Saturday Audience Participation
Mangan responded to my Ron Paul post yesterday. I don't want to discuss that, though I may write another Paul post soon. Instead, I want to point to a comment Mr. Mangan makes in responding to a criticism leveled at me:
I don't want to make this an attack on OneSTDV, but I have to agree with the commenter who said that there's little evidence that he's read serious books while there's abundant evidence that he's steeped in pop culture. Seems almost daily he features some pop phenomenon that I've never heard of (though I am out of touch that way). He really needs to turn off the TV.Admittedly, I am quite steeped in popular culture, but I don't really spend that much time watching the idiot box. I watch some TV daily and I peruse the Entertainment page at HuffPo, but that's about it. Mangan clearly doesn't do either of these things, a testament to his intellectual maturity and/or his mature animosity towards decadent culture. I won't begrudge Mangan here as there's not much to defend about the frivolity of modern American culture; just a few days ago, I watched 15 minutes of a cupcake baking competition on TLC ("The Learning Channel").
Few reactionary bloggers even cover popular culture, with Paul Kersey and myself the two most prominent. (I know Chuck Ross is familiar with pop culture, but does not write about it as often. Fine, Whiskey too, but his incisive analysis often gets lost in "HATE HATE HATE" screeds.) While I could argue that one needs to understand the zeitgeist to thwart it, I won't. I don't imbibe vapid pop culture for anthropological reasons.
Quite simply, I watch crappy reality TV and know about celebrity gossip primarily to rest my mind. I couldn't care less about the stupid Kardashians or what idiots are on The Real World this season. But I like my culture easy to digest. Plus, none of it affects me; I turn off the TV and that's the end of it. For example, despite years of cultural indoctrination from The Real World, my view of gays hasn't changed for the positive. I also somewhat enjoy the vicarious experience of dysfunction. My life has very little "drama" (that's what the kids call it these days) and reality TV gives me a tiny sense of it.
Today's questions: Do you keep up to date with empty pop culture? Do you think reactionaries "should turn off the TV"? Is there something to be learned from keeping up with vapid pop culture? Is current American culture really that bad?
And Merry Christmas.
51 comments:
I suspect that many of the "anti-TV" alt-righters are simply prudes with weak constitutions, who literally become queasy whenever they see something vaguely sexual on TV - especially if it involves black people.
I myself never watch TV, because I think it's ridiculous and backwards to organize your schedule according to the TV guide. The Internet lets me watch what I want, when I want.
Soon we may not have to deal with this, I see the news feed concept as fragmenting "pop culture" since as IHTG points out people can watch whatever they want online.
I keep current. The amount of mental effort/brain-space needed to have some idea of what's going on is really low, and the benefits of having common ground to fit in with a wider range of people far outweigh it.
I suspect a lot of the alt-right/reactionary/racist readership are "information junkies" so my advice is to simply add pop culture to the list of things to check on every so often. People spend inordinate amounts of time on economic/social policy wonkery (imagine reading every single zero hedge post every day) that only serves to further envolope them in their own nerd coccoon. Channel just a little bit of that energy into watching sportscenter and skimming a celeb garbage site.
Paul at SPBDL is one of our best bloggers, specifically because he talks about things normal people care about like football and crappy hollywood movies. I know the moldbug program of authoritarian-imposed reaction sounds sexy but it isn't realistic. We need popular support and step 1 of getting popular support is DO NOT come off like an asbergery social retard.
I suspect a lot of the alt-right/reactionary/racist readership are "information junkies" so my advice is to simply add pop culture to the list of things to check on every so often.
Exactly.
Do you keep up to date with empty pop culture?
More or less. As noted above, you do not want to live like a social retard. Part of being around people is being able to make a funny rejoinder when some girl at work makes a quip about Jennifer Aniston.
Keeping up with pop culture is like many other small social rituals that keep us not-hermits. Even the very serious Auster keeps up with pop culture, from quoting Dylan all the time, to using Brangelna as a launching point for social analysis.
