"tell me what you watch, and, I will tell you what you are"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Aug 23, 2016.

Tags:
  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    A disturbing op-ed from Huffington Post. Op-ed, or, cautionary tale, I'm not sure which (it is one of those deliberately-difficult-to-quote formats):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rosenblum/donald-trump-is-going-to_b_11637008.html?

    Depressing. The article presupposes a bad analogy-- people are much more serious and thoughtful about who they vote for than about what they watch at the end of a tiring day. But, Trump definitely knows TV better, definitely knows how to act better. I admit that I am worried.
     
  2. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    Good. The hardcore liberals at The Huffington Post deserve a rattling.
     
  3. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #3
    As much as I don't want Hillary, thinking that Trump would get in because he would be much more exciting to watch, doesn't sit all that well.

    I can see their point, look at the top shows, the TV people know how to feed the people what they want. We love to change the channel and changing the channel at this point is long overdue. I was hoping it was based on deep though rather than ADD.
     
  4. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    I think one reason humanity has turned to reality television is not just because they enjoy the mindless "entertainment" (I don't find it entertaining at all), but also because it's cheap to produce and if it flops they dump it and move onto the next cheaply produced reality show.

    Enough entertainment for the average schmuck, low investment cost, minimal production cost, little-no technical background knowledge, no financial attachment, easy to dump and start over. I think the author is forgetting that part.
     
  5. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #5
    It's a part of human nature to only do the work that is needed to done. People don't have to be as smart to survive, more and more is done for them. People don't need to be deep thinkers, character is less important.

    Just like it was once hard work for people to obtain enough food to survive and people had to be hard working in order to survive, now, all they have to do is sit around and play mindless video games, things are automatically provided for them.

    Remember, humanity survived a lot longer without all the "improvements" we have today.
    We invented debt and and then abused it to it's limit now it's gone from helping to hurting.
    We invented ways to make more food than ever, now it's gone from helping to hurting.
    We invented "knowledge" at our fingertips, now we don't engage in deep thought.
     
  6. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Reality TV was born many years ago - but I believe it was one of the writer's strikes several years ago that really escalated the production of these types of shows. Networks realized that they could save a lot of money and create "reality" (because let's face it - it's all in the editing). That's not to say these shows don't have writers. They do.

    The other reason reality shows are so big is because we now live in a society (thanks to social networking) where people over share. Both good and bad, I suppose. Remember when you didn't know or didn't really care about what someone had for dinner unless they wanted to share an amazing recipe?

    Now every moment is captured through photos and videos. We have youtube "stars." Instagram "stars." Everybody trying to grab their 15 minutes. It's not all bad - but that's why people have gravitated to these shows. It also feeds into voyeurism. And I don't use that term sexually.
     
  7. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    This time what I like to watch --before it gets too cold-- is the night sky wheeling autumn towards the mountains.

    Apropos of that, today what pops into my mailbox but a missive from the NYT commenting on the discovery of a possibly earth-like planet -- named Proxima b -- that's potentially reachable, since it orbits the dwarf star Proxima Centauri which itself is only 4.25 light years from our Sun. Sneaky little thing hiding out in the glare of its own sun. Anyway it's pretty exciting that our Sun's nearest neighbor has a planet deemed to be in the habitable zone.


    Just-in-time potentially habitable planet inventory, gotta love it. Show me the waiting list for this one!

    Regarding the thread challenge... one may call me anything but you all must know by now I'm an optimist...
     
  8. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    DFoes Huff
    Does Puffpo have no clue on how for-profit companies work? They need ratings to appease advertisers with. To do that, shows that people want to watch have to be made. That's more or less capitalism as applied in the media industry because PBS is ran by da commies, donchaknow... Trump didn't invent the concept of capitalism, but associating Trump as if he created the modern day shows to down down the populace with is as bat-**** daffy as it gets.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 24, 2016 ---
    In other words, it's a result of what people like to call "democratization"... a word frequently and often loosely applied for all sorts of things... it's not profitable is it, democratization, or people seem to believe they'll get rich as the chewbacca mask lady advertisement was...
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    We really live in a new world. "Influencer Marketing" for example. That didn't exist. People didn't start blogs to make money. Then they grew their audiences - things go viral. Get shared on social channels. Audience grows and now suddenly these online "celebs" make a lot of money from brands that use them to pitch their products. I'm in Marketing - and I've seen proposals from some of these sites. I know there's a big range. But this one blogger charges 3K for a single instagram picture. $5K for 3 tweets. $9K for a blog post. And so on.

