Mediaboss Marketing

Good question! Photo: Universal Pictures

Last August, Universal made headlines by pulling its upcoming movie The Hunt from theatrical release and shelving the film indefinitely. The studio put out a statement along with its announcement, which said, in part, We stand by our filmmakers and will continue to distribute films in partnership with bold and visionary creators, but we understand that now is not the right time to release this film. That all changed today, however, when producer Jason Blum and The Hunt co-writer Damon Lindelof told The Hollywood Reporter that the movie is coming to a theater near you on March 13. The specifics of it, however, remain largely unknown, given that few people inside let alone outside the film industry have seen it. Its fair to wonder: What the hell is everyone talking about?

A quick recap of the movies first attempt at release: Universal started pulling back on its marketing campaign following the mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas. Based on the trailer and the limited official plot descriptions provided by Universal, The Hunt directed by Craig Zobel and written by Nick Cuse and Lindelof (who all executive-produced the film with Blum) focuses on a group of Americans who are kidnapped and dropped off in a rural area in Europe. In this natural arena of sorts, they are then hunted down by rich people who have paid for the Most Dangerous Game experience of murdering them with an array of weapons, including guns. In light of the two recent instances of gun violence in the U.S., Universal decided it was best to shelve the movie and give it no rescheduled release date.

In the latest THR interview, Lindelof says a perception [of The Hunt] was largely formed based on all the events in the aftermath of the horrific weekend before. [But] we really dont want to be pointing fingers, and more importantly, we dont want to be wagging fingers at anyone for overreacting or reacting incorrectly. We just felt like the movie was being misunderstood. What exactly is there to misunderstand about a film Blum is now framing as probably the most judged movie thats ever existed that everyone who judged it hadnt seen? Heres your brief guide:

A preferred refrain on Fox News last week claimed the movie features privileged vacationers hunting down deplorables. While privileged vacationers does seem appropriately vague, there is no use of the word deplorable in the trailer or official plot descriptions provided by the studio, either in conjunction with the trailers release, or even in various casting announcements reported by the trades. The first footage does feature characters saying they hail from Wyoming, Mississippi, and Florida. One character tells us every year a bunch of elites kidnap normal folks like us, but neither the elites nor the normal folks use the word deplorable.

So, does The Hunt feature deplorables being hunted for sport? After ads for the movie were pulled, the Hollywood Reporter posted a few quotes from the movies screenplay. It reportedly referenced our ratfucker-in-chief and slaughtering a dozen deplorables. One of the journalists who co-authored that piece, Kim Masters, told Vulture those phrases are in fact in the film or, at least, in the cut of the film the studio was sitting on before it was shelved. That means the existence of the word deplorables is: confirmed.

Next up, the word liberal elite has been used to describe the hunters of The Hunt, and heres where we have a change from the original press run. That ideological qualifier did not appear in any of Universals official descriptions, and a detail that accompanied the casting announcement for Betty Gilpin said the pic explores escalating aggressiveness between the political right and left in America without specifying the ideological alignments of the characters. In the newly cut trailer, we now have a character saying Did you read that article? Every year these liberal elites kidnap a bunch of normal folks like us and hunt us for sport. The way the trailer cuts during that line implies the posh looking liberal elites are doing bad things to people, so we can switch the status of this detail to: confirmed.

The movies first trailer features a photo lineup of the hunted, showing the individuals doing things like holding a gun in front of an American flag, posing with a poached rhinoceros, marching with a tiki torch similar to those carried by white nationalists, sitting menacingly behind what looks like a podcast microphone. Some of the images contained within the photo lineup have been associated with conservatives, the alt-right, and/or neo-Nazis some of whom are Trump supporters but theres no direct mention of any of the hunted voting for Trump. The original title of the film was Red State vs. Blue State, and based on reporting by THR it was apparently received with trepidation when Universal bought the project. But considering the persistent vagueness of Red State vs. Blue State and the fact that the new trailer does not provide political party alignment, and that producer Blum announced the new release date saying None of us were interested in taking sides with this movie, Vultures conclusion about whether or not Trump supporters are the ones being hunted remains: We have no idea.

