The Past

So apparently I pissed of half of the known internet today. I looked it right in the eyes and told it yes, its ass did look fat in those jeans. In other words I gave my honest opinion without regard to feelings, sentiment, or repercussion.

In return, I got called a number of colorful names by people whose feelings I’d hurt. Some were semi-sarcastic, some were very spirited, and all were probably partially truthful. Many people agreed with me though.

Now the video in question was recorded back in May but was reposted to twitter this morning. A half hour later, it was the spark for a firestorm of discussion, commentary, argumentation, and the occasional brief moment of agreement.

Read More

I know we’re all past the emotional stage of discussing the finale of LOST, but I just listened to this week’s Totally Rad Show and it reminded me that I never got around to writing down my theory of what happened.

Note: this is just my theory and I have little hard evidence to support it.

1. LOST is pitched as a show about “survivors” who crash on a mysterious island.
2. Internally this island is planned/plotted out to be an inescapable “purgatory,” where, per Wikipedia’s definition of purgatory, “some souls are not sufficiently free from sin and its consequences to enter the state of heaven immediately, nor are they so sinful as to be destined for hell either.” People are healed of their bodily ails (wheelchairs, cancer, etc.) but their souls remain trapped in this purgatory.
3. This inescapable purgatory was counterbalanced (and to a certain degree reinforced) by the flashbacks showing each individual’s life choices before the crash. Each character has very evident flaws and each has regrets for which they need to atone and come to terms.
4. LOST premieres, and is a huge hit.
5. People figure out the purgatory allegory pretty quickly. Too quickly in fact. Within the first few episodes, the theory is already gaining traction.
6. Forced to reckon with a “mystery” show that’s about to lose its mystery, the writers/creators have to publicly deny the purgatory element of the series.
7. This presents three problems: A) almost the entire first season reinforces this purgatory/lost souls premise, B) most of that first season has already been shot (at an incredibly expensive cost) and C) if they abandon the purgatory element they have a hit show without a premise.
8. The decision is made to abandon the purgatory premise under the guise that LOST without mystery is likely no longer a hit series.
9. Frustrated with this new situation, specific writers speak out publicly, mentioning the fact that they’re (now) making it up as they go, and are promptly fired from the show.
10. Season 2 is written to try and pull the show further away from the initial purgatory premise. This is evident by the low quality, wandering narrative of the season. They’re buying time and trying to see what will stick. The mythology becomes unwieldy and cumbersome as questions without answers begin to pile up.
11. Seasons 2-6 have almost nothing to do with the original premise except that they take place on an island and have the same characters.
12. Season 6 ends with them all ascending into heaven (as in the original pitch) but for completely different and much more lame reasons.
13. Having abandoned the original premise, most of the questions from the earlier wandering seasons - as well as any ultimate answers about the nature of the island itself - are relegated to “it’s magic…or God…you know what, it’s really not that important.”

So while the story outside the writer’s room the whole time was “don’t worry we have a plan,” I honestly believe the truth was that they were scrambling to maintain the show’s legs while they figured out WTF to do. Their (excellent) premise was gone, the series didn’t really make sense without it, and they had no idea what to do now. The absurdly well-written pilot episode was a some of the best and most intelligent writing in American television history - but they had to throw it all away and make up new mysteries as they went along because their “mysterious secret” had been blown way too early.

So they lied. They wrote in new mysteries that wouldn’t make sense within that purgatory premise and pointed to them as evidence that the theory was wrong, and hoped they could make up a new theory to fit what they’d already written.

In short, a brilliant first season was actually too popular and fans picked out every little clue that had been placed there as a hint. Fearful that a mystery show with a known underlying premise wasn’t a mystery show at all, the writers abandoned that premise and had to figure it out as they went along. Unable to have a non-purgatory premise make sense within the show, they eventually created a new purgatory, and decided never to explain any of the mysteries of the island itself - despite the fact that the mysteries of the island itself were one of the main driving forces of the show for the first few seasons.

tl;dr: LOST was originally about a group of people navigating purgatory after a plane crash but fans figured it out so the writers panicked and made a new show, but still had to bring in purgatory anyway since that’s the only thing that would make sense.

