The material condition of having a smartphone is giving young Americans idiotic values. You, meanwhile, keep trying to say that they're idiots because they don't have enough money...when the economy is roaring, especially for working young people. That just doesn't fly for even a second.
We have a crisis that is not economic in origin. Di…
The material condition of having a smartphone is giving young Americans idiotic values. You, meanwhile, keep trying to say that they're idiots because they don't have enough money...when the economy is roaring, especially for working young people. That just doesn't fly for even a second.
We have a crisis that is not economic in origin. Dismal and morally cowardly people like you cannot handle this. You keep trying to trace every problem back to economics,, even when it's clearly ridiculous to do so. Thus your behavior here. Reread the article we're commenting on, please.
No, I'm saying that the financialization of the economy led to the culture industry consolidating in ways that have degraded the quality of the products of that industry. You may disagree, but the argument has a pretty clear causal mechanism. I'm not quite sure what you're saying, besides smartphones-->???-->bad stuff. Seems like less of an argument and more a hodgepodge of disparate grievances, but I'm not inside your head so who's to say.
(Somehow this comment initially got posted to the wrong thread, which I have now corrected.)
Is there something in particular you need explaining? Were my diagrams unclear? Let me use words.
Previously, the culture industry "gatekept" access to mass media. People who did not meet their tastes or standards could not access a mass audience. This power was, of course, abused, but that's no excuse for anarchy.
Today, anyone can make mass media. Simply post, and it is there. Work or gold buy self-promotion - but priceless still is novelty. Novel vulgarity is simple. Thus they worsen, week on week.
So Andrew Tate became popular because everybody has cameraphones now and that’s also why movies are bad? I think your brain is just more powerful than mine because I have no idea what you’re talking about haha
The people who make movies are playing desperate catch-up with digital media that is eating not just their lunch but their dinner and dog. They are taking inspiration from it because it is winning - and moreover, social-media success is crucial to the success of a movie, or any other thing. (For a pocketbook definition of "success.") The people [e: who] make movies seem to think - not that I agree - that the way to social media success is not through making something good but rather through cramming as many clippable moments as possible in to appeal to different demographics. And do the people who make movies not have smartphones too? At this point we are talking about young actors and actresses who have themselves had smartphones since their early teen years. Every second spent scrolling on a smartphone is one second not spent practicing how to talk like an appealing human being. Thus Tom Cruise will not lack work until he dies, and then the scene will be grim indeed.
Or maybe taking on massive amounts of debt to become oligopolists has forced media conglomerates to focus solely on making tentpole movies (and other products) from established IP and artists at the expense of riskier investments in original products.
The material condition of having a smartphone is giving young Americans idiotic values. You, meanwhile, keep trying to say that they're idiots because they don't have enough money...when the economy is roaring, especially for working young people. That just doesn't fly for even a second.
We have a crisis that is not economic in origin. Dismal and morally cowardly people like you cannot handle this. You keep trying to trace every problem back to economics,, even when it's clearly ridiculous to do so. Thus your behavior here. Reread the article we're commenting on, please.
No, I'm saying that the financialization of the economy led to the culture industry consolidating in ways that have degraded the quality of the products of that industry. You may disagree, but the argument has a pretty clear causal mechanism. I'm not quite sure what you're saying, besides smartphones-->???-->bad stuff. Seems like less of an argument and more a hodgepodge of disparate grievances, but I'm not inside your head so who's to say.
(Somehow this comment initially got posted to the wrong thread, which I have now corrected.)
What part of the culture industry produced Andrew Tate? The culture industry is irrelevant.
Then: bad people ----> their stupid friends -----> who cares.
Now: bad people ----> smartphones ----> everyone -----> bad stuff.
I think I would have to be inside your head to parse that comment lol
Is there something in particular you need explaining? Were my diagrams unclear? Let me use words.
Previously, the culture industry "gatekept" access to mass media. People who did not meet their tastes or standards could not access a mass audience. This power was, of course, abused, but that's no excuse for anarchy.
Today, anyone can make mass media. Simply post, and it is there. Work or gold buy self-promotion - but priceless still is novelty. Novel vulgarity is simple. Thus they worsen, week on week.
Now are you helped?
So Andrew Tate became popular because everybody has cameraphones now and that’s also why movies are bad? I think your brain is just more powerful than mine because I have no idea what you’re talking about haha
The people who make movies are playing desperate catch-up with digital media that is eating not just their lunch but their dinner and dog. They are taking inspiration from it because it is winning - and moreover, social-media success is crucial to the success of a movie, or any other thing. (For a pocketbook definition of "success.") The people [e: who] make movies seem to think - not that I agree - that the way to social media success is not through making something good but rather through cramming as many clippable moments as possible in to appeal to different demographics. And do the people who make movies not have smartphones too? At this point we are talking about young actors and actresses who have themselves had smartphones since their early teen years. Every second spent scrolling on a smartphone is one second not spent practicing how to talk like an appealing human being. Thus Tom Cruise will not lack work until he dies, and then the scene will be grim indeed.
Or maybe taking on massive amounts of debt to become oligopolists has forced media conglomerates to focus solely on making tentpole movies (and other products) from established IP and artists at the expense of riskier investments in original products.