I’m trying to understand something. In the course of general conversation we all come across subjects that some people find upsetting and get emotional about. It’s usually politics or religion. As a rabble rouser and general trouble maker these are my favorite topics to bring up. But what I’ve recently come across is somewhat odd to me. Criticism of TV, as an activity, not any specific show, seems to evoke the most heated responses, even more so than criticism of religion. Why the hell would that be? I can’t figure it out.
Seriously?? 
Perhaps if you don’t think of as “just being touchy” and listen to what the complaints are actually about?
And that some might be more valid that people realize…just a thought.
Religion doesn’t compare.
I’m not sure i understand your comment, or maybe you misunderstood mine…
I’m uncertain why people get more upset when television is criticized than when religion is. I certainly understand criticism of TV, I’m usually the one doing it.
Do you understand when people get upset about other people complaining of their religion?
A religious person might go to church once a week and perhaps pray before meals 3 times a day.
The far more typical person (as well as many of those same religious people) get hypnotized by their TV for hours everyday and twice as much on weekends. If your business was about hypnotizing people, aren’t you smart enough to be sure to first hypnotize them into the idea that they can’t be hypnotized and to defend their right to do whatever they want?
Those people who used to come to your door don’t often do that any more… they’re already in your homes.
In the much older days, castles had priest holes… for more reasons than you probably think.
Man made gods, just like magicians, have two hands; one with which to make distractions and one with which to make adjustments. Nothing has changed in the world except for the technology with which it is all done.
I think then that we essentially agree. TV is much more powerful than religion, at least in he US. And so criticism of TV is met with hostility, much like criticism of religion used to be met with hostility, instead of a rational defense.
That’s it.
…just much stronger now.
Technology is great.
It allows monkeys to manipulate, kill, and destroy as if they were men.
Just show me where TV has hypnotized me. If I were to defend it it would be because for many people there aren’t many alternative ways to spend their time. If there must be a problem, then it is with modern society. When someone has to choose between staring at a wall and TV, what do you propose?
Really? When are your only options stare at a wall or watch TV, besides jail? Are you implying that before the 1950s all people did was stare at the wall? Perhaps your post is a great example of how TV has hypnotized you. Your defense of TV is “there’s nothing better to do.”
You may be at loss as to what to think of my comment, but you’re not unfamiliar with TV. Perhaps your imagination, empathy and ability to understand the word “many” has been affected by watching too much TV.
I think Costanza’s point is that if, I for example, were to point out one of the VERY many ways that it is being done, it would be even worse that Jesus in the Temple or the heretic on a religious forum (or me on Felix’s forum).
“Hypnosis” means “under the knowing” or “without realizing” or “when unaware”. Once it gets talked about enough, too many people become aware. “They” (the social engineers involved) seriously don’t like having to constantly change tactics and hide former obvious attempts. The fall of Ahdam and Eve is that very same story. Ahdam was never supposed to be seen. But once exposed, “WHO told you that you were naked?” They got caught and could never live it down… bye bye “paradise” and the God-wannabe running it.
Specific criticism of TV is no problem. The quality of the shows has declined rapidly in the late 90s and never recovered, commercials are sometimes being run as long as the show itself. But, all encompassing criticism of TV fails to understand the state the culture’s in. Firstly, Costanza fails to recall that many people are stuck inside do to illness, but many others are still reliant on TV in a modern society where many have long forgotten what activities people did with their time outside of TV and furthermore the means or the general societal framework necessary for those activities have been significantly diminished.
But you’re both right in that criticizing what people spend hours everyday watching and talking about is likely to infuriate people more than criticizing a subject of much lesser import in most people’s lives, especially religion and atheism. Niether of those beliefs necessarily have to have a social aspect to them; someone can quietly have them. If one is going to speak of them online they often do so with the expectation of their beliefs being criticized. TV is naturally about both socialization or a substitute for socialization, when people speak of it they aren’t anticipating being told that they are being mislead or wasting their time.
It is their “perception of hope”, their “entertainment”, relief from their “perception of threat”, “stress” (from PHT; “Perception of Hope and Threat” that drives all living entities).
People’s religion is that same thing. It is their perception of hope, “as long as I (and we) keep doing X, everything will work out in the end so it’s okay to feel bad right now.”
As a small relatively innocent example;
During the 1990’s (although starting in the late 80’s), it would be nearly impossible to find a pop Hollywood film or pop TV show wherein any actor smoked a cigarette and didn’t immediately cough, usually followed by a standerby expressing disdain. I found it a little funny when toward the end of that stint, someone made a fear film wherein every single person in the film, including the nun and the monster smoked… and none of them coughed. 
Of course the intent was obviously wholesome and good…
…right?
Everyone knows that smoking causes cancer…
…right?
Especially “second hand smoke”…
… right?
There is no reason for anyone to object to such hypnotic, subtle influence on the children…
… right?
Many people today when walking by someone smoking will quite unintentionally cough and feel disgusted.
But interestingly Science proved long ago that smoking has very little to do with cancer. Anything foreign to the body helps a cancer more than it does the body, but that isn’t a “cause”. Cancer became so prevalent immediately after a special team in about 1955 or so discovered, due to a young woman’s experiments with rats, that a little extra microwave type of radiation greatly increases cancer in rats. Of course other forms of radiation does as well (along with special retroviruses).
What do you see in your kitchen right now?
By what means does your cell phone communicate?
By what means do TV broadcasts get distributed?
Until the recent flat screen TVs, guess what was emitting from your TV set and every PC monitor?
How do you think your laptop communicates on the Internet?
Do you see such concerns being a part of every Hollywood film?
That is one tiny, almost insignificant example. 10 years ago, when I mentioned that type of thing going on, and seriously not pushing it, just casually mentioning it, I received a rather harsh backlash demanding proof, as if someone is going to have an online account of such activity for everyone to read. I was immediately accused, amongst other things of being not merely a “crackpot”, but even “antisemitic” 
. And of course, I still carry the reputation from that… moss sticks to rolling stones these days. The more serious issues will create far more serious reaction when mentioned… and some are pretty damn serious.
That’s why I don’t have a microwave or a cell phone, but damnit I didn’t think about the box TV, I’m going to have to reconsider flat screens…
I agree that this obsession against smoking is stupidity. Firstly, I don’t think many people who’ve put in a 70 hour work week of actual physical labor have criticized smoking. Second hand smoke is truly a problem for many, though I wish those who aren’t actually made ill by it would shut the hell up about it, unless they never shut up about any of the wrongs of the world they must deal with - noisy, unpleasant and unproductive, but at least consistent.
‘Second hand drivers’ are much worse, I don’t understand the highway patrol, they do give out some tickets, but often for speeding when in clearly safe conditions otherwise, but all they have to do is drive around the highway during rush hour and they can spot truly reckless dangerous driving almost immediately, usually through people running towards a car going 20 mph less than them and then switching lanes at the last second - there would be no waiting by the side of the road in those conditions, it would simple by merge into traffic, pull over some stupid shit, then merge right back into traffic.
Or take workplace safety, no one who’s worked in factories or warehouses actually thinks that most injuries couldn’t be prevented by competent management. And I hardly even have to mention jackasses driving down the road in RVs, my god, where’s the shame imposed upon them? Speaking of TV, there’s a show that glories people who simply must bring everything with them on their road trips; necessitating two trailers hooked up to an actual semi truck.
All very good reasons to use hypnosis on the masses whenever possible…
… right?
I understand that the producers of TV shows and commercials are often given a more subtle agenda, but many of the issues I presented are praised or criticized by competing interests. It seems to me that such issues are just people being people. You mentioned the historical nature of hypnotism; where and when has someone not been bullshitting someone else for their own benefit?
When throughout history have people NOT been trying to dominate and control all people throughout the world and killing them to get it done?
Are you saying that it is all okay as long as it has precedence?
TV, or technological communication in general, is the most recent, most insidious “Weapon of Mass Destruction” ever known to Man… how else could he be a god?
A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a situation.
… and always invisible… unseen… unknowable… yet exercising the most influence while the subjects are unaware; “hypnosis”.
In concrete situations we deal with the effects of human nature as best we can, just like we do bad weather, in the abstract, the more obvious aspects of human nature are not something we really need to define as good or bad or ok or not. It’s when something seems to be outside of human nature that we need to define it qualitatively in the abstract as well as the concrete. It’s endemic that when large amount of people live relatively peacefully in a relatively small area that they will largely share the same opinions. And many aspects of that world, including TV and people in power, can be seen as part of the cause of that problem of shared opinions, if we must define it as a problem.
You’re right Stuart, I’m not unfamiliar with TV, as evidenced by pseudonym on this board. I’m also not unfamiliar with drugs or alcohol, is that an argument in favor of drugs or alcohol?
Criticism of specific television shows has its place, content is a driving force in the manipulation of the public. Read about The Sabido Method. deceptivetechniques.wordpress.co … do-method/
Now, sure, everyone is pushing their own agenda here and there, always has been that way. But TV is different, because it’s not JUST content, the medium itself plays a large part. TV is literally hypnotic, putting most people into an alpha brain state, which is a relaxed or hypnotic state, as opposed to to the beta state, which is wide awake. Look up the 1969 experiement by a man named Krugman (tvsmarter.com/documents/krugman.html).
The argument that there is nothing better to do or that people don’t remember how to live without TV is not an argument at all, it’s an excuse for watching TV. I’m not 100% anti tv, I certainly enjoy it for time to time, but we have a huge problem here and it can’t be discussed rationally by most people, because they get upset at the mere thought of turning of the TV.
When intentionally manipulative content, which in some cases is the whole purpose of a given show and almost always present in at least of a portion of every show, is mixed with a medium that is LITERALLY a hypnosis inducing medium, the results can only be bad.
Edit for Stuart’s last post: that seems to be saying that you agree with the manipulation because it is shaping opinions into conformity. You have no problem with a handful of people shaping opinions for a whole nation, or planet? Who do you think those opinions are designed to benefit?
I maintain that I, and you and James as well, are not being fooled. So why should we care?
The powerful obviously, and we all know how happy they are.
Seriously, if the powerful are in lock step about hypnoses then they must be hypnotized as well. But, the powerful are as independent or dependent minded as anyone, and therefore they have competing interests as to who they should fool - when they are actually intentionally trying to fool anyone at all - and they are generally TV watchers themselves, prone to the same supposed hypnoses as anyone else.
I was just being humorous when I was suggesting that TV may be the reason you couldn’t think of more examples of people with nothing to do with their time. I don’t even take this following comment overly seriously, but it must be said: Do to your familiarity, how you represent TV, drugs and alcohol is somewhat indicative of their harmfulness. If it was the only indictor I had on them I would judge them to be harmless intellectually, but possibly producing some naivety about the millions who suffer quietly - often with a TV on.
But, not you… Common, I say that as a compliment. When I watch TV I can’t stop thinking, which is usual for me, but maybe I think slightly less frantically, sort of like when I’m drunk. Harmfulness is relative; you tell a perfectly healthy person on your couch to go run around outside, you tell a marathon runner to take a break for once.
Just a thought, but if you were to make all encompassing criticisms about TV to people who most often enjoy the great world I call not-the-couch/TV/computer, you may not find so much objection.
Your going to have to spell out this utopia you foresee would happen if the world suddenly became an honest free-flow of information.