Yeah, LMNO, so this Patrick Henry freak...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think that when you've imprinted a group of 3 billion people as your tribe, rather than a local group of peers, you start to internalize all these weird mixed messages about how you should act, how you should look, what kind of expectations you should put on other people. These aren't the demands of your immediate peers, they're the vague tastes of your 3 billion peers distorted by commercial and media filters. It is the Machine^TM itself.

I think of teenage girls who learn that attractiveness is in magazines and on the red carpet and not in the minds of the horny teenage boys who don't give a flying fuck if they're "overweight" (whatever the fuck THAT means these days). And conversely, I think of the teenage boys who are convinced that their significant other must be blonde and blue, with big tits and a slutty disposition. It's a product of taking culture too seriously, we've internalized all this garbage and now we expect it.

also,

Can't see the pic.

But you're right, too.  Perhaps a meme or a fad making those things ridiculous is in order.

[Cramulus]

anyway, moving in a practical direction---

when I'm out there putting up posters, my favorite reaction is the people who are baffled that I'm not selling something. My posters do not advertise a website, a product, or any commercial interests. They contain marketing, but I'm marketing for a greater good other than the GDP. I'm not even trying to make a name for myself, I'm just out having fun. People take money so seriously, it's so wired into our survival mechanism, that it the dominant context. Well I want to make laughter and absurdity the dominant context in my life, so that's what I'm selling.


The absurdists had it down. If your tastes happen to align with popular ones, bully for you. But don't use all those fucking spags as your primary reference point. I don't want to comment on culture, adding another fatty opinion to the already clogged arteries of American discourse. I want to sweep the table clean and find some value in something fresh, damnit!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

anyway, moving in a practical direction---

when I'm out there putting up posters, my favorite reaction is the people who are baffled that I'm not selling something. My posters do not advertise a website, a product, or any commercial interests. They contain marketing, but I'm marketing for a greater good other than the GDP. I'm not even trying to make a name for myself, I'm just out having fun. People take money so seriously, it's so wired into our survival mechanism, that it the dominant context. Well I want to make laughter and absurdity the dominant context in my life, so that's what I'm selling.


The absurdists had it down. If your tastes happen to align with popular ones, bully for you. But don't use all those fucking spags as your primary reference point. I don't want to comment on culture, adding another fatty opinion to the already clogged arteries of American discourse. I want to sweep the table clean and find some value in something fresh, damnit!

You just gave me an idea that will either be a screaming success, get me thrown into an undisclosed location, or both.

[LMNO]

Check PM.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Check PM.

Right.

Also, you know who Lady Gaga reminds me of?

Lord Buckley.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the TV is just a symptom... look at how many spags have completely escaped into the Internet instead of the television... people not going to work, not feeding their kids because they're too busy with their 'second life'. People being 'addicted' to the Net, or their Blackberry or SMS text messages...

That's an additional vector, yes.  But the mosquito isn't a symptom of malaria.  Also, the internet actually has uses other than to let Beck/Olbermann/Oprah/Etc tell you what to think, or what pills to take, or who to hate.  So, yeah, the internet may be dangerous, but it isn't JUST that.  And yeah, Blackberrys and cell phones are a curse.

I should have said the popularity and innanity of television is the symptom. Hell, television could be used for useful stuff as well... it isn't inherently badwrong, any moreso than the net. I remember once upon a time that there were educational programs on television which I watched in school and learned all sorts of interesting things... but now we have Discovery, History, National Geographic (channels one would think ran educational stuff) running stories about aliens, haunted houses and 2012. The Monkeys don't want "Planet Earth" they want the "Secret History of the Freemasons". And news?! Pffft, monkeys don't want real news... real news is depressing and bland. Monkeys WANT CONTROVERSY... they want that rush of chemicals when the talking head says "AND THEN THE PRESIDENT BOWED TOO LOW TO THE JAPANESE EMPEROR!!!" or "THIS PASTOR WANTS TO KILL GAYS!!"

I mean actual news would be something like: "The economy currently sucks and economists admit its because they don't really know how the economy works. They also wanted to make sure we mentioned that the President doesn't actually have any real power to impact the economy right now, so don't blame him..." Who wants that? That doesn't get your blood moving and make you feel alive.

The PROBLEM, in my opinion... is bored monkeys.