As to Dylan, I wonder if older reactionary bloggers not so much disdain pop culture, as they disdain pop culture that they generationally do not relate to.
Do you think reactionaries "should turn off the TV"?
You can't hermit yourself from mass culture unless you are part of a like-minded insular community. Lone nuclear families that try to self-isolate, sentence their children to loneliness. This often causes the kids to run in the opposite extreme as they mature.
In my case, I watch about one hour of TV per week. "Two and a Half Men," and bits of 'alternate lifestle' shows on TLC, which I enjoy: Duggars, and Sister-Wives specifically.
Gotta be in the world but not of it. Watch TV in moderation if you enjoy it, but have the ability to critically deflect its destructive messages.
And you have to recognize that TV, if you watch it without a psychological filter, is a demoralizer. See the myriad discussions on beta-indocrtination in "Friedns", hapless fathers, and so on. Then, the TV commercials that denigrate white men and glorify every one else.
I stopped watching NFL football, the only sport I enjoy watcing regularly, because of the commercials. The cost (my annoyance) outweighs the benefit (enjoyment of the game), and it is trumped by competing pleasures (being outdoors on a nice day when the game is on).
I avoid most pop culture simply from the sheer boredom of it. I'm just not interested in the latest crappy pop singer or moronic rapper or celebrity airhead/cokehead. Some of this stuff seeps through from reading blogs like this, but I don't make even the slightest effort to keep up with manufactured trends. I admit to watching some pop culture, such as The Simpsons (until ten years ago) and South Park (still sometimes watch that). In fact it's usually through South Park that I first learn of things like World of Warcraft or Glee.
First: Merry Christmas!
"Do you keep up to date with empty pop culture?"
No. I watch movies, and I enjoy some things that are considered "empty pop culture" (such as Twilight), but that is because I consider them under-rated.
I don't watch television or listen to radio. I don't allow the mainstream media to have a pipeline into my head, with commercials.
"Do you think reactionaries "should turn off the TV"?"
Yes.
And watching movies is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I'm aware that it feeds the enemy, and I see a lot of bad messages in movies. Paying for anti-White propaganda is ethically questionable at best.
But, I like watching movies, and I'm prepared to pay for tickets to see a bunch of bad ones for the sake of the occasional Lord of the Rings series or even for something a quarter that good.
I think it's fine to have a cursory knowledge of 'pop culture'. I distanced myself from TV back in '94 and haven't regretted it at all.
The problem arises with the idiots and imbeciles that devour the 'pop culture' as gospel truth and as somehow worthy of embracing as a viable reality to their own pathetic existences. The idea of projection and substitution for their own shallow lives and replacing them with the alternate realities that 'pop culture' presents.
I say turn the TV's off and get outside and walk and play and accomplish. If you have children and you let the TV babysit them, then you're doing a grave disservice to their fragile egg-shell minds.
Take it with a grain of salt is what I say, but be aware of current social trends and study to show thyself approved.
I haven't owned a television in two years, and when I had one I almost never watched it. I don't keep up with pop culture at all, and I hardly watch any (Western) movies. I also don't have a radio.
I'm quite fine with being a socially retarded hermit.
On the contrary, reactionaries should keep in touch with pop culture.A cursory knowledge of sports,music, films, etc, is necessary for two reasons:
1) to ascertain what´s wrong with modern society. (hermits make bad social commentary)
2) to be able to strike up a conversation with the common man. As some commenter said, we need ordinary people on our side. Why alienate our fellow citizens with pedantry and curmudgeonry?
Having said that, anything over 5 minutes immersion in pop culture is a waste of time.
What is up with this "random insight" of yours?
"While the incidence of divorce rape is exaggerated by MRAs, when it does happen it's absolutely sickening."
There is no such thing as "divorce rape." MRAs invented the term to downplay rape by associating it with something far less serious.
I rarely watch TV or go to movies. If I like a TV show, I usually marathon through the episodes and that will be that.
I don't think pop culture immersion/literacy is necessary for reactionaries in daily life. Bloggers who talk about it are good, because they draw in people by giving their interesting take on pop culture happenings. But I think that the constant jabbering on about pop culture silliness is just something to do to make up for the fact that most people are boring and don't have anything else to talk about.
"And you have to recognize that TV, if you watch it without a psychological filter, is a demoralizer."
Actually, I find it more demoralizing the more aware I am of the messages. Partly, I think, because watching TV gives you this sense that everyone else out there watching it is OK with it...its such a disgustingly passive means of indoctrination.
While someone like IHTG might jump in here and pass off any any resistance to the filth spewed by his tribe as "queasiness", the media is clearly anti-white male (anti-white, ultimately).
Over-the-top, staggeringly anti-white male.
I dont even need to point out any examples...they are EVERYWHERE.
Literally designed to demoralize and acclimate us to our demographic and genetic destruction.
Even the shows that are occasionally funny and clever - South Park, Tosh.0 - are full of this shit. Anybody see the "shakeweight" episode of SouthPark? Or the "racist guy hits his wife" sketch on Tosh?
Its not just our imagination...
I don't think that following pop culture is essential, but it can be useful as an aid to understanding our times. This is especially true if you look at our popular culture in light of history, literature, and philosophy.
Our access to reality or truth begins by examining the dominant opinions in which we are immersed.
I remember the first inling I had, that one must (as a Christian) not be 'conformed to the world.' I read a comment that someone had copied a verse from the Psalms, and taped it to her (Pre-digital, pre-Beta, pre-MTV) Television, and I have striven more and more to approximate that idea. "Keep my eyes, O Lord, from watching what is worthless."
Since TV has gone digital, we do not have a converter box, or any other way to LET the Idol-vision into our home. We still can watch DVD's and older VHS cassettes that we buy for less than a dollar at certain stores. I don't know ANYTHING about popular culture since that event, and could care even less. My kids get razzed about being 'deviationaly deficient,' but as former homeschooled kids, they know the 'hoi polloi' are just idiots, anyway, and that they are going to be adults far longer than they will ever be teenagers, so it's a toss up.
But when I DO watch TV, it confims me even more, that the VISION the spinmeisters want Americans to have of what THEIR 'brave new (Multicultural) world' is, is utterly Demonic and Satanic.
Truly, I pray the prayer of the psalmist every day: "Keep my eyes, O Lord, from watching what is worthless."
- Fr. John+
I look at it as being an amateur cultural anthropologist, noting things without becoming a part of it. Of course, ten or so minutes of any of these reality-celebrity shows is enough to tell what it's all about; no need to dwell there. Might as well know what's going on out there in the broader culture, though.
Schlock is almost inescapable and I know more than I ever wished to know about all these Hollyweird creeps without ever actively seeking information about them. However, I figure if a person isn't in the mood for some heavy lifting then some passive junk entertainment is alright; no point in being some grim, dour person.
For me popular culture generally triggers the gag-reflex and I reel at the mass brainwashing and manipulation at work out there. I sure hope all that idiocracy isn't being taken too seriously by the audience out there; I hate to think what that might mean.
I think TV watching is fine for smart adults who understand that TV distorts reality in certain ways. Any reactionary should limit or ideally forbid, TV access to his children. Remember that the media is not a neutral player in the culture-wars. The media's programming reflects its views on society and morality, and that view is completely liberal. The message your children get from TV may be opposed to what you're trying to teach them.
I think there is a lot fertile ground in alt-right types watching TV, movies, advertising, and cable news and explicitly deconstructing the propaganda in plain language. It's a public service, but its not for me I just watch Netflix. I watched the first season of Walking Dead and the level of PC goodthink was almost self-parody.
Funny how two SWPL shibboleths are repeated here!
I watch very little TV or mainstream movies. And I've lost interest in most sports besides baseball (used to be a big NBA fan when I was younger, now feeling the same turn off towards the NFL). Pop music is for teenage girls.
