search instagram arrow-down

Copyright Notice

© rauldukeblog and The Violent Ink 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to The Violent Ink and rauldukeblog The Violent Ink with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Archive

Kool Capitalism.

Coincentral has a new article by Christina Comben, that you can (and should) read here:

https://coincentral.com/alphanetworks-seth-shapiro/

Titled: AlphaNetworks Founder Seth Shaprio Says the Media Business is Broken and Everybody Knows it, the article is, an unintentional critique of the fundamental structures of Capitalism, Capitalist Realism and the Neo-Liberal narrative.

It is also manifestation of a Third Wave Capitalism, rebranded, and presenting itself as Kool.

First Wave Capitalism was the Industrial Revolution, and Second Wave Capitalism was mass industrialization, mass society, and industrial war and industrial genocide. Third Wave Capitalism is the hallmark of postindustrial society in which technology is harnessed to raise the dead (Capitalism) and sell the ongoing destruction of the environment, to create a dystopia in which exploitation, degradation, and the traditional definition of the worker to owner hierarchy is maintained but is rebranded as kool – a better tasting fewer calories injection of the same old retrograde relationships.

Consider the opening:

“Another day, another blockchain company resolved to take on the broken media and advertising industries.

It’s a pretty common assumption that current models are failing on many fronts. Viewers are forced to watch ads they have no interest in. Advertisers pay to irritate the wrong audience. As for the content creators? They’re mostly scraping by on cup-noodles in dimly-light apartments.”

The first sentence is accurate but its true purpose is to alert the reader to what follows. This is not only an accurate description of the media landscape but it is an accurate description of the entire socio-economic-political structure and covers both the neo-fascist narrative of Steve Bannon and the populism and ersatz leftism of Bernie Sanders. The content creators, in this version are a specific class of workers – including but not limited to people who write scripts, or design webpages, or produce podcasts, etc. but, while that is true, it is also a description of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of worker-bees, stripped of union protection, basic civil liberties, and any hope of organizing to change their status as disposable commodities.

Comben quotes Shapiro to that effect without his actually coming out and saying that he’s describing the entire system:

““That’s how I would define broken,” says Seth Shapiro Founder of media company AlphaNetworks. “Things are broken when the creator isn’t really happy, and the consumer isn’t really happy and no one feels like they got a great deal. They’re all just trying to get by and I think we can do a lot better.” ”

Needless to say, in what amounts to being so obvious as to rise to the level of a banality, what Shapiro is describing is Marxism 101. The worker is alienated from their labor and is reduced to the status of either a serf or a slave, devoid of anything except a sense of impotent rage and crippling alienation.

Of course Shapiro is what we would define as an Enlightened Capitalist or a proponent of Capitalist Kool. He is not interested in ending capitalism, per se, but he is interested in modifying it so it is less awful than it is currently configured.

Consider this description of Shapiro’s background and his goals:

“”With a background in psychology and a passion for music, Seth worked as a producer of an independent record label, learning two valuable lessons early on. First, that organizational psychology is fundamental to success. “So much of innovation has to do with the culture of the company,” he says. And second, “never go into a business that’s not expanding.””

It is no accident that Shapiro is from a different world than the standard corporate CEO psychopath. This is not to say he isn’t a capitalist but it is to highlight the intrinsic ruthless thuderdome nature of capitalism as it is of course committed to an “organizational psychology” that takes labor as replaceable, and defined as being an intelligent hammer or screwdriver. That is, its organizational psychology is a kind of postmodern feudalism in which the worker’s purpose is obedience to the hierarchy which of course is based on exploitation. Once the tool has outlived its usefulness – to the owner – it is discarded.

Shapiro’s point that businesses that aren’t expanding should be avoided is of course, standard capitalist dogma – the market must grow – even if it’s at the expense of everything else, including its own viability.

Shapiro is here expressing the standard contradictions of capitalism. Treating employees and consumers with respect is of course contrary to the heart of the system and ultimately impossible as a long term strategy. Either the workers must be emancipated, which means at the very least socialism (or something a lot like it), or they must be consumed, which means the collapse of capitalism into either anarchy, or fascism.

Shapiro is here revealed to be entering through the front door of enlightened commerce and exiting through the back door of Lehman Brothers before the crash.

Which is not to define Shaprio as a fool or an idiot. He is neither. He is an odd duck in the sense that he arrives in the corporate world with a resume that includes backgrounds in music, and music production as well as experience in writing computer code. In other words, a creative soul able to empathize and sympathize. But at the same time, he is using those abilities to refine what is an immoral, illogical and impractical system.

