Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also… maybe he achieved his purpose? Most people have read his books, and it helped generate a widespread aversion to authoritarianism… actually preventing it from happening in the USA and Britain. Many countries nowadays do have societies and governments that look a lot like 1984.
I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.
Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
251–260 of 352 posts
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#252Huxley’s fears presented in this particular way are immediately debunked by actual book sales and education statistics. Independent bookstores have been consistently growing since 2009: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol... The book industry is expanding with particularly strong growth in e-books and audiobooks: https://worldmetrics.org/book-industry-statistics/ Educational attainment is gen…
I think you can argue that 'books' were deemed as intellectual in Huxley/Orwell's time, so banning them would be a sign of society decline ---> BUT, todays books can be seen as just part of the entertainment distraction. Books sales are up, but how many of them are YA, Manga , Pop-Fiction. They are as shallow and distracting as a TV Show. I tend to think even reading the worst trash book is still better than Video. B…
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP did not express the idea properly: people are not prejudicially disqualified because of the industries they worked in, but intrinsic disqualification comes from twisted profiles. "Guts exciters", getting followers through seducing their lower instances, is one of them. I am not labelling individuals here - but there are very many around the world fitting that description.
My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible. Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.
Hilariousness not fitting.
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#254It is interesting that these two books essentially show the most extreme end result of the two major economic systems. Socialist authoritarian communist states gravitate towards 1984, capitalist liberal democracies turn into Brave New World.
Well said. I think the issue stems from the same point. Both cases assume that individuals are being coerced out of their potential to transform the world for the better, whether by Big Brother or by TikTok. In my view, both stem from an assumption that I don’t see playing out in the real world: that all individuals have the desire or capacity to make a difference and be something "more". I think this idea came from…
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, objective science is untrustworthy and subjective testimony is easily explained away. Let me guess - only your opinion is the one that matters. You have a poorly-crafted answer for both sides of the coin, but also fail to read the details of the things you oppose.
One has to ask oneself, is it better to have a comforting story, that is likely leveraged for someone, somewhere's benefit, or to start with the honest position, which is that "I don't know". One can of course become more certain of whatever-it-is, but not without attempting some personal research. Or, one can just defer all personal responsibility and parrot whatever the consensus view is.
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also… maybe he achieved his purpose? Most people have read his books, and it helped generate a widespread aversion to authoritarianism… actually preventing it from happening in the USA and Britain. Many countries nowadays do have societies and governments that look a lot like 1984.
Did it really though? Ideological censorship has been on the rise for awhile. Books might only be occasionally banned but that's because their relevance in the modern zeitgeist has waned. The privatization of the public square has nonetheless meant that moderation of communication has become widespread and politically charged.
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is spending equal amounts of cumulative time in 7 second disparate chunks. The book could build to a complex insight. The other strange part of video media is that intimate parasocial relationships it builds.
Books also build intimate parasocial relationships. People feel a sense of loss when finishing a book.
I believe living in an environment that favors short attention spans were usually dangerous. Monitoring constant change is what one does when they are alert.
I see the real issue is the duration of the reward cycle without building to a larger idea.
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#258For those who haven’t read the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death is incredible, and absolutely worth reading. One of my mentors gave it to me years ago and it became one of those mind blowing reads. In the book, Postman analyzes how media affects humans and society. He basically gives a framework for predicting and understanding the effects of different types of media. The book was written before social media, so the…
(I don't know what the redeeming argument for TikTok would be...)
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I was thinking. First, if you don't remember the text go read it right now; it will take you an hour. It's not really pro- or alt- anything, as much as anti-
Also worth reading the preface Orwell wanted for it but that I think the editor rejected: https://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go
“These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists. […] Tolerance and decency are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible, and they have to be kept alive partly by conscious effort. The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. […] But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?
[…] intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. […] I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.”
Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.
Another, non-fictional, example of a corporation run wild is the British East India company. At one point they had a larger army than Britain. Because many of the British establishment had investments in the company and because the awful things it did were 'out of sight' it seems they were allowed to do pretty much whatever they wanted. As long as they kept turning a profit.