|
Post by Jinxtengu on Jul 1, 2018 10:13:16 GMT
I don't own a television, which is a choice I've made. I find that once some form of television enters a home, they have a habit of turning into a focal point of attention. a person might feel bored (or think their bored), then seeing a tv sitting idly , might get the idea of switching it on to relieve the boredom. We're led to believe that television constitutes a form of entertainment, and that entertainment can relieve boredom, so using the tv in this way makes sense, at least from a cultural standpoint. From experience iv'e found that using the tv in this way doesn't generally work but without the tv to prompt the thought of using it, a person might actually read a book or do something constructive instead. Of course there are other options for distracting oneself (computer games, social media) but in a nutshell that's why I choose not to own a tv.
I feel I could have expressed that better but, anyhow does this make sense to people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 11:36:26 GMT
Television has turned into complete shitbox over the recent years. Before that, I think that despite its utterly destructive nature, you could actually get something useful out of it - good movies, documentaries, programmes with actual enlightening potential. News broadcasts were always bad though, but now even they are a thousand times worse. Even if something relatively decent is shown on modern TV, it will be undoubtely tainted by extremely long and frequent commercials, onscreen banners and channel logos which constantly distract you and which didn't exist in the old times, or at least were obscured during a movie. Now the logos remind the viewer that the channel "owns" the material, and ultimately owns the viewer too. Nothing good is left in this piece of media, just pure idiocy. Now the men in black are trying to turn the internet into a "second television" with YouTube, social networks and similar stuff, taking the informational control away from the user, and they almost succeeded in their goal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 1:27:59 GMT
I had a tv in my college room for about a year but I only really turned it on once every few months to play something from my computer. I think I am much more prone to waste time starting at a wall of code or "checking social media" than to make a conscious decision to waste time like turning on the tv, though I think it would possibly be better to intentionally waste time, as then you at least feel relaxed, as opposed to staring at your work which makes you feel like you have been working.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxtengu on Jul 2, 2018 6:41:33 GMT
Some good responses!
|
|
|
Post by jacques on Jul 3, 2018 2:35:37 GMT
I'm into the idea of being bored, so I don't switch on the tv. maybe i would occasionally to play xbox some or put my game on a bigger screen. i'll watch a bit of tv if my mom/dad wants it on, because its kind of difficult to avoid then. i think avoiding boredom isn't the best thing to do, and everyone does this now particularly with their iphones. I think my way of avoiding boredom is to eat snacks or drink too much coffee, but im usually aware of it. Im pretty good at not doing anything for hours and i enjoy it, but its hard to when i'm living with others because they think i need something to do. however im not opposed to being given something to do either, so I cant complain.'I do watch a lot of stuff online though, but i always try to limit it to my computer work time otherwise im on there for too long.
My mom (im not american, its just funny to say mom) is a serious TV addict in the evenings which can be annoying but i my moms awesome so I try hard to supress my annoyance of the tv. sometimes there is a good show on, my mum has good taste so I can tolerate if it's good TV. there was a new australian TV series called Mystery Road which I really enjoyed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 6:09:56 GMT
mystery road was quite nice, but I missed the first episode so I somehow got the impression there was no mystery and they were just going to arrest the kids at the end which made it kinda boring for a few episodes. On ABC they also had some kind of movie the other day with the same actor who played the aboriginal police man playing an aboriginal detective who was trying to uncover human trafficking at a mine site or something, and it was kinda nice, I forget what it was called though.
|
|
|
Post by jacques on Jul 4, 2018 10:21:42 GMT
mystery road was quite nice, but I missed the first episode so I somehow got the impression there was no mystery and they were just going to arrest the kids at the end which made it kinda boring for a few episodes. On ABC they also had some kind of movie the other day with the same actor who played the aboriginal police man playing an aboriginal detective who was trying to uncover human trafficking at a mine site or something, and it was kinda nice, I forget what it was called though. I missed the first 2 episodes and half of the third episode, but still liked the characters and found it quite watchable. some shows I find can be either too depressing or a bit flimsy, but i think they did well with that one. also the original mystery road film is probably better than that series. and it is better than Goldstone which i think is the film you're talking about. it seemed more gritty and had more surprises.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2018 2:46:56 GMT
you are right it was gold stone. On an unrelated note, I wish the ABC (and national broadcasters in other countries too I guess) would stop pretending to be a paid channel and doing the same undignified and stupid stuff the other channels do. I do not think they need to have obnoxious hosts on their shows or a lot of vulgar stuff, it is quite annoying. I guess nobody would watch it then so maybe that would be a bad idea. I guess you must think of what a national broadcaster ought to do. It does not make any sense to me that a national broacaster ought to be indistinguishable from the paid channels as if that was the case they would not have any justification for having one. I guess maybe the absence of ads could allow reporting of stuff unconstrained by financial allegiances (though they still seem to have political allegiances) but that does not explain their stupid entertainment shows.
example::::
|
|
|
Post by Jinxtengu on Jul 7, 2018 3:30:02 GMT
you are right it was gold stone. On an unrelated note, I wish the ABC (and national broadcasters in other countries too I guess) would stop pretending to be a paid channel and doing the same undignified and stupid stuff the other channels do. I do not think they need to have obnoxious hosts on their shows or a lot of vulgar stuff, it is quite annoying. I guess nobody would watch it then so maybe that would be a bad idea. I guess you must think of what a national broadcaster ought to do. It does not make any sense to me that a national broacaster ought to be indistinguishable from the paid channels as if that was the case they would not have any justification for having one. I guess maybe the absence of ads could allow reporting of stuff unconstrained by financial allegiances (though they still seem to have political allegiances) but that does not explain their stupid entertainment shows.