    Not everyone is looking to be a star - or make money - but we've grown into a society that puts a lot of weight into the likes and shares we get. Or being "first" to share something. This validates us. Even on this site - who doesn't appreciate getting the thumbs up?

    And it's opened up a whole new level of psychological "traumas." They didn't friend me. They unfriended me. They blocked me. They didn't like my post. They didn't post on my wall on my birthday.

    I love technology. I have a love/hate relationship with social networks. Which I also refer to as anti-social networks too.

    What were we talking about again? ;)
     
  10. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    Just capitalism, they say the same thing in colleges - saying the college is there for the students and need feedback so the students can get what they want... which isn't a great way to do things, but that's what private industry is good for - giving students what they think they want so the industry can profit from it.
     
  11. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #11
    I just heard another report today about how well online college was doing. People seem to be loving it. I can see where some need more personalized help, but I can't see why that can't be done in a discussion forum. Stanford seems to be really moving this along.

    It's going to get harder and harder for in-person colleges to justify their costs compared to online.
     
  12. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #12
    I keep wondering why people haven't long since realized "wait up, I'm spending the little free time I have here watching someone else half-pretend to be living an entertaining life?" I would really not like to be in the late evening of life having helped a zillion reality TV show artists make money via my watching them make money. There's an exercise of free will getting stuck in the mud for sure.

    Not at all sure "changing the channel" translates really well to switching political parties in a presidential election. Even in this year of populism we have ended up with two candidates who speak the language of centrism (discounting Trump's plays to the bleachers, which his managers seem to be trying to get him to stop making before Labor Day weekend).

    The independents may mostly go to third parties this year; the truly fervent Repubicans and Democrats may mostly stick to the party line even with clothespin on nose, so that doesn't seem to add up for Mr. Trump. The GOP surely hopes that their aisle-crossers at the top don't follow suit down ballot and lose the Senate for them. They don't expect and some definitely don't want Trump to win the White House.

    It's still so hard for me to imagine people really thinking Donald Trump would make a good president. I can believe a Trump follower might well go into the voting booth figuring "Take THIS, and STICK it" as message to the establishment. There are likely a lot of people who will do that and so vote for Trump. But not 65 million and not in the right states to make his election possible. I'd love to know how many of the original 13 million who voted for Trump in the primaries plan to do it again.

    I could say I'm worried about potential for some October surprise w/ Clinton, something that could not be spun or debunked in time. otoh so much stuff from the right is so over the top now, I wonder whether anyone remains who might still move from Clinton to Trump.

    There's a revulsion factor sometimes when a party or some of its supporters go too far in a campaign. That's hard to put a value on but it may even move some votes the other way, Trump to Clinton. And of course Trump's capable of moving votes the wrong way any time just by insulting some group or person.

    The electorate seems polarized enough now that the remaining uncertainty lies mostly in the mix of rewards to Johnson, Stein, McMullin and write-ins, with some small shift from Trump to Clinton still possible. If Johnson dropped out, I'd worry. Otherwise looks to me like game to Clinton.

    But that's what it looks like to Bannon and Conway too. So it will get ugly.
     
  13. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #13
    You don't have to answer this if it's too personal, but were you around in the US under Reagan and/or Newt or Carter?

    Either way, each were bashed left and right. Carter caught the fire inside his own party for wanting to cut the budget. It might seem strange to say at this point, but Carter had a small government / balanced budget in him and didn't get support from the Dems.

    Reagan was coined as a 'B' movie actor with no business being pres. Newt was bashed inside his own party and even left office.

    Most don't even really understand what a president does. The Pres isn't a person that fixes everything. I'm not explaining this to you, I'm suggesting that most Americans don't understand. People go after the pres because it's 1 person. Most don't know who their reps are. We've had an ADD population for a good while now that only know how to project their opinion and don't engage in deep thought.

    If you're "better in age" or whatever, you might know of the time before mobile. Look at how people have engaged mobile and how it's become an addiction. Look at people dying while posting and driving and yet knowing better. If you've ever studied human behavior, you should understand these things.

    These are the people that we are dealing with. You might not see the world as they do, but they are a part of the same world.

    Trying to find some workable "middle ground" for people has been a war since day one. Some want people to all get along among each other and it just doesn't work. Brexit should give some real insight into how people think, they wanted their independence from others. Humans have been killing each other for all of time over these issues.

    I can't remember any time when America wanted more change than now.
     