Another description that has come up about the antagonists in the The Hunt is that they are globalist elites. None of the information provided about The Hunt has specified whether or not Hilary Swank, who seems to be the architect of the murder game, and her clientele are globalist or isolationist or members of the New World Order. All we know is that they are rich enough to buy their way into the Hunt, and rich enough for Swanks character to say in the trailer, We pay for everything, so this country belongs to us. (Honestly, they sound a lot like the members of the Elite Hunting Club from the Hostile franchise, and those guys were mostly just politically ambiguous assholes.)

So, are the bad guys the globalist elite? Even with the new trailer, which seems to make the The Hunts narrative progression more transparent than the first marketing campaign, the verdict stays the say the same: cant stress enough how little information we have.

The president weighed in on the moral compass of Hollywood during the first wave of controversy, explaining during a press appearance on the White House lawn that an unnamed upcoming movie is made in order to inflame and cause chaos. While he did not specifically name The Hunt, that particular film was mentioned several times on Fox News prior to his quote. Trump also tweeted, Liberal Hollywood is Racist at the highest level, and, They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!

Based on what little we have seen, is The Hunt racist? Really tough to make an assessment on this one based on two trailers, but what weve seen features entirely white-on-white violence and one actor saying, Im playing an Arab refugee, but I identify as white. I think thats problematic, too, in some way. Do we have access to any other details whatsoever about the individual characters or their ideological motivations within the movie? No. Judgment: truly cannot tell you anything about this movie.

Honestly that: seems possible, but with a lot less ennui than Joker.

This has been your myth-busting guide to The Hunt. Stay vigilant, everyone.

*This story has been updated to include comment from a journalist at The Hollywood Reporter as well as new facts available based on the renewed marketing campaign.

Original post:
Wait, What Is The Hunt Even About? - Vulture

(Flickr-Gage Skidmore)

I compare Peterson with Ayn Rand becauseas I read this bookher name constantly came to my mind (she is mentioned only once in the book).

The Left has long had intellectual gurus with cult-like followings: from Derrida to Foucault to Sartre to iek. This is a less frequent occurrence on the Right, so there are fewer intellectual gurus to be found there. Perhaps the last such figure was Ayn Rand, and, even thoughshe has been dead for more than three decades, her views remain quite influential for some young people.So, the time is ripe for a new right-wing intellectual guru, and it seems Jordan Peterson is playing that role.

If you are a male college student, you might not mind watching Petersons long lectures on Solzhenitsynor reading his technical articles on the psychology of alcoholism. However, the rest of us would prefer to have a ready-made concise CliffNotes version of his ideas, chiefly to judge whether this Peterson fellow is actually worth all of the fuss that accompanies him. Jim Proser provides such a guide in Savage Messiah: How Dr. Jordan Peterson Is Saving Western Civilization. It is a nice intellectual biography, written in a very engaging style; it is never dumbed-down yet full of anecdotes. It also quotes extensively from Petersons own books, lectures, and interviews.

I compare Peterson with Ayn Rand becauseas I read this bookher name constantly came to my mind (she is mentioned only once in the book). In Atlas Shrugged, the boogeyman is socialism, and the dominant theme of that very long book is individuals rejecting herd-mentality and taking responsibility for their own actions; Atlas is the mythological hero, who embraces this ideal by taking the world on his shoulders. In Prosers portrayal, Peterson is similarly fascinated with Atlas, as this excerpt from one of his lectures demonstrates: This is an old representation, right? Atlas with the world. Well, its a representation that says that thats the proper way to live, right? [It] is to pick up a load thats heavy enough so that if you carry it you have some self-respect.

Points along these lines may sound more like self-help motivational coaching than insightful scholarship. And indeed, throughout Prosers book, one may sympathize with Peterson, but I still wonder what all the hand-wringing surrounding him is all about. Dont misunderstand me, Peterson is a legitimate scholar, but I can think of many, many contemporary intellectuals that have far more interesting things to say.

Now, maybe Petersons singularity is that he struck a chord in the right place at the right time. Political correctness and identity politics have gone too far, and free speech does appear to be under siege at many North American universities. As Proser tells the story, Peterson courageously has taken a stand against of all this. Kudos to him for that. However, I worry that there is something darker lurking underneath Petersons crusade.

