With all due respect, I think the problem is essentially two wrongs don’t make a right. Can we have media that doesn’t suck and enough proles consume it willingly? Idk. I had hope once upon a time, but we’ve sold it hard to kids that it’s uncool to care about anything for more than 5 seconds, and the absolute coolest to fry your brain and consume only impulsive fantasy bs. Beyond that, earlier generations convinced themselves that you don’t have to think critically or feel bad about stepping on others as long as it’s what your in-group is doing. So idk what the answer is, all I’m saying is all those media options suck ass.
Can we have media that doesn’t suck and enough proles consume it willingly?
Definitely. The things that “suck” in media are profit engines that can only exist in parallel with the things that proles benefit by consuming. If you have a channel that’s “Oops, all ads!” your user base shrivels up into a tiny nugget of Home Shopping Channel die-hards. But if you have a channel that’s purely public services, it relies on public sponsorship (either directly through membership or indirectly through state aid). It can’t operate at a large profit or justify outside private investment to rapidly expand.
There’s always a balancing act between content that benefits the audience and content that benefits the broadcaster.
Beyond that, earlier generations convinced themselves that you don’t have to think critically or feel bad about stepping on others as long as it’s what your in-group is doing.
That’s not true. That’s never been true. This isn’t an issue of generational divide. This is an issue of local communities partitioned by their access to modes of communication and the regional influence of the neighborhood’s industrial powerhouse.
One of the most reliable indicators of a voting district’s partisan affiliation is the presence of Oil & Natural Gas industrial activity. Like, if you want to talk about why the Gulf Coast states, Ohio, and central Pennsylvania are bleeding red, it centers heavily on their enormous concentration of O&G facilities and staff. Energy sector workers are uniformly predisposed to the party that supports expanding O&G exploration, exploitation, refinement, and export.
These people aren’t above “thinking critically”. They just see where their bread is buttered (red state plutocracy generally benefits from Oil-Friendly Republican administrations) and vote accordingly. It’s the grim math of “Do I want a five/six figure bonus at the end of the year?” which party organizers and their business allies in the state make abundantly clear during election season.
Your problem isn’t that people don’t think critically, its that they do and the conclusions they reach aren’t favorable to your partisan allies.
Replies are for the community not just the person you’re responding to. Otherwise there would just be DMs to OP.
UnderpantsWeevil made a good point, you don’t have to take that as them wanting to debate you. You don’t even need to block them. Just stop responding, it’s not complicated.
Then you don’t have to spend the effort being negative and we end up with communities that become a positive corner of the internet.
I mean, tell it to the folks watching CBS Evening News. Or reading the New York Post.
For some reason, its only the newer forms of media that ever take flak as “brain rot”. As though the style carries more weight than the substance.
With all due respect, I think the problem is essentially two wrongs don’t make a right. Can we have media that doesn’t suck and enough proles consume it willingly? Idk. I had hope once upon a time, but we’ve sold it hard to kids that it’s uncool to care about anything for more than 5 seconds, and the absolute coolest to fry your brain and consume only impulsive fantasy bs. Beyond that, earlier generations convinced themselves that you don’t have to think critically or feel bad about stepping on others as long as it’s what your in-group is doing. So idk what the answer is, all I’m saying is all those media options suck ass.
Definitely. The things that “suck” in media are profit engines that can only exist in parallel with the things that proles benefit by consuming. If you have a channel that’s “Oops, all ads!” your user base shrivels up into a tiny nugget of Home Shopping Channel die-hards. But if you have a channel that’s purely public services, it relies on public sponsorship (either directly through membership or indirectly through state aid). It can’t operate at a large profit or justify outside private investment to rapidly expand.
There’s always a balancing act between content that benefits the audience and content that benefits the broadcaster.
That’s not true. That’s never been true. This isn’t an issue of generational divide. This is an issue of local communities partitioned by their access to modes of communication and the regional influence of the neighborhood’s industrial powerhouse.
One of the most reliable indicators of a voting district’s partisan affiliation is the presence of Oil & Natural Gas industrial activity. Like, if you want to talk about why the Gulf Coast states, Ohio, and central Pennsylvania are bleeding red, it centers heavily on their enormous concentration of O&G facilities and staff. Energy sector workers are uniformly predisposed to the party that supports expanding O&G exploration, exploitation, refinement, and export.
These people aren’t above “thinking critically”. They just see where their bread is buttered (red state plutocracy generally benefits from Oil-Friendly Republican administrations) and vote accordingly. It’s the grim math of “Do I want a five/six figure bonus at the end of the year?” which party organizers and their business allies in the state make abundantly clear during election season.
Your problem isn’t that people don’t think critically, its that they do and the conclusions they reach aren’t favorable to your partisan allies.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Here’s an idea - leave me alone.
Actually, I’ll do you a favor and block you.
Replies are for the community not just the person you’re responding to. Otherwise there would just be DMs to OP.
UnderpantsWeevil made a good point, you don’t have to take that as them wanting to debate you. You don’t even need to block them. Just stop responding, it’s not complicated.
Then you don’t have to spend the effort being negative and we end up with communities that become a positive corner of the internet.
Do you always announce your blocks?
“Attention everyone, i am replying to fyrilsol!”
“Attention everyone, I am clicking the reply button!”
Yes, gives me a boner. I’m blocking you now.