Jump to content

The ascendant (or declining?) current state and future of western culture


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

But Shakespeare *is* lowbrow, it just is also more. I'd phrase it as low brow doesn't have to mean that there isn't anything more there, and there frequently is when its still character based stuff - its only when it turns to flashy explosions that it normally loses the ability to make compelling commentary on society. It just depends on the skill of the person telling the tale and whether they even have aspirations of making art or simply money.

On SJW let me be clear, I am 100% absolutely what will be called a SJW by a hell of a lot of people online. I'm passionate about social justice issues, about equality for minority groups and I'm vocal about that. I have different standards of free speech and support hate speech provisions, but I'm also now from America which changes my background mindset in the first place.  I do not, and never have, support calling mobs down on people. At times I would support calls for someone to be denied a platform, see: my stance on speech/hate speech. I do not ever approve of doxxing, SWATing or any of the other horrid tools of harassment that get employed on the internet. That term is absurdly over applied, its nonsensical in its application and in the way it was appropriated it actually lost its association to the meaning that you claim it still has, a usage that was initially coined by members of social justice movements to describe abhorrent behaviour within their own community. 

C4JS - Part of my point with Machiavelli is that decadence has an entirely different definition within his framework, but so many people now hear 'decadent' and think that it means Romans were having too much booze and orgies etc, when in that particular analytical style it would actually mean that Rome got too comfortable, it was not facing external challenges and did not have to fight to survive.  Now in this thread there were some posts that actually seemed to be using this lens, but generally speaking this argument has over time been misunderstood and now it's a common idea that too much sex and gladiators decadence lead to the end of Rome. For example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's worse, game shows (that were hugely prevalent in previous decades as cheap entertainment fodder) or "reality" shows, that are now the mainstay of cheap entertainment?

Is News less about journalism and informing people about important things now that it was previously, and is now merely another act in the entertainment circus?

Has the internet been more of a tool for spreading and mainstreaming intolerance and hate, or has it more been a tool for bringing people together and developing understanding, appreciation and tolerance of others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the idea that humans don't have innate morals is experimentally wrong. There are a set of universal morals that all groups of humans have. They are almost certainly genetic. The concept of fairness is almost certainly a genetic morality, as an example.

Most social animals have a concept of morality that is not just learned behavior. Humans aren't any different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2016 at 9:10 PM, larrytheimp said:

 

Bolding mine.  I'm going to disagree with regarded to the bolded, see Bill Shakespeare, Seinfeld, Lost, the Beatles, ASOIAF, etc.  Popular art/entertainment can operate on many levels and have big and low brow appeal.  It certainly doesn't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Sure, but Morality is subjective. Just because animals and humans have an innate moral system (which I'd question) it certainly doesn't mean everyone has the same one, and you can see that as different societies have different moral systems, where killing another human being is accepted in one but not in another for instance. 

 

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What's worse, game shows (that were hugely prevalent in previous decades as cheap entertainment fodder) or "reality" shows, that are now the mainstay of cheap entertainment?

 

Well exactly, go back and watch 80's tv shows and you'd absolutely struggle to find anything that isn't horrible. I rememeber growing up and all that was on tv was repeats from the 70's and cheap and stupid game shows. 

 

Quote

Is News less about journalism and informing people about important things now that it was previously, and is now merely another act in the entertainment circus?

Has the internet been more of a tool for spreading and mainstreaming intolerance and hate, or has it more been a tool for bringing people together and developing understanding, appreciation and tolerance of others?

I think the answer is there is simply MORE of everything. Good quality news and journalism exists, but you have to take the time and effort to find it. The internet has been a tool for good and bad, it has allowed people to communicate with each other and its made us more aware of people and ideas we'd never have known existed 30 years ago. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...