Still I agree with most that as long as you keep up with the news and don't actively try to filter out all pop culture information, you can be aware of what's going on without expending much effort. There's nothing more annoying than trying to make small talk with someone and they haughtily declare "oh, I don't follow X."
So have you ever actually read a book before?
I think there is a lot fertile ground in alt-right types watching TV, movies, advertising, and cable news and explicitly deconstructing the propaganda in plain language.
There certainly is a lot of fertile ground. Anybody who's familiar with the phenomenon of online video reviewers, who cover movies, video games, etc, knows how massively popular these everyday people can become.
I believe that a Roissy-like figure, who is both alt-rightish yet cool and accessible, could have great success in this genre.
I don't watch any television. I do feel like I need to know at least a little of what's going on in pop culture, though, so I look through "Rolling Stone" and a couple other magazines at the library and also look at the tabloids while standing in the supermarket checkout line. I don't really know what people like Justin Bieber, Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian are famous for but at least I'm aware they exist.
Yes, turn it off. Kill it!
A tv is only good for DVDs.
I'm aware of what's going on in 'pop culture' and 'celebrity culture' primarily through online news sites, and from overhearing the banal conversations of younger analysts and assistants (mainly female) in the office, at bars, and at parties. I pretend to know much less about it than I do.
If you are a guy who dates a lot of women, as I do, a certain exposure to the trivialities of 'pop culture' is unavoidable. Chicks are suckers for this mind-numbing filth.
I would argue an awareness of 'pop culture' allows one to infiltrate and blend in with the herd, without actually becoming a part of it. It's instructive to observe close-up, like a soldier-scientist behind enemy lines, our foe's propaganda and its effect on our civilisation. By doing so, we may find an antidote.
In what sense are you a reactionary OneSTDV?
I don't see how Paul Kersey's blog is reactionary in any sense, so your usage of the term here is confusing me.
You say "But I like my culture easy to digest." which seems to me at odds with being a reactionary. Perhaps you could state or define what you mean by the term.
I don't watch tv at all, although I'd seriously consider watching Lone Ranger reruns and anything with Leo Gorcey in it, and maybe something with Boris Badenov's (sp) laugh as he plans his next attempt to destroy moose and squirrel. If someone wants to argue that Howdy Doody is worth watching, I'd be willing to listen to reason, but you'd have an uphill battle.
I don't even watch sports, but that's mostly because there's now too much extraneous stuff being made part of the game. Also the camera directors would rather show facial closeups than spatial relationships, which to my mind has it exactly backwards.
The only thing I know about the Kardashians and any of the Jennifers who are well known for something or other is what I see on the covers of magazines at the checkout stand when I go shopping. I'm always amazed that people actually buy those magazines.
I live in Western Europe but our commercial TV channels show American entertainment practically non-stop. I tried to watch daytime TV and found the shows nauseating. Unfortunately, my country is very americanized, I have been to Paris recently and people in general look much more classy, because they aren't so immersed in USA style pop culture.
I do like old American shows like I Love Lucy, Leave It To Beaver and films made in the times of Hays code, which I watch on DVD. My husband likes cooking shows and programs about cars. When I want some mindless entertainment, I surf the web.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, One, and a Prosperous New Year.
There was, until 2006, a great site called "Planet Socks" which heaped ridicule on the Survivor/Real World/Road Rules shows. That site was so entertaining I actually watched some of the shows to see what the fuss was about, but found the internet summaries far superior.
As far as current fare; I have no use for it whatsoever, except to catalog the unabashed propaganda passed off as 'entertainment'. The shows are so PREACHY on the Holy Trinity of "Gender", race and class. What's really frightening is that so many people watch it and believe it.
"Do you keep up to date with empty pop culture? Do you think reactionaries "should turn off the TV"?"
No and yes.
"You can't hermit yourself from mass culture unless you are part of a like-minded insular community."
Yes you can. Simply don't watch TV or go to any movies and you're pretty much there already.
