New topic
Printable
|
^ That's your idea of humour is it? Don't give up the day job. 
Seeing as you touched on the subject of manipulation, What I find really interesting is just how far that manipulation extends. I guess the pull of mindless entertainment is stronger than we realise. I mean, I know I'm biased because I enjoyed this brain-dead crap. I actually found this sorry excuse for entertainment, well... very entertaining. And oddly enough I thought the finalists exhibited real talent. But having said all that, to evoke a reaction in somebody who evidently doesn't like the show strong enough to move them to creative (and I use the term loosely) writing - now that's the power of manipulation at it's most interesting. Human frailty indeed. Lemmy, Bowie, Prince, Leonard. RIP. |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
AsylumUtopia said: ^ That's your idea of humour is it? Don't give up the day job.
Seeing as you touched on the subject of manipulation, What I find really interesting is just how far that manipulation extends. I guess the pull of mindless entertainment is stronger than we realise. I mean, I know I'm biased because I enjoyed this brain-dead crap. I actually found this sorry excuse for entertainment, well... very entertaining. And oddly enough I thought the finalists exhibited real talent. But having said all that, to evoke a reaction in somebody who evidently doesn't like the show strong enough to move them to creative (and I use the term loosely) writing - now that's the power of manipulation at it's most interesting. Human frailty indeed. Firstly shoe-horning an argument about manipulation, merely becuase that was the accusation from the counter point, is not a valid, nor advisable, method of countering the original point. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your point is moot. You suggest that the dislike of something, to the point where one verbalises, or otherwise, their opposition to the said thing or issue, implies that the dissenter has in some way been manipluated. It's intrinsic that such a viewpoint is massively flawed. Indeed, for it to have any merit, we would have to believe that all our opinions, about any subject, great or small, are only formed on the basis of some form of manipulation. Now, we can of course accept that to be true if we choose to. But it rather defeats the points of discussion forums, or indeed discussion at all, since we are all just spouting pre-formed opinions effectively handed to us by someone or something else, with no independent thought or analysis whatsoever. Now that may be true in some cases, such as the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. It may be partially true in the more general sense in that all opinions are informed ("mainpulated") by outside influences and sources. But thankfully there remain many areas and many people who can resist the lure of thoughtless, mindless drivel to seek something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time, and which requires, by definition, one to engage ones brain to form ones own opinions without the ease of being told what they should be. Its also comforting to know that not everyone enjoys the inherent cruelty of this tat. [Edited 6/1/09 5:14am] "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I really was not a big fan of hers, I did not see anything special about her talent, her voice I found annoying more then pleasurable. I always looked like this after watching her perform:    | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
razor said: AsylumUtopia said: ^ That's your idea of humour is it? Don't give up the day job.
Seeing as you touched on the subject of manipulation, What I find really interesting is just how far that manipulation extends. I guess the pull of mindless entertainment is stronger than we realise. I mean, I know I'm biased because I enjoyed this brain-dead crap. I actually found this sorry excuse for entertainment, well... very entertaining. And oddly enough I thought the finalists exhibited real talent. But having said all that, to evoke a reaction in somebody who evidently doesn't like the show strong enough to move them to creative (and I use the term loosely) writing - now that's the power of manipulation at it's most interesting. Human frailty indeed. Firstly shoe-horning an argument about manipulation, merely becuase that was the accusation from the counter point, is not a valid, nor advisable, method of countering the original point. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your point is moot. You suggest that the dislike of something, to the point where one verbalises, or otherwise, their opposition to the said thing or issue, implies that the dissenter has in some way been manipluated. It's intrinsic that such a viewpoint is massively flawed. Indeed, for it to have any merit, we would have to believe that all our opinions, about any subject, great or small, are only formed on the basis of some form of manipulation. Now, we can of course accept that to be true if we choose to. But it rather defeats the points of discussion forums, or indeed discussion at all, since we are all just spouting pre-formed opinions effectively handed to us by someone or something else, with no independent thought or analysis whatsoever. Now that may be true in some cases, such as the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. It may be partially true in the more general sense in that all