Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry?

[UnSubRocky]

I wish I copied and pasted much of what I wrote back in 2004 on this topic. Saved it to flash drive and kept it handy for times like this. I could have saved a lot of time responding to people, too.

[Bobby]

To Mr Bobby. Thank you for correcting the information I had which was not correct. I did not reply to you because I did not like the tone of your reply. If you would like to contribute to this topic then please try and stay polite. I usually do not respond to hecklers and trolls. Sneery one liners are okay provided that is not all you have got. Some people are just hecklers and that is all that they can manage. Try writing 350 words on this topic and contribute positively. Use USR as an example for you to follow. He disagrees with me but we are not adversaries.

I tried to be polite but you ignored me.
You should have responded and said sorry for posting fake news.
The rest of your posts do contain a lot of truth.
The entertainment industry is brainwashing vulnerable people with bad ideas including:
drug taking,
violence,
gambling,
promiscuous sex,
homosexuality,
false expectations of physical appearance,
ideas that not all people are valued.

[UnSubRocky]

Given the willingness of governments to censor things that would offend the easily offended, if people were that vulnerable to mimic antisocial behaviour on television, books, cinema, etc., without first considering the consequences, we would have seen a ban of the antisocial depictions shown in the entertainment industries quite some time ago.

[Bogan]

USR wrote

Given the willingness of governments to censor things that would offend the easily offended, if people were that vulnerable to mimic antisocial behaviour on television, books, cinema, etc., without first considering the consequences, we would have seen a ban of the antisocial depictions shown in the entertainment industries quite some time ago.

What do you mean "if"?

I am surprised that after all the posts I have directed at you, you still can not see perfectly well that people are very vulnerable to imitating on screen violence, and on screen criminal behaviour? Okay then, your education continues.

Oh, and thank you for being a polite person who can give their opinions and defend their position with reasoned arguments. That puts you a long way ahead of most of the people on this site, who are just heckling morons. They can not debate serious questions like intelligent human beings. They just want to display their class connections by their conformism to the left wing party line. Nobody taught them how to think.

As to the second part of your sentence, you are confusing the censorship of free political speech, the bedrock of democracy, with the censorship of the entertainment and advertising industries. Both of these industries are already censored, and for good reason. It only remains to decide where the boundaries should be. I asked you a polite question which you failed to answer, so I will present it again and answer it myself.

I asked you, that if you believed that the images displayed or the messages transmitted by the media had no effect upon human behaviour, then that must mean that you support the idea that advertisers should be able to advertise products such as alcohol and cigarettes in children's comics, magazines, and TV shows? The fact that you failed to answer, probably means that you are getting the glimmerings of understanding that the media can affect children's behaviour, and that is why we ban such advertising. But it does not just affect children's behaviour, it affects adults as well. My lengthy post on how the tobacco industries sell there products clearly displayed how they do it. They don't say "our brand tastes better" or 'our brand is safer", they use psychology to link their products to the deepest underlying psychological needs of their target demographics. And that works a treat.

"Virginia Slims" were targeted at women because cigarette smoking did reduce the craving for carbohydrates, and heavy smokers were noted for being of thin build. This appealed to the needs of many young women to conform to modern standards of beauty, which is, a thin, athletic body. The brand did not say "'These cigarettes make you slim", it just suggested that it did, and the deep psychological need of many women today to appear slim did the rest. So too, many young men wish to appear manly. Marlboro Red advertisements always depicted a very macho and handsome man in cowboy attire sucking on a Marlboro Red. The very strong psychological needs of young men and boys to appear manly, handsome, and macho, did the rest.

Cigarette advertising works. That is why most western government ban it. it is censorship of the advertising industry, because it has serious social and medical consequences. All of the left wing activist class (who were usually heavy smokers themselves because it fit with their rebellious self image) once united behind the anti smoking banner and they supported the ban on cigarette advertising. But today this same class defends the entertainment industries right to push every kind of anti social message at children and adults, because so many of them just happen to work in this industry. Newspapers and TV stations were once very muted in examining the link between smoking and cancer, because the tobacco companies were once one of their biggest advertisers. Today, this same media never examines the clear link between media messages and anti social behaviour for a very good reason. The news media knows that their mates in the entertainment media have fantastic power in their hands, and they are mates with the entertainment industries celebrity caste. This caste also know the fantastic power they possess to enrich themselves and they do not want their ever declining cinematic standards questioned and limited.

