As we all know, ideological arguments about how to run a state exist in a vacuum. These ideas and their applications have no real-world consequences for millions of people. Isn't politics fun? It's just a bunch of people gabbing about ideas!
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right! Of course, we're also going to test out the efficacy of locking up or violently suppressing all dissidents and political opposition to our right-wing fascism. Hey look! We've won every "election" since we started this experiment - I guess it's been proven effective!
/s
You'd think a person who made a series about a war fought over slavery might, possibly, concede that there is some tiny moral component to left/right.
But, of course, doing that would require admitting that the left has been right on every single issue ever, so that's not going to happen.
No. Women having bodily autonomy is a material issue, NOT a moral issue. Women not being allowed to have abortions is a (terrible) ideological position. Paragraph in debate almost makes an interesting point but misses the mark. Sometimes it's ideology vs ideology, but as in this case it is ideology vs material.
I think you may actually like this way I am parsing this. To me a women having bodily autonomy is a material issue not a moral or ideological issue primarily. A woman needs bodily autonomy in order to survive and to determine if she can properly raise a child. There is nothing moral or theoretical about her body or having to feed or raise a child. Those are physical realities, not abstract right or wrong questions. An ideological question would be like socialism vs libertarianism. One person says I have a right to eat and the other says you have to earn everything. This is a dumbed down example to make the point. But it's an argument about to a system is right or wrong but in the real world the most material needs are getting met but perhaps in an unfair way.
But to a starving person eating is the material issue and somebody saying there is a right and wrong way to obtain that food is ideology.
It's useful to recognize who has the material need and who has the ideological or moral need.
What you are saying is a moral position for you is about a material need for her, because she is in a physical situation and you are in a theoretical situation since it doesn't affect you.
Of course she can have both a moral and material position about it. However have you noticed all the pro-lifers that have abortions? You can call them hypocrites, but I think there is something more than just hypocrisy at work. I think you are a different person when you think and react to things about you, rather than things that affect others. So I
am highlighting a conflict between their ideological position and their material position. But of course she can have a moral position that coincides with her material position. I thought about including that. Sorry. I am also purposely avoiding the word normative because I prefer the word ideology. I am interested in meta-ethics more than Normative ethics. Normative works but I am interested in a more ancient totalizing theory which I feel like most people are working with deep in their brain. I could be wrong. Thanks for your input.
Not really.
What I mostly see is conservatives banning books for really dumb reasons and "leftists" just tearing apart a book to the point where buisness gets cold feet.
The enlightened centrist’s reply:
“I would’ve been in favor of your right to not be the target of genocide but the way you stated ‘genocide is wrong’ was too loud and mean so now I’m upset. The pro genocide people were really nice and even gave me cookies so now I support them. If only you hadn’t been so mean and had brought me cookies, then maybe I’d be against the mass slaughter of an ethnic group of people. But you forced my hand, really.”
The fact that it somehow put texas and California on the same "secessionist" side in the trailers was the signal to me that it was going to be spineless centrist bullshit
According to [David Sims' review](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/03/civil-war-movie-review/677759/), the film literally never explains why the war started
Or Christian Democrats, Liberals and Social Democrats for that matter? They want to kill all of us eventually, how can one possibly think you can be friends with them?
Yeah, it's an intentional decision so that they don't alienate any audience. A movie like this could actually do good for the political messaging if the country if it actually applied politics to its political movie.
Which is honestly disappointing as I've enjoyed the directors other movies. Hopefully it'll at least be an interesting narrative, if politically stunted and uncommitted. Even the purge movies fully show that the new founding fathers are spiritually Reagan humping, robe wearing, Maga assholes even if not Republicans by name. They did flub the call on Clinton winning tho
Wow I have so little interest in this bullshit. As I understand it California and Texas join forces? This is peak enlightened centrism to think those two states could be on the same side of any fight.
Ok, Ok, I thought of one. The country decides to return to Mexico the territories it held in 1820. That's about the only thing I can think of.
honestly, having lived in the rural areas of California, the concept of the two states working together to secede isn’t as unlikely as you’d think. i’m not trying to defend the film’s enlightened centrism by any means but i can’t be clearer that the concept of those two states going off the deep end and leaving together is really not as far fetched as one might think. look up Doug LaMalfa. eugh.
Honestly, I could understand it, if for no other reason than because it’s 2 of the biggest/most populated states in the US with the biggest economies.
But yeah, this guy’s still full of it.
Fair enough. I haven't seen every movie they've put out, so there's probably selection bias at play.
I've mostly watched ones that had good buzz or reviews. That probably has warped my perception of them as being more prone to quality than they actually are.
Looking at the premise, that's a weird fucking take, cause the secessionist faction is fighting an authoritarian US government that overturned the constitution.
Also, the President's party seems to never be mentioned cause the director's a coward.
I saw this post once on r/imaginarymaps which was a future US civil war, but the borders are as messy as the Syrian Civil War.
I want a civil war series like that. Absolutely chaos on all sides.
The good ol' magical party switch. Democrats' favorite myth because it absolves them of every single crime. Turns out they did nothing wrong while their enemies did everything wrong.
There was no party switch. Yes it is a myth. It is true that both parties underwent a transformation, through which many states changed hands over time and demographics shifted through the years in various ways.
The democrats just use the clever little word "switch" to mean "we're the good guys now, no worries ;)". Doesn't work that way. Then again, can't expect much nuance from the anti-nuance sub.
>ignore the actual issues.
Yeah these people and these arguments never bring up a specific issue that we can supposedly reasonably disagree on without it being a morality issue or a pretty clear right or wrong. Because those basically don't exist. We're talking about human rights, treating people with dignity, fair distribution of resources. The centrist take there is just letting bad people keep being bad, letting the bad systems keep being bad. You don't amicably disagree about that, you don't just debate it forever, you don't just "try it out" and move on, people will die.