Apart from Ayn Rand, the other author that constantly came to mind as I read the book was Nietzsche. Proser paints Peterson as some sort of bermensch, a figure who in his youth lifted weights, a roughneck, a frontier cowboy from the lonely Alberta oilfields he grew up fighting for his place in a wolf pack of tough guys. And, now, Peterson has become this savage intellectual, who exists beyond the mediocrity of the restand thrives by killing the dragons of chaos, fighting hard to reestablish order.

Now, of course, Nietzsche was not guilty of the way his philosophy was abused by the Nazis. But, I do give credence to the thesis that his ideas did sow the seeds of totalitarianism.If you worry so much about being a Superman, then ultimately it is not so hard to conclude that weaklings must simply disappear from the face of the Earth.Likewise, I worry thatunderneath all the talk about responsibility, order, and anti-political correctnessthere may be something more sinister going on with Peterson.

Proser presents Peterson as a champion of the Enlightenment, who prioritizes science over ideology, and calls a spade a spade by reminding liberals that gender differences are real. That may very well be, but I doubt Peterson is really committed to the Enlightenment and its true liberal spirit. Actually, I think Matt McManus hits it on the head when he claims that Peterson is much closer aligned with postmodernism and the counter-Enlightenment than he would be willing to admit. The Enlightenment turned its back on faith and Christianity as a whole; Peterson says he does not believe in God, but he, very confusingly, seems to think religion will always be necessaryand that atheism inevitably leads to many depravities. The Enlightenment was cosmopolitan and had little patience for nationalism; by contrast, the counter-Enlightenment provided the intellectual rationale for modern nationalism, and Peterson is similarlyunhappyabout what he calls globalism. The Enlightenment had little patience for pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo; by contrast, Peterson seems to think that people who painted snakes in antiquity already knew about DNA

But, perhaps the more worrying aspect of Peterson is his obsession with what he calls neo-Marxism and its alleged pernicious infiltration of our civilization. This is the dominant theme of Prosers book. Yes, there are some fools in North American universities, and Peterson does a public service by confronting them. But, to believe that these clueless college students are actually a threat to Western civilization (and that Peterson is a kind of Medieval knight who must slew the terrifying monsters) is hyperbole. If History is any guide, totalitarianism begins with hyperbole about the dangers of particular people, whether it is Jews, the bourgeoisie, or the Kafir. Of course, Communism killed millions of people, but to obsess over it may actually pave the way for new forms of totalitarianism. Those youngsters who are fascinated with Peterson should know that Stalinism and McCarthyism are cut from the same clothand, unfortunately, Petersons obsession with neo-Marxism (whatever that means) is dangerously close to the kind of intellectual cleansing that infamous Senator from Wisconsin senator aspired towards.

Precisely because Peterson has this illiberal bone, nasty people can become very fond of him. The Alt-right is a case in point. Of course, one ought never be charged with a crime on the basis of association (again, one cannot entirely blame Auschwitz on Nietzsche). But in the case of Peterson, it should at least give pause that his ideas are being used to push for someeyebrow-raising agendas. While he still has a chance to escape such guilt by associations, Peterson must try harder to disavow some of the tendentious readings that people make of his words.

Proser has written a nice book, but he also makes for an example of someone who wants to use Peterson for his own agenda of ultraconservatism and American triumphalism. Take, for instance, his views on American imperialism. In the book, there is constant mention of the Soviet Evil Empire but no mention whatsoever of any American Empire. Proser scolds Noam Chomsky for saying that, the United States also wiped out communist uprisings in Latin America with the methods of Heinrich Himmlers extermination squads. Well, like it or not, Chomsky is right this time. The United States illegal involvement in Nicaragua(and other countries south of Rio Grande) was intended to wipe out communist uprisings. Proserin dismissing offhandedly this comparisonignores that the School of the Americas run by the CIA taught Latin American dictatorships how to torture in order to suppress communist movements.

Proser is so far to the right, that he thinks that Obama was, the de facto leader of the left since his election in 2008. Proser even claims that, Jordan [Peterson] recognized the election of Barack Obama and explosion of Occupy Wall Street as clear demonstrations that a radical Marxist storm had surged and was aiming to collapse Western traditions as it had before. I do not know if Peterson actually thought this; however, if he did, then there is something wrong with him. To think that Barack Obama, who bailed out banks and Wall Street belongs in the same category with Occupy Wall Street is nothing more than unhealthy conspiratorial thinking.