Okay, that's an interesting thought.  Any solutions come to mind?

Well, I'm not really sure. If we consider humans to be evolved primates, we must assume that they survived through adaptation. Those adaptations made it possible to go kill animals and eat them, to hunt for nuts/berries etc and to be constantly active and aware, to avoid being a dinner for some other predator.

If we look through history these general points have held for most humans until the 20th century. After the Industrial Revolution, we now live in a world that we are not adapted to... at least not yet.

Can you imagine some regular joe (let's not count nobility and rich people) a living 150 years ago that couldn't cook their own food? That was unable to skin an animal or prep a chicken for cooking?

On top of that, Mr. Edison has made it possible for us all to ignore the basic standards that governed our sleep cycle for the first few 100,000 years.

Q:  If you don't have to go to sleep after dark, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH ALL THAT TIME?
A: Watch Television or Play in my virtual gardening game.... those virtual carrots won't virtually harvest themselves! OH SHIT THE TALKING HEAD ON THE TV SAYS THAT OBAMA IS GONNA RELEASE ALL THE GITMO TERRORISTS!!!!!

Without returning to pre-Industrial standards, it seems we have few options.... over time, we can hope that we adapt to these uneventful lives somehow... OR, we need to find something useful/constructive/interesting to replace mindless entertainment.

How we do that? Fuck if I know.

Also, there have been 9 replies since I started writing this... so there may be some stuff mentioned already.

[Cramulus]

just to riff on absurdity a bit more



Some say that life is characterized by the quest for meaning. Some say that the world we live in is really "screwed up" because so many people are finding meaning in ultimately meaningless / low quality things.  Or perhaps they're not really on their own quest for meaning, they're just inheriting symbolism from the greater cultural narrative, and this is why people can no longer distinguish a high quality life from a low quality one. Not all those symbols should apply to everybody!

If you watch enough TV, if you read the paper, if you talk to people on the internet, you eventually get the idea that love and money are the two driving forces in the human soul. And this is such a sham.

The Existentials say that in lieu of religion, we have to make our own meaning. Each of us has to make our own meaning every day, and that's what gives life value.

The absurdists say Maybe. Maybe even that is meaningless.





There is the self, and then there is the universe. The two can never be reconciled.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

... but now we have Discovery, History, National Geographic (channels one would think ran educational stuff) running stories about aliens, haunted houses and 2012.

Fuck.  Now I'm all full of rage.

Without returning to pre-Industrial standards, it seems we have few options.... over time, we can hope that we adapt to these uneventful lives somehow... OR, we need to find something useful/constructive/interesting to replace mindless entertainment.

Or we need to reframe the way people see what's put in front of them.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

... but now we have Discovery, History, National Geographic (channels one would think ran educational stuff) running stories about aliens, haunted houses and 2012.

Fuck.  Now I'm all full of rage.

AND that is one reason why I don't pay for cable television...

Without returning to pre-Industrial standards, it seems we have few options.... over time, we can hope that we adapt to these uneventful lives somehow... OR, we need to find something useful/constructive/interesting to replace mindless entertainment.

Or we need to reframe the way people see what's put in front of them.
[/quote]

Maybe, I think it depends on the cause/effect direction... Are people tuning into crap because they are tricked by the television producers... or are the producers making "Flava of Love (and Taint)", "Jon and Kate plus Hate" and "Keeping Up with the Dumbass Rich Bitches" because thats what the monkeys WANT?

Some neurologists get really excited about 'mirror neurons'. They've observed them in some primates and believe that humans have them as well... basically these neurons fire if the animal acts, OR if they observe the action... So the monkey that gets the banana and the mmonkey that sees a monkey get a banana have similar experiences in their mirror neuron. IF humans have them, and IF humans aren't actually going out and HAVING experiences, then watching them on TV would fire off those mirror neurons and allow the humans to vicariously live through Bear Grilled, Mike Rowe, the Mythbusters... and Glenn Beck.

Or not, I dunno...

[Cramulus]

you make a good point.

I don't have cable anymore, but when I did, I watched a lot of fox news. Because fox news is the one thing on TV which reliably gives me an emotional reaction. I can nod along with Wolf Blitzer, or I can stand up and scream at Bill O'Reilley. I think that's ultimately why we watch TV, because it is emotionally engaging.