Lately I’ve been having a lot of interesting conversations with a lot of really interesting people. I’ve been fortunate to find myself in a true nexus of genius somehow, and the optimism is infectious. Lately my favorite conversations have started with the following:

What is a book?

I love asking this question, but I also use it to illustrate the unique period of media in which we find ourselves. On the surface it’s a pretty simple answer, but dig deeper and you find a truly fascinating array of answers.

We’ve reached an historic point in mass media: the point where we literally get to distill and examine the core elements that make up each individual medium and ask ourselves “which of these elements are important, and which only remain due to legacy or habit?”

Read More

This will be a hard entry to write, as I’m friends or friendly with many of those involved with The Streamy Awards. I feel that in light of last night, it’s important enough to not pull any punches for the sake of nicety though. Our community is built on dialogue, integrity, and honesty, so with that in mind I apologize in advance to those whose feelings I’m about to singe.

I’ll be characteristically blunt here and say what’s on my mind: The 2010 Streamy Awards were awful. They were an embarrassment to our entire community and they were the best evidence that mainstream media could ever find to reiterate their belief that online content is no threat. I’ve heard many people say that they believed it set our industry back a number of years in a single night and I honestly do believe the only way to salvage The Streamy Awards and the IAWTV as an organization is for the organizers to issue a very public mea culpa.

I only want to touch on the problems briefly, as others can (and have) spoken more eloquently than I. They’re important to note, so we can avoid them in the future, but more important to me is to begin the discussion of “how do we fix this.”

The biggest issue to me wasn’t the tech, but the tone. Apparently someone at the Awards theorized that because we were coming from the internet, we could be “edgy” and “uncensored.” In practice what this meant was that an industry’s own awards show decided not to be a celebration of achievement, but a roast of everyone involved – audience and performers alike. “Surprise!” it yelled from atop a stage, “You’re the punchline of a joke!”

If I knew nothing about online content and I had tuned into the Streamy’s, this is what I’d have learned: we shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously because even our own awards show thinks we’re hacks; misogyny is funny; flash and spectacle (like musical numbers and fight sequences) trumps practicality (like security, even after having dealt with streakers two night prior); we’re desperate for any celebrities to get involved because we need their validation and acceptance; and someone, somewhere, thought a bit involving a fake porn producer getting a “lifetime achievement award” and repeatedly uttering variations on the phrase “oceans of semen” was on target to the core group of professionals present.

Now that we’re all caught up, let’s talk about the more important part which is how do we make sure this doesn’t happen again. Here are my suggestions:

1. An awards “ceremony” just isn’t the right venue for this. We’re not the Oscars, nor should we try to be because it makes us look like we’re desperate to be “mainstream.” A different format is required. One thing I heard several times was “the Academy Awards were a dinner party the first two years.” Maybe that’s the right tack to take – a dinner party of peers celebrating peers – maybe you go another direction, but either way, the “Awards Ceremony” vibe feels wrong.
2. Speaking of food: respect your audience. The attendees were subjected to long lines, a shitty ticket pick-up situation, commercials during the presentation, the bar closed 45 minutes into the show (apparently there must have been too much “lobby traffic” if you know what I mean) and no food at either the event or the afterparty (protip: drinks can be optional, but people need to eat every once in a while.)
3. Forget about flashiness and celebrate achievement. This isn’t about gloss and hype, and while a nice stage setup gets the “oooh” for the first 5 minutes, it’s ultimately worthless. It’s obvious that this year was “trying too hard” in so many ways – to be mainstream, to be taken seriously, to be an “awards show” equal to the Grammys, Oscars, etc. Three words: Fuck. All. That. Celebrate achievement, work on showcasing quality, and you won’t have to strain your voice shouting “we’re worth all this hype” because people will already know.
4. Stop denigrating online content. Look, we can all be snarky motherfuckers (well, except iJustine and Felicia Day, both of whom do a remarkably good job of staying above the snark fray) but there’s a time and a place. Telling a thousand people that their jobs, content, livelihoods, and dreams are a joke, and that the only way they’ll amount to anything is to beg their “betters” (read: “celebrities,” but the unstated implication was made very clear) to slum it in their crappy webseries…well, that’s not gonna go over well. Repeatedly joking that it’s subpar quality, or that there’s no money, future, or reason to get involved only hurts us all.
5. It’s the oldest maxim in business: You want to be treated like a professional? Act it. Stop the profanity just for the sake of profanity. Stop trying to be the “edgy awards show.” Stop the masturbation, dick jokes, and sexist humor. It. Is. Not. Funny. Right now you’ve got awards nominees and winners apologizing to their fans (whom they’d asked to join in watching your show.) You literally cannot go more wrong than actual winners telling their fans “I’m sorry I told you to pay attention to this.” The best moments of the night were the classiest: Felicia Day’s acceptance speech; Chris Hardwick’s recovery from what appeared to be some sort of sexual assault on-stage; Auto-Tune The News; Mark Gantt breaking down into tears as he thanked his partner Jesse Warren for believing in him. Emphasize that, don’t give a fake award to a porn site creator.
6. Stop trying to be what you’re not, and embrace what you are.