Able to perceive mutually exclusive ideas at the same time and continue to function, Shapiro offers a pitch perfect analysis of Social Media but, unless the interview was edited, he fails to see how his description is about the entire system in which Social Media is a subcategory:

““I think in many fundamental ways, YouTube is broken,” he says. “There was a lot of promise in the idea of broadcast yourself or the influencer-driven age. But the fact is that we’re in an environment where anybody’s content can be pulled down off of a platform at any time for any reason. And only 3 percent of all the total contributors earn above the poverty line. That to me seems like it’s not an optimal model.

As influencer culture becomes more and more important and as more people have the ability and the talent to make good videos, there ought to be a way for them to make a living. It’s not just YouTube, it’s Facebook as well. I think that trying to build a video-based business or trying to build a business on YouTube or Facebook is like trying to build a house on somebody else’s land. You’re just waiting for the other shoe to fall.””

Trying to build a house on someone else’s land is of course the crux of the capitalist dilemma. The relentless commodification of all things means, by definition, that all things are always waiting for the other shoe to drop. What Shapiro has described is not confined to Social Media but is the perilous state of the entire system.

Naturally Shapiro sees a solution to the dilemma in blockchain – the backbone of cryptocurrencies. The problem is of course, as we have outlined previously, that the Federal Government will never allow an unregulated currency to exist and no matter how the currency is defined by its users what will matter is how the government defines it. As a result cryptocurrencies no matter how innovative, no matter how much of a sabot in the gears of the traditional system, can not escape from the system without genuine resistance. Since that is not its ultimate goal it remains trapped.

Consider this set of points which we quote at length:

“Apart from a working product and some pretty insane partnerships, the company is thinking way into the future. Through Watson AI, they can actually extract facial and auditory recognition and learn the types of content viewers enjoy the most to target highlights to them. Creepy or cool?

“Watson has full visual recognition and full auditory recognition and can begin to extract metadata and subject matter and tonality and sentiment,” Seth says. They already tried it out editing high-quality football reels.

“We’re looking to really deepen the metadata and the information about programming and to do deeper data analysis on what people are really responding to and then to be able to more effectively get them more stuff that they really like without having to wade through thousands and thousands of stuff. If you consider an environment like YouTube, if you’re not searching for a particular artist, it can be very challenging to find something. You need a much deeper curation and data science approach.” ”

If you’re not foolish, and at all literate, you will be reminded of any number of dystopian portraits from William Gibson’s Cyberpunk to P.K. Dick’s Blade Runner to, Huxley and Orwell.

The idea of the machines reading our faces to better serve us by which it means using us to serve the machines, and those who profit from them, is both laughable and terrifying.

Make no mistake this particular nightmare is getting closer every day. That the ongoing collapse of the environment will probably make it irrelevant is no comfort as it means that in order to treat your headache History will cut off your legs.

Where Shaprio says his aim is to deepen (i.e., exploit) metadata, without mentioning the post Edward Snowden Big Brother reality of mass surveillance, and the fact that it is by definition a kind of comfortable tyranny (for the bourgeoise and the ruling class), essentially tells you everything you need to know about the man and the absurdity of the system in which he operates.

The more stuff people want mantra is tone deaf at best, and at worst the same old same old approach of every other corporatist going back to P.T. Barnum and ultimately back through the ages to the idea of bread and circuses.

Speaking of The Internet of things, Shapiro offers this accurate if pointy-headed view of your future:

“…Video consumption, as soon as things like self-driving cars proliferate, basically people are going to have hours and hours more screen time. There’s going to be nothing else to do. You’re going to see the proliferation of more and more what we used to think of as screens and then eventually our kids will be like, ‘Oh, that was so cute! They used to watch these devices. How old-fashioned.’ It’ll just be out here in your field of vision with augmented reality and stuff. There’s going to be a larger and larger audience for more, I don’t want to call it niche, but more types and areas of programming that haven’t even been invented yet.””

In other words, a captive audience, devoid of choice, is told it has every choice so long as it takes something from the prescribed lists, and gives up its autonomy to driverless cars (themselves drones controlled by satellites controlled by server farms), and a never ending stream of advertising and content injected straight to their eyeballs as capitalism transforms itself into a psychic heroin delivered by a dirty needle that is itself the totality of the toxic system.

