Amusing ourselves to death

I find this line of discourse dehumanizing. "People" apparently includes everyone but the reader. Some would claim this is the conceit of such critique, a claim that only the reader sees the world for what it really is, the reader (and writer) are better than everyone else. But this kind of critique has gone on too long for me to feel this way – instead I think these critiques erase the reader, erase the idea of constructive engagement, they don't say "you, reader, are the smart one!" instead they say "you are stupid and purposeless, not even worthy of critique, instead I shall turn my eye to only the unnamed masses!"

People need to stop talking about "people". Neil Postman should stop talking about "people". Have the guts to say who you are talking about. Or if more likely you are only talking about archetypes, step up and acknowledge the universal inapplicability of archetypes to real people, each of whom is better than your out-of-focus description. When you multiple out individuals into a group you don't get a teaming mass – maybe YOU can only appreciate those individuals as a teaming mass, but don't project the limits of your perception onto those individuals. Life is bigger than any one goddamned sci-fi story.

I can't argue whether this is the case or not, because I rarely watch TV. I've heard that BBC4 is quite cerebral, but I've also heard no-one watches it, yet I'm pretty sure this means that no-one would watch its contents even if they were the sole thing on the television. It seems that most people don't find cerebral activities fun.

I went to your typical rough, inner-city, London comprehensive, and saw precisely the 'bottom 55%' being debated here on a daily basis. It certainly seemed to me that these people would never have been interested in cerebral activities even if they would have been offered. Whenever a cerebral activity (e.g., reading Lord of the Flies) presented itself, they diverted across to violence, or gossip, or some other form of utter rejection of the cerebral activity on offer.

I have no reason to believe that it'd be possible -- or indeed positive -- to force these people to play up to the interests of their social 'betters'. I'd rather we accept who they are than demand they play the role of poseur. Like with everything else in life, I'm sure that the place to intercept this problem -- the issue of people wasting their life on entertainment -- is in childhood. One clear consistency among the lower classes I grew up with was that their parents either didn't give a damn about their kids (sadly the case for a huge number of them), or were too busy with the demands of being a single parent to dedicate time to raising them.

If we want a civilization which is more interested in learning and self-improvement than X-Factor, then we'll have to start with making sure that our civilization's parents are willing and able to emphasize learning and self-improvement over X-Factor.

My simplified summary though, is this: Brave New World for the masses, and 1984 for anyone who wakes up and tries to change it.

Also, that people talk about both authors works but neglect to discuss their British secret and not-so-secret society connections seems to create a sort of superficial aura of debate around the two. Frankly, the books only scratch the surface, but TPTB have done an excellent job at making any even potential association with the title "conspiracy theorist" a thing to be feared. (and plenty of the theorists themselves have helped in that cause)

Boo on social science in general.