I suspect that the paltry reasons that you gave at the beginning of this topic against censoring the entertainment industries were implanted into your head by the news media on behalf of their mates in the entertainment media? You didn't just dream them up yourself. And you, yourself, probably have no idea where you got them? I think that they were implanted subconsciously. Seriously. The argument they gave you appealed to your subconscious desire to be considered an intelligent, liberal free thinker. So, they implanted in your mind that intelligent, liberal free thinkers oppose censorship of the entertainment industries. Then, because this appealed to your desire, common to everybody, to appear intelligent and liberal, you chanted the mantra that they put inside your head. Which, if you really ever thought about it, makes no sense. I would advise you to watch the movie "The Manchurian Candidate."

Getting back on topic. Do we want childen or emotionally disturbed, low IQ young males, to walk into a schoolroom and start blasting the kids and teachers? If the answer is a firm "no", then why do we tolerate an "artist" like Marilyn Manson writing "songs" endorsing misogyny and validating the notion that a kid should kill other pupils who bully him?" One of Manson's "songs" called "lunchbox" has the lyrics...

"The big bully try to stick his finger in my chest,
But I don't care a good goddam,
Cause I got my lunch box and I am armed real well,
Next motherfucker gonna get my metal,
Pow, pow, pow."

Okay, USR. I presume that you do not want advertisers creating media messages promoting cigarettes to children, because you know it affects children's behaviour, and causes them to smoke? But you are having trouble understanding the concept that if the pop music industry does exactly the same thing, and promotes violent and even massacre behaviour to children, it will cause the least socialised or psychologically disturbed among them to emulate the behaviour? And not just children?

If you can't see it, ma-a-a-a-ate, then all I can say is, it is right there in front of your eyes. You are not looking very hard.

Inter juvenile homicide is now the fastest growing crime statistic in the USA. It may puzzle you as to why this is so, but it does not puzzle me at all. You can blame the easy availability of guns in the USA, and you would be partially right. But the biggest factor is that the entertainment industry does a lot more than just entertain, and they know it. When teenage heart throb Leonardo di Caprio played an alienated schoolboy in the movie "Basketball Diaries", and he walked into class in a long black leather coat and started blasting his teachers and schoolmates with a shotgun, all of a sudden alienated schoolboys across the USA started walking into class in long black leather coats and they did the same thing, for real. Hollywood did become alarmed, and movie producers met in camera to discuss the implications of the movie. Wouldn't you have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting, USR? The upshot is, that Hollywood does not make movies with scenes like that anymore. Anymore than they do scenes of kids showing how tough they are by lying on highway centerlines. Or about how to hijack an airplane and get a ransom. Too many smart people might put two and two together.

Most western governments do not censor the entertainment industries much at all. This is because the entertainment industries were very heavily censored in the past because governments of those days were very aware of the power of the media to affect people's behaviour. But this censorship was very heavy handed and so strict, that any media importer could get into real trouble and be fined heavily if it was discovered that any media he had imported contained any message the State or Federal governments considered anti social. Even All Quite On The Western Front was banned in Australia because it depicted German infantrymen as normal human beings.

Other books on the Banned List included Das Kapital, Ulysses, Brave New world, A Farewell To Arms, Psychoanalysis, Current Psychology, and Shakespeare's Venus And Adonis. Any books with any references to birth control were summarily expunged. I could go on and on about how severe censorship in Australia was, but that will have to do. With the Swinging 60's people were getting fed up of government controls and they were demanding the liberalisation of the entertainment industries. It was hardly surprising that the left wing activist class were the main proponents, as so many of them worked in these industries. They claimed that the entertainment media was just for entertainment, and had no control over people's behaviour. Even though governments of the day knew better, the people were clamoring for reform. The activists probably believed it themselves, because it was definitely in their own interests to believe it.

It was a classic case where the heavy hand of government censorship had pushed the pendulum too far to the right, that when the pendulum swung, it went too far the other way.

Today, the bizarre and dangerous behaviour of many young people is a direct result of their lack of socialisation combined with an entertainment industry which is putting very dangerous ideas into their heads, and presenting very anti social and even very dangerous behaviour as scripts for how to get a positive self image.

[Bogan]

Bobby wrote

I tried to be polite but you ignored me.

You were not polite at all. Your first post on this topic did not reference any of the numerous points I was trying to get across, it simply zeroed in on one fact I had written which was incorrect, and you cried "Bullshit!" it implied that I was lying. I was not lying. It was something I had read from a publication which I think was written in good faith, and I took it to be a fact. Nobody can verify every single fact that they read or hear.

