- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If Seinfeld Got the Girls Treatments
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:09 am to Bayou Sam
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:09 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
But all that said, I still think these sorts of generalized observations are pretty useless and mostly just opinion without something particular to sink your teeth into.
are you really saying that it's difficult for you to verbalize why you enjoy watching a tv show?
you're that enlightened?
1
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:09 am to ProjectP2294
I think you misunderstood me. By prejudice I didn't mean "racism" or such like. I just meant whatever it is that makes you have what appears to be a visceral reaction to the show. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote though--if that's the case I apologize.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:09 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
the show satirizes them. But they are also sympathetic
You aren't supposed to sympatize with satire, you're supposed to acknowledge what it's lampooning and react accordingly.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
What's the last thing you read by an academic in, say, history?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:10 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
I think you misunderstood me. By prejudice I didn't mean "racism" or such like. I just meant whatever it is that makes you have what appears to be a visceral reaction to the show.
Well, according to my "visceral reaction", what are my prejudices? You were so good about telling my I have them, why don't you point out what they are?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
Um, no. I'm saying that unlike you, I don't take my opinions for objective fact. You know, because I'm not an amateur.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:12 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
By prejudice I didn't mean "racism" or such like. I just meant whatever it is that makes you have what appears to be a visceral reaction to the show.
what makes me have a reaction to the show is, well, the show. i think the show is terrible
but, i can recognize the patterns of the show, and more importantly, the reaction to the show. i knew a bunch of people would jump on the bandwagon without being able to really tell me why
people who do irrational things like this make me tick, so of course i enjoy busting their arse on it
i watch the show so i can be up to date for these very discussions, because i love to watch people shrivel in their seat trying to justify irrational decision making. it's the equivalent of me asking to girl to define "the spark" or a political commentator to define "the middle class"
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:14 am to ProjectP2294
There are different kinds of satire. There's a direct kind of satire--a lampoon, as you say--where your sympathy is with the satirist. This sort of satire is usually moral in character. It condemns someone for some moral failing, hypocrisy, stupidity, etc.
Then there's a more ironical kind of satire, which is embedded in a larger narrative. A literary parallel that comes immediately to mind is Don Quixote.
Then there's a more ironical kind of satire, which is embedded in a larger narrative. A literary parallel that comes immediately to mind is Don Quixote.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:14 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
I'm saying that unlike you, I don't take my opinions for objective fact.
quote:
When people watch Seinfield, do they say, "omg I hate George. I simply can't stand him." No, they say "I love x, y, z character". Yes, they know they are "bad" (and they aren't really that bad--part of the point of the show is that their narcissism is pretty pedestrian), but they like them anyway. I'm sorry you don't understand this basic fact.
Come again?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:14 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
What's the last thing you read by an academic in, say, history?
i couldn't even tell you. that was years ago and most of my scholarly reading the past 6 years has been legal or economics
fwiw, you won't see me posting much about history, unless it is tangentially related to politics/economics
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Sounds like this thread has become a dick measuring contest
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:17 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
, I don't take my opinions for objective fact.
the fact that you have an opinion on a show is a fact
your opinion is subjective
quote:
You know, because I'm not an amateur.
i only asked you why you liked a tv show. i didn't ask you to give an analysis of a certain school of a tv show. i asked you why YOU like the show
it's a simple question with a simple answer. it's a statement of personal discrimination of media. nothing more. if you can't explain why you like/dislike things, how do you discriminate how to use your personal resources towards any endeavor?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
Well, I don't ask people "why do they like x, y, z tv show?" to test whether they are full of it or not. Since I have intelligent friends whose taste is reliable and whom I trust, I ask them what their impression of x, y, z is to get a guide of what I should be watching.
If we have some more particular argument over whether something is good or not, we go to examples in the show, piece of art or whatever in question to hash out what he think is going on. But because we have enough experience to know very smart people who have read, watched, and listened widely often disagree, we are also rather undogmatic about our opinions.
If we have some more particular argument over whether something is good or not, we go to examples in the show, piece of art or whatever in question to hash out what he think is going on. But because we have enough experience to know very smart people who have read, watched, and listened widely often disagree, we are also rather undogmatic about our opinions.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:21 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
Then there's a more ironical kind of satire, which is embedded in a larger narrative. A literary parallel that comes immediately to mind is Don Quixote.
there were still some redeeming qualities, though. i mean even though he was crazy, he was still attempting to do good
what are teh redeeming qualities of hannah and jessa? i honestly can't think of any at the moment, excep jessa isn't ugly really
they're selfish, egotistical, not intelligent, anxious, arrogant, and refuse to face reality. they believe they are better than other people, which is funny b/c they're both trash.
do you even disagree with any of this? i think that's a fair assessment
so OTHER than watching them fail and laughing at her, why do i care? serious question
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:25 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
Well, I don't ask people "why do they like x, y, z tv show?" to test whether they are full of it or not.
well i do. i test whether people are full of shite in many ways, across many areas. it's what i do. i study people as a hobby
but i was just telling you why i watch. i can rationalize it into a couple of sentences rather easily
it was an example
quote:
Since I have intelligent friends whose taste is reliable and whom I trust, I ask them what their impression of x, y, z is to get a guide of what I should be watching.
you do know that's pretty much what i described earlier with regards to girls, just on a smaller scale?
quote:
But because we have enough experience to know very smart people who have read, watched, and listened widely often disagree, we are also rather undogmatic about our opinions.
i only asked you why you liked a show
it's a simple question. any rational thinker can give a reason why he/she devotes its personal resources in the endeavor
This post was edited on 3/5/13 at 10:26 am
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
Ok, so on what basis can you judge whether academics in disciplines other than economics and law are in a cult? I mean, how would you know whether the work someone produces is good work or not? How would you even be able to identify what it is exactly that academics do?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:26 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
From your perspective, you are an independent thinker.
From my perspective, you generate the sort of theories that someone who doesn't know or read enough generates. You also have the peculiar tendency of this type to make grand hand-waving gestures at intellectual communities, thinkers, theories, etc. you think you know about, but really don't have even the beginning of experience in.
It's not because you're "dumb"--you aren't. It's because you are in this weird middle place where you know too much for your own good, but don't know enough to know that 1) you're really kind of an amateur in subjects of actual depth and 2) on subjects like this, you're "arguments" are really only thinly-disguised projections of prejudice onto the world.
Ironically, you resemble the characters in Girls, who as the other poster said, haven't quite learned to distinguish their own heads from the rest of the world.
I'm not getting into the middle of this since I've only seen parts of I think 2 episodes of Girls. However, what you're saying is very true in general.
ETA: Not to say true of SFP necessarily, but true of many people in society.
This post was edited on 3/5/13 at 10:34 am
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Your "studious" observation of other people is about as relevant or proveable as me saying that you don't like the show because you have a certain political view of the world, which leads you to want to "expose" artsy fartsy people that like shows about artsy fartsy people as frauds.
The whole thing is just rather boring. So far you've misunderstood the object of satire in the op's link, and drastically misunderstood the sexit episode. So why should your opinion on anything else be taken seriously? You are clearly reading into things what you want to read into them.
The whole thing is just rather boring. So far you've misunderstood the object of satire in the op's link, and drastically misunderstood the sexit episode. So why should your opinion on anything else be taken seriously? You are clearly reading into things what you want to read into them.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:31 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
Ok, so on what basis can you judge whether academics in disciplines other than economics and law are in a cult?
well the overriding liberal/progressive slant of academia is shocking.
as you know by now, i'm really into examining perception biases (so that i can avoid them in real life). academia suffers from groupthink in a major way.
in any group you should realistically expect to find somewhat random allotment of people within that group (you can segregate the group by certain characteristics. here, you're not going to have stupid people in academia, for example
when you look at academia, there is a very large progressive/liberal slant. i ask, "why is academia so liberal?" because i really wish it was divided more evenly among all sorts of types of thinkers. when one ideology dominates a group like this, not only does objective research analysis suffer, and not only does groupthink increase, but more self perception biases develop (in this instance, academics are progs, and academics are elite thinkers, so progressive ideology is the "thinking" philosophy)
that is my issue with academia. and i don't have a solution, yet. i do have some ideas, though
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:36 am to Bayou Sam
quote:
as me saying that you don't like the show because you have a certain political view of the world
my political views are to let people live and be free. i don't see how that applies to this show
i'm note telling anybody that the lives tehse people chose should be illegal
quote:
which leads you to want to "expose" artsy fartsy people that like shows about artsy fartsy people as frauds.
well i try to live in an objective world of reality. this often comes into direct conflict with the wishy/washy subjectivity of their reality. of course there will be a conflict
as an academic, i'd imagine you strive to promote objective thinking and eliminate subjective thinking
quote:
So far you've misunderstood the object of satire in the op's link,
only because you didn't realize what i was saying, even after i explained it quote:
and drastically misunderstood the sexit episode.
just because you didn't think more deeply about the episode isn't my fault
and wasn't it you earlier who said that your opinion can't be fact? how can you say anyone misunderstands an interpretation of a show, when you are scared to even state why you like the show?
quote:
So why should your opinion on anything else be taken seriously?
because i'm right, and i've displayed it in great detail in this thread. you sit back and post in generalities and have intentionally avoided taking a stance when asked directly, while you take plenty of stances when you can hide it in order to establish the dominance of your own beliefs
why don't you decide if it's OK to have an opinion of the show before you tell me my opinion is wrong?
you won't even tell us directly why you like this show
quote:
You are clearly reading into things what you want to read into them.
like what?
This post was edited on 3/5/13 at 10:37 am
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News