Idiocracy

[JayB]

Relying on a tissue-thin argument that “we’re just giving people what they want” is simply ludicrous. That the “masses” generate demand is true, but only when you define demand in the abstract. No one is born with an innate desire for nascar, kiwi-flavored tequila, blackberrys, oxygenated bottled water, lip implants, or truck nutz. The market is not meeting needs and human beings are not growing new ones. To suggest that people are demanding the vast array of rubbish on the market obfuscates the very real and very huge apparatus (billions of dollars) devoted to marketing, advertising, R&D, media synergistics etc. that represents a majority of the intellectual production in this country. The notion that people “just want these things” is pure faith-based nonsense and suggests a much grimmer view of human nature than I would ever put forth. That the educational, cultural, and spiritual potentialities of working class people cannot and should not be nurtured by working people represents a retreat from humanism and enlightenment values.

 

More conceit, snobbery, and scarcely concealed disgust masquerading as a sincere concern for your the people that you've dedicated your life to fetishizing some idealized version of. To claim that the average person is so dim-witted that they've effectively been hypnotized by marketing and are no longer capable of defining their own *authentic* wants and needs, or that the choices that they make and the way that they actually live are contemptible and shameful, and that they need some coddled intellectuals to take control of their lives to save them from themselves represents a more optimistic view of human nature than the contrary is quite an assertion.

 

This is nothing more than aristocratic contempt for the everything about the average person repackaged in a "progressive" wrapper.

 

The funny thing about you is that I'd wager that the average working stiff with even a modestly skilled trade would find your concern as bizzare as your contempt is annoying, given that high probability that he's probably making substantially more money and profoundly happier with his lot in life than you are.

 

However, I *strongly* encourage you to put your precepts to the test. Spend a couple of thousand hours on the factory floor or your choosing, take a dozen especially hapless victims of the consumer society under your wing. Pull them aside and - in as loud a voice as you can muster - subject their beliefs, their choices, and every other aspect of their lives to as withering a critique as you deem necessary to bring about the desired changes. A parlor-marxist version of Pygmalion played out on the assembly line, if you will. Let us know how it goes.

 

 

[olyclimber]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm

[prole]

That only makes you a mirror image. A snake-oil saleman “giving the people what they want” pandering to peoples’ basest desires, enhanced and intensified through smoke and mirrors, parting them from their hard-earned dollars with maximum efficiency. All the while repeating your Panglossian mantra that all’s for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Your “vision” of humanity is nothing more than an agglomeration of hungry feeding tubes from which you can make a quick dime. Call me an elitist, but your stated beliefs in liberal ideals ring hollow when you've little to offer but more of the same.

[JayB]

Wanting a comfortable home, a reliable car, a nice toaster, to spend less of your time doing dishes or laundry, to spend less of your total income on food and clothing, etc are "base desires?" Certainly not representative of mankind's highest aspirations, but that indictment includes virtually every human that's ever lived, and is far from a defect that's unique to any particular subset of humanity.

 

Moreover, whether someone's desires are base or not per anyone else's standards is a moot point so long as they don't directly harm anyone else. It's also worth noting that highbrow and lowbrow pursuits are hardly mutually exclusive. There's plenty of profs in the stands with brews in their hands at the average Husky home game.

 

And finally, how would anything that I've said in either this thread or this post qualify as a contradiction of liberal ideals?

 

 

 

[builder206]

There's a semifamous quip about the supremacy of economics as a profession: 'No one can be a great philosopher or artist unless one has recently had a square meal.'

[StevenSeagal]

I guess my main observation would be that if American culture ever manages to move beyond "ME" ,

 

Americans are extremely generous with their time and money. To characterize them as a monolithic, uniform, egocentric block is unjust and just plain wrong.

 

Actually K, to suggest that Americans intrinsically are ANY MORE OR ANY LESS egocentric than the members of any other culture is unjust and just plain wrong. American culture, however, is another story- the freedom we love so much also creates a new problem; the culture of "freedom"- coupled with the lacking of any earnest understanding of, or inclination to understand, the ways of the self- has also inadvertantly sanctified and encouraged self-centeredness and self-absorption, while simultaneously making it difficult if not impossible to observe with humility our own actions and selves. Organized religion, communism, and other forms of so-called "structure" attempt to "correct" our behavior, but just the same, they fail miserably because they also are borne from egotism, self-centeredness and an desire to control everything. Understanding these issues are mankind's big challenge, not which system of thought, government, religion, or structure to impose.

 

This grand experiment in social, political, and religious freedom which the founding fathers undertook in creating this country is surely a great step forward; but simply giving everyone the freedom to do whatever they want is far from the end game of human development.

[JayB]

There's a semifamous quip about the supremacy of economics as a profession: 'No one can be a great philosopher or artist unless one has recently had a square meal if they own a set of Trucknutz .'

 

Pretty concise summary of the angst-laden voices on this thread...,

[KaskadskyjKozak]

American culture,

 

now there's an oxymoron!

[JayB]

 

This grand experiment in social, political, and religious freedom which the founding fathers undertook in creating this country is surely a great step forward; but simply giving everyone the freedom to do whatever they want is far from the end game of human development.

 

One of the more frightening notions I've heard voiced on this site in quite some time.

 

Boundless compulsion in an effort to contrive utopias has also been tried with widely noted downsides that seem to exceed a general policy of making the protection of personal liberty the prime end of government.

