Movie Reflection

 Thank You for Smoking

Even if I were offered $300k  year, I don't think I would be able to do  Nick Naylors job. Not only is it dangerous personally with him being kidnapped, but he's putting the lives of his friends, family, and close individuals at stake. I don't think a monetary value beyond a frankly ridiculous amount would be able to convince me to take his job. It would not only be rather morally reprehensible but also dangerous in a physical sense. Nick Naylor obviously smokes, as do the other members of his friend group, who are avid supporters and partakers of their vices.

It would be expected that I, too, would regularly and openly partake in whatever vice I'm advocating for, whether it be cigarettes or something like Zyns, which I would frankly never do. Nick had to testify that he advocates for this vice so much that if his son truly wanted it, he would buy him his first pack; he had to shake hands with a kid with terminal cancer, knowing full well it was a large part of his actions that had led to the loss of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives.

I know that engineering majors often say they'd use their knowledge for good, but then have the only job opportunities present be at military corporations like Lockheed Martin, like in this article that goes into how engineers are often faced with the moral dilemma of values vs what they ought to with the priority winning out in the end and the lesser priority being pushed aside. 

As for editing old movies, I would not advocate for that; I would issue a higher rating for a film based on whether they were smoking and greatly discourage it through various means with directors and producers. We see old films all the time with out-of-date things that have fallen out of time. The populace doesn't look at old films with high internal values and tends to relate more with newer films, if anything, making smoking seem old and outdated. Having them only be as common in older films seems like a much better idea, like reverse psychology. Yes, I fully believe her methods justified the means, although she has all intentions of ruining Nick's life, she genuinely used his own moral code against him. I'm not saying she stooped to his level. If I were Nick, and I was seeing an investigative reporter and telling her confidential information, it’s not much of a surprise when the reporter does her job, even if it's through less-than-professional pathways, her ends justified the means. 

In history, we learn that one of the very first things that the settlers traded with the native Americans was tobacco. Most of our economy is rooted in things we do for pleasure or leisure, luxury goods and resorts. For however bad some things are, once we start down the road of banning things that should be rightfully available, we leave our rights open for infringement.

The Spiral of Silence

 The Spiral of Silence is a theory in human communication proposed by Elisabeth-Noelle Neumann in 1974. It theorizes that people’s willingness to express their opinions on controversial public issues is affected by their largely unconscious perception of those opinions as being either popular or unpopular.

The better implications of this theory are that it can unite a populace around issues widely accepted as wrong or incorrect, and deter those with opinions of rather nefarious intent. Explaining the basis of societies moral standards.

On the other hand, it can dissuade those who would push for change; they would be in opposition to a collective rather than the minority.

The spiral works on the assumption that the opinion has an ambiguous potent moral factor. There are weaknesses to the theory, one being the vocal minority.

The most prominent modern example would be what is now referred to as ‘cancel culture.’ Individuals who go against the collective can be deemed ‘cancelled’ for something as simple as saying the wrong thing, which can lead to job loss, ostracization as a whole, hate comments, and death threats. 

Differing from cancel culture, the Spiral of Silence encompasses the minority not speaking for fear of backlash, then others assuming the more spoken opinion is and will continue to be the majority, fewer people will voice their ideas or opinions, and thus spiraling in an endless cycle. The Spiral of Silence doesn’t  just affect an individual for their actions, but the intent and their opinion, and even at times, a culture in itself can be suppressed from the concept of backlash or ostracization

Cancelling those who are morally or politically corrupt when systems in our government won't or don’t work would be the positive of the Spiral of Silence. The flip side is when we cancel those undeserving of a vicious slew of hatred. It's for this very same cancel culture stemming from the spiral of silence that there are those who are victimized, scared of speaking up, or those who value their livelihoods that don't risk it for fear of backlash.

When addressing the segment of a populace affected by the spiral of silence, it is anyone not of the inherent majority; it is one of the few ways that a society would backlash against a more prominent ruling upper-class. The only way that a minority group benefits from this is when acceptance and protections of those groups becomes a majority opinion.

 

On a more personal note, the spiral of silence, whilst not directly influencing me, still leaves an effect on even my day-to-day life. As an example, I’ll use a very popular author whose name I won't mention; she has opinions that differ from the collective majority of her readers, and although I only care about the literature itself, it has since become a societal negative to even associate with the author and thus their work. I couldn’t name how many celebrities and artists are now ‘cancelled’. 

As for my generation, I fear that it is  a form of fear-mongering to be cancelled, to say the wrong thing, then have everything you’ve worked for stripped away, even if it's a misunderstanding or even worse, a lie or rumor. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann proposed her theory in 1974, and it has only been exemplified with the technological advancements seen in each generation. 

Thank you.

My little brother has had students expelled from his school for the misuse of language. He could go online, make a video, and essentially ruin the rest of his career.