"A cursory knowledge of sports,music, films, etc, is necessary for two reasons:
1) to ascertain what´s wrong with modern society. (hermits make bad social commentary)
2) to be able to strike up a conversation with the common man."
1) I already know the answer.
2) Why do I want to?
@ Pat:
In what sense are you a reactionary OneSTDV?
I don't see how Paul Kersey's blog is reactionary in any sense, so your usage of the term here is confusing me.
You say "But I like my culture easy to digest." which seems to me at odds with being a reactionary. Perhaps you could state or define what you mean by the term.
I'm still confused as to why you read this site. Though I'm also equally confused as to why you harbor a mild disdain for me.
I'm not interested in a blogwar with you so if that's what you're after, don't expect anything from it.
I read a lot of blogs and other sites on the web. I own a television set, but it is used for Netflix rentals and streaming. I watch old movies so I can remember what the US was.
As for radio, a bit of talk here and there, but here in Birmingham I have no choice. It is talk, or it is radio preachers, sports, kuntreh, sports, rap, sports, dreadful pop, and, of course, sports.
I stopped watching commercial television so long ago I don't recall when it was, but I recall that TLC really was a learning channel, and that Bravo actually had culture. It has devolved into nothing but dumb-husband-sitcoms, the-white-male-did-it procedurals, or idiotic variety programs.
One laugh I get is to hear so many who are SO vocal about not having a TV or not watching ask you "did you see that new commercial for...?"
I don't want a blog war with you either OneSTDV.
I simply want to know what you mean by reactionary.
It's a simple question. You used the term.
What is it? I've asked the same of Mangan, so, no need to take it personally. I really just want to know what the so called "alt-right" stands for.
I just chewed through the first five seasons of Gunsmoke. Does that count? Great show. Mein gott, the white-knighting.
Now I'm watching The Saint, another great show. Wait, that doesn't count either?
I never watch commercial television at home. I couldn't if I wanted to, since I don't have cable.
I can't stand much thinking about celebrity gossip. I've watched about 2 hours of reality television, total. I'm just not interested.
I've watched a few episodes of Game of Thrones lately. That counts, right? Right?
:)
Pat, apropos of Idunno, but I was thinking about that term today. It really is apt. How it caught on with leftoids is anyone's guess, that's how apt it is.
Yes, I'm the sort of fellow who minds his own business 'til you try to burn my barn down, then I react.
"Reactionary"; if viruses could talk, that's the sort of thing they'd call white blood cells.
Lugo:
" Why do I want it? ( strike up a conversation with the common man)"
Because you might learn something from ornery people. And you might need their help one day to oppose the regime.
One:
Pat Hannagan has redeemed himself with an instant classic:
http://m4monologue.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/conquest-of-the-untermensch/
Check it out! And happy Christmas
"Reactionary," I could go on all day analogizing that one. Sheep that flee wolves, etc.
Reactionary: Roddy Piper in They Live. Neo in The Matrix.
Today, Netflix has made watching TV shows as they're broadcast seem kind of quaint. I tend to watch older shows, which means I can read opinions about them first -- opinions which have had time to mature beyond some initial buzz -- and I can go through the episodes as fast as I like, because they've all been done. If a show was cancelled in mid-season on an unsatisfying cliffhanger, I can avoid it if I want. I also like many commentaries, which generally aren't available until DVD.
Whenever I'm at someone else's house and they're watching TV the old-fashioned way, I'm shocked by A) how many commercials there are, and B) how insulting they are to my intelligence. This blog has talked about how politically correct TV ads are regarding race and sex, making the 'dummy' of the ad always and forever a white guy. But it's not just that; they're routinely offensively stupid or stupidly offensive, or both. I could never stand to sit through them again on a regular basis. I know, Tivo and the like let you skip ads to some extent, but you still encounter them. My shows on DVD just roll right into the next scene.