So what would I do if I were faced with figuring out the Third Annual Streamy Awards? I’d remember that at the heart of things, we’re a small community and the awards should be to celebrate the achievement of our peers. I’d pick a host from the community; someone who knows how to work a live room and who is respected amongst the group. I’d hold it at a ballroom and have a couple hundred people attending. I’d have a bar, hors d’oeuvres, and a bunch of tables set up for people to mingle and chat beforehand (and to a certain degree, during.)

Emphasize community, quality, achievement, and highlight that which is worth holding above the rest – stop worrying about what Hollywood thinks, and stop coming off as so desperate to be “mainstream.” Recognize that there’s something very affirming about seeing your friends get the recognition you always thought they’d deserved. There’s something about having your peers come together and say “in this category, we who know this world best find you to be above all else.” That’s the mark we should be aiming for, not “look how wacky we can be because we’re not on television.”

We’re not going to force a mainstream acceptance with a flashy awards show, or by alternately acting like them then acting like we don’t care about them. We’re going to do so by making really fucking good programming, challenging our peers to do better, and making other people aware of what’s best. By showing the world the best of the best, we only help ourselves – as a medium and as individual content creators. By showing them what we did last night, we’re only telling the world “we’re not ready for prime-time,” in all senses of the world.

Here’s my take on this: It’s a horrible decision. It’s punishing the children because of an arbitrary religious law. It’s awful and shameful. But it’s the type of decision that a private institution is allowed to make.

I’m a product of a religious schooling background. The Jesuits taught me how to think, not just how to recite facts and figures. Was there religion involved? Absolutely. We had theology classes every semester. We were not required to be Catholic (nor, legally, could they only admit Catholics, so far as I know) but we were required within a Jesuit school to learn the sorts of religious lessons they saw fit to teach. It was a trade-off. They could teach the sort of things they desired since they received no state or federal monies to do so. People could choose to pay in order to receive these sorts of teachings. It happened that it was a fantastic school with a great reputation, however if its students were unable to get into colleges for lack of critical science or mathematics knowledge I think fewer parents would have chosen to admit their students.

This is why the separation of Church and State is so important. State schooling is religion-free and should stay that way. Religious schooling should be able to teach according to their own laws and morals within the boundaries of the law.

That’s the important distinction there. There’s no law saying I have to be nice. I can be an asshole to everyone, every day and it’s well within my rights. It’s a shitty way to live my life, but should I so choose, it’s a choice I can make. There’s no law (as far as I know) saying they cannot choose to not accept funds from this couple in order to school their children. Is it an abhorrent thing to do? Absolutely. Were I a member of the community would I protest? You’re damn right I would - not because I think it’s illegal, but because I want as many people to know that this place is willing to punish kindergardeners because it’s a couple centuries behind in the biological and ethical categories. Do I, and will I defend their ability to run a school according to their own rules and regulations within the scope of the law? Yes I will. They’re allowed to be assholes if they choose, just like I am allowed.

