Who sets common sense? First they came for the elephants. Lastly, Gov Polis, I join you in a call for civility, but I have a functioning memory and also support not being a hypocrite.

The idea that the culture is being set, and being done with intention, is not a conspiracy.

One shortcut way to understand what hegemony is is to think of it as "who sets what common sense is and how?"

When I talk about hegemony, then, in this post, this is the sense I mean it in (for another perspective see the alternative definition circled in blue in the attached screenshot).

Knowing that, take a minute and read the Reload article below.  It discusses a guideline for filmmakers that University of Southern California (USC) released that details their feelings on how guns should be discussed and portrayed in media.

This is one way that common sense gets set.  It gets set when the culture that we all swim in every day or our lives gives us subtle (and not so subtle) clues as to what we ought to think and believe.  

Sometimes this sort of change is organic and represents a generalized shift in the moods, preferences, and etc. of our culture writ large.

Sometimes, however, it's not.  Sometimes, it's managed.   

Now, I don't know how many filmmakers will listen to USC; that is, I don't know their pull in the industry.  The fact that they are putting out guides at all is enough to draw concern from me.  

I am concerned that they take it upon themselves to think that they SHOULD be telling us all what to think.

I am concerned at the perspective that they take.

I am concerned that they're not the only ones.

When you get the feeling that you can sense a drift in the things you see and read and that this feeling is not reflective of an organic change, I want you to remember this post. 

It does happen that these things get managed.  It does happen that these sorts of things are done with intention.

One last thing.  You, ultimately, can only control your own self.  

Be a thoughtful consumer of media.

Think about what you're choosing to ingest.  When you have an intuition that you're being propagandized, stop and ask yourself what and why.

https://thereload.com/usc-highlights-gun-control-groups-talking-points-in-guide-intended-to-influence-hollywoods-depiction-of-guns/

---

First they came for the elephants.  

I am not sure if you've ever heard of it, but there is a (minor--right now) movement afoot to have some animals declared "non human persons".

So far, I've only heard of whales/dolphins (see links one and two below for some context, one an article on why some scientists say this should happen and the other about India recently deciding to jump in and declare dolphins non human persons).

Given a recent ruling, could elephants be far behind?

The third link below details how a Colorado judge is allowing a suit to proceed against the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo over keeping elephants.  Be careful here (and if you read the article) noting that so far the only thing the courts have allowed is that a lawsuit can proceed; that is, that the zoo could be served with the lawsuit papers.  There is no ruling.  

The lawsuit, brought by an animal rights group is over whether or not an animal could have a (quoting the article):

"... the common law right to bodily liberty recognized for humans [extended] to elephants due their 'autonomy and extraordinary cognitive complexity.'” 

I am not sure about you, but the first thing this brought to mind for me was a question as to limiting principle.  

Is there some limit to "cognitive complexity"?

Hell, is there even a definition of same?  I mean, I'm pretty complex, but I'll be damned if I have the brain necessary to coordinate, say, flight.  Is a bird brain complex in the sense that they can do things I can't?

What about autonomy?  Is there a wild animal that IS NOT autonomous if you let them?  I know pets that are pretty autonomous too (my sisters cat when we were kids is a pretty good example--I'm still not sure why he bothered ever coming to the house, there were no resources there he couldn't find on his own).  

It's not hard to imagine where something like this could end up.  And I can't help but think that's not the point.

Get us used to the concept that animals have the same rights as humans with some cases that won't garner attention and are somewhat sympathetic (dolphins, elephants).

Let that marinate a few years, then lower the bar.

Then lower it again.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-17116882

https://www.dw.com/en/dolphins-gain-unprecedented-protection-in-india/a-16834519#:~:text=India%20has%20officially%20recognized%20dolphins,and%20liberty%20must%20be%20respected.


https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/colorado-zoo-named-in-elephant-habeas-corpus-case/

Yes, Governor Polis, civil disagreement is an important value. So is not being a hypocrite.

Apparently Governor Cox (UT) and Governor Polis are now the chair and vice chair of the governor's association respectively.  They've decided to start an initiative about civility and better discourse called "Disagree Better".  See the video linked below for their introduction.

I salute their effort; in fact, I couldn't agree more with Governor Polis when he says (quoting from the video):

"A little respect and curiosity keeps resentment off the dinner table."



Hear hear.


Except ...


Except that this respect and curiosity for another's beliefs has at times been notably absent from Governor Polis' statements.


I'd point you to the little collage I made for a couple examples.  

How about leading by example and apologizing for your own polarizing remarks Governor?  Recommending behaviors for others that you've engaged in yourself (and not recognized nor accounted for) is the height of hypocrisy.

And just as odious as uncivil behavior in my book.