I watched a lot of competitive reality TV shows for a couple years a decade ago (Survivor, Big Brother, etc.), because the psychology and interplay between the subjects really was interesting. Yeah, there was a lot of silly fighting and fame-whoring, but mixed into that would sometimes be an interesting study of human social behavior. The way certain people emerge as leaders (even when they try not to), the way they manipulate each other and lie to others and themselves (even into a camera which they know is recording their contradictions), and the way something which is officially a game becomes life-or-death emotionally, could all be fascinating to someone interested in HBD and Game stuff. In one of the early seasons of Big Brother, the winner used a lot of Game concepts. He flat out told the others he was lying to them and would betray them, and they carried him right to the end and handed him the check.
Unfortunately, after a while, it seemed like those shows stopped being content with minor tweaking of the "story" through rule changes and editing, and started massively arranging the outcomes and editing the shows so heavily that what you saw on TV might be just the opposite of what really happened. If you can't observe what's really going on, or at least a representative sample, you can't draw any conclusions from it. They also started casting people who were obviously abnormal, if not outright deranged. They weren't even theoretically a proxy for normal human behavior anymore, and I lost interest.
Come on, don't be coy Pat. What's your definition of what a reactionary should be?
You said on Mangan's:
It seems that to be reactionary is to be determined by someone else's definitions
Isn't that what reacting is all about?
I'm not really hip to all the commie lingo but I picked up a bit here and there.
If you react, you're "backward," or other jargon for in need of cultural sensitivity training/rehabilitation. There's a better word here but I'm forgetting it.
If you react too much and/or too often, you're "reaction-ary," or in need of the gulag.
"
Isn't that what reacting is all about? "
That is not what being a reactionary is though, per se. Depends if One is using the term in that sense. Which is why I asked.
Is One's moral and political philosophy to be the opposite of whatever is going?
Look, I'm not trying to piss OneSTDV off I just wanna know what he means by "reactionary".
Look, I'm not trying to piss OneSTDV off I just wanna know what he means by "reactionary".
When I use the term "reactionary", I basically mean race conscious and supportive of traditional (gender and sexual roles, meritocracy, "baseball, apple pie, and Chevy", etc...) white America.
So basically my blogroll is who I consider reactionary.
In general, I think the mainstream uses reactionary to mean "extremist" right-wing, but I honestly don't know what "extremist" means anymore in the mainstream.
I've always thought "reactionary" was synonymous with "counter-revolutionary" to the commies.
Meaning, someone who is more than a mere conservative, in that he not only attempts to defend the status quo and make a compromise, but also attempts to roll back the revolution entirely.
For instance, were I king of the world - something I dream of regularly - then today's reactionaries would be tomorrow's elite, and vice versa. In either case, a reactionary is simply being described as someone who is anti. Or would today's reactionaries be tomorrow's reactionaries regardless of whatever system was in place?
I know a fella who, when he gets drunk, is almost always the opposite to whatever is being said. Some say he's argumentative, but I would say he's annoying. Because you cannot get a consistent line on things. Something to hold him to. (That person is not me btw).
Apropos of mild disdain, take it as a compliment.
As for TV, I got the first season of Twin Peaks on DVD for Christmas. And Fraser's "The WASP Question". And I'll be watching all five days of the 1st test against India in Melbourne, reading and watching both, and getting drunk. I think I shall call this behaviour reactionary as it lends it a certain aristocratic air.
I basically mean race conscious and supportive of traditional ... white America.
Right, that makes sense. It would be best to define that traditional America, racially, culturally, religiously, politically etc and then assert that, rather than describe oneself as reactionary.
My beef is that the alt-right *is* being merely reactive rather than assertive. And I get the sense that, say, you OneSTDV are not writing merely out of reactive pain but rather want to establish something. Propose something in place of that which is.
Yes, IHTG has the definition correct in its traditional usage.
As it is, "reactionary" is being used in the alt-right in a non-traditional sense, which is kinda funny if you think about it.