  14. millerj123 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #14
    I think there's a distinction between reality and "Reality" shows. The author ranks "Real Housewives" with "Swamp People". The latter is very much like "Deadliest Catch" or "Dirty Jobs". Not great TV, but much closer to things like "How it's Made" or "Mythbusters".

    Showing how something is done has some intrinsic value, even if it's goal is to entertain. I see no value in "Real Housewives" or "Big Brother" beyond lowbrow entertainment.
     
  15. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #15
    I can't imagine that Trump supporters would be the "real housewives" type, I can see them being the "dirty jobs" type.
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    I was around. I was annoyed Carter wasn't more appreciated. I bought the idea Reagan was a B movie actor and was appalled he was elected. It was the beginning of a long time of feeling alienated from my own country even while I personally made a good living. Newt... Newt got too big for his britches with Contract For America. His idea of America was too small and then his contract segued into Contract On America. He's probably having more fun doing what he's doing now. He left some ideas behind that got even further away from being "for America", and have grown into what's killing the Republican Party.

    I completely agree. Except maybe it's not even their own opinion they are projecting.

    Not knowing who your Congresscritters are should almost disqualify you from being able to cast a vote for President. I jest, but not in a really convinced way. I don't want a literacy test, per se. Maybe a citizen's awareness test. Like name one elected official in your state. Bonus points if you know who your Congressman is. Free ride to the polls and a slice of pizza afterwards, if you can also name both your US Senators.

    I'm old enough to remember when milk was delivered by horse-drawn wagons, then put into "ice boxes" which literally had big blocks of ice in them as the sole coolant. So yeah, I know the time "before mobile."

    But I'm not sure that people now addicted to mobile gear are the same set of people who watch raunchy reality TV a lot, and who also think that Donald Trump is the answer for anyone wanting something different from "status quo".

    I'm sure there are mobile addicts who are voting for Trump, yes. But some of them at least know he's not the answer to any question in particular and they are just voting for him as a flip-off of the establishment.

    The avid reality TV watchers who vote for Trump may not even know what the status quo really means.

    I know some people who rail about the dangers of secretly government-irradiated lettuce and stuff like that. But they assume the can of mushroom soup they open is somehow magically protected against contamination and so we don't really need government sticking its nose into the business of business. They don't like the status quo? Yeah but safe mushroom soup, it's in there. This is the tip of the iceberg of what they don't know.

    "Trump, yeah, let's do Trump, that'll shake things up." Shake what up? They don't know.

    I understand some of their frustration. I don't understand why they see Trump as being in their corner. Trump is for Trump.

    Yeah but change from what. Some people can't see past the flatscreen on their living room wall. They hear a lot of hype and nonsense from talking heads and they figure yeah, swing for the fences, man! Because,,, they got "ditch the status quo" marketed to them.

    Now I'm not saying both sides don't market. They do. Clinton is pitching incremental change, which is what Wall Street thinks it wants until further notice. Trump is marketing Trump. Trump is not actually pitching Make America Great Again. He's not pitching Paul Ryan's budget. He's pitching Pick Me, Elect Me, Crown Me. And imo he has no clue what he would do with his doorprize, the US Presidency. It's insanity on his supporters' part to elect him. They vote for a man without understanding if he knows what he would do once he got into office?

    On Trump's part, I think it's entertainment, kind of like a reality show, yes. One he somehow expects will segue into some other adventure, certainly not four years of being chained to the American Presidency.

    But the fun is wearing off for him lately. We're at a dangerous moment for his hijacked party. Too late to remove Trump from the ballot, a lot of uncertainty whether he means to finish the race as a Republican or just blow it up as a future co-owner of a right wing infotainment network to compete with Fox. Who knows. It's a despicable way to treat the presidential electorate of the world's only real superpower.

    The people who are voting for Trump because he's going to hit one out of the park and transform this country into "America, Made Great, Again!" are going to be very disappointed. It takes all of us to keep working at maintaining what's already great about the USA, figuring out how to improve it, adding onto greatness with the help of every generation.

    Some generation will go to another habitable planet. That’s pretty exciting. But we can’t throw a civil war 2 and also work on interstellar travel...

    There's nothing status quo about any of that. It's just life, together. We're already doing it. It's a myth that we cannot get along. We don't have to be a melting pot; like I've said before, a tossed salad is fine too.

    This here, this political season, this happens every four years, but it's usually a little more real than this reality show gig that we're suffering through in 2016. I still don't know why this constellation of weirdness has happened. But the reality TV watching binge the country's been on for years is probably part of it.
     
