the portrayal is accurate, it's not propaganda. If it whitewashes things it's propaganda. This isn't hard. When the military does things well, and they are portrayed accurately, it's worth celebrating a job well done. It doesn't have to be negative.

As an example, I enjoyed band of brothers. I didn't see glorifying. I didn't see demonizing. I saw people's stories, likely embellished for theatrical purposes. It showed how the replacements came in filled with propaganda. I thought that was well done, not attacking the military.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:
So you admit that this is just about saying that any positive representation of the military is propaganda? Just a page ago you said it was bullshit when I said exactly that.

If the military only acted in positive ways, and the representation was accurate, then it's not propaganda. When the representation is positive, ignoring collateral damage, torture, bombing of hospitals, then it's not accurate, and is propaganda. Somehow the image doesn't reflect the reality. Try watching the inglorious bastards. They represented their sniper in very similar ways to how Chris Kyle was represented. How fucking hard is this concept for you guys?

It's not a hard concept. It's just that I don't believe that every representation of the US military is tied into some massive conspiracy/propaganda.

What is this "every" bullshit? There is a well documented propaganda campaign, described in policy by the military, described by well known propaganda technique, and your way of exp,aiming this away is "I don't believe EVERY representation is tied to propaganda. No one made that claim. If your claim is that none are part of propaganda, you would clearly be wrong. Since no one can prove any ONE example, there isn't propaganda? Is that your claim?

Where the fuck did I, or anybody else for that matter, say there was no propaganda?

The topic of this particular thread is a specific incident in which children were asked a fairly mundane question about branches of the military and your claim is that it must be propaganda. You've been asked to provide any background on the specific incident that shows it was tied to a propaganda campaign and you haven't. All you have is "it's everywhere so it obviously is here too". It's clear that any positive representation of the military is going to be labeled propaganda by you. You've said as much in the highlighted portion above.

The_Metatron wrote:You're better than me. I got about twenty pages in, and had enough of that bigoted, hateful little prick. I threw the book away.

Interesting that just 20 pages in, you were able to determine that Kyle was a ‘bigoted, hateful little prick’.

Except for 'Evil in the Crosshairs', which is from pages 8-10, he talks about his childhood, Bustin’ Broncs, being a cowboy, his abilities as a sniper and how he decided to become a SEAL in the other 17 pages.

The book is 269 pages long, (my edition is 269 pages) yet you threw the other 249 pages away and made such a specific determination about Kyle’s personality.

I wish that I had such skills and only had to read 20 pages of a 269 page book in order to glean all that I need to know about its author.

Lacking those skills I actually had to read the book cover-to-cover before I would be able to comment on its author.

purplerat wrote:

ED209 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

ED209 wrote:

Of course, the quote doesn't say that billions are spent on "America's army" as absolutely everyone who cares to actually read it should be able to see.

The quote about "billions each year" is sandwiched between discussion of America's Army and "route into children's lives". The implication is pretty clear. I get that when dishonesty serves your purpose it's easy to look the other way though.

There is no dishonesty, except in your now-willful and intentional misrepresentation of the quoted passage.

If it were me that had made the error of reading comprehension, I'd be capable of admitting it.

Please show where they are spending "billions a year" on video games. The only way they are getting that number is if any computer or simulation technology is being included. And yes I call labeling any computer or simulation development "video games" dishonest.

Where do you think you are going with those goalposts?