I think I ought to just withdraw and become a hermit. The last time The Real World came up in conversation, I asked why there were no jokes about rimming, elbow penetration, and the other finery of gay life, and several people called me a jackass. I tried to defend myself by pointing to Larry Kramer's book "Faggots," and the denunciations just multiplied. Nobody seemed to be aware of it.
If you react too much and/or too often, you're "reaction-ary," or in need of the gulag.
For the past couple of weeks I've been reading The Gulag Archipelago. What's surprised me is that there's no description of any kind of ideological fixing or retraining. None of it was about correct thinking. The monstrousness consisted precisely in that the sole purpose was irrationality for the purpose of intimidation.
You can turn off the TV all you want, but it still affects and shapes and REFLECTS mass culture.
While you may deride the HATE HATE HATE stuff, you have to admit that most TV is oriented towards women, as most of the media (publishing, advertisement, movies, etc) is in a female-driven consumer culture. With all that implies.
Most people are not part of the blogosphere, they are "low information" who get their attitudes and social behavior at least in part from TV and movies and what they read. So, to figure out what forces shape things, you'd better be watching critically popular culture.
My main point about popular culture is that rather than reflect some conspiracy (take your pick) it broadly reflects in the West the broad social changes that are massive. At no other time and place have women driven consumption. And that is both a strength, and a weakness.
"So, to figure out what forces shape things, you'd better be watching critically popular culture."
So, how much of this boring, distasteful dreck should we waste our time watching "critically"? An hour a month? Ten hours a week? Five hours a day?
When the ZOG imposed digital TV I quit watching it. I can keep up somewhat by researching Facebook and other blogosphere references that confound me. I'm from Dylan's generation and I'm definitely
prejudiced when it comes to subsequent pop culture references because my generation started out unwhiggerized at least. The problem with it, though, was that the activists were the congenitally radicalized Jews now precision placed at every choke point in the culture.
This is a topic of considerable interest to me, because I was born in the 1970s and have watched a staggering amount of TV in my life.
Until five months ago, I had a large cable package with several premium movie channels and foreign networks, and this had been the situation for most of the last ten years.
Then my wife and I moved to a new state, decided to try going without cable for a while, and immediately discovered that we got no over-the-air reception here.
The result? I haven't missed television AT ALL! I can hardly believe it, because watching TV has always been my default activity. Now I have time I never knew I had. I'm reading more, spending more time on the Internet, and going out way more.
My wife misses it some, but I'm now at the point where I really hope she doesn't want to reintroduce it to our lives. Spending time with relatives over the holidays, I saw more TV than I've seen in months, and that only made me happier to have discovered that we don't need it.
While you may deride the HATE HATE HATE stuff, you have to admit that most TV is oriented towards women, as most of the media (publishing, advertisement, movies, etc) is in a female-driven consumer culture. With all that implies.
But you obviously conflate what women want with what they get from the media. And you still can't explain why the media slowly went from where it was in the fifties, to where it is now. If where TV is now is where women want it, why did it take the geniuses in Hollywood 60 years to get there? Just idiots? No, boiling the frog is the better explanation: the culture-shapers spent 60 years slowly Judeo-forming the culture because that's how long it takes to alter a culture. Responding to demand is instant; you just start giving people what they want, immediately. Shaping demand is a much slower process. It takes time and constant iteration.
Most people are not part of the blogosphere, they are "low information" who get their attitudes and social behavior at least in part from TV and movies and what they read. So, to figure out what forces shape things, you'd better be watching critically popular culture.
Yes and no. Once you figure out what's going on, you can predict it and staying current becomes a waste of time. I already know what the media's doing.
My main point about popular culture is that rather than reflect some conspiracy (take your pick) it broadly reflects in the West the broad social changes that are massive. At no other time and place have women driven consumption. And that is both a strength, and a weakness.
Well, sure, if you reject "conspiracies," you're going to have to act all clueless, because you won't know the kind of mind shaping the culture, or its agenda. But why should the rest of us hobble ourselves? We can see the trends, and we know the intent.
Post a Comment