One can easily guess Prosers political views by looking at which thinkers he invokes and approves of. When speaking of the Intellectual Dark Web, he mentions respectable names such as Sam Harris, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro. But then, he includes Glenn Beck. Seriously? The same guy who rants about George Soros and toys with conspiracy theories over and over again? Someone who not only toys withbut rather fully embracesall sorts of conspiracy theories is Alex Jones. And Proser does seem to have a soft spot for him, too: Alex Jones would fall to de-platforming as social media monopolies Facebook, Google, and Twitter revealed themselves to be in the progressive camp by using the new standard hate speech is not free speech to throttle conservative, or as Jordan [Peterson] described himself, traditionalist voices.

It is nice to have someone to give young adults advice about discipline, order, and responsibility. It is also nice to have a professor on television telling woke crusaders that the State has no right to force people to use specific pronounsand that not everything is about race. But, if by talking so much about the Gulag, you forget about Guantanamo, we have a problem. No, I do not claim moral equivalency; the Gulag was certainly worse. But, I cannot emphasize enough that obsession with Stalinism can lead to McCarthyismor the Patriot Actand Peterson needs to think harder about how to prevent this.

He still has time to avoid going down the path of Ayn Rand. In her case, one can understand how closely witnessing the horrors of the Russian Revolution led to her extremist views. By contrast, Peterson has had the privilege of living in democratic nations his entire life. Sure, he has reason to strongly object to Communism, but his own unchecked views may be promoting a world that few sensible people would want. I worry thatin the endthis famous quotation by John Rogers may also apply to Petersons work: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life:The Lord of the RingsandAtlas Shrugged.One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Dr. Gabriel Andrade is a university professor. He has previously contributed to Areo Magazine and DePauw Universitys The Prindle Post. His twitter is@gandrade80

Go here to see the original:
Is Jordan Peterson the New Ayn Rand? - Merion West

Twitter can be a cesspool full of bots, trolls, and Reply Guys. Luckily, there are some built-in privacy and security tools you can use to minimize the amount of garbage in your feed. In the video above, I show you how.

The most obvious first step to cleaning up your Twitter feed is to Marie Kondo the accounts you follow. Dont want to see your ex from college fall down the alt-right rabbit hole in real time? Unfollow. Sick of your former roommate posting constantly about how she just loves living alone with her cat? Unfollow. Just keep in mind that this doesnt stop them from following you or messaging you if your DMs are open.

If you dont want to completely unfollow someone, but just need a break from their posts, then mute them. Their posts will stop appearing in your feed, but youre still able to manually visit their account and see their posts. If this person mentions you or DMs you, youll still get notifications.

This is your best tool against people you absolutely dont want to interact with. Blocking someone will prevent them from following you, messaging you, or showing up in your feed. You wont be able to see their account and they wont be able to see yours. This is the ultimate way to completely cut off communication on Twitter, and you shouldnt be afraid to wield this tool like a Jedis lightsaber.

A certain topic or trend can often become all-consuming on Twitter, and thats where this tool comes in. Are you some sort of heartless monsters whos sick of seeing all of those Baby Yoda memes? Just block the words Baby Yoda and any tweets containing those words wont show up in your feed or notifications.

At the end of the day, how much you check Twitter is up to you. If its become a bad habit, there are some tools you can use on your phone to limit screen time or block apps during certain hours of the day. I made a video about that, too.

The nuclear solution, baby. Cant get trolled online if youre not online.

Here is the original post:
How to Stop the Twitter Trolls and Clean Up Your Feed - Lifehacker

Welcome to a sneak peek of theMacleansPolitics Insidernewsletter. Sign up to get it delivered straight to your inbox.

Sanders wins after a long election night in New Hampshire: Well, at least this time the votes actually got reported, but while the New Hampshire primary went more smoothly than its Iowa caucuses predecessor, the results were close enough that it was nearly time for the late-night talk-show jokes when it became possible to announce thatBernie Sanders was projected to win. However, because he was splitting the vote with several other candidates, he didnt win a blowout victory the way he did in 2016 against Hillary Clinton: the second-place finisher,Pete Buttigieg, will wind up with the same number of pledged delegates under New Hampshires system, making the night effectively a tie despite Sanders popular-vote victory. The only other candidate to win delegates or get double-digit support was Amy Klobuchar, whose campaign has recently moved up to the major leagues.

