>>508935195Maybe I'm asking too much. If he thinks there's a certain message and he tells us about it I guess that's fine, we can do the rest of the work on our own. I don't know, I have the same thoughts about a lot of stuff online, that it doesn't go very deep.
Saw this in the comment section, I thought that was a good question.
>How exactly do you research a video which is entirely speculative and subjective interpretation? What did you find specifically through *research*? Name one thing.But there's another thing, which I hinted at in the OP. And I guess that's the main thing I wanted to discuss. It's that notion of "dangerous ideas" being implanted into the viewers. I find that strange. Say viewers get erroneous ideas implanted into them, there should be two options then. Either A) you can refute these ideas, show what's wrong with them, attack them with truth, and then they are just wrong, you shouldn't be threatened by them. Or B) you can't refute the ideas, because they are right, and then what, that means you feel threatened by the truth.
What I think is the deal with the "dangerous ideas" perhaps is that we're not dealing with pure ideas, arguments or propositions, but rather with emotional conditioning of the viewers. The viewers are programmed to have positive or negative responses to certain ideas or things, and are programmed to associate certain things with certain other things. And he thinks the danger lies in this, what it will lead to, the consequences of this conditioning.
I don't know what to make of it. I think even if there is conditioning going on you can break down the content of a movie, including the hidden message, into pure ideas, devoid of emotion, and then address these ideas. Perhaps even the process involving the viewers being conditioned and the consequences of that can be included in this idea analysis.