  17. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #17
    Carter came in at the wrong time and there might not have been a right time in his time. I was surprised when I learned about his budget and his fight inside the party. I'm guessing he pissed some people off.

    Reagan had his time, but didn't get what he wanted, only some of what he wanted. He didn't get the budget cuts and other things, but he got some of what he wanted.

    Newt's control defined Bill Clintons time. People talk about Bill and how many jobs were created, yet look back at Bill's speeches. He called "the era of big government is over" Bill became a conservative at that point. He had no choice because of the 94 mid-terms. That's what gave us the jobs we got back then. We also had the DotCom bubble, but we have that now from tech once again.

    It's odd that people don't see the difference between Obama and Bill. Obama is a big government pres and Bill was a small government pres. Bill had to jump to the Right because of the 94 mid-terms. Bill is a different kind of person, he adopted to what was going on. The Right didn't like some of his personal things, but Bill was very effective at working with Newt.

    Obama doesn't work with Congress. He's really big government and we have very slow growth while in a tech bubble. Hillary isn't Bill by any means. She's big government and will be Obama III. Bill made some mistake with NAFTA and some other things with the DotCom bubble and home loan qualifications which caused the housing bubble.

    If you really look close at Obama economy vs Newt/Bill's economy, you'll see striking differences in the debt, regulations, job growth, etc... We keep going down this economic path and we're going to have problems they don't have a clue how to deal with. It'll be good learning, but it'll be very, very painful.

    I'm surprise you felt like you did under Reagan, he's just one part of a very, very large system. He didn't over reach on many issues and basically was a small government, anti-socialism guy much like Bill/Newt. America is so large and diverse, it's hard to think that any president can do something that will effect people so much. Even Obama has to go thru Congress sometimes.
     
  18. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    I can't let that blanket statement pass when a bunch of Republicans were meeting privately on January 20, 2009 (the night of the Obama's first inauguration) and planning to oppose every initiative the new President might propose. On the night of Day One in his first term.


    Newt Gingrich was at that meeting, and and in talking w/ Al Sharpton much later, defended the meeting as typical of what pols do when they want to win back the White House, etc. Remember though, the country was mired in the biggest financial collapse the world had ever seen, and yet these guys were focused on how they needed to derogate Obama and his cabinet and any legislation and kick butt and get back into power.


    When Mitch McConnell said in October of 2010 that the GOP's priority would be to make Obama a one-term President, there was a lot of talk about blatant partisanship, but in fact Republicans' intent to obstruct and defeat Obama at every opportunity had been launched before the new President sat behind his desk for the first time.

    The seeds of the current Republican Party's ongoing attempts to self-destruct were planted the night they decided to kick a new President's plans in the gut from day one instead of trying to help him right the ship of state.

    We can dress that up any way we like but we can never undo the fact that making America whole again was never the intent of the Republican Party in 2009. That there's barely a party left to wonder what making America great again even means goes without saying at this point. I don't even blame the leadership. McConnell and Boehner are pols to the core but you can find plenty examples where either or both stepped up and put a halt to shenanigans that threatened to put the full faith and credit of the USA at risk for the sheer hell of it. Ryan, I don't know. He inherited the cats Boehner couldn't herd any more. He has more integrity than his far right wishes him to demonstrate, so time will tell there.

    Of course the Democrats responded in kind. And why not. I'd expect no less. In fact, I expected more. But the poison pill amendments, they can stop legislation in its tracks. That is not negotiation, it's hostage taking. " I will give you Zika vaccine if you finally let me defund Planned Parenthood for once and for all." No. Texas has an unexplained almost doubled mortality rate of newborns recently. It coincides with but is not necessarily correlated to closure of so many PP clinics in the state. But hey, nothing's proven. But hey, defunding PP is a bridge too far and everyone knows it. So Congress goes home without funding Zika. The President scrabbles around and temporarily defers some cancer research and funds Zika. The GOP yells about executive power overreach on a daily basis. What will the GOP do when Zika lays waste to the brains of all those beautiful babies whose mamas got nipped by a virus-laden mosquito? Curse out Obama for not having defunded Planned Parenthood, surely.

    So you're right, Karl. In a way, President Obama does not work with Congress. Thank the good gods.

    What we watch tells us who we are... well we've all just lived through 7.5 years of watching both parties put politics first (not even ideology first, just power politics). That's who we are now. We put them there.

    We are, as a country, no better than the people we elect to office. They enable or deform our ideals. They support or reject our dreams. If we insist on putting our own ideals and dreams before those of other Americans, we contribute to deforming and rejecting the person the Constitution says each of us can strive to be.

