Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: jamie on April 24, 2012, 08:20:34 pm
-
I've seen the first two episodes, which are all to have aired right now, of this and both have been pretty good and I like what the show seems to be about. It is pretty funny, and I guess you could say it is a comedy but it isn't broad. Well, most of it isn't.
It's about a group of women in their early 20's (22-25 I think) who live in New York and are all kind of useless in the ways that young people with arts degrees can be. Apparently it is based off of a book which the creator, writer and star of this show has written - I don't know anything about the book. I figure as far as that goes, I've got other stuff to read and this is the kind of thing I want to watch rather than read.
The first two episodes are good, funny, accurate and pretty free of stupidity. It's pretty accurate about a few things - uselessness, sex, certain personality types - and I definitely recognise some of the stuff in these two episodes from my own life. That's all fine, so I wonder if the show is going to progress from that accurate reflection, deconstruct it and say some new things about it, or if it is just going to be content with being able to observe the lives of this particular part of society and mine it for jokes and storylines (which could get repetitive and make the show end up crappy - plenty of precedent for this, especially in this genre although all those shows were mostly made by and are about men (and were never really any good to begin with, so i'm hopeful))
I'm making a topic because I think it's an interesting show, there aren't many that are quite like it and definitely none I can think of that are good, and I think it's something that would probably slip past most people and definitely most people here. Despite that, I think it's something people here might like. I do like it. I'll keep watching and saying what I think. Think it airs on sundays?
-
oh and judd apatow apparently has something to do with this (probably not much at all but his name is in the credits) - but don't let that put you off. there isn't a rogen in sight.
-
I hate starting shows like this and then having to wait weeks and such between episodes when they're just starting out, but maybe i'll check it out later in the year? I heard about this from somewhere else before, and thought it sounded interesting at least when I read a summary/press release whatever about it .
-
But those girls in this show are beautiful or hot? That's very importance for me
-
I saw the pilot and ended up enjoying it. I was actually taken aback at how a lot of people hate it because of how privileged and white the main characters are, particularly the spoiled starring girl. Maybe it was just me, but I didn't sense that you're SUPPOSED to like the characters. Not on the surface, at least. I got the feeling the whole point of the show was for it to be a satirical look at entitled, white millennials. If I'm actually supposed to relate with and like these characters, then yeah, fuck this show.
-
rvp12Bet, it's kind of a mix of hotties and notties... try it out, maybe you'll like it. They're all beautiful in some way.
-
I might have to give it a shot but I've been flooded with so many TV recommendations from people that it seems impossible for me to catch up with everything. For instance, I'm WAY behind on Mad Men.
-
I've actually been skipping episodes of this that sound really irritating or, uh, emotionally volatile to me lately. Well, I've skipped two. One was the one where Hannah shacks up with an older doctor, and the other was the episode where Jessa runs away to live with her Dad or something. The show isn't that heavily serialised, and things seem to occur for these people off screen pretty often anyway, so it isn't like it is hard to follow and this show has always been about 60% really fucking relevant and 40% fluffy bullshit for me anyway so I feel like I'm just cutting out the crap.
I continue to identify with Adam a crazy amount and in the latest episode, It's Back, I enjoyed every single storyline for the first time, I think. Oh wait, no, I didn't like that Shoshana just decided to cheat on Ray because she can't connect with her old idiot friends anymore. I don't feel like she would do something like that, although she is pretty wet clay still so maybe she would. I just wish she didn't cos I liked her a lot, and I still like Ray.
This show has a particular effect on me, it's hard to explain. I enjoy it.
-
this show grates on me really bad and it's hard to put my finger on why.
i saw the first season with my wife and it seems to want to capture the life (non-)experience of a bunch of ambitionless homely emotional children slumming it in Brooklyn, waiting for their parents upstate to die so they can inherit everything. which is fine in and of itself but I can't think of anything more banal.
-
it's like a showcase of the people i actively avoid irl
-
it stinks
-
this show grates on me really bad and it's hard to put my finger on why.
i saw the first season with my wife and it seems to want to capture the life (non-)experience of a bunch of ambitionless homely emotional children slumming it in Brooklyn, waiting for their parents upstate to die so they can inherit everything. which is fine in and of itself but I can't think of anything more banal.
i'm more like them than i want to be, ideally, apart from the money part because I've never had zip but it feels like maybe it is heading somewhere and since lena dunham obviously doesn't expect you to think any of these people really have their shit together in any way, i don't get why they would annoy you. they're all dumb. it's a pretty good representation of being in your early 20's and realising you have no fucking skills and that just being you doesn't mean anything.
-
this show grates on me really bad and it's hard to put my finger on why.
i saw the first season with my wife and it seems to want to capture the life (non-)experience of a bunch of ambitionless homely emotional children slumming it in Brooklyn, waiting for their parents upstate to die so they can inherit everything. which is fine in and of itself but I can't think of anything more banal.
i'm more like them than i want to be, ideally, apart from the money part because I've never had zip but it feels like maybe it is heading somewhere and since lena dunham obviously doesn't expect you to think any of these people really have their shit together in any way, i don't get why they would annoy you. they're all dumb. it's a pretty good representation of being in your early 20's and realising you have no fucking skills and that just being you doesn't mean anything.
That's the thing, it's just so goddamn boring. Bunch of white losers from upper-middle class background who don't have their shit together, but at the same time face no real adversity outside of their own malaise... big deal, may as well watch cat videos on YouTube you know? There's opportunity for some gritty shit about on how fucked up it gets for kids out there but instead it seems like it actively avoids these things to be something like a conversation-starter that cool-mom can watch with her teenage daughter.
-
Even if it doesn't have it's own shit together as a series, It still opens the door though.
Think of it like this: You cannot have the zombie apocalypse spinoff of Girls (either called GirlsZ or GrrrrlZ), without first having Girls to base it off of.
-
While I've never seen the show and can't talk about it's merits plot or writing wise, I can at least say the fact that its a critically lauded and has a main character that appears to be an 'authentically average girl' as a main character is something it should be proud of.
Its the equivalent of a necessary cultural 'baby' step. I'm not usually one to chant and cheer for that. But I imagine most people would and I can certainly see why. Though maybe I'm out of touch and there already are other shows that are currently airing that are more progressive. I have not been paying too much attention to TV lately.
-
this show grates on me really bad and it's hard to put my finger on why.
i saw the first season with my wife and it seems to want to capture the life (non-)experience of a bunch of ambitionless homely emotional children slumming it in Brooklyn, waiting for their parents upstate to die so they can inherit everything. which is fine in and of itself but I can't think of anything more banal.
wait have you always been married?
-
While I've never seen the show and can't talk about it's merits plot or writing wise, I can at least say the fact that its a critically lauded and has a main character that appears to be an 'authentically average girl' as a main character is something it should be proud of.
Its the equivalent of a necessary cultural 'baby' step. I'm not usually one to chant and cheer for that. But I imagine most people would and I can certainly see why. Though maybe I'm out of touch and there already are other shows that are currently airing that are more progressive. I have not been paying too much attention to TV lately.
i havent seen this show and most ppl whose opinions i trust seem polarized by it but if i had seen this show and didn't like it i might snarkily say " Ah yes a show about an upper class white yuppy in new York obsessed with her own malaise, but, heh, with a pinch of self loathing to make it alright . . . glorious victory for progressivism indeed! really captures the authenticity of being a banal trust fund absolute piece of nothing, that's the real groundbreaking thing here, how realistically depicted this worthless degeneracy is . . . "
then again ive seen ppl go in w/ those kinds of preconceptions and come out meekly shrugging "i liked it . . . " so what the hay do i kno. its just the notion of Lena Dunham at all being average or encapsulating any meaningful cumulative experience of what it means to be alive on this planet we call earth, no less a woman, invokes a lot of knee jerk hostile reactions for me. but maybe it's good anyway.
-
this show grates on me really bad and it's hard to put my finger on why.
i saw the first season with my wife and it seems to want to capture the life (non-)experience of a bunch of ambitionless homely emotional children slumming it in Brooklyn, waiting for their parents upstate to die so they can inherit everything. which is fine in and of itself but I can't think of anything more banal.
wait have you always been married?
yeah.. quite a while now
-
jamie are you still watching this? i've only seen like the first four episodes, but i was curious why you've connected with/praised the believability of multiple characters. from the ones i saw i got the impression that most of the characters outside of the main one herself (and her love interests i guess) are sort of peripheral in the sense that they mostly seem present to interact with dunham's character and little else. like, her three friends all have much less fleshed out personalities than her and her roommate in particular seems... pretty one dimensional.
i stopped watching because a) dramedy detailing the lives and struggles of upper-middle class white people whose problems are limited by the sheer amount of resources thrown at them their entire lives seems a little self-indulgent, particularly when all the characters are deeply oblivious and self-involved, and i'm a little suspicious the only reason it's on the air is because its target demographic has enough money to buy things and is self-indulgent enough to think it's raw and insightful, and b) for a show about women most of the female characters seemed pretty flimsy. does it get better? because my girlfriend kept watching it and she says the characters more or less continue to be tropes used in service of dunham's character development.
idk maybe it is raw and insightful. but it's also a lot of other things that i can't really get past, and it seems sort of ironic to me that a show championed as a response to the disenfranchisement of women in television (which is, to be clear, something i agree merits a response) manages to so thoroughly disenfranchise, ignore, or otherwise alienate virtually every group/experience outside of the exceedingly narrow slice of life it represents. i'm not saying their problems aren't legitimate, but i wanted to know how you watched it and thought "yeah, good. good." instead of "finally, a show about REAL women. who are white. and have money. and college degrees. and robust support systems."
-
Part of why the show is funny is the response it gets from people. I mean the actual content is pretty boring for all the reasons that've been listed, but it's interesting how much flak it's caught over not being 'representative' enough by people who are about as boring as the show itself.
Do we really want 'representative' television shows? To me, most of the criticism sounds like people whining about the fact that HBO isn't reifying their own life experience and selling it back to them. "I want to consume images of myself!!!"
I'd be horrified if I actually identified with anything on television besides the perps on COPS
-
yeah i'd say it had fallen victim to its own hype if even the negative shit didn't create so much "buzz"
re: is representation a good thing
i think for me, it's less about a failure to reify my own personal experiences and more about what hbo does actively reify. which is to say, i think the primacy of whitewashed privilege is, on the whole, not a Good Thing (though you could make the argument this is largely symptomatic of broader issues, i don't necessarily think that's always a productive claim). this isn't to say that i don't think there's a hint of vanity in the desire to see one's life reflected in the media one consumes, but i think historically the effectiveness with which storytelling communicates its message has been contingent upon the degree to which people identify with the content of the story, be it because of relatable characters or relatable themes or whatever. so on some level, yeah, it's "i want to consume images of myself!" but i also think it's a desire for the legitimating effect that media depictions of struggles/experiences tend to have. i kinda think representation is only important insomuch as it relates to recognition, which i don't think is a bad thing.
-
jamie are you still watching this? i've only seen like the first four episodes, but i was curious why you've connected with/praised the believability of multiple characters. from the ones i saw i got the impression that most of the characters outside of the main one herself (and her love interests i guess) are sort of peripheral in the sense that they mostly seem present to interact with dunham's character and little else. like, her three friends all have much less fleshed out personalities than her and her roommate in particular seems... pretty one dimensional.
i stopped watching because a) dramedy detailing the lives and struggles of upper-middle class white people whose problems are limited by the sheer amount of resources thrown at them their entire lives seems a little self-indulgent, particularly when all the characters are deeply oblivious and self-involved, and i'm a little suspicious the only reason it's on the air is because its target demographic has enough money to buy things and is self-indulgent enough to think it's raw and insightful, and b) for a show about women most of the female characters seemed pretty flimsy. does it get better? because my girlfriend kept watching it and she says the characters more or less continue to be tropes used in service of dunham's character development.
idk maybe it is raw and insightful. but it's also a lot of other things that i can't really get past, and it seems sort of ironic to me that a show championed as a response to the disenfranchisement of women in television (which is, to be clear, something i agree merits a response) manages to so thoroughly disenfranchise, ignore, or otherwise alienate virtually every group/experience outside of the exceedingly narrow slice of life it represents. i'm not saying their problems aren't legitimate, but i wanted to know how you watched it and thought "yeah, good. good." instead of "finally, a show about REAL women. who are white. and have money. and college degrees. and robust support systems."
i don't think raw is a word i'd ever use for anything, and it isn't necessarily that it is insightful than i think that two characters on the show in particular just really remind me of myself. it makes me laugh when hannah is acting like a big spoiled baby, and i feel like I'm gonna be able to work through my weird bullshit if there is someone else out there who has it. the two characters are hannah and adam. adam by far the most, but hannah's narcissism is relatable and funny to me. i like ray, too. i could myself ending up like ray, so it's nice to have that held up in front of me so i can try not to end up like him.
i don't think it needs to do anything politically admirable in order to have a right to exist. it just has to not be despicable, and it isn't. there are ways it could be better, and i think it is good, not the best. it's funny sometimes and it makes me feel less alone when i watch the good episodes, that probably sounds stupid, but it's true. it's an accurate reflection of a certain section of society, and it doesn't matter how narrow it is. the problem isn't that rich (and they aren't all rich) idiots are represented at all, it is that other people who aren't are not being represented. so it isn't about shutting down things which i don't find to be perfect in their political content, especially when not everything in that area is bad (nobody seems to understand that this show is self-aware, or for some reason think that is remotely a justification for how terrible hannah is when it totally is). it's about widening what gets represented - here's a show about people who are 20-25 years old, want to do something creative and important with their lives, but don't really know what, and are slowly coming to terms with the fact they aren't special or maybe one of them will get lucky and be a success. yes, they're surrounded by opportunity but i'm surrounded by opportunity and that doesn't mean i don't give a fuck about my life. it's like dietcoke said, when people are getting really pissed off at the show for being about basically themselves. it isn't an important show, well okay, it's important to me because of adam.
i totally understand 'this isn't really for me' because i think it's a specific kind of show not just because of blah blah white rich women but because there's a particular type of self-loathing to it that if you've never really experienced then you probably can't really bring yourself to give a fuck about it. it annoys me when it just bristles people up, and i've got my own ideas about why that is but i can't really be bothered getting into that.
the reason it is on air is because lena dunham made a movie called tiny furniture about post-art school ennui and it resonated with enough people that judd apatow helped her get a show on hbo which is basically the same thing. lena dunham is like 26 or 27 years old, this bullshit is all she knows and she's written some good stuff about it. some of it not so good, but that's tv. not even breaking bad or whatever is always good. there's no conspiracy, there's nothing to be suspicious about, she's just a mildly intelligent film student who got lucky with a marketable sensibility. i think she'll might get more interesting as she gets older and lives more/makes more thngs.
well i've written this now. i can't really be bothered defending this show, i just like parts of it.
-
i mean maybe i just use this kind of thing as a substitute social life. i don't know, i get really fucking frustrated every time i try to talk to anyone about this show, even people who like it. i think i just don't want to talk about it. i dunno why that is - i feel like i can talk about everything else just fine, and always have my reasons straight
-
also i always took the frivolous situation of the characters to be the result of doing an arts degree. scotland so college = free i've never had any money did an arts degree for the Art and it was a big old waste of time. well, a year left. i'm gonna finish it but i didn't need to do this so it's like late stage capitalism + no real skills and narcissism with shitty economy and fake jobs that help no-one. DARK comedy, combined with a few moments where they are still humans even though they are not whatever group of people. not sticking it to under-represented minorities obviously i just don't get why this is THE issue only with this show.
