?

Log in

Repost, but please don't hotlink, reupload or it'll break - existentialists [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
existentialists

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Repost, but please don't hotlink, reupload or it'll break [Apr. 30th, 2006|03:40 pm]
existentialists

existentialists

[velvetechos]


Repost this!!!!

I'd like everyone to participate, as a social experiment. See how you feel after just ONE week, beginning this Wednesday.

Isn't there something wrong with the world when we wonder what's happening to fictional characters throughout the week? Isn't it wrong when a Sunday night cartoon on Fox is important in our life? Isn't it wrong when there are so many experiences to be had, but we just can't be bothered with real life because we're sitting zoned out in front of the tube? Isn't it wrong when we're away from our techno-universe and we begin to panic? The next generation won't even know the joy of building mud pies and creating cities of legos or playing telephone with a papercup and a string if we don't do something about it NOW. We let things slide, we procrastinate, we just sit there zombified in front of this little box, watching the little world within, while the real world and our real lives go ignored. TURN IT OFF FOR JUST ONE WEEK! And pass this on to your friends and definitely to your children! Get your coworkers and your classmates involved as well!!!

Go swimming, go camping, have lunch with an old friend or write a letter to your grandmother. Just LIVE and stop procrastinating, and remember the scent of flowers and what it's like to feel your toes in the summer lawn.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: sogoodornogood
2006-04-30 09:44 pm (UTC)
uh yeah. too bad i dont watch tv, ever. neither do most of my friends.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-04-30 09:45 pm (UTC)
Same here. But that's not "too bad". That's a good thing. It's still a good message to spread to coworkers and family.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jeffreyatw
2006-04-30 09:46 pm (UTC)
Wouldn't this apply to computers as well?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-04-30 09:52 pm (UTC)
I would think so, although a lot people have gotten to the point where a computer is necessary for their job. Television is purely for "entertainment" purposes, and an easier cut to make. Computers are also a good way for relaying information and creating some good ( as long as not soley relied on or used in excess ), there is still some free communication there, whereas television networks are almost soley bought out by larger corporations and while in US is supposed to be have fairly free range for people to buy out advertising spots and air their thoughts ( if they have the money in their pockets ) it usually does not go that way. If someone wants to air an advertisement opposing something such as Chevron gas company, the networks wouldn't dare, because Chevron (as an example) might pull out any possible funding they are giving the network. It's which is the worse of two evils, but I'd focus at television first.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: sicaboo
2006-04-30 09:58 pm (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. Not only do people live vicariously through television but internet as well. In fact, I rarely watch TV but most of my time is spent sitting in front of the computer screen. Granted, it may not be as mind-numbing as most sitcoms but it is definitely a distraction from "real life".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: melange_fiesta
2008-09-18 10:02 pm (UTC)
I have to agree with this... I waste far, far more time on the Internet doing mindless things than watching TV mindlessly.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thesleepyvegan
2006-04-30 09:51 pm (UTC)
lol. i haven't watched TV since September. My life is much better and fuller.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: strawcat
2006-04-30 10:56 pm (UTC)
yeah, since you have the internets
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: tradit03
2006-05-01 01:52 am (UTC)
I agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-04-30 09:54 pm (UTC)
I think some TV can be as good as a book. Sure there's lots of absolute shite on TV but there are some gems. I'm tired of seeing some TV dissed ahead of books. There are hundreds of terrible books out there, too.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-04-30 10:00 pm (UTC)
To me the difference between the two is that a lot of people will sit zoned out in front of the television, watching things they don't even want to watch, their minds being filled with advertisements, and their moods and point of view altered as they intake little subliminal things without even realising. How many people will read a book they aren't interested in (unless it is for school or work)? How many people will watch a show they do not like, or think is only mediocre, when they could be off doing better?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-04-30 10:02 pm (UTC)
This is why DVDs or downloading TV are the way to go.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: labetephoque
2006-05-01 02:29 am (UTC)
...but DVDs take the whole communal part of watching movies out of it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-05-01 02:40 am (UTC)
You can't watch DVDs communally?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: labetephoque
2006-05-01 02:47 am (UTC)
You can, you can. It's just not the same, though. I like the feel of the theatre.

I should have noted above that this comment was all about myself. Heh. [Egocentricism, anyone?]
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: rubberband45
2006-04-30 10:14 pm (UTC)
Agreed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: colton
2006-05-01 02:26 am (UTC)
Granted that the news and educational shows are useful, the most fulfilling and worthwile television show you'll find will probably either be a TV adaptation of, or take its core concepts from an older and better book.

Read the book that the show took its archetypes from, and you'll get a lot more out of it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-05-01 02:36 am (UTC)
That's a rather broad generalisation. You're basically saying that no TV show has an original idea and that books are original unless they take their idea from another book?

