Anti TV

TheHatter

TV.

Without it, dictatorships couldnt exist. People would be independent. Deviance would be impossible. So would propaganda.

Every single intelligent person on this planet has one thing in common. They dont watch it.

If you do not, or do not want, to watch TV, post here and meet others who agree with you.

TheHatter

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TheHatter

Permabear, you are obviously stalking me.

You are the person who locked my very first thread. By stalking my posts, you are just building more and more evidence that you should be banned from the forum.
I have already made a formal complaint to the moderators, as it seems have several other people, and I have nothing else to say to you.

liah

TheHatter wrote: »

Permabear, you are obviously stalking me.

You are the person who locked my very first thread. By stalking my posts, you are just building more and more evidence that you should be banned from the forum.
I have already made a formal complaint to the moderators, as it seems have several other people, and I have nothing else to say to you.

Vain much?

Anyway, plenty of intelligent people watch TV, they just watch different sorts of TV to people who aren't particularly intelligent.

That said, not many people watch actual television anymore (or at least, I don't) when you can just get all your TV shows online. Still, your argument has very little logic to it. Please expand.

TheHatter

I ll glance over most of that and point out to you that my point is pretty logical.

TV equals mass mind and culture control.

Unless, of course, youre disputing that...

seamus

TheHatter wrote: »

Without it, dictatorships couldnt exist. People would be independent. Deviance would be impossible. So would propaganda.

How old are you?

You do realise that there's a direct correlation between the introduction of TV and the rise of democracy in the world?

Not saying causation, just correlation. How did all those monarchs, emperors and despots ever seize control before TV? Because, you know there was like a few years (10,000 or so) where we had societies without TVs.

I ll glance over most of that and point out to you that my point is pretty logical.

Your point is theoretical.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

TheHatter wrote: »

I ll glance over most of that and point out to you that my point is pretty logical.

TV equals mass mind and culture control.

Unless, of course, youre disputing that...

Not quite. It depends on what you're watching. Plus, propaganda has been around far, far longer than TV ever has.

Your argument has very little logic by the simple fact that you said "Any intelligent person does not watch TV," which is blatantly untrue. There's millions of intelligent people who watch TV programs, who are critical, rational thinkers, and who are not taken in by propaganda. In fact, TV can inspire this. It just depends on what you're watching.

Writing off all TV as "propaganda" and "brainwashing" is incredibly short-sighted and frankly, silly. Sure, some of it is. Just like some books are like that, and some websites are like that. But it's our job to pick and choose what we want and what we don't. They can't force any of it down our throats, we can always change the channel if we don't buy into it.

TheHatter

Seamus, as I said before, they seized power in the past using the Church.

TV is watched most by the British and the Americans. No surprise to me that these are the two governments who are most confident that theyll get away with international violence.

By the way, would anyone like to place a bet on how many minutes before this thread is locked, like it was in another section, like my first one was, like the rape of freedom of speech seems to behave on boards.ie?

Check for a "locked" sign, people...

JBnaglfar

TheHatter wrote: »

TV equals mass mind and culture control.

Unless, of course, youre disputing that...

Sounds like the Frankfurt School, and yes I would dispute that. People are free to accept, reject, criticise or appropriate any aspect of tv.
There is no 'mass mind' to be controlled, I would be worried by any suggestion that there is.

liah

TheHatter wrote: »

Seamus, as I said before, they seized power in the past using the Church.

TV is watched most by the British and the Americans. No surprise to me that these are the two governments who are most confident that theyll get away with international violence.

By the way, would anyone like to place a bet on how many minutes before this thread is locked, like it was in another section, like my first one was, like the rape of freedom of speech seems to behave on boards.ie?

Check for a "locked" sign, people...

Honestly the only reason it would have to be locked is because you're taunting moderators and throwing your weight around and being rude for no real reason, if you left all this "oh watch my thread get locked!" or "oh, the mods are stalking me!" crap out of the thread it probably wouldn't.

But now that you've been so melodramatic it'll probably get locked.. guess we'll just have to see. (I'm probably not helping, but admittedly, I'm bored.)

Also, freedom of speech doesn't exist on boards.ie. It's a kind dictatorship, but still a dictatorship. You should be able to live with it, everyone else does.

seamus

TheHatter wrote: »

Seamus, as I said before, they seized power in the past using the Church.