-
well ok. i mean, it's fine that it resonates with you and certainly i know enough about self-loathing to understand the appeal of the central character.
also, i think context is important. i think it's THE only issue because it was hyped up as a show that was, above all else, scathingly relevant. whether political or otherwise, these were the expectations people went into it with. i don't necessarily think those expectations are unfair to have, given this is how the show represented itself (or, maybe just how network marketing people chose to represent it). if this was everybody loves raymond, i don't think anyone would really care. i'm not super invested and tbh i feel more ambivalent about the show than you might think, but what irks me a little is that i don't think everyone is watching it as though it's super self-aware? like, i have not encountered a bunch of jamies walking around talking about how it's a tongue-in-cheek depiction of a self-involved spoiled former art student trying to get her shit together so much as people saying it's a show about a believable character with a real life and real problems, i.e. the people i know who watch this show seem to have far more in common with hannah than dunham, and i find sort of uh… eye roll-inducing. idk, maybe that's just something on my end. i live near a campus so i meet a lot of girls in their early twenties whose parents are bankrolling their lives.
but saying there's nothing to be suspicious about seems sort of misguided maybe? like, it's not a coincidence that the subject matter of most television shows mirrors that general experiences and preferences of valued advertising demographics. this is less of an issue with hbo of course but i don't think it's fair or wise to simply say "there's no conspiracy." i absolutely think decisions of what makes it onto television or into theaters reflect broader political/economic power dynamics. i don't think that makes me a conspiracy nut! sorry if that sounds combative, i really don't mean it to be. i maintain my suspicion tho.
but yeah idk, i don't really care about it that much, i just thought it was sort of curious that you continued to like it and thought maybe you'd have something to say as to why. i guess just file me with mr president under the list of people who don't think their problems seem particularly compelling.
-
but saying there's nothing to be suspicious about seems sort of misguided maybe? like, it's not a coincidence that the subject matter of most television shows mirrors that general experiences and preferences of valued advertising demographics. this is less of an issue with hbo of course but i don't think it's fair or wise to simply say "there's no conspiracy." i absolutely think decisions of what makes it onto television or into theaters reflect broader political/economic power dynamics. i don't think that makes me a conspiracy nut! sorry if that sounds combative, i really don't mean it to be. i maintain my suspicion tho.
yeah, okay. there's a net brigade who thinks the only reason the show happened is because all the principal actresses are involved in one way or another with rich showbiz types, like alison williams is brian williams daughter or something. the news guy. just something some of the hateful losers out there say because they want some way to delegitimise a creative effort by a young woman, that it's a fake show paid for by Dad
-
I liked reading what you have to say about the show jamie. although I've never seen it or anything about it outside this thread I'm catching ur drift
by the way - sticking with the art degree was probably a good plan. I wish I had finished my first degree and did LA for grad school, but my family has no college-people so I guess it never really occurred to me. like I didn't even know of this academic world that sees undergrad as "learning to be a person" and post-grad being the real deal. sorry for the derail . . .
and ya, it's on HBO? HBO knows really really really well what current & prospective HBO subscribers will pay to see
-
"learning to be a person" and post-grad being the real deal. sorry for the derail . . .
yeah i guess so. i made it into honours but i really don't give a fuck and my grades are slipping so i'll need to pretend to care pretty hard for my final year. the post-grad thing - i might do it, but probably not right away, just sometime before i'm 30 if things aren't happening. i don't think it is really a de-rail.
i dropped out of my first degree too. didn't know any better. shoulda just done it, but it isn't a big deal.
-
~the revolution will not be televised~
-
yeah maybe so. idk, something about that sort of sweeping Yeah But Who Cares type of argument deals with dissent a little too tidily for me sometimes
also lol sorry jamie i didn't mean to come off like i was saying she was "just another kelly osbourne." i didn't even know that was a line of critique! it's not particularly surprising but yeah. honestly, there is a lil bit of resentment, because hbo axed bored to death and replaced it with this and i really liked bored to death and thought it did a couple p. interesting/novel things. mostly tho it's just that i've spent so much of my daily life around people like this for years and seeing a show championed as being about real people with real lives only for it to actually be about highly cloistered urban youths (as in, real life as defined by people insulated from real life in any meaningful sense) seemed a little too coincidental not to attribute at least in part to disproportionate market power.
in any event good talk i guess
-
"learning to be a person" and post-grad being the real deal. sorry for the derail . . .
yeah i guess so. i made it into honours but i really don't give a fuck and my grades are slipping so i'll need to pretend to care pretty hard for my final year. the post-grad thing - i might do it, but probably not right away, just sometime before i'm 30 if things aren't happening. i don't think it is really a de-rail.
i dropped out of my first degree too. didn't know any better. shoulda just done it, but it isn't a big deal.
I mean, I don't want to be a big advocate for grad school. I realize that most people who think that (learning to be a person, career) in the US probably have it made financially and come from pretty strong academic backgrounds. it's probably completely different in europe.
I dunno if I'm going to grad school, it only stands a chance if I can get a really good deal on it tbh! sounds like a lot of fun tho.
-
yeah maybe so. idk, something about that sort of sweeping Yeah But Who Cares type of argument deals with dissent a little too tidily for me sometimes
well it's just that I kinda see it as a pseudo-critique. what if everyone was equally and fairly represented in the media? we'd all be unoffended while passively consuming images that condition and represent our roles and identities. neat, an equal-opportunity spectacle.
frankly i'm more comfortable with people just enjoying it than the 'cultural critics' objections of "nope! not real enough, too much white traditionally-abled cis-female-assigned persyns, doesn't intersect enough with asexually-queer afro-pagan discourse with oppressive colonial ontology." There's a point where it all becomes more of a veiled plea for accommodation with a radical posture rather than actual critique; and that's valid i guess but i wouldnt really call it dissent.
PUUUUUUKE
-
I really don't understand why there's such a large group of self-diagnosed revolutionaries who make a point of belittling genuine issues such as representation in the media. I mean, for one thing, how can you not get the absurdity of a guy, who is being represented, making fun of (not really criticizing in any serious degree, but actively ridiculing) issues raised by people who aren't? you might think there are overarching issues that are more pressing, which is fair enough, but you can't possibly tell me that you would not expect one of those "asexually-queer afro-pagans" to read your post and say "fuck you" in response. and if that's true, why go there at all? why go out of your way to pick this stupid, meaningless fight with people who you ought to be supportive of? I really don't get it. fill me in on this one because I'm at a loss.
-
because it's something i made up dada, jesus fucking christ, I thought that was pretty clear. but if there's any asexually-queer afro-pagans having a hard time with oppressive colonial ontologies that are reading this out there then my sincere apologies i'll check my privilege and consult my Oppression-Metric in that regard from now on. seriously though, i'm not a big fan of identity politics or the academic post-structuralist liberalism which gave rise to them and I'm not-so-subtly invoking existing critique of "intersectional" analysis with statements like that.
if you'd bother to follow my point i more or less said that such concerns are valid, but it's more of a plea for accommodation(a desire for HBO to repackage and sell an image of their own life experience and identity back to them) than critique and shouldn't be confused as such.
-
because it's something i made up dada, jesus fucking christ, I thought that was pretty clear. but if there's any asexually-queer afro-pagans having a hard time with oppressive colonial ontologies that are reading this out there then my sincere apologies i'll check my privilege in that regard from now on.
oh, I got your point, and I got the fact that your example was fictitious. ironically, you don't seem to have gotten my point. my point is: you don't get to flash your supposed revolutionary credentials like a police badge to justify making fun of legitimate complaints, whether or not you think they're just radical poseurs. you don't mimic the abuse they get hurled at them by the status quo for daring to speak out on issues like representation for the sake of what you deem a more useful critique. and you're doing exactly the same thing, making fun of the language, in the same breath that you use to complain about being unfairly called out by me.
to do that sort of thing is imo harmful and divisive, and I think it's obvious that it would be. it helps no one.
again, it's a pseudo-critique and if you'd bother to follow my point i more or less said that such concerns are more or less valid, but it's more of a plea for accommodation(a desire for HBO to repackage and sell their own life experience and identity back to them) than critique.
I did get your point, but you can't see this in a vacuum. as long as there is a mass media, it ought to be representative. but everyone I know who says that also realizes the inherent problems beyond that point.
-
because it's something i made up dada, jesus fucking christ, I thought that was pretty clear. but if there's any asexually-queer afro-pagans having a hard time with oppressive colonial ontologies that are reading this out there then my sincere apologies i'll check my privilege in that regard from now on.
oh, I got your point, and I got the fact that your example was fictitious. ironically, you don't seem to have gotten my point. my point is: you don't get to flash your supposed revolutionary credentials like a police badge to justify making fun of legitimate complaints, whether or not you think they're just radical poseurs. you don't mimic the abuse they get hurled at them by the status quo for daring to speak out on issues like representation for the sake of what you deem a more useful critique. and you're doing exactly the same thing, making fun of the language, in the same breath that you use to complain about being unfairly called out by me.
to do that sort of thing is imo harmful and divisive, and I think it's obvious that it would be. it helps no one.
i don't think you're "unfairly calling me out" and i'm not flashing any badges, this isn't about me in spite of how much you would like to make it about me. I'm not making fun of the complaints(the example i used was simply the furthest away from the "GIRLS in NYC" premise I could think of) and I'm not abusing anyone aside from suggesting that the line of reasoning is a dead-end. I mean if you have a point about why it is serious critique rather than desire for accommodation, then make it.
what it comes down to is that you're just hopelessly moralizing. "The media ought to be representative." Is just a platitude divorced from any serious assessment of the structure, origin, history, and function of the media as it exists today. A platitude that comes from more or less valid concerns, but a platitude nonetheless.
