No system of government can withstand 50% of its participants being bad actors.
I honestly don't know how we get out of this situation without aggressively litigating politicians that have committed crimes. That requires overwhelming political will, though, and it's obvious now how important Fox News and Right Wing radio has been to creating an atmosphere where that will doesn't exist.
Part of it is how you engage with the media. I worked in film for a while and when I watch a well-made TV show, I'm constantly analyzing the shot composition, editing, and sound.
What lens is this shot on? Where is the camera placed? How is it moving? What does that say about this character or moment?
When does a scene choose to use it's closest shot on a character? Why that moment and not another?
How is the story or scene structured and do I think that works? What order are they revealing information to us and why?
When the scene pivots, what are they doing with craft to underline that. How is the balance of power between the characters changing and how is that being visualized?
Whose scene is it? Is that choice surprising? When they chose to show a character reacting rather than the one speaking, why?
Are the actors making surprising choices in their performance? Are they playing big moments small or small moments big? What ticks are they giving the character? What are they trying to say about who this person is with all that.
Visual media, like any other craft, is filled with hundreds of intentional choices every frame. Taking it in doesn't have to be a passive experience on the viewers part. We don't listen consider reading a book passive, and watching a film or television series doesn't have to be pace either.
Just like books, not all television has the same depth to it's choices, but as you actively take in various pieces of media, you'll start to get a feel for the level of intentionality sleeping was made with. Like Andor has a lot more intentionality in it's craft than The Book of Boba Fett.
I'm not saying that it's good to watch hours of TV every day, but the time that you do spend watching television need not be time that you're brain isn't exercising itself.
I would argue the people in this thread flipping out about being asked to refer to minorites in a way that doesn't have a ton of historical baggage and has been empirically shown to promote better empathy responses are the over-sensitive ones, lol.
Like, it's all right to get corrected now and then. The difference between acting bigoted and being okay is literary just a simple "I didn't realize that was wrong, I'll try and not do that in the future. Thanks for checking me on it".
I grew up in a conservative suburb in the South and got saddled with a lot of unfortunate ideas. I make mistakes, use questionable terms, and misgender people by accident somewhere regularly.
I've literally never had a problem if I apologize and affirm it was ignorance on my part, or a mistake I know I make and am working on, but that I am trying to be better. Just be open to change and don't be a dipshit about it and it's not an issue.
If you think it's an issue it's likely that you're being a dipshit about it and making things harder for yourself than they need to be.
Because it leads to measurable difference in empathy response:
A 2008 experiment researched teenagers' perception of epilepsy with respect to people-first language. Teenagers from a summer camp were divided into two groups. One group was asked questions using the term "people with epilepsy", and the other group was asked using the term "epileptics", with questions including "Do you think that people with epilepsy/epileptics have more difficulties at school?" and "Do you have prejudice toward people with epilepsy/epileptics?" The study showed that the teenagers had higher "stigma perception" on the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy when hearing the phrase "epileptics" as opposed to "people with epilepsy".
The human brain is weird and wired wrong for modern life. The best way to master our worst impulses is to try and do small things that nudge it in the right direction.
If you've ever done Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, it's a similar idea. Identify behaviours you can practice that help you think the way you want to think.
Turn out it's the definition of rational as it can be empirically supported. From further up in the thread:
There actually is proper data showing that this kind of thing can actually make a meaningful difference, and surely we're all evidence-driven people here, right?
A 2008 experiment researched teenagers' perception of epilepsy with respect to people-first language. Teenagers from a summer camp were divided into two groups. One group was asked questions using the term "people with epilepsy", and the other group was asked using the term "epileptics", with questions including "Do you think that people with epilepsy/epileptics have more difficulties at school?" and "Do you have prejudice toward people with epilepsy/epileptics?" The study showed that the teenagers had higher "stigma perception" on the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy when hearing the phrase "epileptics" as opposed to "people with epilepsy".
It's because the producers want their counterparts spending time, energy, and perceived social capital negotiating over it rather than the things the Producers actually worry about having to give up.
IMO it's pretty transparent, but creative people are pretty scared of AI right now so it might be a good bargaining tactic if they can get rank and file Union members to tie up the negotiatiors by reacting.
Crowd extensions are already pretty common with traditional VFX techniques.
I worked in Hollywood editorial for a bit and, IMO, the producers are playing up the AI stuff so that said stuff can be given to the writers and actors as a "victory" instead of the real spectres in the room:
streaming residuals need to get the same payout and transparency as home video and syndication did
streaming numbers need to be made available to creators to facilitate the above.
the 'mini-room' system that totally disconnects writers from the productions they are writing for needs to be broken down.
Call me crazy but I think the top one looks better. The art style loses something in the bottom. The character and the background blend into each other two much, there's line work outlining the character model that gets lost.
zalack @ zalack @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 84Joined 2 yr. ago
No system of government can withstand 50% of its participants being bad actors.
I honestly don't know how we get out of this situation without aggressively litigating politicians that have committed crimes. That requires overwhelming political will, though, and it's obvious now how important Fox News and Right Wing radio has been to creating an atmosphere where that will doesn't exist.