At the end, Comben like a postmodern Pandora, raises the warning flag but also offers a hope for some sort of soft capitalism:

“Contemplating wandering around in a personalized, driverless bubble, watching content and advertising collide with the real world, it’s hard to imagine having any contact with our kids at all. But then, throughout out the ages technology has been brandished as detrimental to society. Perhaps if we have an ecosystem in which all stakeholders are happy and the value flows in the right direction, we may be able to reconcile with technology after all.”

Of course being a stakeholder is simply redefining capitalism 101 as a bespoke capitalism with a fresh coat of paint and a smiley face. It still means, as Shaprio said, waiting for the shoe to drop. This is Kool Capitalism – slick, sleek, and seductive – just so long as you ignore everything that’s wrong with it.

Advertisements

18 comments on “Kool Capitalism.

  1. I’m always amazed by otherwise intelligent and informed people being unable to think fundamentally about the most important problems of our society, including problems they are specifically complicit in. It’s plain bizarre, even as I understand psychologically the power of cognitive biases, dissociation, etc.

    Still, it seems like it shouldn’t take someone like you to point out the obvious, not that the lords of capitalism will notice anything the peasants say (even as they love for you to use their platforms so that they can profit off of whatever you say).

    “Trying to build a house on someone else’s land is of course the crux of the capitalist dilemma.” Centuries ago, Thomas Paine was able to understand that all land as private property is land stolen from the commons and the commoners. It is the most basic fact of capitalism, primitive accumulation, that was understood long before Marxism.

    Yet the respectable public intellectuals, even when they criticize the system, go on pretending like they lack the simplest understandings of the system. They take the system for granted as the starting point of all discussion. Questioning the system itself is off bounds. But the way they shut down their own minds, like lords bowing down to a king, is pathetic. In the end, they are reactionaries making pleas for how they will be the saviors of the system and hoping they will be rewarded for their loyalty.

    Or something like that. I don’t know. It sure is tiresome, at least tiresome for the rest of us if not for the seemingly tireless propagandists.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. rauldukeblog says:

      Well yes to all of that. It is genuinely a strange fact of how people behave – all the more strange when it’s coming from otherwise intelligent or at least not dumb people who one assumes would know better. And yet…

      I’m pouring over examples among extremely intelligent people and there’s something similar at work. I’m reading an anti-Foucault rant by a not dumb writer and the whoppers, distortions, half truths, and blind spots are stunning precisely because the writer in question isn’t an idiot – exactly. It is strange.

      And yes, there were people before Marx who took a look around and said this system is ridiculous and yet here we are with the whole contraption dropping bolts and shooting off sparks.

      As you say, tiresome. There are days where just staying in bed seems the most logical thing to do. Of course the cat doesn’t have opposable thumbs so…

      Oh and off topic – and from the sublime to the ridiculous – but when you read the Kool Capitalism post did you/were you able to click on the link? I’ve been having issues with the link’s working and wanted to narrow down possible glitches. Let me know if/when you can.

      Like

      1. Such pieces as you link to feel like they are following well established scripts. A million others like it have already been churned out. They follow similar formulas, despite occasionally throwing out a few genuine observations to give them credibility.

        The link? I tried clicking on it. It sent me to a page that said the following: “ERROR##@!
        YOU HAVE ENTERED THE ABYSS” And below that:

        “The page you are looking for does not exist. It may have been moved, or removed altogether. Perhaps you can return back to the site’s homepage and see if you can find what you are looking for.”

        Was the article removed or the URL changed? I did a web search and found the article. Now I see what happened. You have a wrong letter, an ‘l’ where there should be a ‘k’. Here is the correctly link:

        https://coincentral.com/alphanetworks-seth-shapiro/

        Like

      2. rauldukeblog says:

        Thanks! Much appreciated!

        As to the article – it is formulaic. All of their articles sound essentially the same and have the same format/length. It’s a symbiosis with the system – clicks, clickbait, content, etc.

        It is also a microcosm of the overarching system which is mass everything – “opinion”, “issue” “discussion” etc

        All very dystopian and PKD or Gibson.

        Like

  2. Here is another example of how a problem of capitalism can be discussed in great detail without ever pointing out that it is a problem of capitalism.

    https://longreads.com/2018/09/20/hating-big-pharma-is-good-but-supply-side-epidemic-theory-is-killing-people/

    One might argue that there is a quality of repetition-compulsion to these critiques that ultimately go no where. All they achieve is distraction. The entire spectacle slowly and endlessly revolves around the unspoken.

    Like

    1. rauldukeblog says:

      Thanks. I’ll read it. But must add that “One might argue that there is a quality of repetition-compulsion to these critiques that ultimately go no where. All they achieve is distraction. The entire spectacle slowly and endlessly revolves around the unspoken.” Is reminiscent of some things I’ve come across in a few writer – smart but annoyingly gnomic French intellectuals.

      My point being that there is a kind of fringe response that fits your point – distract, seemingly righteous or even genuinely but hampered by being more spectacle than not.

      From a different angle but to the same point I wrote a review of “ContraPoints” and the pushback was amusing as it accused me of being a Trumpian troll;-)

      As to repetition compulsion that leads nowhere, the smart but hard to read Jean Baudrillard touches on it – but I haven’t read enough to really get his point and he is even more dense than Foucault with a hangover.

      Like

      1. Well, finding oneself being spun around in circles does cause one to feel dizzy. In such a state, it is hard to make a clear point, sometimes ending up a bit gnomic.

        That is the nature of the unspoken. It’s a reverse whirlpool where you tire out trying to swim to the center, the momentum of it continually spinning you back outward. It creates a sense of unease with an accompanying sense of uncertainty about whether there really is any center to it all.

        Maybe it’s just spin. No doubt that disorientation is the intended goal. If so, what are we hoping to orient toward?

        Like

      2. rauldukeblog says:

        Interesting meta point.

        At the end of Siddharth, his friend Govinda demands clarity and S. says: So you see were are in the trap of words.”

        I think there is an intentional use of density by the Foucault generation of French writers. I think within the tradition of French/Euro Modernism a lack of surface clarity is an intentional aesthetic.

        I also think it’s a reaction/response/narrative to The Occupation. I think there is a pathology at work.

        In the former it’s exactly attached to your point about a kind of transcendence in which words fail and are deployed to cause disorientation. It is telling that there are so far as I have found, no excavations/archeology (in the Foucault – sense) of their work – no doubt because it’s too soon as well as for political reasons.

        In the latter sense I think the lack of clarity is down to the generational trauma of the war – a sense that there is something unspoken but manifest at work.

        An American parallel might be Faulkner and the “Southern Gothic.” And there’s something Freudian there as well almost as if the French intellectuals were experiencing a kind of “hysteria.”

        I’m off to return tomes to the library and to pick up a few more then back to the gnomic French for more disorientation;-)

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I’ve long wondered about this. Is there a center to the spin?

        I’d like to believe there is always something to be found, if one knows where and how to look for it. I was raised to seek out ultimate or fundamental truths, as a somewhat religious impulse (having been raised in an idealistic church). Truth should exist. That is why I developed my theory of symbolic conflation, that there is a truth that is being obstructed in our being distracted.

        But sometimes the spin gets so disorienting and tiresome that I begin to lose faith that there is any way to make sense of it. Maybe the unspoken indicates there is nothing to be spoken, the only insight being silence and void. The enchantment of the spin might be how it allows wide options of interpretation, which is yet more distraction. Criticism of the system is allowed within the bounds of the system and on the terms of the system — in fact, that strengthens the system.

        Or maybe I’m being unnecessarily gnomic. Meh.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. rauldukeblog says:

        These are perfectly valid questions and have been wrestled with by the usual suspects among the intellectual/spiritual heavyweights for thousands of years.

        Just back from the library and as always it puts me in a whirl or is disorienting. there are just so many books by so many smart people plus the relative number by geniuses that it turns into a blur.

        I don’t think you’re being unnecessarily gnomic “lol” just gnomic enough;-)

        The system of course as you say allows for a certain type and level of criticism beyond which it asserts various forms of control/authority and declares x y and z to be unacceptable or weird deviant subversive and so on.

        I think there’s a line attributed to Voltaire about how you can discover the limits of criticism by following the money.

        Or, the grave diggers.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. One last comment before I head to work.

        There is always much chatter among the chattering class. That is what they do. Being so deeply embedded within and identified with the system, they love to talk about the system and everyone within the system. So, criticisms of the system are plain wonderful!

        It’s collective narcissism. And as we are all part of this monoculture, we all can fall prey to this. Here we are, you and I, talking about the system. But others have noted that even complaining about the system can invoke the framing of the system.

