|
Quidam Viator posted:I guess I'm a loving relic from the old days when people would post whole articles in DnD, along with commentary, and debate and discussion would ensue. The snarky responses I'm getting seem to indicate that not only is the article that I found utter poo poo, but my writing is poo poo too. I mean, out of the responses, how many are one-liners? visceril posted:Hey buddy maybe you should Think about condensing your thoughts a bit before posting. Quidam Viator posted:So, Vermain asked me a question about my thoughts about media in the 50s and 60s. I answered. Everyone isn't just telling me I'm wrong, they're getting nasty about it. Is this just about making GBS threads on me at this point? visceril posted:Exugere verpa meum
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period. It's an overgeneralization, but this isn't a media studies class so let's take it as more-or-less valid just as a thought exercise. Any given person has maybe 6-7 media streams to choose from (a few TV stations, one or two newspapers of record for their town, maybe a talk radaio channel); whoever controls the message on those channels wields enormous power over public opinion, especially if you assume that most people will latch on to the first thing they hear about any given subject. They are quite literally dictators of public opinion, and while they each have their own point of view they are all competing for the same mass of attention and there is a limit to how niche you can go, given how expensive it is to run a TV/newspaper/radio station. Having quality, unbiased news in your media market is essentially random - either you have some rich people willing to foot the bill in the spirit of public service or you don't. It's a great deal of power with no oversight and it can, and was, often abused. This isn't a state of affairs we would ever want to go back to, even if it were possible, which it's not. What we have now is preferable because the same technology that facilitiates the echo chamber effect (which I'm not disputing) also gives anyone with an internet connection the ability to independantly learn and educate themself about any topic in the scope of human knowledge. If Walter Cronkite tells you something about polar ice you probably aren't in a position to validate his claim, unless you happen to have stacks privileges at a major research University. Now you can do it from basically any podunk library in the country, and most likely you can do it from the comfort of your own couch. The catch, to repeat myself, is that no one outside of internet shutins (hello, Something Awful dot com!) has the loving time or energy to independently vet every half-truth and deceit they're exposed to in the world, even only considering just those topics that a civic-minded person should have an opinion on. But at least the internet makes it possible to become informed about those things in a way that 99% of humanity couldn't even twenty years ago, so it wins over the days of a handful of old white men reading the news. It has made us more informed, but we are still not adequately informed. Being open minded is still more expensive than being closed minded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I guess I'm a loving relic from the old days when people would post whole articles in DnD, along with commentary, and debate and discussion would ensue. The snarky responses I'm getting seem to indicate that not only is the article that I found utter poo poo, but my writing is poo poo too. I mean, out of the responses, how many are one-liners? I don't know why everyone is being as harsh as they are toward you but then again I wasn't following that thread you referenced in your OP so maybe I don't have the context. But if I could give some constructive criticism, that article was a bit long to quote fully in the OP. Maybe a link and then some highlights would've gone over better? Also, as one poster mentioned, some clarity over the exact topic of the thread would've been nice. Talking about "intellectual vices" and conspiracy theories is one topic. Your own beliefs on Accelerationism and how you have been challenging these beliefs is an entirely different conversation and probably should have been in a separate thread. See guys, it's not hard to present one's opinion in a manner that isn't completely toxic
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you're bludgeoning d&d with giant articles that say very little out of respect to a romanticised past discussion forum uh well there's your problem Yeah, I guess I really don't fit in here anymore. It's ok, I get the picture, people. I don't know that there's anything else for me to address here, even, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:So, Vermain asked me a question about my thoughts about media in the 50s and 60s. I answered. Everyone isn't just telling me I'm wrong, they're getting nasty about it. Is this just about making GBS threads on me at this point? it's pretty funny someone calling for self-criticism in thought while also just assuming their idyllic version of the past is true, and this is a comedy forum first and foremost sooooo Quidam Viator posted:Yeah, I guess I really don't fit in here anymore. It's ok, I get the picture, people. I don't know that there's anything else for me to address here, even, then. why so serious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Yeah, I guess I really don't fit in here anymore. It's ok, I get the picture, people. I don't know that there's anything else for me to address here, even, then. Ok sounds like we've got that cleared up then. Now post the goat and go gentle into that good night
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:So, Vermain asked me a question about my thoughts about media in the 50s and 60s. I answered. Everyone isn't just telling me I'm wrong, they're getting nasty about it. Is this just about making GBS threads on me at this point? Why did you answer with anything other than "I don't actually know anything about media in the 50s and 60s, so I shouldn't speculate off of my vague assumptions"? We're trying to help you overcome your intellectual vices, OP. Actually, no, I'm trying to help others not fall into your intellectual vices: You are Oliver, to me. I don't know how to get through to people like you, because to me it is very clear that there is an emotional heart to your stance, not an intellectual one. I am, actually, trying to research how to convince people like you of certain things--specifically, to immunize their kids and take antibiotics and stuff--and it is really hard and it generally requires cultural hooks to work and there is nothing that will work in any sort of broad category. Most of what I have studied has indicated that education is prophylactic rather than curative. If you get terrible ideas, you can then get educated and not have those ideas educated out of you. If you get educated first, you are less likely to get the terrible ideas. The original bad ideas are not held out of intellectual conviction but because of emotional need or group identity, and those are very hard to dislodge once in place. To put it another way, it is far harder to convince a conservative to become a conservationist by means of convincing him about the science of global warming than it is to convince a conservative to become a conservationist by reframing it as a conservative value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Sophian posted:
I didn't think I took an rear end in a top hat's aggressive tone here, and I appreciate that you were willing not to just be nasty to me. I think the point everyone else is trying to prove is that I don't deserve that sort of dignity or something? So, since the consensus is that my attempt to post something is poo poo, I am poo poo, and all I'm getting is a bunch of abuse, I'm just going to close it and mark it a failure on my part. Mods, if that violates the rules, please feel free to re-open it so all this can continue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:25
|
|