Part and parcel of me being an atheist is being on the reciprocal side of this argument - where people question my morality or my ethics because they’ve been told for decades that I’ve no moral compass. But as I said above, the Jesuits taught me to think for myself. Part of doing so is allowing others to do so as well. You can disagree with someone’s opinion, but facts are facts. They’re allowed to run this school as they so choose. They’re allowed to punish children for arbitrary distinctions in mistranslated scripture. They’re allowed to for the same reason that I’m allowed to not be forced to be a Catholic or abide by that doctrine.

It’s a classic case of disagreeing with someone’s ideas, but defending their ability to have them.

ericmortensen:

So why have the AP, WSJ, WaPo, CNN, Fox, Time, Newsweek, New York Times (at least they ran a correction), Boston Globe, Gannett, PIttsburgh Tribune Review, Sacramento Bee, Globe and Mail, Washington Times and Congressional Quarterly all said differently? And when will they stop?

(via TPMMuckraker)

“News” is not immune to the power of memes either. “News” isn’t really news anymore - a common complaint, and not one that I’m unique in offering - it’s entertainment. There’s a certain small amount of investigative journalism going on in this country, but more than anything else it’s just repetition of the prevalent opinions.

I don’t want to go into whether the “corporate” structure of news media is affecting this, or whether or not the myth of the “liberal media” has anything to do with it (news flash: an individual media outlet is only as liberal as the multinational corporate conglomerate that owns it) but I think it’s clear that the biggest myth of all is that of the lone crusading journalist; the hardworking mix of gumshoe and writer, independently pursuing hard leads and the merest wisps of information alike in an effort to reveal an unbiased account of “the truth.” Or perhaps the myth isn’t of that person’s existence, but of whether or not we’d listen to them if they did.

NYT during the run up to Iraq, Fox News at all times, the rise of “opinion personalities” as news sources, the evidence is around us all the time. “Just the facts, ma’am” feels quaint because it is - it’s a sign of a time long since passed. More and more, facts hold no sway with people unless they confirm an already-held belief.

We have the greatest and most complete repository of human knowledge that our civilization has ever known, and in a perfect world it would allow “the truth” to be self-evident most of the time - or at least allow us to become better at researching as opposed to just blindly accepting information from The Powers That Be. What it’s actually done is reinforce human nature’s inherent ability to mentally distort facts to support an already believed perception and granted “facts” the same sort of wiggle room as “opinion.”

In an age where we should be smarter and better informed than any generation in history, little things like “the age of the earth,” “is there a scientific consensus on global warming,” and “whether or not the President is a citizen” are somehow in dispute. Facts hold no sway anymore, because this entertainmentization (not a real word…until now) of what used to be strictly informational necessitates an opposing side for all issues - even when the issue itself does not require or warrant it.

Fact: The Earth is not 6,000 years old, but closer to 4.6 billion years old. If your book says differently then your book is wrong.

Fact: There is a scientific consensus on man-made global warming - to the tune of 97% - if your news anchor says differently then they are wrong.

Fact: The President was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate is on the internet and there are news articles from the time period announcing his birth. If your “opinion journalist” says differently then they are wrong.

If you dispute any of the above, please provide evidence, not opinion, and they will be reevaluated. Your opinion on the matter is unimportant. Your “emotions” on the issue are not only unimportant but have no place in any discussion of science or fact. Your “beliefs” should resonate with - and have backing from - factual, demonstrable bases.

Facts should be able to stand on their own merits against all surrounding attacks, but whether this assault on reason is premeditated in an effort to discredit the very foundations of the concept of truth, or whether it’s a result of the idea that all opinions are created equal (they’re not) is unimportant. The result is what’s important, and the simple and indisputable truth is that logic, reason, and science hold less sway on the overall American population than they used to.

At one point, my country was founded with the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Do we still?

Just because “social networking” is cool doesn’t mean you now need to incorporate it into every consumer electronics device you’re shipping. Yes, a good portion of my business and personal life is spent engaging with others online, but that doesn’t meant I want to be around everyone I know all the time. Sometimes - and I know this is hard to believe - I’m even doing other things for the sole and specific purpose of stepping away from being connected.

For example, I don’t need to have Twitter or Facebook on my ebook reader. It’s a solitary activity that I don’t want or need interrupted; adding SN features makes it the electronic equivalent of a built-in annoying “That Guy” at the coffeeshop who asks constant questions about the book that you were actively reading just moments ago.

“Do you like it?” he or she (or your ebook reader) asks, seemingly unaware that since you’re in the middle of it, any opinion you give will be unformed and still malleable.

“I’ve been meaning to check that out,” he or she (or your ebook reader) says, trying to affect an air of culture after mispronouncing the author’s name and ordering a coffee that has more syllables than the title of your book.

So congratulations, you’ve just created a device whose sole additional selling point is “it’s now easier to annoy you when you’re trying to block out humanity and shut out the world around you.”

I’m also looking at every TV manufacturer displaying their “networked, socially-aware, ultra-thin, 3D television” this year. Excellent; thank you, you assholes.

The best of all possible scenarios is that people can make now fun of me in real-time when I tear up as Sam runs through the airport after Joanna in Love Actually.

The worse scenario (and I’m sure the one that will happen) is that now watching a movie on your couch will be the home version of that time you couldn’t get those five frat guys behind you to shut the fuck up during Return Of The King.

Or, better stated, for anyone who’s ever played on Xbox Live: imagine that same crowd talking nonstop during a movie.

“Who’s the elf faggot?” they’ll shout and laugh.

“Hey what kind of pussy wants to watch this bullshit?” they’ll ask the vast swaths of the internet, content in their pseudo-anonymity and bored of masturbation.

“Hey Barrett, I can’t believe you’ve spent the past hour youtubing recap videos of So You Think You Can Dance. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy…”

So to every CES presenter this year: I love social media, I really do. It’s provided me with hours of entertainment, satisfaction, enhanced friendships, and even paid my bills for the past six months. I just don’t need it involved in everything I do, because - present company excepted, of course - people as a general rule are complete bastards.

writer-a:

ericmortensen:

vruz:

—by langer:

Avatar is a bad film.

Not because it lacks any meaningful character development (which it does), not because its plot is laughably flimsy (which it is), and not because it is little more than a big-budget remake of FernGully, but because it is yet another example of b-grade Hollywood moralizing, of not very smart people with typically superficial good intentions offering Americans an insidiously shallow civics lesson along with their 64-oz Cokes and shrink-wrapped boxes of Butterfinger Minis.

American audiences have long preferred to buy their cultural sensitivity on the cheap, and Avatar is no exception here. Cinema regularly lures its viewers into an empty sense of mea culpa by safely buffering any requisite admission of guilt with the distantiation of history, of fairy tales, or of good old fashioned exaggeration. Our collective sins are pointed out for us in a way that doesn’t demand we see those same sins in ourselves. In any theatrical contest between Good and Evil, ticket sales will only ever cover production costs if while being asked to root against our own image we’re allowed to remain reasonably convinced of the implausibility that we ourselves could ever individually be as evil as these representations suggest.

It’s the uncanny valley of morality.

This is why we were all supposed to feel a little bit better about ourselves after watching Crash, because even though the film’s white antagonists didn’t drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag bumper stickers but lived in McMansions and kept hired maids and drank Starbucks and drove BMWs and looked generally indistinguishable from well-to-do liberal types just like us, their racism was so exaggerated and unsympathetic that we could condemn ourselves without any of the uncomfortable consequences of actually condemning ourselves. Then we all patted ourselves on the back and congratulated each other on how far we’ve come by handing this lousy film the Best Picture award. In an age when a political activist is someone who tints his Twitter avatar green, this Oscar was our Emancipation Proclamation.

This is why when watching The Last of the Mohicans we rooted for an indigenous culture that we ourselves had once oppressed as we watched them be subjugated by white colonizers we call our forefathers, since despite our shared lineage with the bad guys we can comfortably cast judgment because theirs were historical sins for which we’ve long since apologized with national monuments and Congressional resolutions, and because the indigenous culture in question has already been so decimated and so quarantined by poverty and desert reservations as to no longer pose any ongoing challenges to our national interest.

And this is why we cheered on a bunch of dwarves and elves and talking trees, because the two white guys oppressing them commanded an army of orcs instead of Blackwater personnel.

In the case of Avatar the bad guys again look just like we do, they wield the mighty hammer of the military-industrial complex just like we do, and they speak the language of colonialism just like we do. Yet in a country where anything short of full-throated support of the military is verboten we’re exonerated for rooting against these former Marines because they’re conquering a make-believe planet populated with make-believe aliens in a make-believe time. We’re allowed to cheer for this oppressed people because the missile strikes come from futuristic gunships and not from Predator drones. And we can safely criticize this fictional military because it takes its cues directly from its heartless capitalist overlords, while ours only takes its heartlessly capitalistic cues through the more familiar proxy of a popularly elected commander in chief.

As with any other case study in the ever-cheapening cinematic pedagogy of morality, it speaks volumes about the contemporary American audience that James Cameron had to spend fifteen years and $300 million inventing a race of people and the necessary technology to tell a story that could have just as easily been told with a handheld camera and a flight to the Ecuadorian rainforest—albeit one that wouldn’t have sold any tickets if it had.

And now millions of Americans get to go home and take comfort in the fact that while our empire may have its flaws and our military may be regularly dispatched to conquer “savages” who made the tragic mistake of establishing their homeland on top of massive deposits of natural resource, well, hey, at least we’ve never blown up a bunch of adorable purple aliens.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. I see films instead of going to confession; it’s so much less painless than self-flagellation.  But thanks for breaking this down for myself and the millions of other addled Americans who left the theater completely overcome by a glucose head rush and a curious sense of unattributable exoneration. Before this post, it was completely lost on me and my fellow hordes of grunting, barely upright knuckle draggers that we were perhaps brainwashed into living another day relieved of guilt… all for the price of a theater ticket.

Pardon the sarcasm.

My question for you is, since we both agree that the weak character development isn’t the main issue here, should we also damn Plato’s Republic and Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings too? Or are we only jumping on allegory-as-film? Is it possible that maybe the theater-going experience isn’t about mea-culpa after all? Just possible? I hope so, otherwise I’m afraid I’m going to have to await your next film before I can feel less guilty about enjoying everyone else’s.

Pardon my french, but remember when you went to the movie because it was fucking fun and didn’t feel the need to check beforehand whether or not you would already pre-agree with someone else’s interpretation of the “message?” This is a watershed film and will be remembered as such. Who cares if you don’t “agree” with the film, there have been hundreds of films I didn’t “agree” with that A) I still enjoyed, B) I still appreciated, and C) I’m glad I watched.

When exactly did your inner child and sense of wonder die? Maybe you can still enjoy a film without dissecting the historic or science-fiction interpretations through the lens of modern politics. Maybe you don’t have to get permission from your overlords to accept the messaging before seeing an entertainment property. Maybe, sometimes, you can just drop into a film and enjoy the ride.

Fuck, modern political discussion is retarded. If The Godfather were released now people would be up in arms over their interpreted “message” of the film. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - if you’re looking for a reason to get up in arms about “Hollywood liberals” or “liberal messaging” or “forced brainwashing and liberal guilt” you’ll fucking find it everywhere you look - because you’re an idiot and have only one tool at your disposal. You’re a one-trick pony. Actually, you’re also the tool.

We used to play that game in film school - reinterpreting historic films’ messages from a modern context - Star Wars was the communist manifesto, Indiana Jones was just Ayn Rand with treasure hunting, Die Hard was Vietnam, etc. But it was fucking ridiculous, that’s what made it a such a joke!

“Dad, do you remember seeing Star Wars in theaters?”

“No, Tim, I didn’t want to see it. I didn’t agree with the Hollywood Liberal Anti-America brainwashing - of course the “empire” had to be evil. George Lucas just hated America and was sowing seeds of liberal guilt. Darth Vader could have easily been written as a unifier, but they made him the bad guy. And in the end their pagan mumbo-jumbo overthrew what’s obviously meant to be the pope - who of course was also evil. Brainwashing, that’s all it was.”

“Dad?”

“Yes, Tim.”

“You missed out.”

I find it ironic that the same person cursing “the Muslims” for their “backwards” view of womens rights, can then complain about gay marriage.

Not to go all “logical” on you, but in both circumstances you’re falling back on written scripture and “my religion forbids it” as your reasoning. So you can either have one or the other, but not both.  Granted, in either circumstance your “get out of logical fallacy free” card is “but my religion is the one true religion, and the other one is a false religion, so therefore my scripture trumps that one,” in which case I can no longer help you because logic and reason will hold no sway over your beliefs*

*Note, this does not apply to all Christians, Muslims, or other religious adherents - only those who would fall back on picking and choosing from frequently mistranslated scripture as a defense mechanism against modernity and simple humanity.

The link above leads to Justin Kownacki’s treatise addressing the current anti-intellectual and anti-complexity trends permeating society. It’s a good and important read, and you should read it before you read my thoughts below.

While I disagree with a few of his examples, and disagree heartily with the idea that the symptoms are limited to language [Note: Justin didn’t necessarily imply this, I just want to be on the record about this trend manifesting itself outside of textual encounters] I agree fully that there is a decades-old backlash against intellectualism and intelligence. We’re beginning to see the effects on a larger timeline as that anti-intelligence mentality passes from an older generation - who (blatant personal theory ahead!) felt like the world of computers and technology was making them, their experience, and their intelligence obsolete, and therefore rejected it - into a younger generation that has no excuse NOT to be the most cultured, intelligent, and learned generation in history.

But they’re not. They’re rejecting intelligence, intellect, and education (personal and institutional) - perhaps because information is so easy to come by and find that it has no value anymore. Does the lack of effort needed to obtain a bit (or byte) of information man that the information itself has no value? Is the expectation that one can find information at any time, from anywhere, removing the necessity to actually keep said information in one’s brain?

Whatever the reason or reasoning (if indeed there is any) the fact remains: intelligence, intellectualism, and simple reasoning are under attack. It’s somehow okay to be dumb now, and people are embracing it at a staggering rate. Simple, basic logic and reasoning hold no sway in vast sections of the populace, and even the idea of opinion versus fact has fallen into a gray area of differentiation. “Is” has been replaced by “I think” even when it’s obvious that no thought went into the process at all. “I believe” is now “is,” even when it’s not.

I can be very hyperbolic when I’m passionate about something, but I don’t think I’m being overly so here: It’s hurting the country and the world. Dumb is the new black; but it’s not a fashion, it’s a lifestyle choice. I don’t know where this is leading - perhaps a new Renaissance, perhaps Idiocracy - but I’m not as optimistic as I’d like to be that it’ll turn out alright.

mikehudack:

The best article I’ve read about AT&T’s iPhone problem.

While I understand that this would help AT&T’s network issues, as a consumer I’m firmly opposed to a tiered-pricing or limited data program.  I don’t want to deal with the hassles of limiting my minutes AND my data.  I’m opposed to it for wired internet, and I’ll remain opposed to it for wireless data as well.  If this negatively affects AT&T’s business plan then so be it, but as a consumer I’ll gladly pick a different handset and carrier in exchange for not having to deal with that pricing structure.

My knee jerk reaction is “why should I pay more because you can’t back up your contractual obligations? Fix your fucking network and this isn’t an issue.” Yeah it’s expensive, use the income streams from the several million new customers this handset has brought to your system over the past 2.5 years.  Don’t offer me an inferior data plan that will cost me more or try to sell me a $150 device to provide me the service you promised I would have when I put my John Hancock on the dotted line. I, as a consumer, pay for you, the carrier, for network service. Give me service, not excuses; or I’ll start giving you excuses as to why I only paid you 50% of the bill.

I ignored “Let’s Save The Web Series” when it was first written as I disagreed to such a large degree that I was worried about contributing anything constructive to the conversation.  The past month has given me time to better consider what I wanted to say.  In light of the resurgence of the conversation (at least across my little slice of the internet) and while I could probably go on at length, all I will say about Yuri’s opinions is this:

No business has ever succeeded by actively striving to be the “minor leagues’ of anything else. That’s a great way to have your successes marginalized, your stars disappear, and for you to perpetually be thought of as an inferior product.  Branded entertainment is advertising by another name; Burger King (to use your example) isn’t gonna create LOST.  It damn sure isn’t going to create The Godfather (or anything that could potentially alienate a portion of their customers for any reason at all.) Neither of these concepts are conducive to creating art, and for a medium to exist it requires a certain amount of artistic intent and integrity.

Your goals are mutually exclusive.  Something can either be good - to use your words “(not) good for the web but just good” - or it can be the minor leagues/branded entertainment. Having web video be the minor leagues means that it will never mature beyond the bottom entry-level rung of other media. The Departed is good (arguably, it’s “great”) but there’s no way to massage the brand messaging from Kellogg’s into the plotline.

The internet is the largest, most democratic, and most internationally conscious  communications and entertainment medium the world has ever seen. In the few short years of its existence it has shattered an untold number of longstanding businesses and created countless new ones. The full effects of widespread connectivity (economic, sociological and otherwise) are so unfathomable that they won’t be understood for years if not decades; and you’re already prepared to call the death of independent web video? I can’t even confidently say which studios will still be around in five years or who the prevalent financiers of “mainstream” entertainment will be. Hell, a year from now, who will own NBCU?

Web video doesn’t even have a standard consumption unit, or an understanding on what constitutes a “view.”  We’re still “filming radio” by making short TV shows and short films because no one’s yet developed the genres of web video which will stand apart from film and television, and define the medium in the coming decades. Perhaps you’re intending solely to speak on your own behalf, about your own confidence, or about your own products, but anything else is extremely shortsighted.

Web video isn’t over, it’s not on life support and its imminent death has certainly been greatly exaggerated. It’s still warming up for the big fight, waiting for the bell to ring so it can come out swinging. You want to “save” web video? Differentiate it from what people already see around them; make it unlike anything they’ve ever experienced before.

Dear Ralph’s:

Getting into the little box of plastic strawberries I bought last week should be easy.  It should definitely be comparatively easier than growing them myself from scratch. I’m not an idiot, I promise, but if I find myself - a 29 year-old, pretty in-shape guy - having to use three separate tools and summon a goddamn hellspawn demon just to break through the plastic cage of wrath and despair which separates me from sweet, berry goodness, there’s something wrong with your packaging techniques.

Scissors: nope. A knife the size of a machete: not gonna happen. An actual sword: laughably inadequate. It’s the Battletoads of fruit receptacles; the ‘27 Yankees of “convenience” packaging. I’m in my kitchen trying to McGuyver an IED out of a popcorn popper, some old coffee grounds, and a half-stale blueberry scone - all in the name of healthy and easily accessible snack food.

What’s the problem guys? Did you get a shipment of clear plastic gun safes and just decide “fuck it, these’ll work just fine”? Are you helping us save for the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse whereupon strawberries will be the new currency of the survivors? Are you just assholes? Seriously, are you giant, giant assholes?

Black Boxes should be made of this shit; of course since it’s apparently the plastic equivalent of Adamantium, any plane crash would mean a 450MPH indestructible strawberry-centered missile blasting through the countryside like paper mache.

WHY WON’T YOU LET ME IN!  ALL I WANT IS A FUCKING STRAWBERRY!

**Take note USB flashdrive manufacturers, because this applies to you fuckers too. It’s an 8gig USB drive that’s just gonna end up going through the wash in someone’s jeans, not the Arc Of The Covenant; I shouldn’t need to nuke the packaging from orbit just so I can leave behind a fucking powerpoint.