        It’s not easy to find a genuinely ‘original’ perspective, that is in stepping outside of or glimpsing outside of the system. Who cares what or if anything is at the center? Maybe the trick is to find another center that shifts the focus and context of meaning. Easier said than done.

        I’m simply being contrarian to some extent. But I also think there is something to this.

        Like

      6. rauldukeblog says:

        Being original seems impossible. there are of course great traditions based on silence and while for many reasons one is, the sense that all talk is self reflexive and ultimately hopeless.

        One of the central tenants of Postmod discourse is that Descartes was wrong when he said it is thought directed at itself that allows for awareness and defines the world. All discourse is trapped in its own bubble and is suspect.

        That’s why reactionaries say the PoMo is nihilistic but what do they know;-)

        No probable with being contrarian. Just so long as the powers that be don’t insist you drink some hemlock;-)

        Of course what you’re pointing out is also where physics and philosophy merge – much to the annoyance of the physicists. But the extent to which the observer alters the observed (including themselves) is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle – all of which is to say your points are in good company.

        Like

      7. “…the sense that all talk is self reflexive and ultimately hopeless.” Here is how I’d put it. All talk is part of some system or another. That is the function of language, Daniel Everett’s dark matter of the mind. In that sense, it matters less what is talked about than how it is talked about. Animistic, Bicameral, and WEIRD societies are each the way they are because of the kind of language used, the kind (forms and sources) of voices spoken and heard. That is to say its about authorization and, of course, authorization exists within and for the system.

        As such, within any given system, we have no choice but to invoke the language, the voices, the authorization of that system. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be part of the system nor comprehensible to those within the system; i.e., we would be insane or dangerous or both. That reminds me of a gesture, which is something that can’t be made sense of by the system (e.g., tank man) — it simply does not compute.

        I’ve been wondering how it is we might speak differently and maybe listen/hear differently. How do we change our own voice in a way that might change us? We see real world examples of this. Consider how some Eastern traditions will use third person to refer to themselves or else use no personal attribution at all in describing their experience. Then there is the social science research that language use changes thought, perception, and behavior: bilingual people having a different emotional response when they switch languages, kids who have higher achievement when they speak of themselves as if narrating a superhero story, etc.

        None of that is going to come up in mainstream discourse. The formulaic nature of mainstream/dominant media is essentially no different than the formulaic nature of scribal and oral cultures, although (post-)modern consciousness gets claimed as being different. What is different is that the ideal of originality has become so central, in some ways exacerbating the repetition/obsession-compulsion and actually making it fundamentally different (e.g., increasing rates of addiction). And that brings me to a related thought.

        One of my nieces is obsessive-compulsive and she has been diagnosed. She sets things up in exact ways and remembers it in detail. She will freak out if you touch or move anything even slightly. Also, both of my nieces and nephew are extremely picky about food, more picky than I’ve ever seen any other kids I knew in the past, although maybe that has become common. These are common behaviors of those on the autism spectrum and I know at least one of them has been diagnosed as such. That has been related to diet and such (propionate being one possible cause, as it is related to bread which autistics crave). It’s one more factor to add in the derangement of modern mind.

        Like

      8. rauldukeblog says:

        I can’t remember where I read it but someone made the point that people who suggest the idea of animals being able to speak leave out that even if, for one example, a lion could speak, what makes anyone think we would be able to understand it?

        It is fascinating to me that so much of the antagonism towards PoMo rests on the fact that PoMo advocates have been pointing out that we are inside a system and that claims to objectivity require one to be outside of the system in which one exists and therefore are always suspicious if not outright fabrications.

        Of course the antagonism is understandable. Every attempt at a uniform or systemic self awareness is met with hostility.

        But as you say there are variations. I knew someone from another country who spoke more or less fluent English but I was curious as to in what language they dreamed.

        Mainstream “discourse” is as you say a mile wide and an inch deep and that’s often the better formats vs the lunacy of the average FOX diatribe which of course is just an open sewer.

        I don’t know what I think about repetition-compulsion except that there appears to be something there a kind of system that does keep repeating.

        I picked up a book that is a survey of the style of French thinking – the method of their discourse and it makes the point that they are dedicated to a binary style thus, right/left revolution/stability, singular/European and so on but what struck me was the idea that it’s possible that the Gaul’s retained a kind of bicameral sense that over the centuries has been refined into an almost art form that reflects a deep sense of reality and how the experience of it is/should be expressed.

