This is going to be my last post here because a) this is getting lame and b) we see things too differently to keep going back and forth like this. You seem to find everything innocuous, and therefore you construct your entire argument around whether or not your friends in elementary school exhibited any negative effects, and your own personal beliefs about childhood development and the human psyche. Then, ironically, you accuse me of fabricating studies, and using solely my own (what you insinuate are warped, silly, media-driven and outlandish) issues with television, while much of your argument is just the same. So, this will be it.
“In order to understand the fictional universe of a television show, your mind has to create a model of it inside, it has to recreate what it has been shown in order to process it. Saying you can't have in depth thought about television is like saying you can't ponder the room you're standing in.”
This argument is so silly, but anyways, here we go again, let’s see how you will reweave this one.
I don’t have to create an image of a room I stand in my mind consciously, because when I’m standing in it, it takes about a second for my mind to record it without thinking about it, it is just…there. When I see a setting or learn about a world on television, I’m presented with a picture of the world that my mind doesn’t think about at all, just records. I don’t have to construct anything, most of the time everything you need to understand the show or movie is presented for you, therefore you create absolutely nothing, and use absolutely zero brain power. You just wait for the next image to come around.
“This has absolutely nothing to do with beliefs, it's about evidence. There have actually been studies that show the brain uses more power while reading, but this doesn't mean that it is somehow better for you, or that television has a negative effect. Your brain isn't using much power while jogging, but that hardly means anything.”
Dude, you have been giving your own beliefs through this whole argument too, and you just strengthened my argument by supplementing it with a study, more then you can say for your own argument that Television is benign.
There is a difference when you are jogging versus sitting around watching television. First of all, I think a lot about everything while I’m walking, jogging or doing some solitary exercise- that’s why I love doing them, I clear me head of all the issues I’m dealing with or thinking. But in case you are one of the rare people that completely ignores all thought, you are still shutting your mind off and taking everything in, releasing endorphins, not filling it with 2 hours of images sitting on your ass stagnant- unless of course you are going to tell me that most people work out while watching television, and that you release just as many endorphins.
My own beliefs, sure, they are my own beliefs, just like yours are your own, and apparently just as strong as mine. I did an experiment on myself for 4 months. I did not watch any television (outside of movies I had to watch for class), and I found that I was able to concentrate for longer periods, and made breakthroughs in thought with deep meditative periods. Now while this is not any sanctioned study, while this is only one person revealing his or her own subjective situation with hundreds of variables, I still find that it is a prevalent contributor to my views on television and its negative effects. Again, I’m not claiming this single experiment alone proves television is bad, in fact, I never even said that television was inherently bad, I always said that its place in our society is bad for the mass population.
“Actually, here's my biggest problem with the media: they don't know how to do stories about scientific studies. Every average Joe thinks things like this have been proven, when there's really just a correlation being shown. All of the kids that I know in elementary school who were allowed to watch horror movies were the ones who smelled like pee and got four Snickers bars and a Fruit Rollup for lunch. Is it the fact that these kids are watching violent media that they are being violent, or is it the fact that they have bad parents who can't raise them properly and let them watch and eat whatever they want. Also, if kids are being exposed to more and more violent imagery these days, why aren't more kids becoming violent criminals? This is just some more scare tactic bullshit that has been sold to you through the mainstream media.”
Oh please, don’t lecture me about media spin and the inflation of stories. Maybe if you read a psychology book you may have something to contribute to this issue, otherwise, as you love to accuse me of, you have provided no proof other than your observances of a few children in your own elementary school. There are countless studies that back up exactly what I said. And crime has risen since the advent of television and its descent in programming, maybe you are so desensitized to violence you yourself do not even notice the attitudes and actions of those around you and in your country. But you know what, I’m not even saying that television is the cause of the rise in violence, there are many other factors that are the cause, I’m really just trying to say that it makes for a worse off population, and does, albeit not in large numbers, cause more crime (with its current use).
Now since I’m dealing with someone that loves to spin their argument around and back to the start in five different ways, I’m just going to reiterate this again: television is not the root or cause of violent behavior nor is exposure to violence going to cause the mass population to turn into gun toting gangsters. However, it does affect the sensitivity to violence and its acceptance in our society. It can influence children regardless of whether or not their parents are their telling them what is right or wrong, and it IS sold to the youth of the country.
“There's a lot of porn that demeans women out there, but not all of it, and I certainly haven't seen any porn on television.”
Really, again, maybe you’re too desensitized. While they may not be showing a man stick his penis into the vagina, there is an incredible amount of sexually explicit material on television, often geared towards the teenage population, which rubs off on even younger children.
“I'd like to see the study you're referring to, because I'm pretty sure you're just assuming it exists without looking it up.”
This is common knowledge among people that have studied social psychology, not my fault you do not know it. Maybe you should do some research on your own without proclaiming superiority of argument just because you want to make me run out and search every facet of my argument that you do not “believe.”
“Men want to have sex with scantily clad women, that's why they put them on television.”
Really? I don’t. The chances that a show with scantily clad women is actually redeeming is low enough on its own, aside from the fact that it does not belong on an instrument that reaches so many people and youngsters. If I wanted to see the female body objectified, I think we are getting it enough from the Internet and cinemax. But that isn’t even my problem, if a woman wants to take money for showing her body, that is fine, I just don’t want it bombarded at children and the masses. Obviously, I have biological urges, but just because it’s “instinct” does not mean that it is right.
“Actually, even major media outlets like CNN do make significant efforts to report both sides of the story, even if they don't do it in the best possible way.”
You probably do not even understand what I was trying to say if this is your response. I’m not talking about exposing the public to different viewpoints- sounds like you’re still subscribing to the Dem/Rep game in which there is only two sides to everything. I’m talking about reporting real news that does not uphold the “superstructure.” You may think this society is great, free, and making progress, but others that bother looking to a place besides CNN for news now know the truth.
“I'd say CNN is far less biased than any "alternative news" website out there, which will only report information that makes the government or big business look like evil slavemasters.”
Uh, this is not at all the case. This statement actually makes me laugh. Do you think alternative news sources are only liberal, and only aimed at saving wilderness and ending the free market. I actually consider myself a republican, but I go through both news sources of liberal origin and conservative on my way to finding an opinion. Government is overbearing and turning us into dependent slaves, even though you’re happy with your donuts and SUV, others out there actually want to grow as a species in the name of true progress, not overbearing institutions controlling the flow of information.
“That's an enormous leap in logic. The media stirs up fear because they get ratings for it, so they can sell you crap. They don't care if you're diverted and dim or not, just as long as you're giving them money. Hell, if you get smart enough, maybe they'll hire you so you can help them sell more crap.”
I did not say this was the sole cause of my statement that the media wants to keep us dim and diverted, but it inflates stories to invoke fear. Maybe you “believe” that it is all harmless ploys for advertising, but I see patterns here. “Be afraid of this and that, you need the government and state to protect you and help you.” Or maybe you are intelligent enough to look beyond that fear? Well that’s good, but the rest of the masses are not ready.
“Well, first off, since television started, violence and crime has not been on the rise, no matter how much the media makes you think it is. The sexual revolution happened, people are learning that sex is not some evil thing we need to get away from, sex is wonderful, and we should be free to be open about it. Women are no longer men's posessions for them to fuck, hell, until the fifties most people didn't even know women could have orgasms. Women's lives have been improving in leaps and bounds since television came around, and while they're probably not directly related, you can't claim television is somehow holding them back.”
Uh, when did I say television is holding women back? Huh, when? I said that it’s time for us to grow out of cycles of instant physical gratification and anger. Sex can be a beautiful thing. It is not a beautiful thing when 15-year-old girls are on their way to the abortion clinic. When 13 year olds are walking around in hot pants to imitate Brittany Spears, or when teenagers are going in for STD tests. And while anybody can go out and have as much sex as they want, really I don’t care- fuck your brains out, the truth is that promoting sex as much as this is just leading to the detachment between sex and love, responsibility and commitment. I cannot believe you can sit there and say that television does not pander sex and violence to children, and that it isn’t changing the attitudes of children.
|