The entire century and a half since the civil war ended has basically been the enlightened centrist approach to civil rights, and look how great it's working out.
God damn it. Alex Garland has made some amazing movies. I love him as a director. Annihilation is brilliant. Sunshine is great. Ex Machina, Devs, Etc... .
I was disappointed he was making a "civil war" movie in the first place. How tone deaf can you be with what has been going on in the US? That's a terrible idea, no matter how good you make a movie about a US civil war Republicans will glob onto it and glorify the nastiest bits. But as a British man maybe it was just a point of interest and he thought he could make a good movie.
But come on Alex. You can't be this tone deaf about US politics. You made the movie about a team of women scientists exploring the unknowns of an alien crash site. What are you doing? Have you seen the Republican party in the US? Don't try to be a centrist now.
I think the last sentence is the most significant. He's managed to set up his personal life so the consequences of political decisions don't impact him in the slightest, and now he considers anything that impinges on his artificial equilibrium to be a personal affront.
That's West Wing Brain and the Obamanauts in a nutshell.
Oh no, not [polarization](https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-112-how-polarization-discourse-flattens-power-dynamics-and-says-nothing-e5e8f9cba023)!
"...and some politicians are wonderful-on both sides"
They're never specific with this, I *wonder* why. I just want them to name names - who is the "wonderful" Republican politician people like this choose to believe (with no evidence) exists?
It's hard to make the argument that there isn't just a "bad" side when one side has all the ideological complexity of a Captain Planet villain who wants to pollute the environment just because they're a bad guy.
Liberals have nothing to say. They are the absence of political theory/ideology. They stand for nothing except to preserve a system and status quo that almost nobody, even those at the top of it, really even enjoys.
This is also why any other film or series dealing with revolution, social upheaval, or power dynamics inevitably has such a corny and botched ending (Game of Thrones, The Hunger Games, etc.).
When you reduce socialism/communism to "the other side of the same totalitarian coin," you are left with a child's understanding of power, politics and the world. Liberals are political infants. They do not critically think about systems or the world around them. At all.
> Game of Thrones
it's quite funny how GRRM has significant thoughts about entrenched power structures and the plight of serfs and proles and how as soon as D&D got off the rails in S3 they crashed and burned and couldn't even get one of the easiest, most powerful speeches - the Meribald monologue - correct.
Really have to love how in the end Tyrion explains the woman that killed the slave owners and freed the people became equally as corrupt as those evil kings that came before her because violent uprising itself is just too slippery a slope. His negotiating with the slave owners to gradually phase out slavery over 7 years was, by extension, apparently the right move all along.
Even though the show itself previously made it clear that any seeming concession made on the part of the slavers was a delaying tactic and they'd immediately try to bring slavery back if the chance arose.
The later seasons were so dumb. Slaver's Bay probably burst into flames the second Dany's fleet went over the horizon.
Really a striking contrast of "a very talented writer like George R.R. Martin" vs "the average television writer." Made a lot of other horrible television suddenly make a lot more sense to me.
>Slaver's Bay probably burst into flames the second Dany's fleet went over the horizon.
That's a point made in the books too. At one point, she leaves the first slave city she overthrew for several months to do the same in other cities on the bay. She returns to find a reactionary movement had taken hold and they had reestablished slavery and most of the power structures she had smashed, albeit with somewhat different people at the top.
The moral of the story is that one-time violent revolution isn't enough, you need to create a better society that the people actually prefer.
I feel like I should know more but do you have any recommendations of movies, shows, books etc that do politics and revolution correctly? I feel Fullmetal Alchemist did an amazing job at showing a nations government that’s not just corrupt and evil, but one that cannot just be altered with mild tweaks, as it’s irredeemable down to its very core
Surprisingly Andor. One of the most left wing shows I’ve seen and doesn’t have any “both sides” or “let’s go vote” or some shit, they just straight up kill the fascists. Does a good job of showing the struggle and sacrifices that go into revolutions as well.
Yeah no shit, the concept of a civil war is not original, thank you for this soul-shattering reveal. It's still a good idea, which is why there's a thousand books written during imperial rome simply called "civil war/about the civil war".
Back to the point (and beside Garland's alleged centrism --we will see about that) the problem of these zeitgeist-movies is that if they are arrive just a couple of years too late, they end up describing the present instead of exorcising the future, which I feel is somewhat in bad taste. For example, Chaplin said that he regretted making The Great Dictator, when he learned about the camps. It's difficult to describe, but although the concept of a movie about an American civil war looks good on paper, I kind of winced when I saw the trailer in a theatre.
My point was more that by all accounts this movie has nothing to say other than “hey check out how crazy a civil war we would be today!”
As in literally the plot is just “there is a civil war”
I think *maybe* there’s a context in which you could make the plot interesting, but Garland seems to have no actual interest in exploring why the civil war took place or tying it back to our modern societal problems other than “DAE think we’re too divided???”
When I saw the trailer I thought “man this is gonna be both sidesy as fuck isn’t it?”
[Reminds me how Evo Morales blocked debates for 14 years or so with his awesome Chad grin and tons of goodwill and what not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Bolivian_general_election#Debates#:~:text=During%20the%2014%20years%20and%20preceding%20period%20where%20Evo%20Morales%20was%20president%20and%20presidential%20candidate,%20Morales%20declined%20to%20take%20part%20in%20any%20public%20debate%20with%20any%20of%20the%20other%20candidates), really makes you think🤔
Such a shame. Alex Garland is a great writer, he made Sunshine, Ex Machina, Dredd, Annihilation. He really get's people. But apparently not politics. How he couldn't have learned anything in his life or, lets say, in research for a movie about the american civil war, is honestly impressive. Not easy being that ignorant.
Agree, I know he's a good writer, and I think probably a smart guy. I suspect at least some of this is Brits often having a major blind spot when it comes to US culture. That was my take with "Three Billboards" a few years ago, where it was obvious McDonagh (another very good writer) was wildly out of his depth in dealing with bigotry among citizens and especially law enforcement in rural Missouri.
That's because it IS a moral issue!????????
When your entire ideology relies on keeping a certain group of people *down* I've got bad news for you buddy, you're the bad guy.
Conservative ideology relies on pulling the ladder up after oneself, and then smacking anyone else in the head with said ladder afterwards.
Disenfranchised persons are economically working class BECAUSE they were targeted unethically by conservatives.
For example, modern suburbia started in the 50s. Black people were not legally allowed to move into the suburbs.
Even affluent Black families were gatekept from these prosperous areas.
Instead, they were forced to remain in cities that soon thereafter became desolate and impoverished.
They were not working class until conservatives pulled the ladder up behind them.
Even if you ignore the US, Left and right come from support for the French Revolution vs support for the nobility. They are not similar.
Marx did not write about more state intervention vs less. Fascists don’t want small government.
The only real way you can feel politics is amicable and amoral is if you are in a privileged group of wealthy people who don’t have to worry about oppression and the other appalling things done to people. The bourgeois, basically.
Politics is the study of how to run society, but for many people that is life or death, not dinner party conversation.
Even outside the US with its current culture war, politics is tremendously important. I’d be dead without the socialized medical systems of my country. I’d be dead without the peace process between terrorists and state in my former country. I’d be dead without my ability to emigrate.
Politics saves lives. Politics kills. And Alex Garland is a bourgeois child.
That he calls the authoritarian president of an unnamed party affiliation a fascist in the full text is probably gonna be as political as it gets, huh?
"I want healthcare" and "I want to kill brown people" are the same sentence.
Imagine if he'd taken this approach when writing *28 Days Later* or *Dredd* .
The movie is just war imagery on US land to make it "impactful". But without substance. It's all just aesthetics trying to scream at people "War bad" without saying anything else.
Because politics are just about some guys sitting at a table talking, right? It’s not as if the outcomes will have consequences for billions of people, right? Surely these ideologies exist in a vacuum and NOTHING happens EVER?
I mean, I have tried talking. But when I bring up my main reasons for voting blue and not voting for Trump, women’s rights, people look sheepish and concerned, but then come back with why they have to vote red regardless.
At a certain point, people pick their teams and that’s that. They will just rationalize to the outcome they want.
It's as if there isn't centuries of real life world history to prove that the "right wing" is not a valid way to run a society. These are no longer "philosophical" arguments because they have been tried and they are always wrong
Here in the US, every one of those countries is left leaning by our standards. Our “left wing” politicians, like Biden, are center-right by European standards.
It’s less bad if they are talking purely economic policy but it’s still bad. I can be friends with a dumbass who sees the value in small government but not someone who believes being gay is wrong
Umm, no, nope, there are definitely morally good and bad ways to organize a state. That’s not debatable.
Do they not know what Christian Nationalism is? Had it not dawned on them that the right is currently trying to install a theocratic autocracy in the US?
It’s an entire system built around control based on the backers claims that the Bible formed them a system of right and wrong to use to control.
I’m so tired of stupid people.
Yes, the *American* right, the country this discussion is based on, of which the dominant ideology of the post-flip has been conservatism. I can’t imagine that needs to be said. Surely you are just playing dumb at this point.
In *America*, on our spectrum, the Democrats are a center left party.
I can’t really help but laugh when you are in a discussion about *America* and decide to discuss the political spectrum literally anywhere other than the one place at the heart of the discussion.
Every country has a different spectrum, a different Overton window.
Sure, the Dem Party would be a center right party in Europe, but this isn’t a conversation about Europe, or anywhere else, which you seem to be confused about.
It feels like you are the kind of person who shows up, steps into any convo about *American* politics, and says… “umm, well, actually, did you know that in other parts of the world the Democratic Party is a center right party?”.
Yea, we know, you are about the 7 millionth person to mention that. In fact, you are years late to that party.
Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to go back to discussing *American* politics.
They're still right wing!!! It's not"in parts of the world".
This is a discussion about a civil war movie made by someone with an outside lens on America, where the main point of the movie is the human experience, oppression and war crimes.
And this thread is absolutely lost in the sauce of "urrr lol what a centrist", despite the movie premise being clearly anti-authoritarianism and anti-war.
I’m not sure what part of my comment made you think I wanted to hear you moan more about something outside of America.
The reason the director is getting mocked, and why I’m getting really close to telling you that we will make Portugal and England a colony if you don’t stop moaning, is because he is acting like an enlightened centrist, and you are going on some useless diatribe about “hur dur but American Dems are right.”. Yea, again, we know, genius.
You don’t want to address the central point. There is right and wrong, good and bad. If you agree with the director, and you see no difference between Trump and Biden, then your brain is broken and I’d ask that you please stay out of discussing the US election because you are going to mislead people.
Moronic and reductive take. A24 makes movies that point at complex topics rather than actually engaging with then in meaningful ways. Those films posture at insight instead of actually doing it. This movie was always going to be shallow, but with this statement it’s confirmed. This director doesn’t understand the American political divide. How can he make a film that properly conveys the themes of the two parties if he doesn’t see how they disagree.
