None, but that’s correct, I agree.
Whereas that’s an outright misrepresentation, and not a hard one to show is without merit - just read up the thread!
The OP’s original post was the one with “propaganda” in it. I ignored it, because I was being charitable, and didn’t really want to know. I assumed it was a bit of ludicrous hyperbole, and could have referred to a lot of things in the show, most of which haven’t even featured in this discussion.
Billbutnotben then asked what Ayumarcan meant by “propaganda”. A reasonable question, frankly, because it’s a wacky and extreme bit of terminology to use, and I think they were curious - did they mean it was, for example, wildly anti-Satanist? Which the show arguably is. Satanism is a perfect example of how hard Sabrina fails, actually.
They quote from actual Satanists. They put forth actual Satanist creeds. They use actual Satanist statues (and got the shit sued out of them for it by actual Satanists). But into these they mix every ridiculous libel and bit of insanity that has ever been aimed at a supposed “witch” or “warlock”. And none of the Satanic creeds are followed. Instead, the Satanic church in Sabrina operates more or less exactly like your average fantasy-show “dubious religion”, which is to say, a sort of pastiche/parody of the worst behaviour of the Catholic church. Not the most Satanic behaviour - much of it goes directly against Satanic teachings - but the worst behaviour. Satanists in the show are literally child-eaters (played for laughs), literally casual murderers (played for laughs), engage in human sacrifice (taken more seriously), and engage in cannibalism of adults (there’s kind of a fixation on cannibalism from the writers of the show), which again is not so much played for laughs, but rather cheap melodrama. And so on. The leader of the church is a classic bullying, hypocritical patriarchal figure, even though that flies in the face of the very Satanic stuff they’re cribbing from. Satan himself is never the witty, tricky Mephistopheles-type, a wise liar, or even your usual sexy devil or the like, but a wild-eyed, madness-inducing beastman who makes Tim Curry’s Darkness from Legend look like Morgan Freeman.
So you could definitely make a reasonable argument that Sabrina is essentially propaganda - anti-Satanic propaganda. With Satanism it does what true propaganda does - mix truth and lies in such a way as the paint your target as wholly vile and contemptible. The Satanic church is painted that way. It’s really clumsy though because they’re also trying to run a line about the liberating nature of witchcraft and the power it grants, and they’re not as clever about it as say The Craft, despite a number of references to it (yeah, I know The Craft wasn’t exactly Citizen Kane, but Sabrina makes it look like it might be worth an Oscar by comparison).
But that wasn’t the answer we got. The answer was that Sabrina being a slightly silly feminist and her cousin not being straight were “too blatant”.
That was then mildly mocked theclockworkrat. MD then took it upon himself to castigate MD in rather ridiculous terms for “shutting down discussion”, because y’know, discussions about how there’s too much feminism and homosexuality in Sabrina are definitely helpful.
I didn’t help matters by doing a takedown on what was actually kind of an apology by MD after clockwork responded.
Then Ayumarcan decided to get back in the game, and to label the show “biased” (which I’m struggling to process, because all shows are, and if anything Sabrina is a little more and honest - and clumsy and obvious - in it’s “bias”), presumably in favour of women and non-straight people (oh no!), and then accused the show of being “madness”, and brought up some very, very strange candidates to represent non-mad shows (Supernatural, for god’s sake), and complained about Sabrina engaging in fan-service (after praising Supernatural and Sailor Moon - again, I’ve never seen Sailor Moon, but I am aware that it’s basically the origin-point of the term in the West…).
And now we’re here, essentially.
So, to sum up, the original post did not contain those things, which why I ignored it, and Bill questioned it. Clockwork didn’t “jump on her case”, clockwork engaged in mild sarcasm. Only three people in this thread have “jumped on cases”. You, me and MD. MD jumped all the fuck over clockwork, it was totally unnecessary. I jumped all over MD, which was probably unnecessary. You jumped all over me and clockwork, which just really seemed to like, strangely late and confused. Clockwork’s sarcasm doesn’t reach “jumped on the case” levels, imo. It’s certainly less bad and less anti-free-speech than what MD said in response (who, despite his claimed goals, was quite seriously policing speech).
Further, Ayumarcan had every opportunity to clarify or explain, and all she’s done is insult people’s intelligence (repeatedly, but it’s unclear how much is smugness, how much intended insult, and how much just poorly chosen words), double-down on what she’s said (and then triple-down), and refuse to engage with any actual questions, especially those about what she actually means.
There’s a big problem here, Deeky, which is that that’s precisely what happened. Everyone except Bill, but including me, ignored “propaganda”, and Bill asked a non-leading question as to what was meant by it.
As that point, we’re at second instance. There’s no question of silencing - they’re being given an opportunity to explain and expand, or to choose not to. No-one had pre-judged anything. So this argument is moot far before the point where you seem to think it is, I’d say. MD’s one likewise.
That’s actually a fair point. I have to say, had I realized Ayumarcan was probably not speaking English-as-a-first-language, I would have been a bit more cautious (though obviously not in what I said re: MD) and circumspect. Unfortunately, Ayumarcan’s initial posts (not later ones) were in such good English, I thought that they obvious were from the US/UK/Aus/etc. Oh well!