The abc is getting so shit lately, it just seems like another chanel 7 or ten. The standard of journalism just gets worse and worse. I think the turning point was around the time kerry o brien retired. 3 points in case. some months ago there was an online article demonising "welfare recipients" unfortunately I don't have a link to the article, but I remember it. Now what’s retarded is this; as long as I’ve been aware this country has called it "social security" not fucking "welfare". this is another example of how these Americanisms slip under the cultural radar and get into common use. People don't even notice it, and then a few years later every idiot is calling it "Welfare" as if that’s what it's always been. You might think a little name change such as this is fairly trivial, and it's tempting to think that it doesn’t matter but actually it completely changes the underlying semiotic meaning, and in turn how society views people who are recieving support from the government. "welfare" Suggests that people are helpless, and only further dis-empowers people who are recieving social security, furthermore it is sympathetic and reinforces the memeplex-structure which underlying discrimination towards the poor, and essentially fascism. Social security by contrast emphasizes the idea that society is a community that co-exists, sharing common goals with it's constituent citizens, it's an overall more caring, humanist and optimistic paradigm. It also denotes a certain collectivity, whereas "welfare" denotes a more mercantile individualist value structure. thats one thing. two more things. About two weeks ago I came across another article on the abc about a new popular video-game "fortnite". The article contained absolutely no analysis of the game, it's impact on society, it's value, it didn't offer counter view points or any sort of critical breakdown, it was virtually barren of objective facts. In short it was indistinguishable from an advertisement. This is not journalism. channel 7 and 10 have had Advertisements masquerading as news articles for some time but this is the first I’ve noticed on the abc, although they’ve probably had them for a while to be sure. lastly another article I came across. Well at least this one I can link to. www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/inside-the-secret-suburban-dope-houses-hiding-in/9932754It reads like it was written by a team of kindergarteners. This article would be so easy to parody with bold headlines such as "The drugs". Also disappointingly I saw another anti-cannabis article published on the abc on the same day. Im tempted to think this coincides with Canada legalising recreational marijuana, although im not quite sure how, probably just reflects some corportate agenda. thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 8:57:43 GMT
internet is just better than tv at providing more options and seeming like you are talking to real people i think there should be some cool internet alternative to tv channels however (one thats actually run by humans and not robots in suits), like it could be a twitch channel that streams cartoons and other interesting shit 24/7 and uses donations to pay artists to be able to stream their stuff
we should also have a tool to filter bad clickbait
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 14:05:45 GMT
I find it odd to think the abc would have a desire to oppose cannabis legalisation but then there are often mysterious forces at work in the abc that I do not understand. I think I rememeber them running stuff about people on welfare too. As for the fortnite thing I have seen it popping up everywhere on tv and I don't think it is advertising (though maybe I am wrong), I just figured it was desperation to seem "with it" in a similar way to people putting fidget spinners on tv and such. I have had my parents who are school teachers ask me what it is so I guess it must be a phenomenon.
as far as I understand, tv is broadcast using microwaves, which is bandwidth that could also be used for internet, so I think they should get rid of tv and use that bandwidth for more internet. It's true that now there is internet it seems pointless to use that bandwidth to force people to watch given things rather than let them watch whatever they want. I think since people are free to see and broadcast everything they could want on the internet, in the internet age a national broadcaster will only serve as a propaganda outlet.
|
|
|
Post by jacques on Jul 10, 2018 2:33:14 GMT
Pingu is a good television series it's quite intense
|
|
|
Post by Jinxtengu on Jul 10, 2018 6:37:19 GMT
Pingu was made in the 90's. I actually knew a woman who worked on it.
|
|
|
Post by Jinxtengu on Jul 10, 2018 6:45:04 GMT
I find it odd to think the abc would have a desire to oppose cannabis legalisation The abc had their funding severely cut after a couple of exposes they did with the guardian, these embarrassed the liberal government sufficiently so that the abc was given an ultimatum,; either pander to the right wing agenda or face further cuts. Michelle Guthrie was made head sometime in 2016. As a former Murdoch employee, her role was intended to oversee a significant re-structuring of the ABC so it would basically tow the line. And thats where we’re at today.
|
|
|
Post by jacques on Jul 14, 2018 4:52:46 GMT
assholes. right wing assholes! Nothing like doing meth at sunrise
|
|