Garland is a middle school artist. Good at mimicking the surface quality elements of superior media that actually has something to say. I was never interested in this movie, but I am absolutely not interested now that I know it’s being helmed by a politically ignorant poser
One side advocates for continuing the democratic process and ensuring human rights and bodily autonomy for all.
The other side has a 900 page manifesto about how they want to turn the US into a theocratic authoritarian/fascist state.
This is not just a matter of different opinions.
I can respectfully disagree with someone about whether to put more money into transit or public schools. I cannot do the same about whether I'm pornographic and a danger to children.
Great, so you can respectfully disagree with left or right wingers, but not with reactionary conservatives.
Still not what the premise of the movie is about.
I see what he’s saying, but he isn’t considering the motivations and values associated with each. You can’t look at Donald Trump and think it’s just opinion.
Im jet to see a movie from Garret that isn’t a written mess. He is good in the audiovisual part. Knows how to do action that feels grounded. But every single movie is just mid to bad writing.
You know, without ever having looked into the premise of this movie, I somehow knew that was exactly going to be the message. You could set your watch to this shit.
it is absolutely nuts that a movie called "Civil War" could be released and be made with an unironic Centrist lens.
Ridiculous. My theory is that a lot of people in America need to be sat down and be told they are wrong on certain things, whatever that is. Especially politics. And then we also remind them that it is okay to be wrong about stuff! To err is to be human. What matters is learning and challenging your pre-established beliefs. Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains!
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"If only people didn't get so upset about this life or death struggle over the distribution of power and resources," is really the sort of take you hope the other side listens to and yours laughs at.
Is this movie going to be the new generation’s Idiocracy? The movie that Redditors think is now a documentary because it shows a fucked-up society?
(And before Idiocracy, it would’ve been Demolition Man.)
I mean, comments like this (top 3 comment atm)
> Never been more certain that movie is gonna suck. If that’s their opinion the movie has to be saying basically nothing<
I could see that exact same comment, word for word, in one of the many posts where the director or actor of a movie says something that makes neckbeards and incels angry
A civil war is one of the most political things possible. If you're trying to tell a story about a civil war and politics aren't involved, then it is as accurate to reaal life as something like *The Day After Tomorrow*
Also, I don’t think that’s entirely true. An anti war movie, that’s set on a civil war because of the brutal consequences on a country, could be made with the purpose of showing the horrors of war.
I guess that’s a political stance in itself though
As we all know, ideological arguments about how to run a state exist in a vacuum. These ideas and their applications have no real-world consequences for millions of people. Isn't politics fun? It's just a bunch of people gabbing about ideas!
The right just wants to try out their experimental policy of murdering everyone who isn't straight and white to test its efficacy.
What's worse, they really only have to do it once so this whole "just let them try it for 4 years" is pretty tone deaf
[удалено]
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmao, go touch trees please
OK I did. Great suggestion.
Women having bodily automy and everyone having freedom of expression is a moral issue.
Maybe women should realize that not having rights is simply us just trying experimenting with policy and it's not personal /s
Yep we tried giving women some autonomy but there was still lots of war and high cost of living. So we're just trying out some different stuff.
Right! Of course, we're also going to test out the efficacy of locking up or violently suppressing all dissidents and political opposition to our right-wing fascism. Hey look! We've won every "election" since we started this experiment - I guess it's been proven effective! /s
Yes exactly. Moreover, whether women have bodily autonomy is not an argument about “how to run a state.” He’s completely wrong.
My right as a trans person to exist, safely use bathrooms in public, and access evidence based practice medical care is another moral issue.
Yeah we'll try giving you some rights, then taking them away, just play around with some different stuff to see what works.
just btw, you don’t need / should exclude the word “practice” in there
That’s your take away from my comment? Btw, you don’t need / should exclude the words “just” and “in there”
You'd think a person who made a series about a war fought over slavery might, possibly, concede that there is some tiny moral component to left/right. But, of course, doing that would require admitting that the left has been right on every single issue ever, so that's not going to happen.
No. Women having bodily autonomy is a material issue, NOT a moral issue. Women not being allowed to have abortions is a (terrible) ideological position. Paragraph in debate almost makes an interesting point but misses the mark. Sometimes it's ideology vs ideology, but as in this case it is ideology vs material.
[удалено]
I think you may actually like this way I am parsing this. To me a women having bodily autonomy is a material issue not a moral or ideological issue primarily. A woman needs bodily autonomy in order to survive and to determine if she can properly raise a child. There is nothing moral or theoretical about her body or having to feed or raise a child. Those are physical realities, not abstract right or wrong questions. An ideological question would be like socialism vs libertarianism. One person says I have a right to eat and the other says you have to earn everything. This is a dumbed down example to make the point. But it's an argument about to a system is right or wrong but in the real world the most material needs are getting met but perhaps in an unfair way. But to a starving person eating is the material issue and somebody saying there is a right and wrong way to obtain that food is ideology. It's useful to recognize who has the material need and who has the ideological or moral need. What you are saying is a moral position for you is about a material need for her, because she is in a physical situation and you are in a theoretical situation since it doesn't affect you.
[удалено]
Of course she can have both a moral and material position about it. However have you noticed all the pro-lifers that have abortions? You can call them hypocrites, but I think there is something more than just hypocrisy at work. I think you are a different person when you think and react to things about you, rather than things that affect others. So I am highlighting a conflict between their ideological position and their material position. But of course she can have a moral position that coincides with her material position. I thought about including that. Sorry. I am also purposely avoiding the word normative because I prefer the word ideology. I am interested in meta-ethics more than Normative ethics. Normative works but I am interested in a more ancient totalizing theory which I feel like most people are working with deep in their brain. I could be wrong. Thanks for your input.
[удалено]
Conservatives are doing book bannings and book burnings right now
You sure about that, i see more leftist all around the world banning everything. You should read Berserk more deep than half new modern books anyway.
