The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Middle Ground of the Culture Wars
Podly
you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
So the Norman Lear Center has done a survey on American culture, and - surprise! - liberals hate Fox News and conservatives like Nascar. There have been a lot of terrible, stereotypical analysis on both sides. However, the responses by the moderates are, to me, very intriguing. Moderates were more likely to listen to watch tv (being more likely to watch children's programing and day-time tv) and less likely to listen to folk and classical music. Moderates like Rock the Best, and the most watched movie by moderates was The Da Vinci Code. Now, I am taking a different view on the culture wars: Give me something! To quote The Big Lewbowski: "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
There will be no political or cultural progress with a middle ground that just wants to be left alone to its soap operas and yacht rock. A more liberal culture is pretty desirous to many on this board, including yours truly, for many reasons which have been discussed ad nauseam. Those people represent a third of the country. Another third represent people who want to turn back to the cultural clock. However, the final third seems to not have a care either way. One side prefers intelligent entrainment, one side prefers entertainment that suits their values, yet one side just wants to be entertained: and I think this is the biggest evil of them all.
There will be no political or cultural progress with a middle ground that just wants to be left alone to its soap operas and yacht rock. A more liberal culture is pretty desirous to many on this board, including yours truly, for many reasons which have been discussed ad nauseam. Those people represent a third of the country. Another third represent people who want to turn back to the cultural clock. However, the final third seems to not have a care either way. One side prefers intelligent entrainment, one side prefers entertainment that suits their values, yet one side just wants to be entertained: and I think this is the biggest evil of them all.
Podly on
0
Posts
I'm a little surprised at how narrow-minded conservatives and moderates were on music. I thought jazz was pretty much everyone's cup of tea.
I'm really hope it's not but...you know...jungle music....
Why should people listen to you? Because you think you're right? They think they're right too. I'm as liberal as they come, but I think that telling people they're inferior, or somehow wrong, for liking what they like is as "evil" as being a reactionary Bible-thumper who wants women back in the kitchen and Jesus teaching science.
Edit: Hooray for accidentally saying the exact opposite of what I meant to say.
A farting contest < A night at the opera.
EDIT: Also, would you say people who are moderates because they're surrounding by luxury and entertainment are evil? I'd call them addicts first. A person who watches American idol religiously versus a crack head isn't the right kind of comparison but I can see how both addicts wouldn't care one whit if America, say, killed 5,000 civilians in a foreign land this weekend. A book that's a real page-turner isn't on the same level as a crack pipe, I know. I still think a person can be addicted to TV the same way people can become addicted to gambling and MMOs.
Just giving the survey data a once over, the purple group seems to be a consistent midpoint between the other two. When you consider the fact that the center is mostly defined by people who go right on some issues and left on the others, it seems the middle is more a mixing of the two extremes on each issue than a waffling and indifferent group.
Maybe.
Is your opinion on physics as good as Stephen Hawkings, because, he doesn't know if it's really true. Why should I listen to Sidney Schama when he talks about the French Revolution, because he's got such a bias? Hell, why should I take a stance at all. There's a difference between respecting the opinions of others or being afraid, lazy, or spineless. I'll tell you what - I do believe that my opinion on literature is more important than pretty much everybody I meet. Why? Because I read a whoooole lot of books. I understand them. I know how they work, and what the value is in them. I don't know anything about environmental sciences, so you I will shut up and listen to an environmentalist when they speak and then seek the opinions of others for a synoptic reading of the issue. The most racist person ever can tell me that I am wrong when it comes to housing issues and gentrification if they have a degree in it, because I really would just be talking out of my ass.
I'm inclined to agree, but not for any verifiable reason. There's no quantifiable, scientific reason why a traditionally "cultured" event, like the opera, is objectively superior to any other event. Getting hostile with people because they like things you consider stupid or low-brow is one of the best ways to get them to dislike you.
To the above, cause I don't want to have another quoted post: No, of course I don't think my opinion about physics is any better than Stephen Hawking's, but you're creating a false dichotomy. Literature, art, music, etc, are all entirely subjective things. Art and science aren't equal in this regard, as one is based on falsifiable, reproducible evidence, whereas the other is, to quote, "Just, like, your opinion man."
A big problem is that they are releasing the demographics without the important data. I'm interested in finding how the data truly reflect the middle ground.
To be fair, this isn't exactly a valid comparison. All the things you are talking about are effectively objective (the literature is the odd man out, but knowing what's being debated is objective there, while the debate may not be). Entertainment is subjective, since the entire point is what the person experiencing it is getting out of it.
If I find watching a race more interesting than an opera, there is no small amount of arbitrary judgement in calling my pursuit less intelligent.
In our largely polar system, both poles are full of psychotics driven by magical thinking and a hard-on for their extreme visions of life and/or simple manipulative greed.
The middle ground is just trying to ignore both.
And so far attempts for a third direction have met with stupid.
Really at this point, any survey worth looking at basically needs to be completely transparent. The flip side of improved understanding of the field is that a skilled but unscrupulous (or just sloppy) operator can create any effect under the sun.
Show me a complete respondant breakdown, versus the population in question, the full text of all the questions, and all the raw data and we'll talk.
But here's the thing - you don't even understand what opera is. Carmen, one of the most popular operas, is actually an opera comique and pretty much your average soap opera with some pretty interesting songs. That's cultural relativism. Nas' Illmatic is much, much more highbrow and serious than many operas. However, as a culture we have been trained to shy away from value judgments. I will always take the stance that I did when I just talked about music, just as a person on the religious right will always take a stance that gospel music is the best because it's the holiest. However, I regard that opinion as much more valuable than someone's favorite music being "The Eagles because it's good to listen to on the way home from work."
I don't understand opera? Wow, you must be some kind of incredible psychic to be able to delve into my brain and gauge my knowledge of opera from across the internet.
We've been trained, as a culture if you like, to shy away from value judgments regarding things like entertainment because it's just an opinion. You can have a more informed opinion, a more educated one, a more experienced on, but ultimately it's just YOURS. This isn't biology, there's isn't a substance you can extract in greater quantities from King Lear than you can from a Danielle Steele novel, therefore proving that it's better to like Shakespeare.
It's not valuable enough for most people to study up on all the context and, in addition, to learn how to understand the language it's being sung in.
"Intelligent" art is basically just art you have to study for. Understanding it is a sign of having excess leisure time that you haven't spent trying to earn money or to advance your field.
TV has replaced it and its ilk for most people because they're easier for Joe Truck Driver to access in every aspect.
--
I'm implying that the bulk of moderates spend the majority of their time trying to ignore politics, or to balance them so that the two competing extremes cancel each other out, so they can get on with their lives without being raped by taxes or corporate power mongering.
Nothing is wrong with wanting to be entertained. I watch Gossip Girl with my girlfriend because we get a big kick out of it. However, we live in a culture where entertainment, the media, and communication are THE major connecting forces in life, both intra and inter. Liberals watch many documentaries, Conservatives love country, which I believe is because of the moral message in both of them. The middle, however, seems to want to be entertained waaaaaay more than enlightened / instructed / plain old learnin'.
I hate to keep picking at this issue, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You're confusing the depth of YOUR interest with the absolute depth of a field. Just because you understand and appreciate all the shades of depth in your field of choice does not make your opinion that said field is the best and less subjective.
Put another way, do you honestly think there's no one who can speak as deeply about rock (or NASCAR, or what have you) as you can about opera? What exactly makes them less intellectual than you, other than your belief that's the case?
I don't think the middle is the most dangerous though. I think if they tried to take a side they'd probably be split down the middle anyway, leaving us with the same situation. I have to say it's reasonable to just not CARE about culture that much. There's a lot of beautiful, subtle works of art out there, but some people just aren't that hardwired to enjoy them, or they focus on other things for enjoyment.
I'll of course side with the liberals. Honestly that seems like a 'moderate' outlook to me - I don't force jazz on other people, but I enjoy it and listen to it. I like to eat a variety of foods and watch indy flicks, but again, I don't force them on people that I don't think would enjoy them. Only enjoying a narrow spectrum of things is pretty self defeating in the united states, where diversity is becoming more and more commonplace.
But you called it the greatest evil of all.
I'm not following your thesis here.
No, I do. For instance, I know a great deal about sports - more than a good deal of Americans, and I think NASCAR is ridiculously stupid. However, if a NASCAR expert were to inform me about his sport, I might be swayed by his opinion, and I should certainly respect his opinion and at least watch a race, keeping what they said in mind.
I'm still not seeing, at all, where this is coming from beyond stereotype. Maybe I'm missing something in the survey, but I neither see a direct connection between what the middle selects entertainment-wise and an intellectual void OR any conclusive proof that if such a connection does exist it doesn't completely miss a non-media based search for enlightenment.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33708
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8
I was kind of floored when I realized the daytona 500 was a 500 mile race. That's some impressive stamina. I mean, it's still boring but it's kind of wowing nonetheless.
I see. I meant entertainment is great. When I come home from classes, I like to watch tv for a half an hour or so to cool off. But then I do something mentally engaging or worthwhile to me. When entertainment qua entertainment, simply tuning out, becomes the dominant action in your life, it is bad.
I guess a good summary of my opinion is: As an American, I may hate your beliefs, but will give my life to protect them; I would have a hard time giving up my life to protect the right to apathy.
I love their smug attitudes though, as though they were the real critical thinkers in the mix. Way too smart to buy into what those lying politicians tell them.
That seems sort of retarded, outside of the deeply-ingrained military-esque patriotism crap everyone is fed.
--
Eh. Both conservatives and "liberals" are largely ass hats, and it doesn't take any education to affiliate with them. Have you ever actually been involved in politics? I've been involved in some of the recent regulatory efforts that have come down to some serious politics... people leaving and being fired from six digit salary jobs... and I haven't seen a side I didn't want to be devoured by Cthulhu in order to make the madness stop.
I was going to take your first point and analyze it a little bit, and then compliment you on your av, new poster.
Then I read the handle...and was all wait a second!
I can't help but feel that the label of "moderate" is inadequate. Does it denote the intensity to which a person espouses a belief, or does it denote where on the spectrum a person's political beliefs are? Moderate responses should generally fall in the middle of a Lickert scaling on politically divisive questions, but what does "somewhat agree" or "somewhate disagree" really mean when it's a legal/not legal kind of item? That's not to say this study used those, it's just that many of the political rating scales I've seen lately haven't measured moderacy as much as they've measured knowledge of the issue.
Even if it is ingrained patriotic crap, you'll win few friends if you're going to say out loud that you wouldn't, say, pull a stranger out of a burning car.
Wow, you called other people retards, your point is proven. Your example is a ridiculously specific piece of evidence which only an idiot would generalize from.
Pulling a stranger out of a car 1) does not guarantee they are less valuable than myself and 2) does not make me automatically dead.
Don't strawman me. :P
--
Shinto: Are you honestly suggesting that on average Republicans and Democrats are all a bunch of highly educated, sophisticated, non-asshats?
Because they don't seem to advertise the fact very well.
Knowing how to manipulate doesn't de-asshat you.
Or to take a more direct example from your first post, why is classical and folk music more inherently valuable than rock?
Your posts in this thread are just a whole lot of "god damn am I ever awesome."
Ahem...
.. I believe you meant "From which only an idiot would generalize."
This is another area I believe the primacy of subject has hurt our culture. In the 70s, language changed from being viewed as a mode of communications to a mode of expression. Grammar has become worse, and rhetoric is more or less non-existent. By believing that everyone has something to say (which is very, very true) we have largely ignored the necessary work of teaching grammar - which is always oppressive, as we know. :P
Those with higher partisan affiliation are better informed on current events and have more consistent positions on issues.
Independents are usually not the heroic critical thinkers who aren't fooled by the puppet masters. They are just not interested in politics and not particularly well informed. They have this glorious sense of entitlement though and the attitudes of spoiled children.
Well you basically just called the politically uninterested idiots.
Well, because the operas that have survived tend to be on a higher scale than mainstream television. In 100 years, when tv is obsolete, people will wonder why television was so good as compared with the current medium of communication, as only the good shows will stay around. Opera is not inherently better than tv - the opera canon is better than the top rated shows.
Again, Classical music is inherently more valuable than rock because "Classical Music" is actually the summit of musical achievement from approximately 1750-1930.
I would say classical music is more valuable, but THAT is a subjective statement which I do not think should rightly be forced upon people - even though I greatly enjoy it.
Is informed the same thing as intelligent/educated/sophisticated?
Because I refer you to the obscene percentages of republicans who think we found WMD in Iraq and who believe in Creationism, or the equally obscene number of Democrats who believe in something stupid (examples escape me, but it's a given they're out there).