 

What do you have in mind? What kind of entity should constrain the deplorable excess of personal liberty that we are suffering from, and what vision of a perfect society should its revocation be be in service of?

 

Or is this just a misreading of your point?

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

American culture,

 

now there's an oxymoron!

 

Have you gone over to the darkside?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

American culture,

 

now there's an oxymoron!

 

Have you gone over to the darkside?

 

you don't know the POWER of the darkside...

[olyclimber]

obviously that isn't something that supports the idea of the end game of human development as an organism made optimally efficient by the open market! maybe it has something to do with morality?

[olyclimber]

American culture,

 

now there's an oxymoron!

 

Have you gone over to the darkside?

 

just another america hater.

[StevenSeagal]

To claim that the average person is so dim-witted that they've effectively been hypnotized by marketing and are no longer capable of defining their own *authentic* wants and needs, or that the choices that they make and the way that they actually live are contemptible and shameful, and that they need some coddled intellectuals to take control of their lives to save them from themselves represents a more optimistic view of human nature than the contrary is quite an assertion.

 

Consider the above critique in context with one of the most lucrative industries in this country, arguably in the world:

 

Porn.

 

Substantial energy from religious and social conservatives worldwide goes into fighting this industry on the basis of "morality". One could further apply some personal version of morality to, say, alcohol...cigarettes...appliances...music...cars (Amish for example)...anything that intrudes on someone's version of simplicity, morality, what have you.

 

So it seems that marketing is a big business because IT WORKS. It's a business of persuasion, of convincing people they need something, of altering their perspectives and values. When someone overindulges we blame the person who was persuaded for not being responsible. Unless, of course, the marketing was for something deemed "immoral" or unnecessary- but the latter qualities are more often than not matters of personal opinion.

 

Comments?

[JayB]

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

 

morality defined by the individual - how's that for egocentrism?

[olyclimber]

no...just that it considers morality. like...is it moral to kill someone in cold blood? should we let the open market decide that?

[olyclimber]

how much money do you have?

[JayB]

To claim that the average person is so dim-witted that they've effectively been hypnotized by marketing and are no longer capable of defining their own *authentic* wants and needs, or that the choices that they make and the way that they actually live are contemptible and shameful, and that they need some coddled intellectuals to take control of their lives to save them from themselves represents a more optimistic view of human nature than the contrary is quite an assertion.

 

Consider the above critique in context with one of the most lucrative industries in this country, arguably in the world:

 

Porn.

 

Substantial energy from religious and social conservatives worldwide goes into fighting this industry on the basis of "morality". One could further apply some personal version of morality to, say, alcohol...cigarettes...appliances...music...cars (Amish for example)...anything that intrudes on someone's version of simplicity, morality, what have you.

 

So it seems that marketing is a big business because IT WORKS. It's a business of persuasion, of convincing people they need something, of altering their perspectives and values. When someone overindulges we blame the person who was persuaded for not being responsible. Unless, of course, the marketing was for something deemed "immoral" or unnecessary- but the latter qualities are more often than not matters of personal opinion.

 

Comments?

 

What's wrong with porn so long as the participants and the observers are all consenting adults? Ditto for gambling, prostitution, tea-bagging, sodomy, stamp-collecting, hang-gliding, rock-climbing, etc, etc, etc?

 

You should really read Von Hayek's "Why I am Not a Conservative" for a strong defense of the liberal order if these questions are troubling you.

 

[olyclimber]

tea-bagging. is that the art of making tea bags or the art of using tea bags?

[JayB]

no...just that it considers morality. like...is it moral to kill someone in cold blood? should we let the open market decide that?

 

The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis? Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

[olyclimber]

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

 

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else?

[StevenSeagal]

One of the more frightening notions I've heard voiced on this site in quite some time.

 

What scares you so much?

 

Boundless compulsion

 

I'm not trying to compel you to do anything, Jay. We're just talking here.

 

 

in an effort to contrive utopias has also been tried with widely noted downsides that seem to exceed a general policy of making the protection of personal liberty the prime end of government.

 

I don't pretend to know what any "ideal" society looks like. But I think it's fair to attempt to observe what it does not look like. And again, why do you insist that merely talking about such things equates to a desire by the speaker to see government impose the solution? I see government, and our relationship to it, as one of our many problems .

 

 

 

What do you have in mind?

 

Discussion, dialogue, observations, questions...what else is there?

 

What kind of entity should constrain the deplorable excess of personal liberty that we are suffering from,

 

There you go again- assuming an external entity (i.e. government, etc.) must be the speaker's solution!

 

Beyond a suggestion- through dialogue- that our human problems are largely borne from a lack of self understanding and that an earnest effort by each individual to undertake that in themselves- if they so choose- may have far more value than creating new systems and organizations or GOVERNMENTS to solve our problems for us. In short: Personal initiative and responsibility, if that wasn't clear.

 

and what vision of a perfect society should its revocation be be in service of?

 

Ditch the ideals and utopias or assumptions of such. They have no basis in reality.

 

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

tea-bagging. is that the art of making tea bags or the art of using tea bags?

 

That's what my wife and I wondered after listening to a Bill Maher book on tape when he said something along the lines of:

 

"Fraternities aren't about friendship. They're about binge-drinking, paddling, and tea-bagging."

 

A quick consultation with Dr. Google cleared that matter up and horrified my wife.

[StevenSeagal]

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

 

Exactly.