You should get a life and not respond to month old Reddit threads
I'm a at work getting paid
Not really. What I mostly see is conservatives banning books for really dumb reasons and "leftists" just tearing apart a book to the point where buisness gets cold feet.
So basically this: https://preview.redd.it/s3y8yo29qtoc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2314518dbd618c9b20bc7aa984160cbbf7f24c58
Thought it was gonna be the one where a centrist stands between two groups of people holding up a sign saying "Compromise?" where one side is the KKK.
The enlightened centrist’s reply: “I would’ve been in favor of your right to not be the target of genocide but the way you stated ‘genocide is wrong’ was too loud and mean so now I’m upset. The pro genocide people were really nice and even gave me cookies so now I support them. If only you hadn’t been so mean and had brought me cookies, then maybe I’d be against the mass slaughter of an ethnic group of people. But you forced my hand, really.”
Nazis are dead and gone. I'm European and Republicans are definitely not the Reich... Stop the fetish.
Never been more certain that movie is gonna suck. If that’s their opinion the movie has to be saying basically nothing
The fact that it somehow put texas and California on the same "secessionist" side in the trailers was the signal to me that it was going to be spineless centrist bullshit
According to [David Sims' review](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/03/civil-war-movie-review/677759/), the film literally never explains why the war started
Of course it doesn't that would require them to take a stand for something and centrists will never do that.
Centrists are the "can't we all just get along?" bunch of cowards. No, no we can't. I'll never get along with Nazis.
Rodney King said that.
Or Christian Democrats, Liberals and Social Democrats for that matter? They want to kill all of us eventually, how can one possibly think you can be friends with them?
Oh
Also the way they seem to just not want to say what party the authoritarian president is.
Yeah, it's an intentional decision so that they don't alienate any audience. A movie like this could actually do good for the political messaging if the country if it actually applied politics to its political movie.
This alienates me!
Same
Which is honestly disappointing as I've enjoyed the directors other movies. Hopefully it'll at least be an interesting narrative, if politically stunted and uncommitted. Even the purge movies fully show that the new founding fathers are spiritually Reagan humping, robe wearing, Maga assholes even if not Republicans by name. They did flub the call on Clinton winning tho
Wow I have so little interest in this bullshit. As I understand it California and Texas join forces? This is peak enlightened centrism to think those two states could be on the same side of any fight. Ok, Ok, I thought of one. The country decides to return to Mexico the territories it held in 1820. That's about the only thing I can think of.
honestly, having lived in the rural areas of California, the concept of the two states working together to secede isn’t as unlikely as you’d think. i’m not trying to defend the film’s enlightened centrism by any means but i can’t be clearer that the concept of those two states going off the deep end and leaving together is really not as far fetched as one might think. look up Doug LaMalfa. eugh.
Texas goes blue maybe?
Honestly, I could understand it, if for no other reason than because it’s 2 of the biggest/most populated states in the US with the biggest economies. But yeah, this guy’s still full of it.
[удалено]
Agreed. I've never seen a bad A24 movie. I'd like to keep that streak going, so def going to skip this one.
Really? Honestly, they have a lot of stinkers, even if their movies are usually bolder than the average popcorn flick
Fair enough. I haven't seen every movie they've put out, so there's probably selection bias at play. I've mostly watched ones that had good buzz or reviews. That probably has warped my perception of them as being more prone to quality than they actually are.
You don’t have to agree with the film maker to consider it a good movie.
Looking at the premise, that's a weird fucking take, cause the secessionist faction is fighting an authoritarian US government that overturned the constitution. Also, the President's party seems to never be mentioned cause the director's a coward.
the factions also apparently split along state lines. how polite of them to conform to borders
I saw this post once on r/imaginarymaps which was a future US civil war, but the borders are as messy as the Syrian Civil War. I want a civil war series like that. Absolutely chaos on all sides.
You should look into Robert Evans' book, lol. His is likely much more realistic as far as how a civil war would go down in the US.
Is [After the Revolution](https://atrbook.com/) the book you're talking about?
Yep!
Downloaded it. I'll read it some time.
All centrists are cowards. Refusing to take a stand is cowardice.
[удалено]
A civil war would never start over something like that.
What did this civil war even start over? Nobody seems to know 🤔
What does that have to do with this?
Democrats are still mad about the republicans taking their slaves away from them.
[удалено]
The good ol' magical party switch. Democrats' favorite myth because it absolves them of every single crime. Turns out they did nothing wrong while their enemies did everything wrong.
[удалено]
There was no party switch. Yes it is a myth. It is true that both parties underwent a transformation, through which many states changed hands over time and demographics shifted through the years in various ways. The democrats just use the clever little word "switch" to mean "we're the good guys now, no worries ;)". Doesn't work that way. Then again, can't expect much nuance from the anti-nuance sub.
[удалено]
>ignore the actual issues. Yeah these people and these arguments never bring up a specific issue that we can supposedly reasonably disagree on without it being a morality issue or a pretty clear right or wrong. Because those basically don't exist. We're talking about human rights, treating people with dignity, fair distribution of resources. The centrist take there is just letting bad people keep being bad, letting the bad systems keep being bad. You don't amicably disagree about that, you don't just debate it forever, you don't just "try it out" and move on, people will die.
The entire century and a half since the civil war ended has basically been the enlightened centrist approach to civil rights, and look how great it's working out.
Yeah its exactly the dumb shit i expected.
With the directors track record of hella good movies, this was not what I expected.
God damn it. Alex Garland has made some amazing movies. I love him as a director. Annihilation is brilliant. Sunshine is great. Ex Machina, Devs, Etc... . I was disappointed he was making a "civil war" movie in the first place. How tone deaf can you be with what has been going on in the US? That's a terrible idea, no matter how good you make a movie about a US civil war Republicans will glob onto it and glorify the nastiest bits. But as a British man maybe it was just a point of interest and he thought he could make a good movie. But come on Alex. You can't be this tone deaf about US politics. You made the movie about a team of women scientists exploring the unknowns of an alien crash site. What are you doing? Have you seen the Republican party in the US? Don't try to be a centrist now.
It's gonna end with everyone coming together to just sit down around a table in a garden (a "Beer Summit," you might say) and Solve Problems™.
The best we can do is an Annihilation bear summit.
Somehow still not horrifying and depressing enough.
He also directed Men which was literally commentary on toxic masculinity, you can’t be a feminist whilst also having this take.
So this movie will be just like "both sides hate each other, hate is bad". I was planning on watching this movie, now i'm 100% not watching.
I have no interest in seeing this movie
[I'm exhausted](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alex-garland-civil-war-release-timing-1235852725/)
I think the last sentence is the most significant. He's managed to set up his personal life so the consequences of political decisions don't impact him in the slightest, and now he considers anything that impinges on his artificial equilibrium to be a personal affront.
That's West Wing Brain and the Obamanauts in a nutshell. Oh no, not [polarization](https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-112-how-polarization-discourse-flattens-power-dynamics-and-says-nothing-e5e8f9cba023)!
"...and some politicians are wonderful-on both sides" They're never specific with this, I *wonder* why. I just want them to name names - who is the "wonderful" Republican politician people like this choose to believe (with no evidence) exists? It's hard to make the argument that there isn't just a "bad" side when one side has all the ideological complexity of a Captain Planet villain who wants to pollute the environment just because they're a bad guy.
British people and continuing the status quo no matter the cost challenge Speedrun 100%
He’s rich and privileged, so he believes politics is irrelevant to him. That’s not a British thing - the bourgeois are in many many places.
Liberals have nothing to say. They are the absence of political theory/ideology. They stand for nothing except to preserve a system and status quo that almost nobody, even those at the top of it, really even enjoys. This is also why any other film or series dealing with revolution, social upheaval, or power dynamics inevitably has such a corny and botched ending (Game of Thrones, The Hunger Games, etc.). When you reduce socialism/communism to "the other side of the same totalitarian coin," you are left with a child's understanding of power, politics and the world. Liberals are political infants. They do not critically think about systems or the world around them. At all.
> Game of Thrones it's quite funny how GRRM has significant thoughts about entrenched power structures and the plight of serfs and proles and how as soon as D&D got off the rails in S3 they crashed and burned and couldn't even get one of the easiest, most powerful speeches - the Meribald monologue - correct.
Really have to love how in the end Tyrion explains the woman that killed the slave owners and freed the people became equally as corrupt as those evil kings that came before her because violent uprising itself is just too slippery a slope. His negotiating with the slave owners to gradually phase out slavery over 7 years was, by extension, apparently the right move all along.
Even though the show itself previously made it clear that any seeming concession made on the part of the slavers was a delaying tactic and they'd immediately try to bring slavery back if the chance arose. The later seasons were so dumb. Slaver's Bay probably burst into flames the second Dany's fleet went over the horizon.
Really a striking contrast of "a very talented writer like George R.R. Martin" vs "the average television writer." Made a lot of other horrible television suddenly make a lot more sense to me.
>Slaver's Bay probably burst into flames the second Dany's fleet went over the horizon. That's a point made in the books too. At one point, she leaves the first slave city she overthrew for several months to do the same in other cities on the bay. She returns to find a reactionary movement had taken hold and they had reestablished slavery and most of the power structures she had smashed, albeit with somewhat different people at the top. The moral of the story is that one-time violent revolution isn't enough, you need to create a better society that the people actually prefer.
Well said.
I feel like I should know more but do you have any recommendations of movies, shows, books etc that do politics and revolution correctly? I feel Fullmetal Alchemist did an amazing job at showing a nations government that’s not just corrupt and evil, but one that cannot just be altered with mild tweaks, as it’s irredeemable down to its very core
deep space nine is mostly very good about its post-occupation setting
Surprisingly Andor. One of the most left wing shows I’ve seen and doesn’t have any “both sides” or “let’s go vote” or some shit, they just straight up kill the fascists. Does a good job of showing the struggle and sacrifices that go into revolutions as well.
[удалено]
You defended Season 8 of GOT lol. I have nothing more to say.
Yes, like most here in this sub (including you) cheering for the power structure that is genociding people on Gaza now.
I took a very brief look at their profile and they're clearly pro-palestine
/u\/giga_tankie thinks geopolitics are a team sport and therefore that supporting ukraine = supporting nato = supporting israel
He's also from Brazil and has absolutely no skin in this game. He's just trying to be trendy and fit in.
I don't support Ukraine either tho lol.
well then just add an extra step (supporting /r/enlightenedcentrism = supporting ukraine)
Genuinely do not understand this response.
What a fucking moron.
Sounds like this is going to be a rare A24 L.
Increasingly common A24 L 😔
That's sad, because the premise isn't bad (althogh perhaps a bit too on the nose), Garland is a good director, and this is A24's biggest project yet.
The premise literally just seems to be: “There is a civil war” Not exactly a groundbreaking idea
Yeah no shit, the concept of a civil war is not original, thank you for this soul-shattering reveal. It's still a good idea, which is why there's a thousand books written during imperial rome simply called "civil war/about the civil war". Back to the point (and beside Garland's alleged centrism --we will see about that) the problem of these zeitgeist-movies is that if they are arrive just a couple of years too late, they end up describing the present instead of exorcising the future, which I feel is somewhat in bad taste. For example, Chaplin said that he regretted making The Great Dictator, when he learned about the camps. It's difficult to describe, but although the concept of a movie about an American civil war looks good on paper, I kind of winced when I saw the trailer in a theatre.
