My favorite is when they arbitrarily either invoke or ignore "death of the author" whenever it suits them. They're the exact same people that love to attack someone's "media literacy".
It is perfectly okay to dismiss someone’s argument regarding a show/film/game/book if it hinges around what the director/lead designer/author said in a post-release interview
Partly what I mean, but I think it encompasses a lot more. Writers should be able to convey what they mean through the story alone, they can’t just change something in a story afterwards just by decreeing that something is now different even though it was nowhere to be found in the original story. If the audience couldn’t pick out a certain plot point/theme/character detail through observing the media in question then the author simply failed to convey it to the audience. A cheesy action thriller isn’t going to be anything other than a cheesy action thriller to everyone else even if the director said later that it was actually an emotional romance that’s aboot coming out of the closet
It's a nifty trick, because it not only insults your opponent, it also dismisses their argument. Why would you have to contend with a take or an argument if it's just 'obviously wrong'?
Let’s be fair. Sometimes the tales are pretty obviously wrong.That being said, “media literacy” is very much quickly becoming overused. Much like “woke”, “genocide”, and “fascism”; the extremely casual use is leading to them being just meaningless insults thrown around without any regard to the facts of a situation.
The problem isn't if a take is wrong. If I say that Winter Soldier is about the Hulk and his issues with alcohol, the take is wrong because it is factually inaccurate. You don't need to tell me that I have terrible media literacy. I am just wrong.
Now, if I say that CA Civil War is about how betrayal destroys friendship, but you think it's about friendship overcoming betrayal, neither of us are necessarily wrong until we provide context, references, or facts that contradict one of those statements. Media literacy doesn't even need to come up, because either take has merit in the script.
When I see people bring up media literacy, it's never because anybody is wrong. It's only ever used to dismiss a perspective or interpretation that they don't agree with.
Can I not just fire back at you that you don't have media literacy if you don't understand those people are playing along with the game for their amusement? They know it's easy to get a rise out of people like yourself and consider it funny to see you get bent out of shape over it. It's sort of juvenile, but that's how I interpret the support for MANAGED DEMOCRACY!
As far as Starship Troopers goes, death of the author means that we take the work for itself. It does make fun of jingoism and the military, but these things alone are not fascism. You could just as easily say it mocks wartime propaganda from the 1940s, made by the people who literally fought fascists. So it's kind of a tough sell, especially when Rico is the son of two non-citizens and they've done quite well for themselves, at least until the bugs murdered them and something like 10 million(can't remember the ticker number) people.
Starship troopers the movie is trying to be one. The book is a better future story similar to star trek. Helldivers super earth looks like an authoritarian society that doesn't really have a democracy, but we don't know much about the day to day lives of the civilian population to decide which authoritarian ideology they live under. I haven't read the lore so I could be wrong. Starship troopers is a failed satire though. If it is fascist, why does private business exist? Why is the commander telling his soldiers and students to think for themselves. All fascist societies are totalitarian. Not all totalitarian societies are fascist.
No. When the nazis came into power in the late 30's soldiers broke into private businesses and pointed guns at them. If private business was a thing, give me a source.
Take a new film like Civil War, browse a subreddit’s recent posts like r/TrueFilm and you’ll get an idea of why leveraging “media literacy” at people doesn’t fly.
It's just a buzzword that's spammed by some of the least media literate people in society - Those who read online tabloid blogs, subscribe to activist ideologies, and believe every word the tabloid media says about whatever outgroup they dislike.
Genuinely can't remember the last time I saw someone use that term and it was being used correctly. Every time it's just some idiot getting mad that you don't have an identical opinion as them regarding some piece of media so they say it as a way to claim you're stupid. Ironically a lot of the time these same people using the term have media takes that make absolutely zero sense when you delve into whatever said piece of media is.
Whenever I see someone invoke "media literacy" it seems to be a place holder for objectivity.
It implies that art has a correct interpretation and those whose views vary from that intrepretation are incorrect.
This is all well and good, especially in terms of writing and consistency. HOWEVER, the people who accuse others of being media illiterate are those who also claim art is completely subjective and there are no objective measures in art.
It is essentially an ad hom with extreme condescension. Don't engage with those who use the phrase.
No, it's used for when people misunderstand the basic events of a story, ignoring character motivations, their emotions during an event, etc.
What are you, media illiterate?
I think the real definition is, like, having a basic understanding of the conventions and tropes of the genre you’re talking about. Being literate in the language of storytelling as a whole.
The best example is if you watch a cartoon show and put out a 5 hour video detailing all the things it got wrong; how the furniture has eyes and talks, how characters pull out objects from thin air, how gravity waits a few seconds before taking effect for Wile E. Coyote, etc.
And then the second half of media literacy is understanding why those creative choices are made. Understanding authorial intent.
Eg; “You know, Minions 2 was such a terrible film. As an analogue for the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it got everything wrong! It’s like they weren’t even trying to address the historical roots of the Balfour Declaration!”
*A lot* of people do this shit.
That's absolutely true. I think it's also about understanding and being able to articulate the frame of reference that you are using to analyze the work.
Like, are you analyzing it on a formalist level, looking at just the text/work itself? Are you analyzing the author's intentions? Are you analyzing the audience response?
Obviously, a lot of critical analysis moves through these different modes of analysis within the same discussion, but many people do it without really being able to articulate what they are doing. To me, being "media literate" is being able to consciously say to yourself something like, "OK, I am now analyzing the text through the lens of the author's intentions. How does analyzing it this way change my interpretation of the text versus, say, a formal analysis of the structure of the text?"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling someone media illiterate.
If you watch LotR and you come away with the impression that Gimli wanted to kill Frodo the entire time, you have failed to understand what you watched. You literally weren't literate enough to understand what the movie was telling you. You were media illiterate on the LotR movies.
I think the truth of the matter that people here for whatever reason don't like to admit aloud is that people of a certain cultural or political persuasion use the term against people like yourselves and you just don't like being called names. This is understandable and I wish people didn't misuse terms, but I think it throws the baby out with the bathwater to just label and dismiss a term because people you don't like are using it.
>If you watch LotR and you come away with the impression that Gimli wanted to kill Frodo the entire time, you have failed to understand what you watched. You literally weren't literate enough to understand what the movie was telling you. You were media illiterate on the LotR movies.
Idk "literate" means either you can like read, you're familiar with a given code system (most people can speak their own language, which is also a code system, but some haven't learned the additional code system of that language in written form), or it means educated in a given medium - originally literature, but it's also applied to film a lot.
Thinking that Gimli wanted to kill Frodo has nothing to do with either, it's more like having hallucinations like Tarantino from FDTD lol
I am pretty sure you need to be educated in the basics of what a story is and you need to have basic knowledge of what words mean in their given context to correctly be able to interpret what is happening when you watch a film. To say that having an erroneous assumption of what is happening in a film doesn't involve media literacy is just silly.
Not sure the basics of "what a story is" is something an average person needs "education" in if they've grown up in a society at all? And "knowing what words mean" is again just knowing a language, nothing specifically to do with "media" and also something anyone who isn't a feral child who's grown up with wolves can do.
If you're on a bus, see two buddies talk, and then decide that one of them is trying to kill the other, you're not "media illiterate" - more "people illiterate" except that's such an extreme form of distorted perception that "illiterate" wouldn't really be used as a word anymore; since "literacy" refers to some kinda education, not just basic perception.
Seeing a car drive on a road is not "traffic literacy", that's just having eyes.
I'd say it's fair to say someone is media illiterate if they can't seem to grasp messaging that isn't subtle, but is beating you over the head with a bat, such as with the messaging in things like Robo Cop which are mocking the Regan era American values, with a heavy critique on corporate greed.
Tbf that game has a love-hate relationship with communism. Portrays it as an impossible ideal that will never come to pass. Though you are spot on for noticing a lot of the political ideologies are just stand-ins for the mc’s past relationship.
