This is actually a response to your comment about the New York Times (see below): well, no. The New York Times IS a print newspaper, and as such it operates under the structural guidelines of that medium. So it's just simply not the same thing. Does consumption of the New York Times take place on the Internet? Yes. But that is like saying that a YouTube uploaded by some teenager is therefore equivalent and to be judged by the same merits as a network sitcom streaming on Hulu. What you're saying is that both of these things live side-by-side on the Internet, but I think that's kind of disingenuous. It's factually accurate, but there are certain modes of communication and dissemination and expression that were created specifically for the Internet, and they are fundamentally different from the "older media" that is just digitized and put on-line. Those are the modes I'm talking about here.
The Internet by its very nature is casual, ephemeral, and lazy. JUST LIKE LIFE! I see your point, and I don't disagree, and I'm not talking about someone on LiveJournal posting their personal thoughts about a subject (or human being) that is important to them. I do think that the business model, at least at the moment, for most professional websites, and I'm going to take the liberty of lumping Videogum into that category, is one that favors quantity over quality, which leads, and here I am DEFINITELY lumping Videogum into this category, to people posting things simply because they feel an urgency and a pressure to put something new up on a site to get pageviews and to feed the beast and it doesn't matter if it's talking about someone dying or a Sesame Street NWA mash-up. Is this any different than how it was with newspapers? I genuinely do not know the answer to that question. To your point, most newspapers in the world are (or were) total garbage. But they at least shrouded themselves, for the most part, in an air of seriousness that the Internet doesn't even attempt to front. Is this more honest? In some ways, yes! But it is also why it's just a lacking medium to discuss important things. (Not to mention the breathing toilet that is Internet comment sections for the most part.)
So, yes, this is the way we communicate now. And it kind of sucks! I'm not saying that it sucks more than the ways that we communicated in the past sucked. Those sucked too. We really are not every good at it even after all these years. But the way we communicate now sucks in very specific and identifiable ways and so just because we do it this way instead of that way doesn't mean this way is particularly good. You know?
You know what? I'm finding this argument less and less compelling. The fact of the matter is that, sure, 700 people signing an on-line petition can certainly be a news story. And it's not like this kind of news story is TAKING THE PRECIOUS PLACE of another more important news story. It's just a thing to talk about. There are so many things going on in the world, and plenty of people to write about them. I certainly agree that the Internet echo-chamber allows certain "non-news" to get more attention than it otherwise would, but it's not as if the people who are going to talk about this WOULD talk about the Syrian revolution but somehow this story stole them away. If it weren't for this (or whatever "non-news" story) they would probably just stare at a wall. It's just not the zero-sum, mutually exclusive situation that people keep making it out to be.
A few of you keep saying that the movie is self-pitying, but I don't see that at all? I mean, I guess we might pity Philip Seymour Hofman in so far as he's making a mess of his life, but I don't think we pity him for his life as-is being hard. Like, he clearly can't get his shit together, he ruins every decent relationship that he has, and he wastes his entire creative potential on a ridiculous, self-involved project that neither makes him a critical success nor gets him any closer to understanding whatever artistic truth he seems to be missing. All of it is his own fault, and I don't think there's any confusion about that.
So, I'll accept solipsistic, I guess, but someone is going to need to explain the self-pitying thing. If anything, I think his own self-pity is a pretty major (intentional) strike against him.
OK, but I don't think Louis C.K. was at the Nashville show either (snopes.com), so his insight into the delivery is no better than ours. We are all arguing about detached philosophical principals at this point.
Well, actually, I disagree with you. It is not wrong to make fun of Jews getting massacred in the Holocaust. Nothing is wrong to make fun of. It is how you do the making fun that becomes questionable. It's less the subject matter than the treatment of the subject matter. There are funny jokes about rape and 9/11 and there are miserably unfunny jokes about rape and 9/11. That's where the line is, between those jokes. Now, obviously, comedy is subjective, and any subject that is even remotely offensive to someone will definitely end up offending someone, but again, there are degrees of scale, and there are also degrees of conviction. If you make a horrible rape joke and I say "that wasn't funny" and you say "well, I believe in my heart that rape is OK" then I kind of have to give you the point? I mean, what you said was terrible and I also hate your belief system, but at least you are taking full ownership of it, so there's no real argument there. Things get sticky when someone is just spouting off vile garbage that has no moral basis whatsoever, does nothing to illuminate anything, and pulls its laughter from a collective fear/hatred.
Relax, guys.
I know what you are saying, but also it's Tom Cruise. His life has been like this for 100 years and he wouldn't have it any other way. Someone taking pictures of him in his driveway (which, also, I don't think any of us have the satellite intelligence to confirm this, he is outside of the Sizzler for all we know) is the least of his problems.
Well, if what is keeping you away performance-wise is all the writing on the site, basically, then, no, I guess I don't feel like that is even remotely constructive. There are different things we can write about, and there are different subjects to approach, and even different structures in which to house that writing. But your main point is that you find the writing annoying, and that is not really open for discussion?
Is there a way to do a weekly GIF roundup like we did last week, but not use GIFs in comments anymore? Personally, I actually just LIKE the aesthetic of GIFs but I can see how they are bogging down the community and also become one-uppy. So, maybe a centralized GIF repository at the end of the week for all the GIFs but toning down the GIFs in the threads?
It's just an idea. I'm not particularly interested in curbing the way people want to use the site, but if there was some kind of consensus agreement then maybe that would be a solution?
Well, I am actually going to be out of town again in a few weeks, so maybe if you complain some more you will get your shot! LOL JK XOXOX I LOVE YOU WELCOME BACK.
Hahah. What are you guys even TALKING ABOUT? I am pretty sure I posted Tina Fey's quote and then made a non-committal joke about What Happened to Baby Jane. You guys are welcome to fight about what it all means, but since I never voiced an actual opinion one way or the other (although I did suggest that I think she has a point) please leave me out of it, thanks.
Sorry for playing the Leave Me Out Of It Card.
Comments