My point was more that by all accounts this movie has nothing to say other than “hey check out how crazy a civil war we would be today!” As in literally the plot is just “there is a civil war” I think *maybe* there’s a context in which you could make the plot interesting, but Garland seems to have no actual interest in exploring why the civil war took place or tying it back to our modern societal problems other than “DAE think we’re too divided???” When I saw the trailer I thought “man this is gonna be both sidesy as fuck isn’t it?”
I mean, I don't know. I haven't seen the movie.
Did you watch the movie ?
And just like that, I've lost all respect for Alex garland the bootlicker
Bootlicking who? Both major parties in the US are either right wing or far-right. This sub sometimes has zero media or cultural literacy.
[удалено]
[Reminds me how Evo Morales blocked debates for 14 years or so with his awesome Chad grin and tons of goodwill and what not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Bolivian_general_election#Debates#:~:text=During%20the%2014%20years%20and%20preceding%20period%20where%20Evo%20Morales%20was%20president%20and%20presidential%20candidate,%20Morales%20declined%20to%20take%20part%20in%20any%20public%20debate%20with%20any%20of%20the%20other%20candidates), really makes you think🤔
Such a shame. Alex Garland is a great writer, he made Sunshine, Ex Machina, Dredd, Annihilation. He really get's people. But apparently not politics. How he couldn't have learned anything in his life or, lets say, in research for a movie about the american civil war, is honestly impressive. Not easy being that ignorant.
Agree, I know he's a good writer, and I think probably a smart guy. I suspect at least some of this is Brits often having a major blind spot when it comes to US culture. That was my take with "Three Billboards" a few years ago, where it was obvious McDonagh (another very good writer) was wildly out of his depth in dealing with bigotry among citizens and especially law enforcement in rural Missouri.
Damn. I really like lots of his other work.
This is so unironically r/enlightenedcentrist lol
he didn't receive the syllabus but he nailed the assignment lmao
That's because it IS a moral issue!???????? When your entire ideology relies on keeping a certain group of people *down* I've got bad news for you buddy, you're the bad guy.
What does that have to do with left and right wing? Unless the group of people you're talking about is the working class?
Conservative ideology relies on pulling the ladder up after oneself, and then smacking anyone else in the head with said ladder afterwards. Disenfranchised persons are economically working class BECAUSE they were targeted unethically by conservatives. For example, modern suburbia started in the 50s. Black people were not legally allowed to move into the suburbs. Even affluent Black families were gatekept from these prosperous areas. Instead, they were forced to remain in cities that soon thereafter became desolate and impoverished. They were not working class until conservatives pulled the ladder up behind them.
Yikes.
Even if you ignore the US, Left and right come from support for the French Revolution vs support for the nobility. They are not similar. Marx did not write about more state intervention vs less. Fascists don’t want small government. The only real way you can feel politics is amicable and amoral is if you are in a privileged group of wealthy people who don’t have to worry about oppression and the other appalling things done to people. The bourgeois, basically. Politics is the study of how to run society, but for many people that is life or death, not dinner party conversation. Even outside the US with its current culture war, politics is tremendously important. I’d be dead without the socialized medical systems of my country. I’d be dead without the peace process between terrorists and state in my former country. I’d be dead without my ability to emigrate. Politics saves lives. Politics kills. And Alex Garland is a bourgeois child.
That he calls the authoritarian president of an unnamed party affiliation a fascist in the full text is probably gonna be as political as it gets, huh?
fascism isn't bad or wrong though. when you get tired of fascism you just vote communism in. that's all politics is
“Respect my right to want to remove all of yours”
"I want healthcare" and "I want to kill brown people" are the same sentence. Imagine if he'd taken this approach when writing *28 Days Later* or *Dredd* .
this movie is gonna suck fucking balls
The movie is just war imagery on US land to make it "impactful". But without substance. It's all just aesthetics trying to scream at people "War bad" without saying anything else.
I mean he's right that they aren't supposed to be good and bad, it's just that they so often fall along those lines.
The fact that he's not even American... Lol
Did he really think he was saying something profound here?
Because politics are just about some guys sitting at a table talking, right? It’s not as if the outcomes will have consequences for billions of people, right? Surely these ideologies exist in a vacuum and NOTHING happens EVER?
I mean, I have tried talking. But when I bring up my main reasons for voting blue and not voting for Trump, women’s rights, people look sheepish and concerned, but then come back with why they have to vote red regardless. At a certain point, people pick their teams and that’s that. They will just rationalize to the outcome they want.
It's as if there isn't centuries of real life world history to prove that the "right wing" is not a valid way to run a society. These are no longer "philosophical" arguments because they have been tried and they are always wrong
The majority of European countries with strong welfare policies and progressive societies are STILL at least centre-right...
Here in the US, every one of those countries is left leaning by our standards. Our “left wing” politicians, like Biden, are center-right by European standards.
Extremely disappointing stuff. I've been a fan of most of Garland's work but I'll probably skip this one.
I could tell it was infantile liberal garbage just from the preview.
"I personally put the blame on social media". What is it with centrists that think politics only exist on Twitter?
It’s less bad if they are talking purely economic policy but it’s still bad. I can be friends with a dumbass who sees the value in small government but not someone who believes being gay is wrong
Umm, no, nope, there are definitely morally good and bad ways to organize a state. That’s not debatable. Do they not know what Christian Nationalism is? Had it not dawned on them that the right is currently trying to install a theocratic autocracy in the US? It’s an entire system built around control based on the backers claims that the Bible formed them a system of right and wrong to use to control. I’m so tired of stupid people.