Pullease. *rolls eyes* TV, whilst I will agree adapts itself from other media, is in no way less fulfilling than any other form of media. I've gotten more out of episodes of TV than I have reading entire books. And further from that, TV has encouraged to me to read other books as a supplement for that show. TV is just a new media that people need to embrace for it's qualities.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: colton
2006-05-01 02:50 am (UTC)
You're basically saying that no TV show has an original idea

Yes.


books are original unless they take their idea from another book?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, so I'll respond with a broad statement: Read a lot of the classics, and you'll immediately begin to see them become apparent in TV programming. I've read a select few and have already begun to see them all over television and movies. Even if you refuse to abandon TV for the sake of more productive activities, being more well-read will allow you to better appreciate well made TV shows and movies.


I've gotten more out of episodes of TV than I have reading entire books.

Either you're reading the wrong books, or you're not reading them very well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-05-01 02:55 am (UTC)
And I rebut that by saying you're not watching the right TV shows.

I'm very well read and make it a point to read the classics but I really dislike the immediate dismissal of TV being capable of an original idea simply because of the means of it being presented.

I don't think reading is any more productive than comparative TV, I think was my original point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: colton
2006-05-01 03:04 am (UTC)
And I rebut that by saying you're not watching the right TV shows.

In your defense, I'm not watching any TV shows. I'd like to know which you consider the most worthwile, though.


The means of it being presented is a problem in that it limits the content being presented itself. In presenting ideas in both watered down and visually pleasing forms, television makes concepts put forth in writing more easily accessible to the masses.

Television provides abridged and diluted versions of ideas that people either cannot or choose not to find in books.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-05-01 09:07 am (UTC)
Any Joss Whedon TV show. Veronica Mars. To name a few.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: melange_fiesta
2008-09-18 10:04 pm (UTC)
Star Trek TNG, Voyager, or even DS9, for me, rank really high up there for worthwhile TV shows. Of course, if you can't stand sci-fi you might not be able to develop a taste for it. But those particular Star Trek series, to me, are great in terms of depth, scope, and fantastic character development.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-05-01 04:22 am (UTC)
Reading exercises more muscles in the brain, gets more creative juices flowing due to not having everything laid right out in front of you and forcing you to imagine and think more, and does not pollute your mind with advertising.

People also tend to lose ability to focus and keep attention span as they channel flip, and watch scene cuts and fragments. It has been shown in plenty of studies that television contributes to the rise of attention deficit disorder, due to all the flashes, blips, and fragmentation that takes places during most programming. They have a name for it - "jolts". The more "jolts" in a show, usually the higher the ratings. This is why anime has become so popular, this is why reality television has become so popular, and this is why shows like Family Guy (that just has random off the wall stuff that doesn't even connect, but just sort of shocks you into finding it amusing) are so popular. It's all mind numbing pap.

Informational shows, some good dramatic pieces, etc, can be good to watch, but people need to get off the ADDICTION of television watching.

Television can be used as
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gnosis
2006-05-01 09:04 am (UTC)
You're generalising.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-05-01 12:25 pm (UTC)
Actually, I'm not, I got to more of a point, but you'll notice it cut me off. I don't feel like retyping this entire bit, but you can check the reply to the comment below yours.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ardentnotes
2006-05-01 10:22 am (UTC)
non sequitur humour has been around for decades - Monty Python was hugely popular in the UK in the seventies when TV was much less of a cultural phenomenon.
Turning TV off completely probably wouldn't be a bad thing overall, but there is no need to condemn it in such a way. There are informative programmes out there - documentaries, comedies (quiz programmes such as QI are brilliant), televised plays (I recently watched a BBC version of King Lear which was fantastic). By saying that the best thing to do would be to turn it off completely seems to be inferring that people en masse are incapable of distinguishing between what would be beneficial to watch and what is "mind numbing".
Additionally, I don't think it's fair to group TV and the Internet together - and if you are, you might as well include books. They also distract you from "real" life. But I take issue with someone talking about "real" life anyway. All life is real, even if you do spend yours watching Big Brother. The Internet is interactive, and you can have stimulating debates, converse with people of all cultures, learn things from the billions of webpages there are out there - television is something that is just presented to you, but on the net you have far more choice in what you want to do.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-05-01 12:22 pm (UTC)
The main issue I'm taking up with television here is the slew of corporate brain washing that everyone - especially children - are enduring, without even thinking about it or realising, everyday. All of this mind pollution. I'm assuming you're from U.K. ( I haven't checked your profile yet because I'm replying from my e-mail) and it's a bit different there, my fiance lives there and whenever I visit, I do notice that most channels such as BBC don't have the vast amount of advertising you see in the States, and he commented the same thing while he was here visiting me. We tend to break up a 30minute show until the show is 15 minutes and 15 minute of the show is advertising really. It DOES affect the mind, the attention span, and the personality. I'm hoping one week without television would help people see this, and then they go back to doing as they will, whether it's watching television for an hour a day, or whatever it is. Hopefully the week of ratings being down all over the country, and world will jolt the networks into questioning what it is going on, while giving people a week to find alternative forms of entertainment. I notice one of the guys having such a problem with this idea I've presented lives in Australia. Maybe it's not so bad there, I don't know. What I do know is the idea of the "fat, stupid, American" so many countries have largely has to do with the television hours we're logging in this country.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: radiumx
2006-05-01 10:39 am (UTC)
Reading exercises more muscles in the brain