Right, therefore so the entire basis of your thread is nonsense.

The US and Britain aren't dictatorships. If they watch the most TV, then it stands to reason that people in dictatorships watch less TV. So how do those dictatorships exist again?

I suggest you re-examine your "logic" for all the spots where your assertions don't match up with reality.

edwinkane

Interestingly, I gave up tv many years ago now, mainly because it was obsessed with celebrities and that oxymoron, reality tv shows. Also, the news had become more and more like a revolving sun newspaper and I found it unbearable.

Then, the worst thing happened, I found I liked watching Judge judy. That was teh point I decided the tv had to go, and I have to say I have never regretted the decision, and don't miss tv at all.

The problem with so much tv is that it all gravitates to the lowest common denominator in the scramble to maximise viewers.

TheHatter

My ex girlfriend was a psychologist, and she taught me quite a lot on the subject. You say:

People are free to accept, reject, criticise or appropriate any aspect of tv.

I dont mean to insult you personally when I say this is a very immature perspective.

There is an entire Subject on the practice of influencing the Subconscious, and it is called Marketing.

Psychology is also deeply involved in this.

Consciously, yes, people can choose. But Unconsciously, they generally have very little resistance.

edwinkane

TheHatter wrote: »

I dont mean to insult you personally when I say this is a very immature perspective.

Lol. I love that - I don't mean to insult you but you are very immature! LOL

TheHatter

edwinkane wrote: »

The problem with so much tv is that it all gravitates to the lowest common denominator in the scramble to maximise viewers.

Well said!

liah

TheHatter wrote: »

My ex girlfriend was a psychologist, and she taught me quite a lot on the subject. You say:

People are free to accept, reject, criticise or appropriate any aspect of tv.

I dont mean to insult you personally when I say this is a very immature perspective.

There is an entire Subject on the practice of influencing the Subconscious, and it is called Marketing.

Psychology is also deeply involved in this.

Consciously, yes, people can choose. But Unconsciously, they generally have very little resistance.

It depends on what you're watching. And you're acting as if you're the only one on the planet who's aware of marketing and psychology. Everyone knows this stuff, people have known that about TV for eons. Since the onset of TV. It also goes on in supermarkets, too, but I doubt you'll stop shopping because of it. The more you're aware it's there the easier it is to ignore, and we've been aware of it for awhile.

Some people still get sucked in, but those kinds of people probably get sucked into loads of other crazy, stupid stuff, too. No reason to use them as a stick to beat everyone else with, or all TV with.

Do you actually believe every single thing aired on TV is a propaganda piece? And you're actually calling my point of view immature?

TheHatter

seamus wrote: »

Right, therefore so the entire basis of your thread is nonsense.

The US and Britain aren't dictatorships.

That is your opinion. I think a great deal of people who have lived under Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, Blair and Brown would vehemently disagree with you.

But of course you dont think theyre dictatorships, and the reason for that is the very subject of this discussion.

old hippy

TheHatter wrote: »

My ex girlfriend was a psychologist, and she taught me quite a lot on the subject. You say:

People are free to accept, reject, criticise or appropriate any aspect of tv.

I dont mean to insult you personally when I say this is a very immature perspective.

There is an entire Subject on the practice of influencing the Subconscious, and it is called Marketing.

Psychology is also deeply involved in this.

Consciously, yes, people can choose. But Unconsciously, they generally have very little resistance.

Your "ex", you say? :rolleyes:

I find your tone patronising in the extreme and rather naive. Not everything Adam Curtis says is gospel, you know?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

old hippy

TheHatter wrote: »

That is your opinion. I think a great deal of people who have lived under Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, Blair and Brown would vehemently disagree with you.

But of course you dont think theyre dictatorships, and the reason for that is the very subject of this discussion.

I remember the Reagan/Thatcher years and whilst they were an unpleasant duo; they were not dictators. That's an insult to people in the former Soviet Block and other countries across the world who know damn well what a dictatorship is. Have you ever met anyone from these countries who has suffered?

And I live in the UK and managed to survive the Blair/Brown years - and you know what? We never had it so good.

Dictatorship, my arras.

liah

TheHatter wrote: »

That is your opinion. I think a great deal of people who have lived under Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, Blair and Brown would vehemently disagree with you.

But of course you dont think theyre dictatorships, and the reason for that is the very subject of this discussion.

I reckon in places with fewer TVs (in comparison to, say, the States) there's a correlation with dictatorships (or at least horrific government). A lot of Africa, the Middle East, etc. Quite lovely, democratic, sensible places, yes?

And what about all the other nations who have TV sets and aren't completely messed up? Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, blah, blah, blah..

The problem comes in when your government censors your television channels, like in North Korea. That's when there's a serious issue with TV. But as long as it remains open to anyone who wants to start up a show, it's pretty hard to start a dictatorship just from TV.

Correlation does not equal causation, and it is not logical to assume TV is the root of all modern evil. Not in the slightest.

edwinkane

TheHatter wrote: »

That is your opinion. I think a great deal of people who have lived under Reagan, Bush, Thatcher, Blair and Brown would vehemently disagree with you.

But of course you dont think theyre dictatorships, and the reason for that is the very subject of this discussion.

It's not a case of what you, or anyone else, thinks. By definition, the US and the UK are not dictatorships. I have lived under "thatcher" and "Blair" and know not one person in the UK who didn't think they were democratically elected.

TheHatter

My ex, I say. Yes, old hippie. Some people do have them. Lets stay on topic please, whether you find my tone patronizing or not is irrelevant unless you bring your own points to the discussion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TheHatter

liah wrote: »

I reckon in places with fewer TVs (in comparison to, say, the States) there's a correlation with dictatorships

Liah, doesnt that raise an interesting point though?

What that might suggest is that populations without TVs have to be more overtly controlled. It could suggest exactly that TV does the same thing in (supposedly) less directly violent regimes.

By the way, has anybody noticed that youre all ganging up on me?

Viva the mob!

old hippy

TheHatter wrote: »

My ex, I say. Yes, old hippie. Some people do have them. Lets stay on topic please, whether you find my tone patronizing or not is irrelevant unless you bring your own points to the discussion.

I've addressed your points and found them to be wanting. Dictatorships, progaganda and control over populace have existed for centuries. Television did not create these situations. And yes, most people are able to make their own minds up, unless you think they are sheep?

Television, like any other medium/artform can be used a tool for propaganda; sure but like the internet you shouldn't believe everything you see.

Television can also be used as an educational tool, an outlet for the arts and drama and can raise awareness of important issues.

Unless of course, you think Live Aid was Thatcher propaganda?

liah

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness "democratically elected" is arguable in the case of George W.'s second term. Much evidence was found of electronic machines registering democratic votes as republican.

He's actually the closest America's been to a dictator in a long time. The Patriot Act is mental. But he's still not exactly a dictator. And it has very little to do with TV.

I'm pretty sure TV's a lot more popular now than it was when true dictatorships were still alive.

TheHatter

edwinkane wrote: »

It's not a case of what you, or anyone else, thinks. By definition, the US and the UK are not dictatorships. I have lived under "thatcher" and "Blair" and know not one person in the UK who didn't think they were democratically elected.

Probably because the British watch too much TV.

You do not know whether they are dictatorships or not, because dictatorships target specific minorities, of which you may not be one.

And "by definition", whos definition, exactly? I am genuinely interested.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

TheHatter wrote: »

Liah, doesnt that raise an interesting point though?

What that might suggest is that populations without TVs have to be more overtly controlled. It could suggest exactly that TV does the same thing in (supposedly) less directly violent regimes.

By the way, has anybody noticed that youre all ganging up on me?

Viva the mob!

Disagreeing does not equal ganging up, it's not our fault you're the only one who has this particular opinion.

Do you honestly believe you live in a dictatorship? Do you honestly believe everything on TV is propaganda? Do you understand how America's free speech rules work on TV? Have you ever seen Penn & Teller: Bullshit? Because I'm fairly sure that, if there was any kind of legitimate dictatorship, that show would've been banned long, long ago.

You're obviously basing your opinion on a very small subset of TV, probably Network News and Reality TV shows, and completely failing to take into consideration all the critical or quality programming that is out there. Making your argument quite void until you actually expand on what you're saying.

TheHatter

Right, gang, Ive gotta head off. See you later. Its been emotional

old hippy

TheHatter wrote: »

Probably because the British watch too much TV.

You do not know whether they are dictatorships or not, because dictatorships target specific minorities, of which you may not be one.

QUOTE]

And you know that the UK is a dictatorship, how?

old hippy

TheHatter wrote: »

Right, gang, Ive gotta head off. See you later. Its been emotional

Off to watch the telly, hmm?

liah

old hippy wrote: »

Off to watch the telly, hmm?

Fairly sure he's just not got a valid argument. :pac: Poorly thought out thread, anyway..

old hippy

liah wrote: »

Fairly sure he's just not got a valid argument. :pac: Poorly thought out thread, anyway..

Needs to do a bit more research, I think. Ah well

JBnaglfar

TheHatter wrote: »

My ex girlfriend was a psychologist, and she taught me quite a lot on the subject. You say:

People are free to accept, reject, criticise or appropriate any aspect of tv.

I dont mean to insult you personally when I say this is a very immature perspective.

There is an entire Subject on the practice of influencing the Subconscious, and it is called Marketing.

Psychology is also deeply involved in this.

Consciously, yes, people can choose. But Unconsciously, they generally have very little resistance.

Aww, he left before I could reply. Anyway, I have two points to make here. Does the OP's problem lie with tv, or with marketing? Perhaps he should watch the BBC if he wants to escape marketing?

Secondly, I do not understand how anyone can claim that people have very little resistance to marketing. To take that to its logical conclusion, wouldn't we all be nothing more than mindless consumers purchasing everything that is directed at us? Why do marketing campaigns fail?

HivemindXX

JBnaglfar wrote: »

Aww, he left before I could reply. Anyway, I have two points to make here. Does the OP's problem lie with tv, or with marketing? Perhaps he should watch the BBC if he wants to escape marketing?

Secondly, I do not understand how anyone can claim that people have very little resistance to marketing. To take that to its logical conclusion, wouldn't we all be nothing more than mindless consumers purchasing everything that is directed at us? Why do marketing campaigns fail?

While the OP has argued very poorly and clearly didn't bother to read the posting guidelines I think there is something interesting to be considered here.

There is clearly an advertising aspect to most television (and print media which the OP might be interested to know has been around a lot longer). These vary from the extremely obvious (use this deoderant and beautiful women will tear off your clothes and have sex with you in the street) to slightly more subtle (this product is the drink of choice to independant minded people who are happy to give two fingers to the stuffy people in society). Everyone know that advertising does this and we generally don't take the message literally. Despite the fact we all know how this works we are almost certainly still affected by this to some extent. Is this a bad thing? I don't really think so, and only a fool would think it's a major issue that needs to be addressed.

There is another aspect to mass media though and this is to do with influencing people in a more complex way than simply to buy a certain product. A car show might have the subtextual message that speeding is fine when done by real drivers who know how to handle themselves and their cars and speed cameras serve no purpose other than to impose fines on these drivers. A news show might have the not-so-subtextual message that the upcoming war is supported by all patriotic people and those that question it have suspicious motivations. A drama might have the message that minorities are people just like the majority and don't need to be feared or persecuted.

This sort of thing is certainly more subtle. I don't mean it will be a surpise to most people to learn it exists but rather that it can be argued to what degree a certain show exhibits it. One person (who typically opposes a position) might consider a given show to be extreme propaganda supporting that position while another person might not agree.

Provided people think for themselves and analyse what they are told exposure to differing view points is a good thing. Some people can watch a day time talk show which constantly critisises social welfare with stories of single mothers getting rich off the tax payers back and treat this as an absolute truth, deciding that all social welfare is wrong and that any contrary argument presented to them is a trick or a lie. However this was always the case. Witch trials didn't require TV to get going.

Exposing yourself to a wide variety of discussion is a valuable tool in developing your own opinions. Would someone who never watched a minute of television in their life really be a good person to comment on modern society? Would you like to be led by someone that never read a book or a newspaper or the internet?

old hippy

Awesome post, Hive. I hear you.

lemd

I got to the end of the thread before i realised this isn't after hours!

old hippy

lemd wrote: »

I got to the end of the thread before i realised this isn't after hours!

It's certainly post modern

I'm still wondering if it was a wind up!

liah

old hippy wrote: »

It's certainly post modern

I'm still wondering if it was a wind up!

I reckon he was trolling tbh.

old hippy

liah wrote: »

I reckon he was trolling tbh.

Goshdarnnit, I wasted time on this!

patff

TheHatter wrote: »

TV.

Without it, dictatorships couldnt exist. People would be independent. Deviance would be impossible. So would propaganda.

Every single intelligent person on this planet has one thing in common. They dont watch it.

If you do not, or do not want, to watch TV, post here and meet others who agree with you.

TheHatter

Quite a few non sequiturs there, and already well debunked by the other contributors.

For my part, I have to say I am amazed by the amount of rubbish I see on TV, and I don't watch much.

My amazement doesn't stem however from the capacity of humans to produce such crap, but moreso from their capacity to indulge and crave it.

But I suppose the same applies to other forms of media and entertainment................and in the recesses of my own life I'm likely the subject of my own amazement.

edwinkane

It's certainly fashionable in certain circles to not have a tv, just as it is fashionable in others to look down ones nose at pink flowers.

As someone who has not had a tv since 2001, I'd say my life is much better without it, on balance. Besides, thesedays, if there is something I really want to watch, I can usually get it on www.bbc.co.uk or youtube, so not having a tv doesn't have the same resonance it used to have.

28064212

The Internet.

Without it, dictatorships couldnt exist. People would be independent. Deviance would be impossible. So would propaganda.

Every single intelligent person on this planet has one thing in common. They dont use it.

If you do not, or do not want, to use the internet, post here... (wait, I haven't thought this parody through)

TheHatter Not TheHatter
====================================
You only have to look at this thread to see the groupthink going on :pac:

18AD

The television did it! In the sitting room, with the corruptible family.

Check this out for some lovely TV bashing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxQuHocBmxw

TheHatter

I have spent the last 3 minutes laughing my ass off at the ridiculous replies from most users.


This one I like so much that Im thinking of using it as my quote:

"Perhaps he should watch the BBC if he wants to escape marketing?"

I think I had an orgasm there. If I ever write an autobiography, it will include people citing the BBC (British government Broadcasting Company) as a source of zero brainwashing.

To the rest of the comedians here, my argument is not weak, and some posters have substantiated what I said. I find it deliciously ironic that those who slate me conclude "But the BBC is fine".

The BBC sold you:

The invasion of the Balkans
The invasion of Afghanistan
The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Sierra Leone
The invasion of the Falkland Islands
The current bombing of Libya
and not forgetting Blairs "anti-terrorism laws", which imprisoned innocent young men on a Holocaustic level.

I...wow.

I just cant believe how stupid some people are.

28064212

TheHatter wrote: »

I have spent the last 3 minutes laughing my ass off at the ridiculous replies from most users...

And yet decided not to respond to the myriad of perfectly accurate posts that made complete nonsense of your point. Funny, that

TheHatter

"Perhaps he should watch the BBC if he wants to escape marketing?"

Can you put a quote under your posts? Because if so, that is gonna be it.

The BBC and SkyNews are the worst offenders of the lot.

My argument is not weak. It is just unpopular. There is an extremely critical difference.

Oh wow, guys.

"Only two things are infinite. The Universe, and human stupidity. And Im not sure about the former" - Albert Einstein

old hippy

TheHatter wrote: »

I have spent the last 3 minutes laughing my ass off at the ridiculous replies from most users.


This one I like so much that Im thinking of using it as my quote:

"Perhaps he should watch the BBC if he wants to escape marketing?"

I think I had an orgasm there. If I ever write an autobiography, it will include people citing the BBC (British government Broadcasting Company) as a source of zero brainwashing.

To the rest of the comedians here, my argument is not weak, and some posters have substantiated what I said. I find it deliciously ironic that those who slate me conclude "But the BBC is fine".

The BBC sold you:

The invasion of the Balkans
The invasion of Afghanistan
The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Sierra Leone
The invasion of the Falkland Islands
The current bombing of Libya
and not forgetting Blairs "anti-terrorism laws", which imprisoned innocent young men on a Holocaustic level.

I...wow.

I just cant believe how stupid some people are.

Perhaps you can patronise us more and tell us how the BBC DG; Greg Dyke was forced to resign after the Gilligan affair where the beeb rightly questioned the "sexing up" of the dossier?

Or how the beeb is regularly accused of bias in favour of Palestine?

Take those blinkers off.