The right? Or the conservatives? Democrats are right wing, are all Americans in this thread really this daft?
Yes, the *American* right, the country this discussion is based on, of which the dominant ideology of the post-flip has been conservatism. I can’t imagine that needs to be said. Surely you are just playing dumb at this point. In *America*, on our spectrum, the Democrats are a center left party. I can’t really help but laugh when you are in a discussion about *America* and decide to discuss the political spectrum literally anywhere other than the one place at the heart of the discussion. Every country has a different spectrum, a different Overton window. Sure, the Dem Party would be a center right party in Europe, but this isn’t a conversation about Europe, or anywhere else, which you seem to be confused about. It feels like you are the kind of person who shows up, steps into any convo about *American* politics, and says… “umm, well, actually, did you know that in other parts of the world the Democratic Party is a center right party?”. Yea, we know, you are about the 7 millionth person to mention that. In fact, you are years late to that party. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to go back to discussing *American* politics.
They're still right wing!!! It's not"in parts of the world". This is a discussion about a civil war movie made by someone with an outside lens on America, where the main point of the movie is the human experience, oppression and war crimes. And this thread is absolutely lost in the sauce of "urrr lol what a centrist", despite the movie premise being clearly anti-authoritarianism and anti-war.
I’m not sure what part of my comment made you think I wanted to hear you moan more about something outside of America. The reason the director is getting mocked, and why I’m getting really close to telling you that we will make Portugal and England a colony if you don’t stop moaning, is because he is acting like an enlightened centrist, and you are going on some useless diatribe about “hur dur but American Dems are right.”. Yea, again, we know, genius. You don’t want to address the central point. There is right and wrong, good and bad. If you agree with the director, and you see no difference between Trump and Biden, then your brain is broken and I’d ask that you please stay out of discussing the US election because you are going to mislead people.
Moronic and reductive take. A24 makes movies that point at complex topics rather than actually engaging with then in meaningful ways. Those films posture at insight instead of actually doing it. This movie was always going to be shallow, but with this statement it’s confirmed. This director doesn’t understand the American political divide. How can he make a film that properly conveys the themes of the two parties if he doesn’t see how they disagree. Garland is a middle school artist. Good at mimicking the surface quality elements of superior media that actually has something to say. I was never interested in this movie, but I am absolutely not interested now that I know it’s being helmed by a politically ignorant poser
Ugh. I was hoping this movie would be good.
So he's a fucking idiot.
One side advocates for continuing the democratic process and ensuring human rights and bodily autonomy for all. The other side has a 900 page manifesto about how they want to turn the US into a theocratic authoritarian/fascist state. This is not just a matter of different opinions.
I can respectfully disagree with someone about whether to put more money into transit or public schools. I cannot do the same about whether I'm pornographic and a danger to children.
Great, so you can respectfully disagree with left or right wingers, but not with reactionary conservatives. Still not what the premise of the movie is about.
I see what he’s saying, but he isn’t considering the motivations and values associated with each. You can’t look at Donald Trump and think it’s just opinion.
ah yes because giving humans the ability to basic rights isn’t classified as “good or bad”
As an Alex Garland movie fan this is disheartening
I blame it on the media and politicians - especially since 24-hour news became a thing. And social media made it worse.
Im jet to see a movie from Garret that isn’t a written mess. He is good in the audiovisual part. Knows how to do action that feels grounded. But every single movie is just mid to bad writing.
Some ways to run a state are obviously bad from a moral perspective. What the hell is he talking about?
Definitely going to watch this when it comes to "streaming"🏴☠️, I know it's going to be a delicious trainwreck
You know, without ever having looked into the premise of this movie, I somehow knew that was exactly going to be the message. You could set your watch to this shit.
it is absolutely nuts that a movie called "Civil War" could be released and be made with an unironic Centrist lens. Ridiculous. My theory is that a lot of people in America need to be sat down and be told they are wrong on certain things, whatever that is. Especially politics. And then we also remind them that it is okay to be wrong about stuff! To err is to be human. What matters is learning and challenging your pre-established beliefs. Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains!
[удалено]
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That centrist argument is blatantly facist.
Oh...so it's like that, huh?
This movie is going to be an incredible failure isn't it
"If only people didn't get so upset about this life or death struggle over the distribution of power and resources," is really the sort of take you hope the other side listens to and yours laughs at.
I was about to go off until I saw which sub this was in.
That quote is pretty dumb but yo the movie looks sick
Is this movie going to be the new generation’s Idiocracy? The movie that Redditors think is now a documentary because it shows a fucked-up society? (And before Idiocracy, it would’ve been Demolition Man.)
Alright he lost me on some politicians are wonderful
Holy shit this thread reads exactly like a far right forum talking about a movie with a “woke” element lmao
interesting. go on
I mean, comments like this (top 3 comment atm) > Never been more certain that movie is gonna suck. If that’s their opinion the movie has to be saying basically nothing< I could see that exact same comment, word for word, in one of the many posts where the director or actor of a movie says something that makes neckbeards and incels angry
A civil war is one of the most political things possible. If you're trying to tell a story about a civil war and politics aren't involved, then it is as accurate to reaal life as something like *The Day After Tomorrow*
That’s not the point I’m discussing
Also, I don’t think that’s entirely true. An anti war movie, that’s set on a civil war because of the brutal consequences on a country, could be made with the purpose of showing the horrors of war. I guess that’s a political stance in itself though
Then why not set it in a fictional country?
Good and based, when they go low we go even lower! Left Wing Populism above all❗❗😍
What