Perhaps the draw to that type of stimulation comes from the blandness which pervades everyday life. The machinations of culture insulate u from turbulence. We are seldom reminded of our mortality, our free will, our vast untapped potential as a human being charged with kinetic energy.

I do think it's why people go to concerts and rallies and festivals - so they can have some of that real, raw emotion, the unfiltered experience which everyday life used to consist of.

[Captain Utopia]

To come at this from another angle - if we're looking to nudge people away from the glowing box, what are we nudging them towards? How should people be spending their time? The immediate answer: "however the fuck they want to" is problematic on two counts: 1) they are already doing that and  2) if not handed a better alternative, few people will have the initiative to think for themselves and invent their own new pastimes.

Look at how green/environmental issues have swept through the populace. Why not create our own movement of that nature? Say we nudge people in the direction of, I dunno, spending more time doing things for their local community.. then you seed memes like every hour spent watching TV is an hour spent actively harming your local community. Much like every can or bottle you don't recycle, is a butt-rape to mother earth. It's also a little bit harder to uphold the paranoia that your smudgy neighbours are evil job-stealing socialist terrorists when you actually know them by name.

Actually, that has the benefit that it might get the support of both fundamentalists and hippy-liberals alike, but there are probably better ideas.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

you make a good point.

I don't have cable anymore, but when I did, I watched a lot of fox news. Because fox news is the one thing on TV which reliably gives me an emotional reaction. I can nod along with Wolf Blitzer, or I can stand up and scream at Bill O'Reilley. I think that's ultimately why we watch TV, because it is emotionally engaging.

Perhaps the draw to that type of stimulation comes from the blandness which pervades everyday life. The machinations of culture insulate u from turbulence. We are seldom reminded of our mortality, our free will, our vast untapped potential as a human being charged with kinetic energy.

I do think it's why people go to concerts and rallies and festivals - so they can have some of that real, raw emotion, the unfiltered experience which everyday life used to consist of.

I agree 100%...

So maybe the answer is in life no longer being so bland... but how do you do that in a positive way? I mean, all out anarchy would solve the problem of a bland life... but that doesn't seem like it would solve it in a positive way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Maybe, I think it depends on the cause/effect direction... Are people tuning into crap because they are tricked by the television producers... or are the producers making "Flava of Love (and Taint)", "Jon and Kate plus Hate" and "Keeping Up with the Dumbass Rich Bitches" because thats what the monkeys WANT?

In the 70s, producers worried about what the public wanted.  They still had some stinkers, but there wasn't much competition.

In the 80s, producers had figured out the formula to make a cookie cutter hit (mostly sitcoms).

In the 90s, producers figured out (via MTV) how to take crap and make it popular by CALLING it popular.  TRL was the ultimate expression of this.  Show just a little clip, interspiced with brainless twats gushing about how great it is, and the shit flies off the shelves.

In the 2000s, they put this into full effect with the introduction of "reality" TV, which nobody would have watched otherwise...it's basically "Battle of the Network Stars" without the stars.  Ugh.  That just made me remember John Ritter in a spandex swimming suit.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Maybe, I think it depends on the cause/effect direction... Are people tuning into crap because they are tricked by the television producers... or are the producers making "Flava of Love (and Taint)", "Jon and Kate plus Hate" and "Keeping Up with the Dumbass Rich Bitches" because thats what the monkeys WANT?

In the 70s, producers worried about what the public wanted.  They still had some stinkers, but there wasn't much competition.

In the 80s, producers had figured out the formula to make a cookie cutter hit (mostly sitcoms).

In the 90s, producers figured out (via MTV) how to take crap and make it popular by CALLING it popular.  TRL was the ultimate expression of this.  Show just a little clip, interspiced with brainless twats gushing about how great it is, and the shit flies off the shelves.

In the 2000s, they put this into full effect with the introduction of "reality" TV, which nobody would have watched otherwise...it's basically "Battle of the Network Stars" without the stars.  Ugh.  That just made me remember John Ritter in a spandex swimming suit.

Well, here's an alternative to television to keep the monkey entertained:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/centralfrance/6589449/French-hamster-hotel-lets-guests-live-like-rodents.html



I like the last bit especially...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just saw that in DC's post.