Bobby wrote

You should have responded and said sorry for posting fake news.

If you had responded as USR has done and tried to engage in a positive way to what I was debating, then I would have. But too many people on debate sites are just hecklers who never contribute anything themselves. They just stand around and heckle with sneery one liners. They think it makes them look smart. It does the opposite. I rarely respond to such people and you appeared to be conforming these low IQ specimens by your own sneery one liner. Sneery one liners are okay, everybody does them. But never contributing to any discussion and making every submission a sneery one liner is not debating. it is heckling.

I thank you once again for correcting my mistake and I will adjust my notes accordingly.

Bobby wrote

The rest of your posts do contain a lot of truth. The entertainment industry is brainwashing vulnerable people with bad ideas including: drug taking, violence, gambling, promiscuous sex, homosexuality, false expectations of physical appearance, ideas that not all people are valued.

Thank you. Then you are not an adversary? Your mistake was to come on to this debate and appear to be an adversary who was little more than a heckler. I look forward to you supporting me on this topic with your own contributions, or at least allow me to further your education.

[lisa jones]

I think Lisa likes it? All I need is one intelligent pupil.

I was going to let Bogan's statement speak for itself. But, it was funny to read that.

[lisa jones]

Bogan, I don't want you to think I'm trying to undermine your topic in any way. Here's something more recent on the subject matter.

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/bl ... -addiction

This article is dated March 2022.

Note : There are hyper links in the above article which redirect you to research papers. I've scanned it quickly and will read it closely in a few moments.

Well well we'll...the current view seems to concur with Bogan's.

UnSub your views however thorough.... are problematic because they're stilled in time. You might wish to consider updating your anachronistic knowledge on the topic. Just a suggestion.

[Bogan]

Thank you for supporting my premise with your information, Lisa. I think that we can get USR to think straight because he seems to be capable of debating in a civilised way, and he asks pertinent questions, both of which speaks well for his IQ. Your support may even get Mr John Smith to stop acting like an immature person and get him to debate in a respectful and positive manner. He may have a brain but if so, he is doing his utmost to make other people think otherwise. I will remove him from my Troll list if he begins debating fairly and takes this subject seriously.

[lisa jones]

Thank you for supporting my premise with your information, Lisa. I think that we can get USR to think straight because he seems to be capable of debating in a civilised way, and he asks pertinent questions, both of which speaks well for his IQ. Your support may even get Mr John Smith to stop acting like an immature person and get him to debate in a respectful and positive manner. He may have a brain but if so, he is doing his utmost to make other people think otherwise. I will remove him from my Troll list if he begins debating fairly and takes this subject seriously.

Mr B

John Smith is a POS who never finished Yr 9 because he was expelled for mucking up too much. As you can see....he's still doing that HERE.

Warning : Please do NOT enter the Race topic holding a cup of tea (like I did). Why? There's a certain picture in that topic and the POS aka Snotty Smutty Smith made a comment about it and mentioned Bobby in that comment. As a result of that comment my tea sprayed all over my IPhone and tank top!

[UnSubRocky]

USR wrote

Given the willingness of governments to censor things that would offend the easily offended, if people were that vulnerable to mimic antisocial behaviour on television, books, cinema, etc., without first considering the consequences, we would have seen a ban of the antisocial depictions shown in the entertainment industries quite some time ago.

What do you mean "if"?

I am surprised that after all the posts I have directed at you, you still can not see perfectly well that people are very vulnerable to imitating on screen violence, and on screen criminal behaviour?

Let us get things perfectly straight. People are not "very vulnerable" that they are imitating on screen violence and criminal behaviour. They are using on screen violence and criminality depicted in the media to try and cover their arses whenever they get caught out. Christians like to cover their arses about why people are turning away from the church. They love to blame societal changes for why people do not want to believe in a benevolent zombie monster. But, they do not want to take responsibility for the fact that society does not like the suppressive nature of superstition. The NRA love to blame the entertainment media for gun violence. But their double think disallows them from seeing that if they try and embellish the problems alleged of the entertainment industry, the issue with gun violence has come to a point where the NRA are figuratively "shooting themselves in the foot" further discouraging people joining their organisation and furthering encouraging restrictions on firearms and bringing in new gun laws.

People are not dumbarses. The amount of people that scoff at nonsensical depictions of antisocial behaviour only helps my argument. The entertainment industry reinforces people's motivation by seeing what is depicted on screen. People act either consciously or subconsciously to counteract what they find objectionable.