MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Sunday, December 28, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 24.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

National TV turn off week - April 23-29

How can cultural elitists like ourselves put TV in the Culture category? Well, where the hell else is it going to fit?

Postby Marvell » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:22 pm

TAsunder wrote:And that's clueless... how?


"Let them eat tivo."

- TAsunder
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby Marvell » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:29 pm

TAsunder wrote:What's almighty Marvell's solution? Or even, what's almighty Marvell's opinion on TV habits? Oh right, he has none.


Apparently I'm supposed to dignify drivel like this with a serious response:

TAsunder wrote:Do you actually own a TV? Tell us the truth, for once. You are in fact one of the TV snobs mentioned in this thread, aren't you?


ARE YOU NOW - OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN - A TV SNOB?!!

Leaping mother of jesus, dude - get a fucking grip. I'm sorry some TV snob slipped it to your girlfriend while you were busy watching the tivoed last episode of Touched By An Angel, but maybe you should take that as a hint - whiny sanctimoniousness and stale middlebrow culture just isn't sexy.

Unless your idea of hot is Les Nessman. Which, come to think of it, it probably is.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby TAsunder » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:30 am

Keep going, Marvell. It's only a matter of time before you actually find a point in your word diarrhea. You are slowly admitting that you look down on everyone who watches TV. I mean you've already assumed that DVR is a pejorative insult and that you are above any discussions of TV habits (but not, apparently, above insulting people who discuss TV habits - real classy).

For once in your life, perhaps you could try to offer some substance instead of evading with verbose bullshit? Is that too much to ask? I guess so. Here's some advice to improving your lame social life... don't butt in on threads you have nothing at all to contribute to other than masturbatory diatribes. Instead, go outside and talk to the pro's that hang around your street corner.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Postby Marvell » Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:08 pm

TAsunder wrote:It's only a matter of time before you actually find a point in your word diarrhea. You are slowly admitting that you look down on everyone who watches TV. I mean you've already assumed that DVR is a pejorative insult and that you are above any discussions of TV habits (but not, apparently, above insulting people who discuss TV habits - real classy).


Wow. Just when I think you can't get any more risible, you reveal heretofore unknown depths of fatuity (not to mention pathological depths of psychological projection).

I haven't bothered to address your 'points' for the same reason I don't usually go around telling adults that there is no Santa Claus - but if it will get you to shut your smirk-hole I'll simply affirm that I no more 'look down on everyone who watches TV' than I 'look down on everyone who uses a screwdriver.' TV is a thing (you unbelievable jack-ass) - it has no inherent moral qualities outside of how it is used by people.

So - I no more have to 'admit that (I) look down on everyone who watches TV' then I would have to admit to any other thing I don't actually believe.

As for my having 'already assumed that DVR is a pejorative insult' - well, if there was a poster boy for completely missing the point, it would be you. What the hell kind of moron would think a DVR is inherently evil? My point was (and here I clearly gave you too much credit in the reading comprehension arena - a mistaken generosity I should really abandon after wading through page after page of noxious effluent from your miasmic mind) that if 'Turn Off TV Week' intends, at its essence, to critique the commercialism and materialism exemplified by corporate media - and only the most hardened sophist would dispute that this is an obvious goal of the event - then to suggest that instead all those 'stupid' people should go buy themselves a fucking Tivo is such a perfect caricature of solipsistic bourgeois cluelessness that I could never improve on it in a million years.

You're a chump, chum - consider yourself Q.E.D.'d.
Last edited by Marvell on Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby bluethedog » Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:21 pm

sol·ip·sism /ˈsɒlɪpˌsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sol-ip-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â??noun 1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1880â??85; sol(i)-1 + L ips(e) self + -ism]
bluethedog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:49 am
Location: West side

Postby TAsunder » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:01 pm

The tv turn off week section does not say any such garbage about "commercialism and materialism exemplified by corporate media". In fact, the stated purpose largely revolves around kids and healthier interaction with families and reducing childhood obesity. None of which I disagreed with in the first place.

My issue was with trying to sell "tv turnoff week" to kidless adults, who for the most part are going to participate only if they already have a severe bias demonstrated by predictable snobbery, and those that don't have a bias (and even those that do who watch TV in spite of it) could improve their lives in far more meaningful ways as it relates to TV viewing.

There are a few essays here and there on the site, but by and large those address advertising, which for the most part someone with a DVR does not even perceive.

Now maybe you are offering up some sort of notion that the real purpose of the thing is concealed beneath layers of propoganda and is in fact aimed at reducing corporate sponsored materialism. If so I would like to ask you to provide evidence. Hell, it took you 5 pages to even state a point, I suppose by page 15 such evidence might surface.

So, let's summarize:

1. The goal of the program is stated on their website which one can find by clicking the link in the first post and then read. The stated goal does not mention anything about corporations or marketting.

2. This would be good for kids

3. It's stupid for adults, because there are better ways to minimize your TV usage and exposure to advertising - one being a DVR under a strict regiment.

Of course, you claim to have made your point finally, but in fact I'm not sure you have made it even now. Yes, it is possible to reduce the amount your life is affected by corporations and marketting by purchasing a product whose purpose is to allow you to skip commercials and pause television. And it is also possible to reduce the amount of TV you watch doing the same. Even if you watch the exact same TV shows, you are in fact watching less tv (about 66% as much tv) since you can skip commercials, thereby watching only 40 minutes of a 60 minute time slot.

Do elaborate for those of us with inferior intellects and reading skills, though. I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere. Unfortunately few humans can extract it since it appears to be based on highly ignorant assumptions and class bigotry.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Postby bluethedog » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:13 pm

TAsunder wrote:Yes, it is possible to reduce the amount your life is affected by corporations and marketting by purchasing a product whose purpose is to allow you to skip commercials and pause television. And it is also possible to reduce the amount of TV you watch doing the same. Even if you watch the exact same TV shows, you are in fact watching less tv (about 66% as much tv) since you can skip commercials, thereby watching only 40 minutes of a 60 minute time slot.

Might I jump in here? Your point about DVR may be more applicable to women than men. I think the stereotype about men switching through channels is true. In fact, the lady who informed me about TV turn-off included a Jerry Seinfeld quote in her email: "Men donâ??t care whatâ??s on TV. They only care what else is on TV".

DVR ain't gonna change this. It might work for women though.
bluethedog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:49 am
Location: West side

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:17 pm

Marvell wrote:I'll simply affirm that I no more 'look down on everyone who watches TV' than I 'look down on everyone who uses a screwdriver.' TV is a thing - it has no inherent moral qualities outside of how it is used by people.


Well, looking down onto people is your forte. So, touché.

I had to rub my eyes when I read this. Marvell just took the same stance as someone who owns a firearm when confronted by the siren anti-firearm left. IE, Machines are just tools used by people. A tool/thing is just that, a tool/thing. It's useless without the human.
pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby Marvell » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:42 pm

I now have both TAsunder and pulsewidth modulation trying to get me to defend opinions they have imagined I have.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I have no interest in doing this. So I'll just make my exit by pointing out the one thing that made me want to post anything on this thread to begin with:

TAsunder wrote:Most likely the real majority of people participating are the sort that have their thumbs up their anus and go around telling everyone how they don't watch tv because it's brainless fodder for drooling idiots, instead they go to the cinema - where inevitably they watch the latest michael bay film and hail it a masterpiece. Sometimes they read novels instead. Novels like the latest harry potter novel, you know, real high art type stuff.


My only intention was to point out how much of a stupid asshole you were being in constructing this pitiful strawman and propping it up with indefensible rhetorical flourishes like 'most likely' and 'inevitably.' I did this solely because I dislike it when people are stupid assholes (while I will cheerfully cop to being an asshole, my not being stupid exempts me from charges of hypocrisy). The whole TV turnoff week thing is of minimal interest to me, and was always neither here nor there.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby TAsunder » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:09 pm

Marvell wrote:My only intention was to point out how much of a stupid asshole you were being in constructing this pitiful strawman and propping it up with indefensible rhetorical flourishes like 'most likely' and 'inevitably.' I did this solely because I dislike it when people are stupid assholes (while I will cheerfully cop to being an asshole, my not being stupid exempts me from charges of hypocrisy). The whole TV turnoff week thing is of minimal interest to me, and was always neither here nor there.


I don't think the word "strawman" means what you think it means. The section you quoted was not offered as an argument I was claiming TV turn off week's group was making. There was no intent to refute anything either. In fact, the only portion that could even conceivably be labelled a strawman would be the "brainless fodder for drooling idiots" part, and only then if attributed to the group advocating tv turn off week.

The only real debating point I even offered in that initial post I made was "the whole idea is pretty stupid unless you are a parent trying to raise your child not to depend on TV". As you can attest to personally, merely calling someone or something stupid is apparently a very important and highly defensible position to take.

Furthermore, even if you want to assume that the quoted portion is a supporting argument for my opinion, it is more of an Ad Hominem argument. Maybe you have grown so lazy in your knee jerk logical fallacy terminology that everything is a strawman argument? Who knows.

I make no apologies for being an ass towards people who go around bragging about not owning a TV. You would be fairly surprised at how accurate my description of such people is. I probably could have been a little less assy towards the tv turn off week, but such is life.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Postby Marvell » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:04 pm

TAsunder wrote:I don't think the word "strawman" means what you think it means. The section you quoted was not offered as an argument I was claiming TV turn off week's group was making. There was no intent to refute anything either. In fact, the only portion that could even conceivably be labelled a strawman would be the "brainless fodder for drooling idiots" part, and only then if attributed to the group advocating tv turn off week.

[...]

Furthermore, even if you want to assume that the quoted portion is a supporting argument for my opinion, it is more of an Ad Hominem argument. Maybe you have grown so lazy in your knee jerk logical fallacy terminology that everything is a strawman argument? Who knows.


No, I think I pretty much got it.

When you say things like

But that's typical of your posts. 0% substance, 100% snobbery. When was the last time you actually contributed any substance to a thread? Substance doesn't include saying nothing eloquently, by the way.


that's an ad hominem - while it may be the pitiful mewlings of a pedantic hater, it's at least directed to an actual me, based on a subjective interpretation of something I actually did; there was an actual man to which the ad hominem was applied. You conjure up this dread phantasm of aesthetic scornfulness - The TV Snob!!! - and not only assign it full sway over 'TV Turn-Off Week' but attribute to it only the most base and contemptible of motivations.

Never mind that 'the tv snob' is the man who wasn't there.

I.e. - strawman.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby TAsunder » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:18 am

If you haven't encountered a TV snob (note that others have also mentioned this so-called apparition) then lucky you. My description of such a person may be mildly exaggerated, but it is not a fictitious being. I am sure if you search long and hard, like maybe just wander around the near east side for 10 minutes, you'll encounter such a person. I would be surprised if there weren't several posts by at least one person offering similar beliefs here on this very forum.

I can say with absolute certainty that here in Madison in general you can find people who are vocal critics of ALL television shows but who are obsessive Harry Potter fans. I know at least two such people. To be fair, they don't like Michael Bay films (to my knowledge).
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Postby Marvell » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:40 am

And in all honesty I will concede that I do, in fact, know people who are zealously anti-television. I don't think it reduces as neatly to typology as you seem to believe it does, however.

My film/video production professor in college told the following story:

So I go to this cocktail party, and one of the guests asks what I do for a living. I say that I teach television production, and produce documentaries for Public TV.

The guest says, with infinite condescension, "I don't watch TV; I read."

To which I reply:

"Have a ball."
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby TAsunder » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:50 pm

What fun is it to mock an entire group of people if we can't use their most heinous members in our mockery? None at all. It would be like trying to mock boxers without referring to mike tyson. It's unnatural and wrong.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Previous

Return to TV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar