Heartland

zigeunerweisen wrote:The problem is exactly the kind of people that were chosen. Where are the great politicians, thinkers, artists, cientists? People that change the course of history? Why were these people not chosen, why aren't they looked up to as are entertainment celebrities?

The survey was not "merely an effort to discover people's favourite celebrity and the extent of their "devotion" (for want of a better word) to said celebrities". The survey discover what we all knew already, today's world is dominated by pop ideology, materialism and mass culture. The icons of the XXIst century are the beautiful people, the adulation of celebrities.

have you even bothered to click the link provided and take a look at the survey in question? it explicity asks about your "favourite celebrity". from a quick glance, it then goes on to examine individuals' self-worth and body-image and, therefore, appears to be perfectly valid academic research into the impact of celebrity's images on society as a whole.

zigeunerweisen wrote:Although it was a british survey, i'm quite sure the results would be similar if it was conducted in any other country.

given the actual nature of the survey, i'm sure the answers would be similar.

zigeunerweisen wrote:And Richey, i know you're too smart not to know this and that you would love joining me in bombing some of this people just for the fun of seeing them blowing up.

who are we bombing? the celebs? or the people who idolise them?

When I hear the words 'focus group' I reach for my gun.

RicheyJames wrote:

andymackem wrote:Morally bankrupt journalist? And I'm arrogant and superior one?

actually i think you'll find that dismissed your claims to be superior. which i guess in some people's eyes makes me pretty damn arrogant.

A claim which arguably you inferred, but this argument could get too pointless too quickly.

andymackem wrote:As a journalist myself, with a fairly clear moral and ethical code which I do apply on a daily basis in my professional and personal life, I think I'm entitled to tell you to stick your ill-informed preconception of a profession firmly up your arse.

In the nicest possible way, of course.

well, believe it or not, i wasn't aware of your occupation when i wrote that. that's not to say that i don't still believe that the majority of journalists are morally bankrupt (and i think my point that the journalist and/or sub-editor responsible for the story under discussion twisted a valid piece of research to fit their own "story" is still valid, but i'll discuss that later), but i'm quite prepared to accept that there are a few exceptions to this rule and you, mr mackem, may well be one of those exceptions.

That's very touching, but we can argue journalistic ethics some other time without boring the rest of the world. In brief, I'd say that media companies have a greater need to push a slant or an angle than an individual journalist, but that's another matter.

andymackem wrote:As for my right to define a proletariat and look for a solution, I'd argue being a thinking human (as opposed to what appears to be a computer-generated rant machine) qualifies me to have an opinion on the state of my fellow man. Don't tell me you're unhappy because you disagree with me? I'm sure you can do better than that

"computer-generated rant machine" - i like that. i might just edit my profile. my point still stands though. what puts you, me or anyone else in a position to dismiss "the proletariat" in the terms which you used in your original post. this sort of attitude seems particularly prevalent in the goth/alternative "scene" and, quite frankly, is the sort of pretentious nonsense that makes me despair.

Glad you liked it

But surely you or I or anyone else has the right to observe the society they live in and form opinions on it. I'll accept that I have a low opinion of my brethren, and I might even accept that it is arrogant of me (I'm feeling generous this morning).

Perhaps you could show me the "pretentious nonsense" that you found so desperate in the substance of my initial post.

andymackem wrote:Perhaps you could show me the "pretentious nonsense" that you found so desperate in the substance of my initial post.

why? have you already forgotten what you wrote yesterday?

to be honest i didn't have that much of a problem with "The proletariat are morons..." as it's probably a fair assessment of a large proportion of western society.

"There's no point educating these buggers..." on the other hand, is exactly the sort of clap-trap that makes my blood boil. so only people who shar your world view are worthy of education? and at what point do you make this decision? although on the plus side, if we follow your philosophy and turn our backs on science and education and return to a blind faith in some supreme being, there'll be less journalists in future generations...

yesterday, i was practically branded as a nazi for the "crime" of posting a humourous reference to adolf hitler on another thread. strangely though, a thread entitled "Mass killings and eugenics are a good thing" containing assertions that we should not educate the masses and instead treat them to crushing oppression receives little or no opprobrium. interesting comment on our priorities isn't it?

zigeunerweisen wrote:The survey discover what we all knew already, today's world is dominated by pop ideology, materialism and mass culture. The icones of the XXIst century are the beautiful people, the adulation of celebrities.

asking for the second time - on what evidence do you base the change that you imply with the phrase "today's world". Who were the heroes of yesterday?

As for assuming David Beckham is gay... that shows how stuck in the past you are.

MAtT wrote:As for assuming David Beckham is gay... that shows how stuck in the past you are.

So, when was he?

RicheyJames wrote:"There's no point educating these buggers..." on the other hand, is exactly the sort of clap-trap that makes my blood boil. so only people who shar your world view are worthy of education? and at what point do you make this decision? although on the plus side, if we follow your philosophy and turn our backs on science and education and return to a blind faith in some supreme being, there'll be less journalists in future generations...

Surely the only hope for our sorry species is education; I can easily see why the perceived uneducatability (?) of some people can lead to despair, but I see little alternative than to continue to try.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32

Oh, and Richey, shouldn't that be "fewer journalists"?

markfiend wrote:Oh, and Richey, shouldn't that be "fewer journalists"?

it should indeed. mea culpa.

and MatT - sort out your quotes; you've just attributed ziggy's comments to me!

mugabe wrote:

MAtT wrote:As for assuming David Beckham is gay... that shows how stuck in the past you are.

So, when was he?

lol

RicheyJames wrote:and MatT - sort out your quotes; you've just attributed ziggy's comments to me!

Apols - corrected!

RicheyJames wrote:to be honest i didn't have that much of a problem with "The proletariat are morons..." as it's probably a fair assessment of a large proportion of western society.

"There's no point educating these buggers..." on the other hand, is exactly the sort of clap-trap that makes my blood boil. so only people who shar your world view are worthy of education? and at what point do you make this decision? although on the plus side, if we follow your philosophy and turn our backs on science and education and return to a blind faith in some supreme being, there'll be less journalists in future generations...

Fair point, though my argument is more to do with the way in which religion can (sometimes) prompt a measure of idealism that is lacking in much of contemporary society. Perhaps faith would have been a better word to use.

The education part relates more to the way in which large chunks of western society don't seem to take much interest in educating themselves. Are you proposing we should expose people to mind-expanding ideas at gun-point, or simply accept that they are happy leading MacLives in the stagnant corporate pool that has replaced our society.

Keep in mind that despite having alternatives, there are enough people in this country prepared to watch junk like "I'm a Mediocrity..." or "Morons move to a foreign country and are surprised that it's not like home" to ensure that these programmes get made. It's not that there is nothing better to do, but that people choose not to do it.

I'm not suggesting that only people who share my perspective deserve education, but I might suggest that most people who don't share my world view would prefer to remain in their environment. To me that environment is limited and inferior. It may be arrogant of me to believe so, but in fairness to myself I have tried to avoid it and live my own life while being largely apathetic to the (poor) choices made by the masses.

Fewer journalists? Can I pick some of the ones to go?

As one of the masses who spent yesterday evening watching Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Eastenders, Coronation Street again, I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here (ITV1) and I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here (ITV2), I was just wondering what outstanding contribution to society you superior beings made last night.

Harry
I thought that was the wife sitting next to me last night. Evidently not.....

well i missed corrie and 'enders due to an important appointment with a couple of pints of stella, but wasn't i'm a celeb... fab? go johnny!

Thrash Harry wrote:As one of the masses who spent yesterday evening watching Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Eastenders, Coronation Street again, I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here (ITV1) and I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here (ITV2), I was just wondering what outstanding contribution to society you superior beings made last night.

well i had a w*nk

A wink? Eh?

Yeah. Can't wait to see how he gets on with the ostriches tonight.

RicheyJames wrote: who are we bombing? the celebs? or the people who idolise them?

Bomb the idolotrous, use male celebrities as shooting targets and keep female celebrities as sex slaves.

MAtT wrote: asking for the second time - on what evidence do you base the change that you imply with the phrase "today's world". Who were the heroes of yesterday?

Before TV, philosophers, scientists, musicians, dancers, thinkers, warriors, etc. Anyone that was extraordinary in some field.

After TV, anyone with a pretty face.

As for assuming David Beckham is gay... that shows how stuck in the past you are.

Like i said, men having sex with each other are straighter than David Beckham.

He paints his nails
He dyes his hair
He said he likes to wear his wife's lingerie
He changes his hair-do more frequently than his wife
He dresses ALL in white, pants, shirt, jacket, socks and shoes far to many times
He wears too much jewelry
He's the poster boy for the fashion victim awards along with fellows Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin
He's better known for being the husband of an anorexic former girl band member than for his football capabilities
He is known as Mr. posh spice or spice boy
He liked Titanic
Whenever he's not playing football he's taking pictures with that boy band look-at-me-i'm-so-dreamy-and-i-even-have-my-eyes-half-closed-and-my-arms-crossed-while-looking-away look
He is a teen idol
He as written is autobiography, he's not even 30 yet.

Homosexual men are more manly than David Beckham.

I couldn't care less if he was all this but kept it private, but when he is used to sell a certain kind of lifestyle that we all should aspire to, that he's something or someone that we should look up to, or that he is the kind of man that we should try to be, than i have a problem with him.

Thrash Harry wrote:As one of the masses who spent yesterday evening watching Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Eastenders, Coronation Street again, I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here (ITV1) and I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here (ITV2), I was just wondering what outstanding contribution to society you superior beings made last night.

Went to the gym in order to keep my body healthy. Corpore sano
I studied for my exams and read a few things online. Mens sana
I had a chat and flirted with a lady friend of mine. Continuation of the species
I made my dinner and ate it while watching the news. My own selfish well being

Not much of a contribution to society in general i agree, but certainly it isn't worse than yours.

andymackem wrote: ...
I'm not suggesting that only people who share my perspective deserve education, but I might suggest that most people who don't share my world view would prefer to remain in their environment. To me that environment is limited and inferior. It may be arrogant of me to believe so, but in fairness to myself I have tried to avoid it and live my own life while being largely apathetic to the (poor) choices made by the masses.

What he said.

children, children, whatever happened to tolerance ? your education of me is my oppression by you, the line is just too thin to stand on.

oppression, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. just because it's good for you doesn't make it attractive and quite the opposite usually.

frankly, if the masses prefer mcdonalds to duck a l'orange when both are available to them, who gives a damn? all the more for those of us for whom the finer things in life lie outwith the golden arches. and so on, in similar vein regarding music, sport, clothes, people, guitars, cars, yada yada yada

wintermute wrote:frankly, if the masses prefer mcdonalds to duck a l'orange when both are available to them, who gives a damn? all the more for those of us for whom the finer things in life lie outwith the golden arches.

couldn't have put it better myself. welcome aboard wintermute. although i'm still a little concerned by the intolerance of society in general displayed by some members of this board.

and ziggy - chill out mate. you're making me look positively fluffy and cuddly today!