The more time you spend online, the clearer it becomes just how many people choose to discuss novels, movies, shows etc. by using exclusively group-approved lingo. There's only so many times you can read about "media literacy" without eventually concluding that the person who uses such popular phrases knows shit all. Other people either ape their favorite YouTube essayists or straight up regurgitate marketing talking points without having been paid a single cent.By giving everyone a voice, the Internet made sure none of them matter. It holds each string of text in equal value, leaving it up to you to distinguish the opinion of a literary critic from a fanboy's incoherent ramblings, wasting your own time in the process. When pressed further, most of the latter are not able to produce well-reasoned pieces, yet we're forced to look at their output through sheer quantity. Actual discussion is hard to come by. Using this technology already devalues the fruits of our thought and the alternative is remaining silent.
oh shit this guys on to us, shut it down shut it down
>>24836975I constrain myself to pay attention more to what dead men put to paper than what people write online. Sometimes I'll skim the post of someone I'm arguing with, misconstrue what they've said, get called out on it, then promptly close the thread out of fleeting embarrassment. However, it's not like these conversations are changing anyone's opinion besides re-affirming whatever they already believe or want to believe. It's all a tremendous waste of time that could be better spent reading the well-articulated thoughts of people from bygone eras. People and desires weren't commodified back then to the extent they are now. Most people ARE the thoughts and opinions of marketers and e-celebs.
>>24836975> It holds each string of text in equal valueIt’s never ever done that even prior to algo fuckery. > leaving it up to you to distinguish the opinion of a literary critic from a fanboy's incoherent ramblingsIf you need someone’s title to realize what they’re saying is the product of a learned mind or a retarded teenager maybe the problem is between the chair and keyboard. > Using this technology already devalues the fruits of our thought and the alternative is remaining silent.You’re forced to use the internet somehow? You weren’t allowed to submit to literary magazines? Then why are you here polluting us with your debased opinion?If you can’t even follow your own advice why should anyone care what you think?
>>24837032I agree, although even when I read older books, I notice myself just seeking out ideas and sentiments I agree with. It takes more effort to allow myself to be convinced by something, but I try not to judge these works based on how much they flatter my own worldview.>>24837036For me the issue is that it takes more and more time and energy to seek out valuable opinions. It's not my advice to opt out of this system, but if we're all wading through tons of shit, then it seems marginally better to be aware of it.
>>24836975What's your conclusion anon? is this just some observation or are you arguing for the return of gatekeeping namebrands like the New Yorker, Penguin Classics, Criterion, to guarantee us quality so we are not wasting our time?
>>24836975 >yet we're forced to look at their output through sheer quantityWe arent forced to look at their output at all. Take responsibility.
>>24837112>valuable opinionsThen learn to discern opinions from genuine knowledge. Yes it will take time but its not as hard or as time consuming as you think. You'll get better through time. Just dont do the cringe thing and hate others because of their opinions. Opinions are mostly.. meaningless, no need to get upset about it.
>>24836975The worst thing a man can do is speak in a vocabulary not his own. Sadly the whole world speaks now in unison. Babel will fall.
>>24836975I will think about these issues
>>24837032>>24837112You can always try to poke holes in concepts you are fond of
>straight up regurgitate... talking pointsThis is an issue I have noticed more and more, and I myself am not exempt from it (though I try stop myself from doing it).Everyone seems to make imperfect copies of concepts, unable to replicate what they engage in because they really have no idea about it.yet here I am posting on the brain-frying 4chan, so I'm not much better than some xitter user in this regard
>>24836975Wow, youre above it all. Yawn
>>24836975>the clearer it becomes just how many people choose to discuss novels, movies, shows etc. by using exclusively group-approved lingo. There's only so many times you can read about "media literacy" without eventually concluding that the person who uses such popular phrases knows shit all. Other people either ape their favorite YouTube essayists or straight up regurgitate marketing talking points without having been paid a single cent.I aggree>By giving everyone a voice, the Internet made sure none of them matter. It holds each string of text in equal value, leaving it up to you to distinguish the opinion of a literary critic from a fanboy's incoherent ramblings, wasting your own time in the process. When pressed further, most of the latter are not able to produce well-reasoned pieces, yet we're forced to look at their output through sheer quantity. Actual discussion is hard to come by. Using this technology already devalues the fruits of our thought and the alternative is remaining silent.>come on anon.jpg
Agreed. But what to do? Maybe you know interesting people to talk to in real life, but I don't, and I don't think I'm unique in that. Book clubs are mostly the same shit, and sometimes worse, maybe because we are all internet people anyway. That other anon mentioned reading what dead men thought, and that's good, but are you really ready to completely cut yourself off from modern culture and discourse? That sounds very difficult even if you think it's a good thing.>>24837154No, it really does take way too much time. I don't know what places you have in mind, but I find I can often skim for a full hour and not come across a single interesting opinion.
Dumb people are dumb and will find reasons to make everything around them dumb, how profound that op finally caught on to this, a round of applause for him, boys.
>>24836975Yeah but do you really want an elite deciding what culture to consume? Sure, the consensus might harmonize. But the deafening lack of criticism would cause the project to become unaware of its own limits in its attempt to monopolize a solitary taste.
>>24837774Are these actually useful or are they pseudo science pop psychology like Jordan peterson?
>>24840976>actually useful"critical thinking" is a trendy buzzword with lots of consultants and seminars etcbut yes it is a totally valid concept
>>24840976anything with critical thinking in its title is garbage
>>24836975>There's only so many times you can read about "media literacy" without eventually concluding that the person who uses such popular phrases knows shit allWelcome to memetics. A meme doesn't need to be understood by its host, merely used and propagated.
>>24837032This. If somebody actually bothered to print it on paper in a bygone age, it's exponentially more likely to be worth reading than some retarded Xitter post.