    How to remedy that is to focus on electing people who can work across the aisle with each other, who will not obdurately put party before country. What we've been doing the past few years, at least on the Republican side, is primarying people who do that, playing a game of chicken to see if they'll resign. That just seems backwards if the idea is to make America great again. We're discarding the people who had wanted to put America first.
     
  19. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #19
    There is a reason that the GOP won't work with Obama.

    Obama is a big government guy, plain and simple. His theory is that big government programs can fix things. We're starting to see that reality in ObamaCare. This is why ObamaCare is so important. It's a perfect example of a big government solution to a market problem.

    Imagine if everything right now was working like ObamaCare. Just in case you think ObamaCare is working, we'll have to wait and see as the full costs have been deferred. Notice how the Left doesn't have a solution to make their ObamaCare work? Hillary want's to expand ObamaCare but doesn't address the issues that it has.

    This is why I keep saying that we have to completely crash the system because one side will never see their program as not working. This is the root of the problem with everyone being in the same boat. The boat becomes stuck in the water and sinks.

    We had GOP based programs in place under Reagan and Newt, they worked well and we were making progress.

    Just saying "we need to give Obama everything he wanted" and the problems will all go away or things will be better doesn't work. Why didn't ObamaCare work? Nobody on the Left is explaining why ObamaCare didn't work. All they do is say "you don't have a plan" that doesn't address the issue of why their plan didn't work.
     
  20. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #20
    Hardcore? Huffington Post is barely even liberal. I'd more likely call the centrist.
     
  21. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #21
    yeah sure. I do remember this: "Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11....Last week, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) released a letter signed by every Senate Republican pledging to block all legislative action until Congress acts on the expiring Bush tax cuts and passes a measure to fund the federal government into 2011."

    These POS wouldn't help 9/11 first responders until they got their tax cuts for millionaires extended. Nothing more needs to be said about who doesn't work well with whom.


    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote
     
  22. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    I see the issue being that blame or rhetoric shouldn't be put on either party - but on both. Both parties need to work together to make something work. Regardless of who brings something to the table - parties need to stop voting/toeing part lines and put the country ahead of their own egos. Period. Plenty of people want to lay blame. Blame solves nothing.
     
  23. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #23
    Cable television, as Donald Trump is to politics, is sort of lowest common denominator entertainment. These exploitive tabloid shows are designed for the same class of human garbage who comprise the base of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. I don't think you can judge an electorate by programming most people in the country don't consume. Most people will not vote for Donald Trump, as most people don't watch Duck Dynasty. The highly-fragmented media landscape allows a very low threshold for what are considered "popular shows".
     
  24. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #24
    This can't happen at this point on fundamental policies. Working together sounds great, but they are going to two very different directions.

    It's more like making a dish. One side wants their stuff in there while the other side knows that will change what it is.

    This is why I use ObamaCare as the example. The Dems created it, and it failed. We should see it for what it is, so we don't fail again. It's not "let's work together to get ObamaCare to work" it's "will ObamaCare ever work". It won't ever work.

    Look at all the planes that were built that never flew. Should we go back and make those planes fly, or should we focus on the planes today that actually fly?

    The ObamaCare plane will never fly, it's a flaw in the design.

    As I've pointed out before, the New Deal and how it made the Great Depression worse. This can't be proven to the point where Dems will ever agree. So all that happens is arguing. With ObamaCare, the argument will be over when the Dems realize it's not going to work.

    Same with Detroit. What happens if we come back in 10,000 years and it's still not fixed? Will the Dems still be saying "we need more __________" ?

    They never put a specific test case to prove it passes of fails, it just goes on and on.

    Working together is just another way of making things go on and on.

    Let the Dems keep ObamaCare, let it crash, let them suffer as much as needed until they realize that they were wrong.

    I'm more concerned with the Dems forcing everyone to sink in the same boat they've built. Their plane doesn't fly, their boat doesn't float, they'll never admit that and they have no right to destroy the lives of everyone just because they can't admit they are wrong.

    Heck, they can't even admit that Bill Clinton lied. It's always "but it was about sex", "he didn't really lie", "it was his personal business"... no it wasn't he lied to investigators and got impeached. The Dems will never see that as wrong, they'll never see ObamaCare as being wrong.

    That's why the GOP needs to let the whole system crash, just stand back and wait for reconstruction.
     
  25. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    You lost me at the Dems created it - as if it were in a vacuum and the Republicans had nothing to do with what got passed. I didn't bother to read the rest of your post.
     

Share This Page