The way I see it, the weak need yet something else to blame for their own failures. Television is merely supplying the demand to alleviate people's miserable existence.
Last edited:
Mr. Rogers was an evil man...
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
What? The dictionary disagrees with you. Please elaborate.
I don't think tallying working hours is relevant. Entitlement is an attitude. Suppose person A works for 10 hours, gets paid $100, and considers it just, while person B works for 11 hours, gets paid $110, and considers it unjust. Does the fact that person B worked an extra hour make them less "entitled"?
You gotta create a good case that the average person of the millennial generation is indeed narcissistic.
Fox's mantra: People suck, you suck, your kids suck, give us you f***ing money and go back to sucking, you suckiest bunch of sucks who ever sucked.
Seriously, listening to anything they say isn't worth the wasted brain cells that commit suicide at the thought.
Seriously, listening to anything they say isn't worth the wasted brain cells that commit suicide at the thought.
S
Shai Gar
Because Mr Rogers is good, and Fox News is the Catholic Churches media outlet.
Turning them into little sexbots?
Turning them into little sexbots?
Okay, perhaps there is some increased narcissism. Is that such a bad thing? We are the newest generation after all and we haven't fucked anything up yet. And are attention seeking and self indulgent behaviors really that bad?
I guess we'll find out in the next 20-30 years, won't we? Personally, I have doubts about real changes in the collective psyche: there have always been arrogant people, and in the past they might have been more careful to put up a facade of humility. But if nurture is responsible for a bona fide shift in individual feelings as well as socially acceptable expressions thereof, I think we have a painful reality check to look forward to. I wonder if we will also see increased rates of cynicism and negativity from this group when they're middle-aged?
The super rich cannot create a neo fuedal state if the slave class all believe they are special.
No to do this they must use the media and the education system to tell the slave class that they are NOT special, that they do NOT deserve certain rights and freedoms, that they MUST tighten their belts and that they MUST work harder.
They talk about 'work ethics' and 'self indulgency' to impose guilt and shame on the slave class so that they will end up policing themselves and each other.
The fact that the super rich were born with everything handed to them on a plate and DIDNT work themselves to the top is apparently not important.
It is so much easier to dominate the population if you can destroy their self esteem. If people have self worth, they start getting ideas of fairness and they start questioning whether the rich should live like kings off the sweat off their backs.
Then as you cut public spending you put out lots of news stories of terrible things happening to people in third world countries so that as the public are being robbed blind by the super rich they will say to themselves: 'i mustn't complain, i mean look at what is happening to those poor people in Pakisthan in that terrible earthquake'.
The whole game really is so simple....they want to dominate us, they ARE dominating us and they will do whatever they can to continue dominating us, whilst concealing the fact that they are dominating us.
The media is their tool....they own it. It is a weapon they use against us.
No to do this they must use the media and the education system to tell the slave class that they are NOT special, that they do NOT deserve certain rights and freedoms, that they MUST tighten their belts and that they MUST work harder.
They talk about 'work ethics' and 'self indulgency' to impose guilt and shame on the slave class so that they will end up policing themselves and each other.
The fact that the super rich were born with everything handed to them on a plate and DIDNT work themselves to the top is apparently not important.
It is so much easier to dominate the population if you can destroy their self esteem. If people have self worth, they start getting ideas of fairness and they start questioning whether the rich should live like kings off the sweat off their backs.
Then as you cut public spending you put out lots of news stories of terrible things happening to people in third world countries so that as the public are being robbed blind by the super rich they will say to themselves: 'i mustn't complain, i mean look at what is happening to those poor people in Pakisthan in that terrible earthquake'.
The whole game really is so simple....they want to dominate us, they ARE dominating us and they will do whatever they can to continue dominating us, whilst concealing the fact that they are dominating us.
The media is their tool....they own it. It is a weapon they use against us.
Last edited:
As one of those gen-y people, the answer is likely 'yes', you will see increased negativity and cynicism in middle ages. Or... more likely, you'll see more floundering around, people goin back to college, etc, as they take jobs and find out they hate them, then try to re-evaluate their life.
As one of the few Perceivers around here, though, I feel like I have to say: the world is not stuck in a pemanently-unfulfilling structure. If the whole generation despises it, we might see either 1. an awful lot of more laid back or interesting work environments (others to follow in Google's footsteps) to try to cater to their workers, or 2. many new sorts of social constructs or forms of entertainment that people try to draw their fulfillment from, in place of their jobs... so instead of simply negativity and cynicism, they might end up forming deeper relationships or finding some new outlet to get their 'fix' from.
As one of the few Perceivers around here, though, I feel like I have to say: the world is not stuck in a pemanently-unfulfilling structure. If the whole generation despises it, we might see either 1. an awful lot of more laid back or interesting work environments (others to follow in Google's footsteps) to try to cater to their workers, or 2. many new sorts of social constructs or forms of entertainment that people try to draw their fulfillment from, in place of their jobs... so instead of simply negativity and cynicism, they might end up forming deeper relationships or finding some new outlet to get their 'fix' from.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q"]YouTube- Mister Rogers defending PBS to the US Senate[/ame]
I loved those puppets =([o_q];330350 said:
I watched the shows just to see the puppets and how X thing was made.
I don't think so. Because even I can love Rogers and I'm against religion in so many ways.
Rogers is is good and godly end of the thread. F#$K fox news.
Okay, this will make me sound like a cold-blooded monster, but: I didn't find Mr. Roger's Senate testimony very compelling. The whole thing seemed... well, childish. Not all that convincing as a case for a $20 million expenditure.
Twenty million? Shit that is chump change to the government. They waste money all the time. Sesame Street is worth the price alone. Not too mention Dr Who and Nature and all the other good shows they have on pbs.
It was an emotional appeal. He didn't exactly provide an empirical justification for the expenditure, and if he had, it probably would not have worked because politics are seldom about what you can prove, and much more about what fundamental values are at stake. I would say calling it "childish" is going too far though, because he maintained incredible professionalism in the face of the scrutiny.