        Didn’t know that about autistics and bread. Do you have any details?

        And it’s an excellent point your making about the similarity between contemporary media and previous systems. The “scribes” are both a system and a reflection of a system that encases their authority and is symbiotic with it.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. I mentioned it in one of my recent posts:
        https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/essentialism-on-the-decline/

        The book I quote in that post has an interesting discussion of proprionate. It seems to relate to the gut-brain connection, in how microbes communicate to the brain.

        When a microbe likes some food, there is a process that establishes the memory of how to get that food. But in autistics that process gets stuck and they are unable to create new memories. That is why they love routines.

        What changed is that they started adding proprionate in bread. And so this created higher levels of this chemical in our diet. When given to rodents, they show autistic-like behaviors.

        Like

      10. rauldukeblog says:

        I mean the quote specifically about lions speaking but I take your point – essentialism vs targeted specificity is a crucial issue about paradigms.

        The change in diet as a subset of mass production/mass society is crucial.

        So much of this so obviously tied into corporatism and the power structure but of course you know that.

        The more I read about specific ideas/groups the more I keep finding these traits were excavating – the power of the hierarchy, gestalt vs a narrow view, issues of diet, production and these strange repetition compulsions and assorted impulses.

        I have been reading an anti-Foucault book and the piece is a detailed almost point by point critique and then offers how Foucault was wrong – horribly outrageously wrong to say there’s moral equivalency between the Soviets and the West because (the anti-Foucault-ist says) “there were no gulags in the West.”

        What is fascinating to me about this is not that he said it, but that it’s not any different than saying the earth is flat.

        It’s a type of magical thinking. And it’s not at all uncommon among the people one assumes would be least likely to engage in it – “intellectuals” and yet it turns out it’s a consistent aspect of their thinking, expression, and what really appears to be a kind of cult. One could even describe instead as a kind of autistic response.

        Given how wide spread this is I’m forced to think there’s something biological going on – something Jaynesian or something in the food chain or both.

        That’s not to rule out “cultural” causes but culture is a reflection of the rest of the human system.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. We can do all kinds of speculation. But it would be nice to have more data upon which to base informed speculations. We do know quite a bit about some things, though.

        We know average IQ rates have been increasing, that this has been happening nationally and globally and across all demographics, and that this is largely caused by specific increases in fluid intelligence related to abstract thought. We know that autism rates are going up and it can’t be explained by mere greater prevalence of diagnosis. And we know that addiction is growing, at least among some demographics in some countries.

        I don’t know the data on repetition-compulsion and obsessive-compulsive disorder. But considering the rate of mood and personality disorders in general has risen, there presumably there would be a correlated rise. And one would safely assume that this matches the rise of inequality, neoliberalism, economic stress, social isolation, democratic decline, union-busting, etc.

        More directly relevant, has anyone ever attempted to measure the degree of formulaic style in media, specifically corporate media. Has the range of styles decreased and the level of conformity increased? With the internet, algorithms are ever more influence what is produced and how it is produced (e.g., writing style and structure). It would be fascinating to have this data over the past century or two, which could be done with print media.

        Like

      12. rauldukeblog says:

        What occurs to me about repetition-compulsion and the formulaic nature of mass media is that people may be adopting a repetition-compulsion from the repetition of the media – the 24/hr cable cycle is always repeating both in its schedule and its format and its content. Each one of those components is a reflection of the other. Thus, the “news” becomes less about information and more about a rat pushing a button to receive a pellet.

        I am finding increasingly that I only read headlines because I know the “news” is not going to inform me but will instead only give me opinions tailored to a demographic – if you watch The Young Turks you are x and if you watch FOX you are y and in both cases there is essentially no analysis though TYT are less toxic than FOX but ultimately just as much an empty caloric rush to the amygdala.

        So in answer to your question my guess (subjective) is that the conformity has increased exponentially as has advertising and the architecture around both – the faux discussion of both – has become uniform as well.

        should we be surprised then at growing rates of OCD or assorted autism spectrum complexes?

        In print media of course an obvious canary in the mineshaft is the demise of newspapers and the increase of monopoly broadcasters like Sinclair. Homogeneity is not healthy where as diversity is crucial and so everywhere we look we see an almost banal manifestation of dystopian truisms – even including warnings about dystopian truisms.

        It is often sited as an example of a passionate response to this topic but it is worth while and important to recall it was written in the late 1940s:

        “…the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes “Awww!”

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: