Slashdot Mirror

How often do any of those shows tackle a serious social issue and end up with a result outside the status quo?

The Simpsons and South Park are especially good examples. The Simpsons have made a franchise of giving "liberals" warm and happy feelings by "dealing" with issues in a leftist manner while using deus ex machina to ruin the leftist scheme. How many times has Lisa worked hard for social equity, only to have her efforts thrown in her face? How many times has Marge been portrayed as a "happy" housewife, in spite of her obvious disappointment with her life?

South Park has a decidedly right bent. Cartman has become an infallible conservative (dare I say -- Nazi. The comparison isn't faulty, considering the shit he's done), constantly sparring with Kyle about social issues, and always being proven right by mere fictional circumstance. Let alone the milder conservative conclusions Stan and Kyle reach. (Mind you, they seem almost progressive compared to Cartman's)

Family Guy is a bit different. It uses predictable formulas to "subvert" the mainstream media, to engross an audience. The constant use of self-reference makes audience members feel like they're a part of an inside joke, when they're in fact sharing it with millions of people. And it's not even funny. Moreover, they often use real leftist ideas as the basis for their "jokes", giving the cognescenti a chuckle and making everyone else think the idea is as dated as Alf.

Futurama might be an exception to all my negativity. I'm sure the producers had their hearts in the right place. The networks, however, use subversive shows to placate people like me.

Distorting art to suit one's goals is easy. And it's certainly possible I've done that. But I hope you read what I said with an open mind and decide for yourself if I've been unfair. If you don't think I have, I suggest reading "The Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord. Here's a link. Actually, I suggest it anyway.

You are not far off. I suggest reading "Society of the Spectacle", by Guy Debord -- though it sounds like you might have already.

I don't want to be preachy, and I've already mentioned this book, but you seem interested in the questions it raises. The Society of the Spectacle. It's easiest to read if you start at paragraph 24, digest it, and then start from the top with 24. in mind.

I don't really want to go into this again, but the US economy requires roughly 12% of the population below the poverty line. This is hardly enough for a subsistence diet and housing. The next 8% or so above them tend to shift into and out of poverty. The market can't fix it. The market causes it.

Bread is obviously good, but what we're calling circuses are in fact an instance of what Debord calls "the spectacle." He writes:

The spectacle is the existing order's uninterrupted discourse about itself, its laudatory monologue. It is the self-portrait of power in the epoch of its totalitarian management of the conditions of existence. The fetishistic, purely objective appearance of spectacular relations conceals the fact that they are relations among men and classes: a second nature with its fatal laws seems to dominate our environment.

The spectacle is our collective self-image, divorced from reality. It clouds our minds and keeps us from even realizing that something is wrong. But there's plenty wrong. Indeed, this was the very point the Juvenal, the poet who coined the phrase "bread and circuses", was trying to make.

Unfortunately, biased information is far worse than no information. http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_ contents/4

This is old hat. Guy Debord's Internationale Situationniste was daubing "ne travaillez jamais" on walls back when it was formenting the Paris student riots of 1969. And they meant it, man ...

European philosophy and European social science ideas in general have an amazing tendency to get heavily suggared when crossing the Atlantic. Being Intel one of those quintessential American companies, I guess one shouldn't be surprised. Hasn't anyone warned this guys that Guy Debord is really dead?

Only Spectacle

As the indispensable decoration of the objects produced today, as the general expose of the rationality of the system, as the advanced economic sector which directly shapes a growing multitude of image-objects, the spectacle is the main production of present-day society.

I believe the quote is the other way around: Camarades ! L'humanité ne sera heureuse que le jour où le dernier bureaucrate aura été pendu avec les tripes du dernier capitaliste.

And it's from curé Meslier, not Lenin, paraphrasing Voltaire.

The media are spreading disinformation. So what? That's what they are there for. It's called the society of the spectacle.

Debord's handle on the same issues Rusty raises is depressingly thorough; I agree with the earlier posting to the effect that forming hip little communities, as Rusty suggests, won't save you. Well worth a read if you're interested in where these ideas come from.

They're easy to figure out what their every interest is immediately and then immediately market to appropriately. And also when they're more isolated, they'll be spending less time doing interactive social activities which usually bring a reward of happiness without the neccessity of consumption.

This way, everyone is alone in their computer rooms (of course beliving they're connected to more people than ever...which they are, but these people are just as isolated), easy to advertise to constantly. They can INSANTLY buy products which they'll want to do because they want to reward themselves. They've earned money through dull, mind numbing labor, now they use that to buy happiness, which is about the only way to receive it when your "free time" (that time not spent working) is spent in front of a computer. Text conversations aren't even a fraction as rewarding to a person...although we try to convince ourselves such ways of communication are better and more rewarding (when all actuality it's just easier for us, takes less risks...we give into our fears and laziness). Of course the outside world is increasingly dull anyway. Where just about all areas of socializing are places to buy things (malls, restaurants, isolated stores, "theme" parks, etc.)

Eh, what can you do?

. . . .

that's aristocracy not autocracy. I also don't want you be confused as seeing myself as better, I'm as much stuck in this dull mess as everyone else.

The other options are civilizations that are still in a somewhat primitive nature or are in a constant state of political war (therefore constant economic problems) or just poor politics altogether. At least capitalist libertarians have the option of moving to Hong Kong, but good luck finding a job there right now.

. . . .

This is your cue to assume any critique of the flaws of capitalism (or western civilization as a whole) are in support of state socialism, or more specifically of Communism (in totalitarian form...state capitalism otherwise). Don't forget to foam at the mouth of the wonders of libertarian capitalism and how a switch to that would solve all problems.

Of course people never think outside of the box. Ever. Even critics of capitalism of some parts of it stay within it. The box being the way things are structured altogether. Not realizing everything as we accept and understand it (in western civilization) is man made, and more specifically by an autocracy and those whose interests are pure profit. They aren't sitting around thinking about how humans can enjoy their pathetic, short, pointless lives, they're thinking of ways these workers can make them more money and continue a never ending cycle.

Work most of your life in order to earn money to purchase necessities of life (shelter, food, water, electricity now, etc.) and to purchase commodities which we are persuaded are the ways to acquire happiness and the ONLY ways. In the meantime our lives are increasingly made more boring, isolated, and business oriented.

Of course those criticizing it are thinking within the box as it is. If we reform this and this and keep things as they are, everything will be great! Who can buy that? People are truthfully not happy, although they're convinced they are...not to mention who wants to take such a risk only to make minor changes and changes in the distribution of wealth? Not me, and certainly not the overwhelming capitalist libertarian middle/upper middle class US. The ones who vote and are more educated. The ones who are wealthy enough to purchase, who are targetted for such a game, although everyone (the very poor and the very rich) are just as big victims as anyone else. They'll all lead boring, dull, isolated lives in an increasingly dull and repetitive landscape...whether they're poor or rich.

.