Not such a big night for Biden and Warren: Two candidates who didnt do well enough to receive any delegates were two people who were, at various points, regarded as frontrunners: Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren spent the evening battling it out for a distant fourth. Anticipating another bad night, Biden had already moved onto South Carolina, and delivered a video message telling his supporters that he would win once the campaign moved on to less-white states like the Southern states and Nevada.

Warren gives a shout-out to Klobuchar: In her speech after the New Hampshire results started to come in, Warren allowed that Sanders and Buttigieg had had strong nights, but was effusive about another Senate colleague: I also want to congratulate my friend and colleague Amy Klobuchar for showing just how wrong the pundits can be when they count a woman out. Depending on where Warrens campaign goes from here, the comment might be pointed to as the start of her comeback, or the moment when she started throwing support to a different candidate.

The end of the Yang Gang: One of the casualties of New Hampshire was the candidacy of Andrew Yang, who suspended his campaign after it became clear that he didnt do well. You know I am the math guy, and it is clear tonight from the numbers that we are not going to win this race. Yangs run, in which he stressed the need to prepare for a future of massive job loss due to automation, and didnt shy away from occasional politically-incorrect jokes about his Asian-American identity, attracted supporters who didnt identify with the Trump right or the liberal Democratsbut, it seems, not enough supporters. Last year, Michael Fraiman profiled the candidate for Macleans and explained his appeal:

Hes soaking up support from an unlikely coalition of socialists, libertarians, alt-right trolls, independents, disaffected Trump supporters and tech-savvy millennials who vote based on which candidate generates the dankest memes. They call themselves the Yang Gang. Elon Musk is a member, as are Tommy Chong, Nicolas Cage, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and YouTube star Casey Neistat.

Im Spartacus, vote Bloomberg: Did Michael Bloomberg get the ultimate late-breaking endorsement from Hollywood legend Kirk Douglas? Douglass son Michael Douglas, a major Bloomberg supporter, told the candidates supporters that shortly before his father died last week at age 103, among his last words were: Mike can get it done.

The rest is here:
New Hampshire avoids Iowas disaster, and produces a similar result - Maclean's

A new study of popular mens rights forums and subreddits has found that men on the internet have become more toxic and espouse nihilistic and extreme anti-women ideologies.

The study, by a team of researchers from University College London, Birmingham University, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and others, looked at 38.4 million posts from seven message boards and 57 subreddits collectively described as the manosphere.

According to the team, the manosphere is a conglomerate of predominantly Web-based misogynist movements roughly focused on mens issues.

Some of these sites include The Attraction, Rooshv, SlutHate, and Incel.is, as well as Reddit subgroups for Pick Up Artists (PUA), Mens Rights Activists (MRA), and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and Involuntary Celibates (Incels).

Many of these groups have existed for years, but the team found that the newer variations tended to produce much more radical and violent rhetoric, according to a Newsweek report on the study.

They found forums for specific sites tended to have the most extreme rhetoric, featuring more explicit hate speech than Reddit.

The team also found that many people participated in multiple forums and subreddits, giving the impression that the 'manosphere' as a whole might be larger than it actually is.

They also suggest that many posters had been on a pathway toward more radical beliefs.

Many of the individuals involved with the PUA community went onto more extreme anti-feminist communities such as [The Red Pill], which in turn strongly migrated to MGTOW, the team argue.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has noted a substantial overlap between the general tenets of the manosphere and white supremacy.

Both the alt-right and the manosphere agree that feminism is the cause of Western civilizational decline, the group argues.

In fact, the misogyny intrinsic to the 'alt-right' might very well be one of its distinctive features.

Mens rights jargon has played a role in a number of mass shootings in recent years.

In 2019, a 24 year-old who killed nine students at a Dayton, Ohio high school after having previously kept a rape list of women that had rejected his romantic or sexual advances.

In 2018, a 26 year-old Toronto man killed 10 people in downtown Toronto after writing a Facebook post in which he declared allegiance to the Incel Rebellion.'

Most famously, in 2014 Elliot Rodger killed seven people near the campus of UC Santa Barbara after writing a manifesto blaming women for the fact that he was a 22-year-old virgin who had never even kissed a girl.

This article has been adapted from its original source.

See more here:
Men on The Net Become More Toxic, Anti-Women Ideologues - Al-Bawaba