- Thread starter
- Banned
- #76
That belongs in another thread.Sure, go ahead.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That belongs in another thread.Sure, go ahead.
You're right, buddy. It doesn't require "deep thought" for me to identify Bride and Prejudice as trash.I am requesting that you actually put your brain to work buddy , saying a shows stupidity is evident is something that someone who doesn't want to put his mind to work would say . It's a lazy cognitive reflex that doesn't require deep thought .
I am happy for you to agree or disagree with my comments as they stand.Given that you are so badly putting your view across , I think it would help you explain yourself by giving a list of shows that people should be watching .
If you think Bride and Prejudice is not self-evidently stupid, that's fine too. I don't see much value in offering a blow-by-blow explanation of why it's rubbish.I suggest you activate your brain a bit better with regard's to this topic and stop saying a show is stupid because it just is and people who watch it are stupid because they just are .
You don't think it's a significant bellwether?Singling out media consumption as some sort of tell-all about an entire nation is always a little simplistic.
Japanese attitudes toward sex deserve their own thread.There's some incredibly violent pornography that goes to print in mainstream publications in Japan - are they getting more sexually deviant?
That's all well and good.I used to think that way, but I don't know. Intelligence is complex. Sometimes you get well informed, well educated academics who are just useless when it comes to everything outside of the world of book smarts, then you get people who lack book smarts but have a lot of life skills, then you get people who have a mixture of both. Academia and the working class can compliment each other with valuable insights from the former and essential skills from the latter but unfortunately they seem to clash a bit and this is probably why social circles don't generally seem to have a lot of variation in education levels. Australia's education rankings fell last year, though, so it's little surprise that the media has been able to manipulate a lot of people with relative ease. Critical and analytical thinking skills should be taught to children in all schools.
I think that's untrue.Technology has made the next generation lazier and dumber than my generation was - phones auto-correct, laptops spell check, Google has taken the place of short term memory retention meaning that in general knowledge and intelligence is being blunted. It's sad to see.
It's definitely a cultural thing that's instilled from childhood.However, I take issue with the most inane areas of the culture that simply have no redeeming value. They militate against intellectual curiosity, encourage passivity and contribute to a general dumbing down. Why does this bar have to get lower and lower? Can't we insist collectively on some standards of what's simply too dumb for consumption?
I think that's untrue.
Whenever I've read over older generations' writing, I've noticed it is as equally imperfect as my generation's is.
On your last point, however, I do often wonder what it would have been like to live in a bygone era where you couldn't simply Google things that you didn't know. I suppose having an Encyclopaedia would've been the next best thing? It almost seems painful to know that if you were arguing something mundane with your friend, you wouldn't have been able to resolve the dispute with a quick search
.
You're probably right.I think you're confusing the generation I'm referring to as I suspect you and I are likely from the same generation (unless you're still at school?).
You're probably right.
I just assume(hope) that things aren't getting that bad.
I do often wonder what it would have been like to live in a bygone era where you couldn't simply Google things that you didn't know. I suppose having an Encyclopaedia would've been the next best thing? It almost seems painful to know that if you were arguing something mundane with your friend, you wouldn't have been able to resolve the dispute with a quick search.
We had a set of F & W's at home, I used to cycle into the city a lot, and use the State Library to research when I was a kid.Reminds me of this cartoon I saw a while back:
I'm just old enough to remember having to delve into the Funk & Wagnalls back in primary school. By high school we were using Altavista and Yahoo Search, then Google came along and changed everything.
His earlier work (Selfish gene, Blind watchmaker) yes, but in some of his later work and Twitter account he seems to be proselytising. And this is interesting. God (according to Dawkins) has absolutely nothing to do with all the "issues" that stem from religion, and these same "issues" can be observed in any ideology with an in-group (good people), out-group (bad people), and power asymmetry (group dynamics). So if Dawkins presents some people as people of the outgroup and bad people, and his own ingroup as the good people he is setting up a system that demonstrates all the same "issues" of religion.
However, I take issue with the most inane areas of the culture that simply have no redeeming value. They militate against intellectual curiosity, encourage passivity and contribute to a general dumbing down. Why does this bar have to get lower and lower? Can't we insist collectively on some standards of what's simply too dumb for consumption?
The thing is, nobody can remove the 'human' factor from religion. It is a structure organised by people, for people, and over other people and I believe it all started when Man made God/s in his own image to personify that central power structure.
Belief and faith, they can be individual things. It's only when organised socio-political cladding is built up around them, that's when the fires start.
Sorry, what?Bride and Prejudice is the same, I don't watch either of them but someone who's interested in raising their emotional IQ might.
You don't think it's a significant bellwether?
I accept it's imperfect.
I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies
Yeah, and look how far we've fallen.I think popular culture has a tendency to reflect people's interest in base level pleasures and instincts. Fifty years ago it was the Beatles who were a sign of societal collapse, sixty it was Elvis, eighty it was Cab Calloway.
I haven't seen Yummy Mummies. What is it? Do I want to know?It doesn't necessarily mean they don't have more higher-end interests. A good mate of mine holds a particularly high end mining engineering job (something involving lithium extraction) that took years to qualify for, but also likes Ed Sheeran and Yummy Mummies and says she doesn't want to think when she listens to radio.
That's popcorn. That's not necessarily the "awful s**t" I have in mind. The stuff I object to is several orders of magnitude worse than the stuff you're mentioning.I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies and Game of Thrones. Entertainment is a release valve for people rather than the be all and end all.
The coarsening and dumbing down of pop culture is a symptom.FWIW I agree that anti-intellectualism is a problem - just think it's driven more by political discourse (particularly fringe stuff on social media) than pop culture.
I haven't seen Yummy Mummies. What is it? Do I want to know?
the "awful s**t" I have in mind.
The coarsening and dumbing down of pop culture is a symptom.
I think popular culture has a tendency to reflect people's interest in base level pleasures and instincts. Fifty years ago it was the Beatles who were a sign of societal collapse, sixty it was Elvis, eighty it was Cab Calloway.
It doesn't necessarily mean they don't have more higher-end interests. A good mate of mine holds a particularly high end mining engineering job (something involving lithium extraction) that took years to qualify for, but also likes Ed Sheeran and Yummy Mummies and says she doesn't want to think when she listens to radio.
I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies and Game of Thrones. Entertainment is a release valve for people rather than the be all and end all.
Yep, I agree, religion should be more inwardly focussed on spirituality and growth.
Edit: and further to this, say if in a population there are 75% of people believing that if all household carbon emissions were reduced by 5% that the world will be X much better this goal could be achieved by the 75% reducing there carbon emissions by just over 5%, but if the same number of people Twittered this statistic rather than acted on it, the problem remains. The same could be thought of in the casebook of religion, if 75% of a population believed that by "doing good" the population would be a better place, they should probably practice it rather than preach it.
In the areas that supposedly have broad appeal.I don't think it's necessarily coarsening and getting dumber at every level though
I think I made this point in the OP. The Australian market is so small that anything a little bit different struggles to get a big enough slice of the pie.it's just fragmenting. It's easier for people to pursue specialist cultural interests - whatever those might be - at a very individual, specialised level that isn't really reflected in the mass market.
Sorry, what?
This makes even less sense.That none of you involved in the above query know what an emotional IQ or intelligence is and why it's important that you do is interesting.