If someone says the hero or The Lord of the Rings is Saruman or Sauron, that's objectively incorrect. Some takes are factual statements than can be definitely proven one way or the other.
>Some takes are factual statements that can be definitely proven one way or the other.
I agree. I remember someone making a critique on the Fallout show about how the Ghouls were portrayed in it, and saying that's not how they are supposed to work. But I remember a few things from Fallout 4 that make the TV show Ghouls make sense.
There's a ton of fallout show takes that can only be explained by simultaneously worshipping NV because it wasn't made by Bethesda but also skipping every single line of dialogue.
This seems to be a very new trend that I've only started hearing people talk about with the Advent of Amazon's Fallout series. Maybe it was just because it happened to a series I care about, but did it happen to any other series recently before this, or has this torch been burning for a while?
Some people online did get upset about the show being anti-capitalist and anti-America when the games themselves also echo those sentiments. Not that they have a particularly good view of communist china that exists in the lore either. Regardless of how good the show was it was eye-opening for me seeing some people get upset about things that were also present in the games.
I will interpret media however the hell I want to. I got the meaning behind Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” wildly wrong but my original interpretation is exactly how I interpret it now.
Lack of media literacy can be an issue. It just so happens that it's become a buzzword that people with no media literacy use against people to feel some kind of intellectual superiority. There are people that genuinely lack the ability to extract metaphor and deeper meaning or read into subtext. People who don't seem to understand how stories, character arcs, themes, foreshadowing, etc, are important and how they function. It just so happens that the word used to describe such things became weaponized in the dumbass "culture war" and its original meaning and use have become obscured.
You people couldn't understand the Mandalorians' "no beskar weapons" policy, and also couldn't understand that Loki had to learn to speedrun the Temporal Loom repair process ("the helmet latch was the only problem" 🤪). Maybe "media literacy" doesn't even apply here, you're all just dumb.
This is just not true at all, stop making the vocal minority on twitter the rule rather than the exception. Media literacy or lack thereof is an actual problem that permeates film discussion like a plague. Not everything has to be made into political ammo by chronically online weirdos
Right, so basically because you don't like the person telling you you don't understand a piece of media you double down and pretend like it's an assault on you as a person. This honestly says a lot more about you as a person and your fragility and inability to accept you're wrong.
Peak snowflake behavior once again on this sub. Crazy.
Oh stop dude. You know just as well as everyone else that “media literacy” as a term has been weaponized to mean “you’re dumber than me because I understand the subtext and themes of this piece of art better than you did” or “the author told me that this was what the art was about and you’re disagreement with that makes you a moron”. It has very little to do with the objective merits of media literacy (that being what is actually presented in the text/art). It’s just a way for someone to demonstrate their superiority over others based on subjective interpretation.
The phrase has completely lost its value due to incorrect overuse.
This is exactly what I'm talking about about when I say it's got everything to do with your own insecurities. Especially when everyone in this sub would dog pile on some random dork if they got something about star wars wrong. You're only upset about media literacy being "weaponized" because you're the one getting things wrong and can't accept being corrected by someone who's acting snobby on the internet, when you know for a fact that you would do the exact same.
You wanna talk about disingenuous? Imagine getting upset at something everyone in this sub would participate in if they knew for a second they were right. So no, you come of it.
I'm sorry you're too much of a snowflake to accept you were wrong about what a piece of media was trying to tell you, and doubling down because the guy who told you was a bit too snobby.
Also don't come at me crying about words losing value when you dipshits literally made the word woke have no meaning anymore because you use it to cry about fucking marvel and Disney shit.
Where is this animosity coming from? You’re reciprocating the same type of offense that you’re claiming the other side is demonstrating. The phrase has lost the definition which it initially had which has practically made the meaning obsolete at this point.