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to nitpick, but there is NO SUCH FUCKING CREATURE AS A 'BRAIN MUSCLE'.

you may now return to your anti-TV spiel which I largely agree with.

:-D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: velvetechos
2006-05-01 12:16 pm (UTC)
Yes I know, see the time that was posted at? That is called "lack of sleep". I knew what I wanted to say, I didn't have the intelligence at such an hour to connect thought to speech (or typing as it may be) :P
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: tetsugakushya
2006-04-30 10:00 pm (UTC)
What about the History channel and the discovery channel? Pretty much the only 2 networks i pay any attention to.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jeffreyatw
2006-04-30 10:08 pm (UTC)
I think what the point is is that people should stop being anti-social and shut-in and go and do things with their lives. Be productive.

It's a pretty simplistic viewpoint but it's something nice to try.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: miserablism
2006-04-30 10:07 pm (UTC)
Distractions are distractions, period.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: coru_rhaw
2006-04-30 10:51 pm (UTC)
I own just a small tv, but don't have cable. I never use the tv for anybut but to watch movies now and then. But my computer monitor is about the same size as my tv and has a better sound system, so now I use the computer to watch movies instead. I haven't turned on my tv in months. The only thing I miss about tv is that I was much more up-to-date with current events. I suppose I should just read news on the web more often.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: tetsugakushya
2006-04-30 10:54 pm (UTC)
or pick up a newspaper
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: miggity12
2006-04-30 11:19 pm (UTC)
I think it isn't such a bad idea. Those of you here chiming in that you don't and haven't watched tv in a while seem to think it is a good thing, yes? How is your life different? I note other people are hedging and trying to justify small amounts of tv or certain shows. Again, I think it is an interesting social experiment. I personally don't watch that much either, but I wonder what I would do if tv was just not an option.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jeffreyatw
2006-04-30 11:33 pm (UTC)
I haven't watched TV or a TV show regularly since 2001... how is my life different? I guess it's different because I can spend more time on the Internet looking at silly video clips.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: apophantic
2006-05-01 01:38 am (UTC)
"stop the procrastination"

those words are foreign to me...i just...don't comprehend! lol i'm sorry this sound like a great idea for some mental clarity, but procrastination = breathing for me, i'm a college student
lol
this is depressing...and i'm just proving you right :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randimus
2006-05-02 09:58 pm (UTC)

Huzzah!

I agree and appreciate the sentiments. I must repost post haste. But still....why not choose a lamer show than the simpsons/family guy/ (choose one) ?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: nolovipper
2006-11-02 08:43 am (UTC)
How is life anymore real than something on television? Who is to say something is "worthy" of time and something is not? Is there a set value that makes one action greater than another?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hfx_ben
2007-04-04 06:30 am (UTC)

Deff will repost this ...

... perhaps revitalize this community.

Just now I got this post in my side-bar while I was watching folk globally tweeting and twittering. LJ is singing bird songs!
:-)

This to let you know: I've rigged "hfx_ben" to tweet updates from this community into TwitterWorld. (I'm there personally as bentrem so I don't flood anything.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: iaaphoto
2008-02-01 04:20 pm (UTC)
is this community dead? I tried to post.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dazelnut
2008-09-20 10:49 am (UTC)
Looks pretty dead to me :).
I don't watch TV so it makes little difference to me. However by not watchin TV I do find myself excluded from certain aspects of community; hence if that is what you wish to revitalise, there is an extent to which the method is anti.

Is it wrong ?? who could tell? By what measure??

This is a nice segway to a question I have. We should be passionate about life and put in our all, afterall, it is only through these thoughts and actions that we really 'exist', I suggest. To what extent then can this outlook include morality. Should we be passionate about doing 'good'? What is, what is, what is?
Sorry if I mis-interpret Camus' absurd hero. But this is something I have ne'er learnt.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: followthecops
2009-05-23 04:53 am (UTC)
this is so gay
(Reply) (Thread)
From: fakeplastic03
2009-07-22 11:10 pm (UTC)
Can someone clarify this for me?
Does this include the internet?

I don't *need* the internet but it would be difficult
(Reply) (Thread)