-
i don't think you're "unfairly calling me out" and i'm not flashing any badges, this isn't about me in spite of how much you would like to make it about me. I'm not making fun of the complaints(the example i used was simply the furthest away from the "GIRLS in NYC" premise I could think of) and I'm not abusing anyone aside from suggesting that the line of reasoning is a dead-end. I mean if you have a point about why it is serious critique rather than desire for accommodation, then make it.
again I don't think you're getting my point. I've deliberately not said anything on whether you are right or wrong to call it a desire for accommodation or a critique because it's not what I'm talking about at all. the line you added in your edit just now, however, was what I was looking for:
seriously though, i'm not a big fan of identity politics or the academic post-structuralist liberalism which gave rise to them and I'm not-so-subtly invoking existing critique of "intersectional" analysis with statements like that.
whether you are a fan of it or not, I hope you'll at least agree there are a lot of well-intentioned people active in those circles today. I don't see why you have to take and misuse their language specifically to get a rise out of them. you can't not expect that that's what's gonna happen if you do that. you do this and then you claim "well, but you're wrong to call me out, I've got legitimate criticisms of them too" as if that makes it all right.
again, if you have real, legitimate criticisms, make 'em. that last thing I quoted at least has substance. you don't really expect everyone here to roll their eyes and grin when you sarcastically talk about "checking your privilege", do you? that's not criticism, that's just you flippantly making fun of other leftists you don't like. and I don't think that's helpful.
what it comes down to is that you're just hopelessly moralizing. "The media ought to be representative." Is just a platitude divorced from any serious assessment of the structure, origin, history, and function of the media as it exists today. A platitude that comes from more or less valid concerns, but a platitude nonetheless.
you say you don't like identity politics, but identity does exist and I think identity is still a valid concept. I don't think it necessarily interferes with preexisting ideas about, say, class. it's true that when we talk about representation in context of the mass media, we're sort of conceding its function as a means of propaganda and social control. but I don't think doing that serves to validate that function. I don't think saying that mass media ought to be representative is the same thing as saying "the media is fine but it needs more PoC". I said, everyone I know of who makes this complaint also realizes its limitations, and that the problem goes beyond something so simple as representation. as you yourself have said, the concerns themselves are valid.
-
i don't think you're "unfairly calling me out" and i'm not flashing any badges, this isn't about me in spite of how much you would like to make it about me. I'm not making fun of the complaints(the example i used was simply the furthest away from the "GIRLS in NYC" premise I could think of) and I'm not abusing anyone aside from suggesting that the line of reasoning is a dead-end. I mean if you have a point about why it is serious critique rather than desire for accommodation, then make it.
again I don't think you're getting my point. I've deliberately not said anything on whether you are right or wrong to call it a desire for accommodation or a critique because it's not what I'm talking about at all. the line you added in your edit just now, however, was what I was looking for:
>seriously though, i'm not a big fan of identity politics or the academic post-structuralist liberalism which gave rise to them and I'm not-so-subtly invoking existing critique of "intersectional" analysis with statements like that.
whether you are a fan of it or not, I hope you'll at least agree there are a lot of well-intentioned people active in those circles today. I don't see why you have to take and misuse their language specifically to get a rise out of them. you can't not expect that that's what's gonna happen if you do that. you do this and then you claim "well, but you're wrong to call me out, I've got legitimate criticisms of them too" as if that makes it all right.
again, if you have real, legitimate criticisms, make 'em. that last thing I quoted at least has substance. you don't really expect everyone here to roll their eyes and grin when you sarcastically talk about "checking your privilege", do you? that's not criticism, that's just you flippantly making fun of other leftists you don't like. and I don't think that's helpful.
what it comes down to is that you're just hopelessly moralizing. "The media ought to be representative." Is just a platitude divorced from any serious assessment of the structure, origin, history, and function of the media as it exists today. A platitude that comes from more or less valid concerns, but a platitude nonetheless.
you say you don't like identity politics, but identity does exist and I think identity is still a valid concept. I don't think it necessarily interferes with preexisting ideas about, say, class. it's true that when we talk about representation in context of the mass media, we're sort of conceding its function as a means of propaganda and social control. but I don't think doing that serves to validate that function. I don't think saying that mass media ought to be representative is the same thing as saying "the media is fine but it needs more PoC". I said, everyone I know of who makes this complaint also realizes its limitations, and that the problem goes beyond something so simple as representation. as you yourself have said, the concerns themselves are valid.
I did make a critique. see the conversation prior to your addition to it. I'm not saying that anyone is "wrong" to call me out and I don't really give a fuck how well-intentioned people are; I don't feel obligated to placate every disagreement I have with "they're good people with their hearts in the right place" Sorry, not interested in that the most you'll get is an acknowledgement that the concerns are valid. If that makes me insensitive or kind of a dick, so be it. Why not discuss the point I made rather than deliberately avoiding it to take shots at me personally or my tone?
re: media
again, you're not getting past platitudes. The mass media as it exists today can't and won't be equally representative and even if it could, I'd question if that's really how it "ought" to be. Again, it's a pseudo-critique, it has the form sans the content of an actual critique of the media. The line of argumentation ends in a request for an equal-opportunity spectacle, a desire for universal accommodation in the community of capital... is that what "ought" to be?
-
I don't really give a fuck how well-intentioned people are
you should if you give a fuck about changing anything about the world. if you're only interested in talking to your e-buds, fine. like I've said, I don't think it's helpful to so flippantly dismiss people who are actively and in good faith working towards making changes, and I think you should acknowledge that. likewise, you can be as well-intentioned as you want to be and the result is still gonna be harmful.
I don't feel obligated to placate every disagreement I have with "they're good people with their hearts in the right place"
then don't. again, fine. but don't replicate the language used by active proponents of oppression just because you think it's funny. which is what you were doing. or otherwise tell me how doing that helps either you or me or anyone.
Why not discuss the point I made rather than deliberately avoiding it to take shots at me personally or my tone?
because I didn't wanna talk about your point, I wanted to talk about your tone. (actually, I want to talk about both, but I don't want to pretend that my eyes are closed when I see someone do something that I think is wrong.) I'm not saying any of this because I don't like you. I actually really appreciate your insights. the reason why what you said didn't jibe is because I think at the very least we ought to be able to take seriously those that are acting in good faith. I just don't think it's constructive to do otherwise. I see this a lot from just about everybody, it's like people don't care if you're interested in exerting effort to do something right for the world, but just want you to be like them.
re: media
again, you're not getting past platitudes. The mass media as it exists today can't and won't be equally representative and even if it could, I'd question if that's really how it "ought" to be. Again, it's a pseudo-critique, it has the form sans the content of an actual critique of the media. The line of argumentation ends in a request for an equal-opportunity spectacle, a desire for universal accommodation in the community of capital... is that what "ought" to be?
so what defines platitude, and what separates it from an actual critique? what standard does something have to conform to in order to rise to that standard? personally I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, for example, when the media perpetuates stereotypes about gay people or black people, that has a nontrivial effect. that would seem to be an uncontroversial example. it seems similar, in my view, to the notion that women ought to be allowed to have combat roles in the military. I'd rather the entire military explodes, but it's there, and although making it less sexist is a diversion compared to the broader task, I didn't think it was a bad thing that it happened. so yes, I think any system that has some potential for improving people's conditions ought to have that potential realized, even if it's in and of itself an unjust system. I think it's very unlikely that doing so will strengthen and by that means perpetuate the system.
-
This has been a very interesting discussion.
I want to point out that there is a (significant) minority group of people who point out injustice, not to try and make the world better but to inflate their ego. So not all of their intentions are good. Though you could argue they at least have a level of positive outcome on the world if you are a consequentialist and that would probably be enough for most people.
I'll admit, it is technically impossible to know people's motives, so I could be utterly and completely wrong about that, but I'm fairly sure that is the case.
-
Well, I'm posting on the web so I think that falls within the realm of "talking with ebuds"... I'm a little more diplomatic talking to people face-to-face but whatever, but I'm not standing on a soapbox and I can be flippant on here and not care as much. I'm not causing any harm aside from being a little dismissive of things I disagree with on Saltw.net's forums. I'm not sure if I follow what you mean by "replecating the language used by proponents of oppression", but like I said I'm not so invested in this respect. You're right that I do think it's cute to be dismissive in a way that provokes angry responses or whatever, it's cathartic, but I'm not being a 'proponent of oppression' by any stretch of the imagination(well maybe it you want to stretch it into being "epistemologically oppressive" but then we're wading even further into the academic swamp of subaltern discourse). If that's where you have a problem then maybe we don't share the same sense of humor, at least be upfront about it being beside the point. I don't really care what people's intentions are cuz it's just a plea for acknowledgement, for people to 'think right', and that ain't my grumpy marxist bag.
I think what differentiates a platitude/pseudo-critique is that critique questions the object while a pseudo-critique assumes it as premise and in doing so precludes actual criticism. These pseudo-criticisms are actually recuperated and end up reinforcing the state of affairs in very real ways. Unions 'sit at the table' and are actively involved in the process of cutting salaries/benefits and laying people off, women and homosexuals now get the chance to kill and die on the front lines of wars, now we have multiracial cops and prison guards, etc. Great... Lets have a universally fair and unoffensive representation of everyone to be consumed as images holding our attentions between viagra and tampon commercials.
-
ugh god this makes me nauseous. everything sucks, just realize that, feel free to enjoy it who cares im gonna watch youtube videos of people pretending to pee in front of cops
-
idk, the thing that troubles me about those is that by specifically focusing on people pretending to pee in front of cops, you're kind of unintentionally constructing this filter through which various demographics are sorted in order of their tendency to interact with law enforcement. i think this is one of those points where you start to encounter a really meaningful problem in disproportionate representation, and i don't think i should have to explain all the bad places that could potentially lead. i'd feel a lot more comfortable if you were to search for youtube videos of people pretending to pee in front of law enforcement officials in addition to city managers, food service and hospitality workers, civil service employees, university professors, etc.
-
lol
-
I have not spent as much time engaged in the critical analysis of culture, media as I should have and I feel like the things that were said in this thread have exposed me to insights I might not have come to on my own as easily, so um I am sorry this has made you upset Mr. Obama but I am glad you said and thought about these things :o)
-
Well, I'm posting on the web so I think that falls within the realm of "talking with ebuds"... I'm a little more diplomatic talking to people face-to-face but whatever, but I'm not standing on a soapbox and I can be flippant on here and not care as much. I'm not causing any harm aside from being a little dismissive of things I disagree with on Saltw.net's forums. I'm not sure if I follow what you mean by "replecating the language used by proponents of oppression", but like I said I'm not so invested in this respect. You're right that I do think it's cute to be dismissive in a way that provokes angry responses or whatever, it's cathartic, but I'm not being a 'proponent of oppression' by any stretch of the imagination(well maybe it you want to stretch it into being "epistemologically oppressive" but then we're wading even further into the academic swamp of subaltern discourse). If that's where you have a problem then maybe we don't share the same sense of humor, at least be upfront about it being beside the point. I don't really care what people's intentions are cuz it's just a plea for acknowledgement, for people to 'think right', and that ain't my grumpy marxist bag.
OK, I went too far in my response to you but it just rubs me the wrong way to see someone being so dismissive of things that don't really directly affect them (such as representation in the mass media). it's one thing to disagree with it but I don't particularly see the use for ridiculing it in the way that you did (and I don't think your characterization was entirely accurate). if the language ends up essentially being "heh look at these idiots for wanting more blacks in the media" then it's indistinguishable from what racists and the likes say. and I know you're nothing like that.
I should've been more diplomatic in my response to you, sorry about that, and I don't want to keep dragging this out. just to clarify one last thing, I don't think a person's intentions always warrant respect or forgiveness or anything like that, because having the right intentions really doesn't matter one bit if your actions are hurtful, but at least they do mean that they're within the realm of people you take seriously and are capable of engaging on a constructive level. especially if you say something that they hear daily from people who don't have good intentions at all, then all you're gonna get is a visceral reaction.
-
I think what differentiates a platitude/pseudo-critique is that critique questions the object while a pseudo-critique assumes it as premise and in doing so precludes actual criticism. These pseudo-criticisms are actually recuperated and end up reinforcing the state of affairs in very real ways. Unions 'sit at the table' and are actively involved in the process of cutting salaries/benefits and laying people off, women and homosexuals now get the chance to kill and die on the front lines of wars, now we have multiracial cops and prison guards, etc. Great... Lets have a universally fair and unoffensive representation of everyone to be consumed as images holding our attentions between viagra and tampon commercials.
that sounds about right to me. but that raises a question: do we not stand the risk of foregoing real improvements to people's lives in rejecting these institutional structures, which, as you say, serve to strengthen capital? so what you say about unions is true but, ceteris paribus, life in a unionized society would certainly be better than life in one without unionization, just due to the fact unionized workers are able to bargain for health benefits, safety regulations, et cetera. is a stance against the existence of a structure mutually exclusive with a stance on that same structure's internal operational details? and, importantly, is it right to conflate the latter with an explicit rejection of the former?
I mean everything you say sounds correct, and I don't think imperialism is any less bad when the ones killing brown people are gays and women. but to me those seem separate issues. I don't feel conflicted in taking a stance on the military's hiring policy and simultaneously believing the entire military should spontaneously combust.
-
I mean it might be a matter of practicality. strengthening capital means weakening any real reform effort. but that seems to me like it's getting dangerously close to saying "let everything become as bad as possible, let people's latent dissatisfaction with the system become manifest, then we'll be more able to do more serious, game-changing reforms." and I know I once said something similar to you and I know for a fact you don't agree with that characterization. (you recommended "nihilist communism" to me and whoops I've had it for more than a year and haven't gotten around to reading it yet.)
-
I've watched first 3 episodes of this show. maybe i'm just not from a rich enough family or whatever to kind of appreciate a lot of the financial/first world problems. the more social aspects etc. stuff is more interesting, but there isn't really any characters i like either, so that doesn't help.
-
Years later I see all this pretty differently. I dunno where or if Diet Coke is still alive but hey ya dick, how's it going, and thosepeople. I pretty much see where you guys were coming from back then. Looking over my old posts, I wasn't talking total shit, but I definitely get the exasperation and disinterest in this particular demographic. I've started thinking, for example, that feminism means different things to different classes of people. Some motherfuckers are talking about the principle of a tampon tax, some motherfuckers are talking about being forced into a lifetime of servitude and rape. There are degrees and priorities. I begin to see the frustrating stuff about that with a show like Girls, and by the way I stopped watching it in s3 cos it was too stupid by that point.
Finally, I don't know if anyone is still here but hi!
-
Hai Jaime
-
Jammy
-
Jaymee
-
Years later I see all this pretty differently. I dunno where or if Diet Coke is still alive but hey ya dick, how's it going, and thosepeople. I pretty much see where you guys were coming from back then. Looking over my old posts, I wasn't talking total shit, but I definitely get the exasperation and disinterest in this particular demographic. I've started thinking, for example, that feminism means different things to different classes of people. Some motherfuckers are talking about the principle of a tampon tax, some motherfuckers are talking about being forced into a lifetime of servitude and rape. There are degrees and priorities. I begin to see the frustrating stuff about that with a show like Girls, and by the way I stopped watching it in s3 cos it was too stupid by that point.
Finally, I don't know if anyone is still here but hi!
I mean yeah, and then there's the sort of middle-class take on feminism that the gamerverse so vehemently objects to
I think it was since we last talked that I moved to the wealthiest part of america for a job. I've still never watched girls because I'm afraid of how awful it might be, but yeah, they're rich kids? lots of pretty consistently irritating people in those ranks. it's like lack of adversity melted them into walking caricatures of regular people, and they just wanna contrive or buy these genuine experiences for themselves, maybe including being oppressed. ya ofc sexism and everything exists at all levels of society, but when u have kids of wealthy upper/upper-middle class families who get to just skate thru life, and then they start shitting on poor or middle-class kids for having entrenched regressive views like they can in any way relate to their lives, it sucks.
or maybe they're just so used to the lack of adversity that any advent of it in their world really cuts deep? the show probably covers this I guess.
-
All Grown Up And Still Posting About Feminism On A Games Forum