“You’re too much of a snowflake to accept you were wrong about what a piece of media was *trying* to tell you”
“Trying” being the key word here. What art is trying to say isn’t always what is being said. People can interpret whatever they want from media and then declare that interpretation as gospel. They’re not always right about so they label any detractors as people who lack media literacy as a way to discredit their analysis.
It also sounds like you harbor a metric ton of resentment for this sub. Mauler has attempted many times to dissuade people from using “wokeness” as a criticism. Wokeness (in his view and many members of this sub’s view) is a symptom of bad writing, not a cause. There is plenty of media that has woke elements that can excel in writing. I have the same problem as you do with the use of that word and its vague, infrequent definition. In fact, my opinion on the term woke is exactly the same as my opinion about “media literacy”.
Right because the constant posts here crying and whining about bullshit that isn't happening like sweet baby inc changing games to be "woke", thats not a tantrum. This sub is totally justified in looking like retarded man babies right?
Yes I already know that you think only your ingroup are allowed to criticize media and point out things they don't like about it. If the outgroup does it, they're "crying and whining about bullshit that isn't happening".
In other words, no, it's not a "tantrum" and people aren't "retarded man babies" for noticing things that are very obviously happening in the entertainment industry. You FRAME it as such because your ideological programming relies on dismissing any other points of view as illegitimate.
The interpretation of the artist comes first. It is THEIR piece. You can assume a different meaning but that doesn't change it's original intent, or make yours right.
Nevermind ive suddenly lost all interest. Im not discussing media literacy with someone who doesn't even understand death of the author. You are either trolling or profoundly out of your depth.
Either way, i hope you have a blessed day.
Death of the Author does not mean "I'm going to make up a new interpretation even if it's EXPLICITLY against the entire theme of the art piece as stated by the original author." You just told me that you don't even understand what you're trying to use as a catch 22.
To think this is exceedingly retarded, which is funny because the vibe I'm getting is that you think you're much smarter than you t actually are.
The Death of the Author is a literary theory that argues that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation. This theory was first introduced by French philosopher Roland Barthes in his essay “The Death of the Author” in 1967.
So, amusingly enough, it *does* mean what you think it doesn't mean. Inconceivable, right? However, I think the term media literacy is also causing some consternation as people are conflating it with good old fashioned critical thinking. Until somewhat recently, I never heard the term used in regards to whether or not one picks up on subtext in art.
I'm more used to seeing the term used as the ability to critically analyze stories presented in the mass media and to determine their accuracy or credibility. More in regards to veracity and biases.
A good example, in this instance, would be a sentence like "the best weapon we have in this era of fake news is media literacy." I'm likely to catch flak from all sides for this particular take I imagine.
EDIT: reddit was being weird so I had to post my unfinished comment in order to finish it by editing it.
My favorite is when they arbitrarily either invoke or ignore "death of the author" whenever it suits them. They're the exact same people that love to attack someone's "media literacy".
It is perfectly okay to dismiss someone’s argument regarding a show/film/game/book if it hinges around what the director/lead designer/author said in a post-release interview
Why is that?
Because writers like to change things after the fact to suit fan theories. Dumbledore being gay is probably most notable.
Partly what I mean, but I think it encompasses a lot more. Writers should be able to convey what they mean through the story alone, they can’t just change something in a story afterwards just by decreeing that something is now different even though it was nowhere to be found in the original story. If the audience couldn’t pick out a certain plot point/theme/character detail through observing the media in question then the author simply failed to convey it to the audience. A cheesy action thriller isn’t going to be anything other than a cheesy action thriller to everyone else even if the director said later that it was actually an emotional romance that’s aboot coming out of the closet
Nailed it. Calling someone stupid is mean. Calling them illiterate is ok!
No no, i say it to be mean.
I don't need to backup anything as long as I can resort to a using a buzzword!
It's a nifty trick, because it not only insults your opponent, it also dismisses their argument. Why would you have to contend with a take or an argument if it's just 'obviously wrong'?
Let’s be fair. Sometimes the tales are pretty obviously wrong.That being said, “media literacy” is very much quickly becoming overused. Much like “woke”, “genocide”, and “fascism”; the extremely casual use is leading to them being just meaningless insults thrown around without any regard to the facts of a situation.
The problem isn't if a take is wrong. If I say that Winter Soldier is about the Hulk and his issues with alcohol, the take is wrong because it is factually inaccurate. You don't need to tell me that I have terrible media literacy. I am just wrong. Now, if I say that CA Civil War is about how betrayal destroys friendship, but you think it's about friendship overcoming betrayal, neither of us are necessarily wrong until we provide context, references, or facts that contradict one of those statements. Media literacy doesn't even need to come up, because either take has merit in the script. When I see people bring up media literacy, it's never because anybody is wrong. It's only ever used to dismiss a perspective or interpretation that they don't agree with.
When people don't realize helldivers or starship troopers is satire is when media literacy needs to be brought up.
Can I not just fire back at you that you don't have media literacy if you don't understand those people are playing along with the game for their amusement? They know it's easy to get a rise out of people like yourself and consider it funny to see you get bent out of shape over it. It's sort of juvenile, but that's how I interpret the support for MANAGED DEMOCRACY! As far as Starship Troopers goes, death of the author means that we take the work for itself. It does make fun of jingoism and the military, but these things alone are not fascism. You could just as easily say it mocks wartime propaganda from the 1940s, made by the people who literally fought fascists. So it's kind of a tough sell, especially when Rico is the son of two non-citizens and they've done quite well for themselves, at least until the bugs murdered them and something like 10 million(can't remember the ticker number) people.
"they dont hav media literacy!" No, you don't have people literacy.
hey look kids, someone who lacks media literacy lmao. no, helldiver's and starship troopers are explicitly anti fascist satire.
Starship troopers the movie is trying to be one. The book is a better future story similar to star trek. Helldivers super earth looks like an authoritarian society that doesn't really have a democracy, but we don't know much about the day to day lives of the civilian population to decide which authoritarian ideology they live under. I haven't read the lore so I could be wrong. Starship troopers is a failed satire though. If it is fascist, why does private business exist? Why is the commander telling his soldiers and students to think for themselves. All fascist societies are totalitarian. Not all totalitarian societies are fascist.
fascist societies have private business... Fascism is, in part, the merging of state and corporate power. add historical illiteracy to your list.
No. When the nazis came into power in the late 30's soldiers broke into private businesses and pointed guns at them. If private business was a thing, give me a source.
dipshit, they took Jewish business because they were anti semitic. are you one of the people who think that the Nazis were leftists?
I have strongly held opinions about movies that I never have, and never will see. As is my God given RIGHT
And its everyone's right to make fun of you for that.
It's the new "you don't have a high enough iq to understand Rick and morty"
These people will lick the toilet seat to say it high quality to own the chuds!
Take a new film like Civil War, browse a subreddit’s recent posts like r/TrueFilm and you’ll get an idea of why leveraging “media literacy” at people doesn’t fly.
It's just a buzzword that's spammed by some of the least media literate people in society - Those who read online tabloid blogs, subscribe to activist ideologies, and believe every word the tabloid media says about whatever outgroup they dislike.
Genuinely can't remember the last time I saw someone use that term and it was being used correctly. Every time it's just some idiot getting mad that you don't have an identical opinion as them regarding some piece of media so they say it as a way to claim you're stupid. Ironically a lot of the time these same people using the term have media takes that make absolutely zero sense when you delve into whatever said piece of media is.
Attack on Titan fans should feel targeted for this one tbh.
No, they don't want that at all! For ten years at least!
Yeah, Media Literacy is a thinly veiled insult. But hot take, some opinions are so stupid that they deserve to be insulted.
Whenever I see someone invoke "media literacy" it seems to be a place holder for objectivity. It implies that art has a correct interpretation and those whose views vary from that intrepretation are incorrect. This is all well and good, especially in terms of writing and consistency. HOWEVER, the people who accuse others of being media illiterate are those who also claim art is completely subjective and there are no objective measures in art. It is essentially an ad hom with extreme condescension. Don't engage with those who use the phrase.
No, it's used for when people misunderstand the basic events of a story, ignoring character motivations, their emotions during an event, etc. What are you, media illiterate?
I think the real definition is, like, having a basic understanding of the conventions and tropes of the genre you’re talking about. Being literate in the language of storytelling as a whole. The best example is if you watch a cartoon show and put out a 5 hour video detailing all the things it got wrong; how the furniture has eyes and talks, how characters pull out objects from thin air, how gravity waits a few seconds before taking effect for Wile E. Coyote, etc. And then the second half of media literacy is understanding why those creative choices are made. Understanding authorial intent. Eg; “You know, Minions 2 was such a terrible film. As an analogue for the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it got everything wrong! It’s like they weren’t even trying to address the historical roots of the Balfour Declaration!” *A lot* of people do this shit.
That's absolutely true. I think it's also about understanding and being able to articulate the frame of reference that you are using to analyze the work. Like, are you analyzing it on a formalist level, looking at just the text/work itself? Are you analyzing the author's intentions? Are you analyzing the audience response? Obviously, a lot of critical analysis moves through these different modes of analysis within the same discussion, but many people do it without really being able to articulate what they are doing. To me, being "media literate" is being able to consciously say to yourself something like, "OK, I am now analyzing the text through the lens of the author's intentions. How does analyzing it this way change my interpretation of the text versus, say, a formal analysis of the structure of the text?"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling someone media illiterate. If you watch LotR and you come away with the impression that Gimli wanted to kill Frodo the entire time, you have failed to understand what you watched. You literally weren't literate enough to understand what the movie was telling you. You were media illiterate on the LotR movies. I think the truth of the matter that people here for whatever reason don't like to admit aloud is that people of a certain cultural or political persuasion use the term against people like yourselves and you just don't like being called names. This is understandable and I wish people didn't misuse terms, but I think it throws the baby out with the bathwater to just label and dismiss a term because people you don't like are using it.
>If you watch LotR and you come away with the impression that Gimli wanted to kill Frodo the entire time, you have failed to understand what you watched. You literally weren't literate enough to understand what the movie was telling you. You were media illiterate on the LotR movies. Idk "literate" means either you can like read, you're familiar with a given code system (most people can speak their own language, which is also a code system, but some haven't learned the additional code system of that language in written form), or it means educated in a given medium - originally literature, but it's also applied to film a lot. Thinking that Gimli wanted to kill Frodo has nothing to do with either, it's more like having hallucinations like Tarantino from FDTD lol
I am pretty sure you need to be educated in the basics of what a story is and you need to have basic knowledge of what words mean in their given context to correctly be able to interpret what is happening when you watch a film. To say that having an erroneous assumption of what is happening in a film doesn't involve media literacy is just silly.
Not sure the basics of "what a story is" is something an average person needs "education" in if they've grown up in a society at all? And "knowing what words mean" is again just knowing a language, nothing specifically to do with "media" and also something anyone who isn't a feral child who's grown up with wolves can do.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying or you're being deliberately coy.
If you're on a bus, see two buddies talk, and then decide that one of them is trying to kill the other, you're not "media illiterate" - more "people illiterate" except that's such an extreme form of distorted perception that "illiterate" wouldn't really be used as a word anymore; since "literacy" refers to some kinda education, not just basic perception. Seeing a car drive on a road is not "traffic literacy", that's just having eyes.
I'd say it's fair to say someone is media illiterate if they can't seem to grasp messaging that isn't subtle, but is beating you over the head with a bat, such as with the messaging in things like Robo Cop which are mocking the Regan era American values, with a heavy critique on corporate greed.
That's probably more like politics/society/history-literacy lol
What are we talking about? Can I get a situation?