opinions are informed ("mainpulated") by outside influences and sources. But thankfully there remain many areas and many people who can resist the lure of thoughtless, mindless drivel to seek something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time, and which requires, by definition, one to engage ones brain to form ones own opinions without the ease of being told what they should be. Its also comforting to know that not everyone enjoys the inherent cruelty of this tat. [Edited 6/1/09 5:14am] I'm glad you took the time to respond, because you've made your position much clearer. That the whole format of the program is - as I would call it - LCD (lowest common denominator), or as you put it - mindless drivel, I can only wholeheartedly agree with. I'm not so sure my point is moot though, even if it was glibly made. Obviously some opinions are formed at least partly on the basis of some form of manipulation (certainly our choice of election candidates can only be based largely on manipulation). It is perhaps a bit of a stretch on my part to infer that because the program by it's very existence engenders an opinion and response, that it is therefore manipulative. But like it or not, and probably more so if you don't, it does infect one's life more than it reasonably ought to. I often do feel that we are manipulated into giving more oxygen to such things than they rightly deserve. This is a perfect case in point. I couldn't really give two shits about BGT, yet here we are. I sometimes feel manipulated into expending energy verbalising my distaste for something that really ought to be simply dismissed. On the other hand thinking, forming opinions - given the alternative, should not be considered a waste of time or energy. Perhaps I'm just going around in semantic circles here. My opinion of shows like these is probably closer to the one you expressed than I might've given you reason to think. I am probably more tolerant of them than you, or have learned to be, but usually they will be watched in my house anyway. We would be getting into a whole different area of discussion here should I elaborate, so let's just say that when certain programs that I don't really have much interest in watching are on, I find it expedient to watch them anyway. To get to the - for me - interesting point you make here : the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. What happens before the televised auditions is anybody's guess. Certainly I don't think there can be much doubt that regardless of talent, those who won't be 'good television' will have been weeded out well before they bring the cameras in. But here's the sticking point - of the chosen few, the best (or certainly some of the best) acts were in the final. Whilst this can still only be opinion, it's as close to a factual statement as can be made. There can be no doubt that those who got a place in the final exhibited more talent and were more worthy of a place in it than, for instance, a gibbering wreck screeching his way through 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight', or an idiot attempting (and failing) to eat 6 or more Ferrero Roche's in one minute. That those acts who made the final did so didn't necessitate coercion. Well, aside from the coercion required to make anyone believe that it would somehow be worth their while picking up the phone and voting for someone. Playing the charity card helps with that one I suppose. With regard to the winner, well perhaps that was coercion too. Simon Cowell did say after Diversity's routine that they were the only act to whom he would award 10 out of 10, and this before he had seen all the acts. Was I coerced into believing that Diversity were more deserving winners than Susan Boyle, or anybody else? I am of course inclined to say no. Had I just watched the performance clips on youtube and avoided everything except the performances, I have no doubt my opinion would be the exact same. And it makes me wonder, are people really that thick that they would form an opinion and then change it purely on the basis that Simon Cowell tells them they're wrong? Although I'd agree that BGT is mainly thoughtless, mindless drivel, it does have (all too brief) moments when people display their talents, and those moments certainly are something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time. On the other hand, given the ratio of engaging entertainment to drivel, on the whole your description is fairly apt. As far as the inherent cruelty of these shows is concerned, those who take part ought to be well aware of what they're getting into. And whether we like to admit it or not, we all get a kick out other people's misfortune. The really woeful acts are often as popular as and sometimes more entertaining than the talented ones. Should I feel bad for finding someone's lack of talent entertaining? While I would by choice opt for a more intelligent form of entertainment, I don't feel bad or cruel getting a good belly laugh listening to someone murder a perfectly innocent song. And the cruelty with which they are 'judged', well, as I said, they know what they're letting themselves in for. Many of those who want their 15 seconds of fame would go through worse for it. That such cruelty is a by now an essential ingredient of such programs is sad, but I guess if you watch this sort of shit, expect more of the same sort of shit. It's endemic, and it's LCD entertainment, but it’s obviously satisfying a demand. Lemmy, Bowie, Prince, Leonard. RIP. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This woman had no soul in her music what so ever. BORING as hell. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AsylumUtopia said: razor said: Firstly shoe-horning an argument about manipulation, merely becuase that was the accusation from the counter point, is not a valid, nor advisable, method of countering the original point. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your point is moot. You suggest that the dislike of something, to the point where one verbalises, or otherwise, their opposition to the said thing or issue, implies that the dissenter has in some way been manipluated. It's intrinsic that such a viewpoint is massively flawed. Indeed, for it to have any merit, we would have to believe that all our opinions, about any subject, great or small, are only formed on the basis of some form of manipulation. Now, we can of course accept that to be true if we choose to. But it rather defeats the points of discussion forums, or indeed discussion at all, since we are all just spouting pre-formed opinions effectively handed to us by someone or something else, with no independent thought or analysis whatsoever. Now that may be true in some cases, such as the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. It may be partially true in the more general sense in that all opinions are informed ("mainpulated") by outside influences and sources. But thankfully there remain many areas and many people who can resist the lure of thoughtless, mindless drivel to seek something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time, and which requires, by definition, one to engage ones brain to form ones own opinions without the ease of being told what they should be. Its also comforting to know that not everyone enjoys the inherent cruelty of this tat. [Edited 6/1/09 5:14am] I'm glad you took the time to respond, because you've made your position much clearer. That the whole format of the program is - as I would call it - LCD (lowest common denominator), or as you put it - mindless drivel, I can only wholeheartedly agree with. I'm not so sure my point is moot though, even if it was glibly made. Obviously some opinions are formed at least partly on the basis of some form of manipulation (certainly our choice of election candidates can only be based largely on manipulation). It is perhaps a bit of a stretch on my part to infer that because the program by it's very existence engenders an opinion and response, that it is therefore manipulative. But like it or not, and probably more so if you don't, it does infect one's life more than it reasonably ought to. I often do feel that we are manipulated into giving more oxygen to such things than they rightly deserve. This is a perfect case in point. I couldn't really give two shits about BGT, yet here we are. I sometimes feel manipulated into expending energy verbalising my distaste for something that really ought to be simply dismissed. On the other hand thinking, forming opinions - given the alternative, should not be considered a waste of time or energy. Perhaps I'm just going around in semantic circles here. My opinion of shows like these is probably closer to the one you expressed than I might've given you reason to think. I am probably more tolerant of them than you, or have learned to be, but usually they will be watched in my house anyway. We would be getting into a whole different area of discussion here should I elaborate, so let's just say that when certain programs that I don't really have much interest in watching are on, I find it expedient to watch them anyway. To get to the - for me - interesting point you make here : the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. What happens before the televised auditions is anybody's guess. Certainly I don't think there can be much doubt that regardless of talent, those who won't be 'good television' will have been weeded out well before they bring the cameras in. But here's the sticking point - of the chosen few, the best (or certainly some of the best) acts were in the final. Whilst this can still only be opinion, it's as close to a factual statement as can be made. There can be no doubt that those who got a place in the final exhibited more talent and were more worthy of a place in it than, for instance, a gibbering wreck screeching his way through 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight', or an idiot attempting (and failing) to eat 6 or more Ferrero Roche's in one minute. That those acts who made the final did so didn't necessitate coercion. Well, aside from the coercion required to make anyone believe that it would somehow be worth their while picking up the phone and voting for someone. Playing the charity card helps with that one I suppose. With regard to the winner, well perhaps that was coercion too. Simon Cowell did say after Diversity's routine that they were the only act to whom he would award 10 out of 10, and this before he had seen all the acts. Was I coerced into believing that Diversity were more deserving winners than Susan Boyle, or anybody else? I am of course inclined to say no. Had I just watched the performance clips on youtube and avoided everything except the performances, I have no doubt my opinion would be the exact same. And it makes me wonder, are people really that thick that they would form an opinion and then change it purely on the basis that Simon Cowell tells them they're wrong? Although I'd agree that BGT is mainly thoughtless, mindless drivel, it does have (all too brief) moments when people display their talents, and those moments certainly are something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time. On the other hand, given the ratio of engaging entertainment to drivel, on the whole your description is fairly apt. As far as the inherent cruelty of these shows is concerned, those who take part ought to be well aware of what they're getting into. And whether we like to admit it or not, we all get a kick out other people's misfortune. The really woeful acts are often as popular as and sometimes more entertaining than the talented ones. Should I feel bad for finding someone's lack of talent entertaining? While I would by choice opt for a more intelligent form of entertainment, I don't feel bad or cruel getting a good belly laugh listening to someone murder a perfectly innocent song. And the cruelty with which they are 'judged', well, as I said, they know what they're letting themselves in for. Many of those who want their 15 seconds of fame would go through worse for it. That such cruelty is a by now an essential ingredient of such programs is sad, but I guess if you watch this sort of shit, expect more of the same sort of shit. It's endemic, and it's LCD entertainment, but it’s obviously satisfying a demand. I like when they push the buzzers. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AsylumUtopia said: razor said: Firstly shoe-horning an argument about manipulation, merely becuase that was the accusation from the counter point, is not a valid, nor advisable, method of countering the original point. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your point is moot. You suggest that the dislike of something, to the point where one verbalises, or otherwise, their opposition to the said thing or issue, implies that the dissenter has in some way been manipluated. It's intrinsic that such a viewpoint is massively flawed. Indeed, for it to have any merit, we would have to believe that all our opinions, about any subject, great or small, are only formed on the basis of some form of manipulation. Now, we can of course accept that to be true if we choose to. But it rather defeats the points of discussion forums, or indeed discussion at all, since we are all just spouting pre-formed opinions effectively handed to us by someone or something else, with no independent thought or analysis whatsoever. Now that may be true in some cases, such as the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. It may be partially true in the more general sense in that all opinions are informed ("mainpulated") by outside influences and sources. But thankfully there remain many areas and many people who can resist the lure of thoughtless, mindless drivel to seek something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time, and which requires, by definition, one to engage ones brain to form ones own opinions without the ease of being told what they should be. Its also comforting to know that not everyone enjoys the inherent cruelty of this tat. [Edited 6/1/09 5:14am] I'm glad you took the time to respond, because you've made your position much clearer. That the whole format of the program is - as I would call it - LCD (lowest common denominator), or as you put it - mindless drivel, I can only wholeheartedly agree with. I'm not so sure my point is moot though, even if it was glibly made. Obviously some opinions are formed at least partly on the basis of some form of manipulation (certainly our choice of election candidates can only be based largely on manipulation). It is perhaps a bit of a stretch on my part to infer that because the program by it's very existence engenders an opinion and response, that it is therefore manipulative. But like it or not, and probably more so if you don't, it does infect one's life more than it reasonably ought to. I often do feel that we are manipulated into giving more oxygen to such things than they rightly deserve. This is a perfect case in point. I couldn't really give two shits about BGT, yet here we are. I sometimes feel manipulated into expending energy verbalising my distaste for something that really ought to be simply dismissed. On the other hand thinking, forming opinions - given the alternative, should not be considered a waste of time or energy. Perhaps I'm just going around in semantic circles here. My opinion of shows like these is probably closer to the one you expressed than I might've given you reason to think. I am probably more tolerant of them than you, or have learned to be, but usually they will be watched in my house anyway. We would be getting into a whole different area of discussion here should I elaborate, so let's just say that when certain programs that I don't really have much interest in watching are on, I find it expedient to watch them anyway. To get to the - for me - interesting point you make here : the method in which reality shows coerce its viewers to voting for who the organisers want to see progressed. What happens before the televised auditions is anybody's guess. Certainly I don't think there can be much doubt that regardless of talent, those who won't be 'good television' will have been weeded out well before they bring the cameras in. But here's the sticking point - of the chosen few, the best (or certainly some of the best) acts