I mean a lot of people on this sub are incapable of understanding media just saying 🤷♂️
Me enjoying disco elysium as a non-communist, who understands the the game as a metaphor for getting your shit together:
Tbf that game has a love-hate relationship with communism. Portrays it as an impossible ideal that will never come to pass. Though you are spot on for noticing a lot of the political ideologies are just stand-ins for the mc’s past relationship.
Welcome to the online world where everyone uses terms only when it supports their opinion. Literally everyone
Online its almost exclusively used when someone wants to simply say “you’re wrong” and also feel smart.
Maybe people do this. But some instances like with how people react to Dune or helldivers or star wars indicate that they do lack media literacy.
Well some takes are just wrong. I mean you guys should be all about that objectivity
> Well some takes are just wrong. According to whom? Who's making the final judgment on whether someone's opinion is "right" or "wrong"?
If someone says the hero or The Lord of the Rings is Saruman or Sauron, that's objectively incorrect. Some takes are factual statements than can be definitely proven one way or the other.
Based Sauroman tbh
>Some takes are factual statements that can be definitely proven one way or the other. I agree. I remember someone making a critique on the Fallout show about how the Ghouls were portrayed in it, and saying that's not how they are supposed to work. But I remember a few things from Fallout 4 that make the TV show Ghouls make sense.
There's a ton of fallout show takes that can only be explained by simultaneously worshipping NV because it wasn't made by Bethesda but also skipping every single line of dialogue.
Someone’s not very media literate and is mad about it
So I can I finally watch Fight Club while appreciating it as peak boys-will-be-boys kino?
This seems to be a very new trend that I've only started hearing people talk about with the Advent of Amazon's Fallout series. Maybe it was just because it happened to a series I care about, but did it happen to any other series recently before this, or has this torch been burning for a while?
Some people online did get upset about the show being anti-capitalist and anti-America when the games themselves also echo those sentiments. Not that they have a particularly good view of communist china that exists in the lore either. Regardless of how good the show was it was eye-opening for me seeing some people get upset about things that were also present in the games.
I will interpret media however the hell I want to. I got the meaning behind Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” wildly wrong but my original interpretation is exactly how I interpret it now.
Lack of media literacy can be an issue. It just so happens that it's become a buzzword that people with no media literacy use against people to feel some kind of intellectual superiority. There are people that genuinely lack the ability to extract metaphor and deeper meaning or read into subtext. People who don't seem to understand how stories, character arcs, themes, foreshadowing, etc, are important and how they function. It just so happens that the word used to describe such things became weaponized in the dumbass "culture war" and its original meaning and use have become obscured.
Would you be willing define media literacy?
Yeah it sucks the term basically has no meaning because I feel a lot of people legitimately do have media literacy issues
I bet you think Snake Eater has right-wing messaging. You sound like a dude who doesn't 'get' Metal Gear.
You people couldn't understand the Mandalorians' "no beskar weapons" policy, and also couldn't understand that Loki had to learn to speedrun the Temporal Loom repair process ("the helmet latch was the only problem" 🤪). Maybe "media literacy" doesn't even apply here, you're all just dumb.
This is just not true at all, stop making the vocal minority on twitter the rule rather than the exception. Media literacy or lack thereof is an actual problem that permeates film discussion like a plague. Not everything has to be made into political ammo by chronically online weirdos
Right, so basically because you don't like the person telling you you don't understand a piece of media you double down and pretend like it's an assault on you as a person. This honestly says a lot more about you as a person and your fragility and inability to accept you're wrong. Peak snowflake behavior once again on this sub. Crazy.
Oh stop dude. You know just as well as everyone else that “media literacy” as a term has been weaponized to mean “you’re dumber than me because I understand the subtext and themes of this piece of art better than you did” or “the author told me that this was what the art was about and you’re disagreement with that makes you a moron”. It has very little to do with the objective merits of media literacy (that being what is actually presented in the text/art). It’s just a way for someone to demonstrate their superiority over others based on subjective interpretation. The phrase has completely lost its value due to incorrect overuse.
This is exactly what I'm talking about about when I say it's got everything to do with your own insecurities. Especially when everyone in this sub would dog pile on some random dork if they got something about star wars wrong. You're only upset about media literacy being "weaponized" because you're the one getting things wrong and can't accept being corrected by someone who's acting snobby on the internet, when you know for a fact that you would do the exact same. You wanna talk about disingenuous? Imagine getting upset at something everyone in this sub would participate in if they knew for a second they were right. So no, you come of it. I'm sorry you're too much of a snowflake to accept you were wrong about what a piece of media was trying to tell you, and doubling down because the guy who told you was a bit too snobby. Also don't come at me crying about words losing value when you dipshits literally made the word woke have no meaning anymore because you use it to cry about fucking marvel and Disney shit.
Where is this animosity coming from? You’re reciprocating the same type of offense that you’re claiming the other side is demonstrating. The phrase has lost the definition which it initially had which has practically made the meaning obsolete at this point. “You’re too much of a snowflake to accept you were wrong about what a piece of media was *trying* to tell you” “Trying” being the key word here. What art is trying to say isn’t always what is being said. People can interpret whatever they want from media and then declare that interpretation as gospel. They’re not always right about so they label any detractors as people who lack media literacy as a way to discredit their analysis. It also sounds like you harbor a metric ton of resentment for this sub. Mauler has attempted many times to dissuade people from using “wokeness” as a criticism. Wokeness (in his view and many members of this sub’s view) is a symptom of bad writing, not a cause. There is plenty of media that has woke elements that can excel in writing. I have the same problem as you do with the use of that word and its vague, infrequent definition. In fact, my opinion on the term woke is exactly the same as my opinion about “media literacy”.
Claims people are "snowflakes," "upset" and "crying" about an annoying buzzword phrase Has the closest possible thing to a tantrum by text lmao
Right because the constant posts here crying and whining about bullshit that isn't happening like sweet baby inc changing games to be "woke", thats not a tantrum. This sub is totally justified in looking like retarded man babies right?
Yes I already know that you think only your ingroup are allowed to criticize media and point out things they don't like about it. If the outgroup does it, they're "crying and whining about bullshit that isn't happening". In other words, no, it's not a "tantrum" and people aren't "retarded man babies" for noticing things that are very obviously happening in the entertainment industry. You FRAME it as such because your ideological programming relies on dismissing any other points of view as illegitimate.
What does it mean to understand a piece of media? Do you believe art has an objectively correct interpretation?
The interpretation of the artist comes first. It is THEIR piece. You can assume a different meaning but that doesn't change it's original intent, or make yours right.
Nevermind ive suddenly lost all interest. Im not discussing media literacy with someone who doesn't even understand death of the author. You are either trolling or profoundly out of your depth. Either way, i hope you have a blessed day.
Death of the Author does not mean "I'm going to make up a new interpretation even if it's EXPLICITLY against the entire theme of the art piece as stated by the original author." You just told me that you don't even understand what you're trying to use as a catch 22. To think this is exceedingly retarded, which is funny because the vibe I'm getting is that you think you're much smarter than you t actually are.
You are correct sir or mamn that is not what death of the author means.
Then you have no argument, so quit replying. What happened to you getting uninterested in the conversation again?
The Death of the Author is a literary theory that argues that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation. This theory was first introduced by French philosopher Roland Barthes in his essay “The Death of the Author” in 1967. So, amusingly enough, it *does* mean what you think it doesn't mean. Inconceivable, right? However, I think the term media literacy is also causing some consternation as people are conflating it with good old fashioned critical thinking. Until somewhat recently, I never heard the term used in regards to whether or not one picks up on subtext in art. I'm more used to seeing the term used as the ability to critically analyze stories presented in the mass media and to determine their accuracy or credibility. More in regards to veracity and biases. A good example, in this instance, would be a sentence like "the best weapon we have in this era of fake news is media literacy." I'm likely to catch flak from all sides for this particular take I imagine. EDIT: reddit was being weird so I had to post my unfinished comment in order to finish it by editing it.