were in the final. Whilst this can still only be opinion, it's as close to a factual statement as can be made. There can be no doubt that those who got a place in the final exhibited more talent and were more worthy of a place in it than, for instance, a gibbering wreck screeching his way through 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight', or an idiot attempting (and failing) to eat 6 or more Ferrero Roche's in one minute. That those acts who made the final did so didn't necessitate coercion. Well, aside from the coercion required to make anyone believe that it would somehow be worth their while picking up the phone and voting for someone. Playing the charity card helps with that one I suppose. With regard to the winner, well perhaps that was coercion too. Simon Cowell did say after Diversity's routine that they were the only act to whom he would award 10 out of 10, and this before he had seen all the acts. Was I coerced into believing that Diversity were more deserving winners than Susan Boyle, or anybody else? I am of course inclined to say no. Had I just watched the performance clips on youtube and avoided everything except the performances, I have no doubt my opinion would be the exact same. And it makes me wonder, are people really that thick that they would form an opinion and then change it purely on the basis that Simon Cowell tells them they're wrong? Although I'd agree that BGT is mainly thoughtless, mindless drivel, it does have (all too brief) moments when people display their talents, and those moments certainly are something requiring more engagement than the mere passing of time. On the other hand, given the ratio of engaging entertainment to drivel, on the whole your description is fairly apt. As far as the inherent cruelty of these shows is concerned, those who take part ought to be well aware of what they're getting into. And whether we like to admit it or not, we all get a kick out other people's misfortune. The really woeful acts are often as popular as and sometimes more entertaining than the talented ones. Should I feel bad for finding someone's lack of talent entertaining? While I would by choice opt for a more intelligent form of entertainment, I don't feel bad or cruel getting a good belly laugh listening to someone murder a perfectly innocent song. And the cruelty with which they are 'judged', well, as I said, they know what they're letting themselves in for. Many of those who want their 15 seconds of fame would go through worse for it. That such cruelty is a by now an essential ingredient of such programs is sad, but I guess if you watch this sort of shit, expect more of the same sort of shit. It's endemic, and it's LCD entertainment, but it’s obviously satisfying a demand. Well, firstly let me say that I hope to see you in P&R soon. It is rare that one sees elements of an argument both conceded and challenged with such poise as your resoonse has. Indeed, the only aspect of your response that I feel comepelled to disagree with is this: "As far as the inherent cruelty of these shows is concerned, those who take part ought to be well aware of what they're getting into. And whether we like to admit it or not, we all get a kick out other people's misfortune" Surely you agree that those who are most venerable, by definition, do not realise it. As such, they have no great concept of "what they are getting into". They are abused and humilaited for our entertaiment. That should be something we wish to leave behind, not promote. Continuing, yes, we do get a kick out of others misfortune. We are animals and often act as such. But surely, if being human means anything, as opposed to being an ape, it is the ability to recognise our flaws and move beyond such basic thoughts? [Edited 6/1/09 15:14pm] "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: This woman had no soul in her music what so ever. BORING as hell.
 She's not a soul singer, Gray!  Everybody can't pull it off from the gut, doesn't mean shit can't sing   I never met you, but I LOVE you & I will forever!! Thank you for being YOU - my little Princey, the best to EVER do it | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CalhounSq said: Graycap23 said: This woman had no soul in her music what so ever. BORING as hell.
She's not a soul singer, Gray! Everybody can't pull it off from the gut, doesn't mean shit can't sing Soul by my definition means u can "feel" the music. I can't feel that lifeless singing of hers. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: CalhounSq said: She's not a soul singer, Gray! Everybody can't pull it off from the gut, doesn't mean shit can't sing Soul by my definition means u can "feel" the music. I can't feel that lifeless singing of hers. She would be more "soulful" if she sticks to a celtic sound/music. She has a great voice for that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paintedlady said: Graycap23 said: Soul by my definition means u can "feel" the music. I can't feel that lifeless singing of hers. She would be more "soulful" if she sticks to a celtic sound/music. She has a great voice for that. What ever she has a great voice 4.....I won't be listening. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: paintedlady said: She would be more "soulful" if she sticks to a celtic sound/music. She has a great voice for that. What ever she has a great voice 4.....I won't be listening. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |