State reasons. Let the debating begin.

fuck the media

What do the desicions in the poll mean? You should put Negative or Positive influence instead of Yes or No.

Yes, they are a positive or negative influence.

No in-between choice?

Media influences different people in different ways, both good and bad. But, to say whether it's more negative or positive, we'd first have to define whats negative and whats positive.

And even then it would be in our personal point of view. (whch reminds me, I just hate it when people say point of views... it's POINTS of view! POINTS!)

What do the desicions in the poll mean? You should put Negative or Positive influence instead of Yes or No.
Hell Yes for Positive and Hell No for Negative

I guess it's both, but [[in my personal point of view. hah.]] it's probably more negative than positive. I mean, that's where everyone gets the ides that they have to look like a toothpick, right? Of course, there's more, but I just think that's really bad. I mean, of course you need to be in shape, and being fat isn't healthy. But looking like a lot of the popular celebrities now is just very unhealthy. Seriously...
http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1314892.jpg
bleh. I would find some more pictures, but I'm too lazy. :happy: Anyway, you get the picture. If you really wanted to find more pictures, you could. Oh, and by the way, it's not that I have anything against Nicole. Hah. That's just the first picture I found. XD

no, f the media, old school MTV is better

Yeah, and the kids who are the age you were when you watched MTV as a little kid will say that same thing. I'm sure your parents say that about their MTV.

no, f the media, old school MTV is betterInteresting on how you never did list MTV on your TV shows on your myspace. Its incredible how much you lie.

I guess it's both, but [[in my personal point of view. hah.]] it's probably more negative than positive. I mean, that's where everyone gets the ides that they have to look like a toothpick, right? Of course, there's more, but I just think that's really bad. I mean, of course you need to be in shape, and being fat isn't healthy. But looking like a lot of the popular celebrities now is just very unhealthy. Seriously...
http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1314892.jpg
bleh. I would find some more pictures, but I'm too lazy. :happy: Anyway, you get the picture. If you really wanted to find more pictures, you could. Oh, and by the way, it's not that I have anything against Nicole. Hah. That's just the first picture I found. XD
lol, she's gotten worse than Paris.

Wow, you guys say "F the Media" and then you trash celebrities in the tabloids...

Media influences different people in different ways, both good and bad. But, to say whether it's more negative or positive, we'd first have to define whats negative and whats positive.
Yeah that is a good point. The media can be good or bad, but mostly bad. Yet people sometimes use the media to try to make a more positive influence for people.

I love how you talk about how much you hate how other people care. The media is very intrusive, prints the worst shots possible. Oh no. The worst that can happen is YOU people even bother to notice. I don't even know who that actress is in that atractive bikini outfit...

The only thing that will come out of the prints for the actors is that they might change to improve their image, if they even know about the publicity shots. Their career isn't over unless they actually did something to provoke their image... Tom Cruise... Paramount finnally fired that idiot.

lol, screw the media is right, they don't do anything other than put their pov on the stuff

I still find it hypocritical to say "screw the media" when in reality most of the things we know root from it.

Any publicity is good publicity.

Even sex tape publicity?

Everybody talked about the tape, didn't they?

As long as they get some publicity it seems good to them.

I didn't realize how much I hated the media until I spent 3 weeks in the middle of nowhere without television or computers or even a newspaper. It was awesome. People should learn to think for themselves.

So now all media is bad. Every single form.

Maybe to them it's a revolution to say that "Media is bad. Period." But they're right, because media is bad...but not bad all the time.

At least we know what's going on in this deranged world.

Maybe the media will one day report, "This just in...the media is bad and it sucks."

Maybe the media will one day report, "This just in...the media is bad and it sucks."
"We'll tell you why"

Oh, sweet irony...

All media is good and all media is bad. Yay for doublethink!

All media is good and all media is bad. Yay for doublethink!double think is double plus good!

And I think there needs to be a good balance. Media should be there, so that the government cant just get away with anything, and so people can be informed as to what is going on, but sometimes it goes way too far. Mostly when dealing with celebrities, it almost sickens me how people absolutely MUST know all that crap. Like Tom Cruises probably non-existant child. It might have been a stillbirth, or it could have been aborted at the last minute, but I think it's his right to keep it private.

My mom said that they've released photos of her now. She apparantly has a full head of hair at only four months of age. Though it's still absolutely horrendous the things people were saying.

double think is double plus good!

And I think there needs to be a good balance. Media should be there, so that the government cant just get away with anything, and so people can be informed as to what is going on, but sometimes it goes way too far. Mostly when dealing with celebrities, it almost sickens me how people absolutely MUST know all that crap. Like Tom Cruises probably non-existant child. It might have been a stillbirth, or it could have been aborted at the last minute, but I think it's his right to keep it private.
The public is very judgemental Nathan. :P

People will talk weather they see you on television, or crossing the street.

Wrong use of weather nicky.

This is an intresting topic.
Media is nothing more than propaganda. It critizes the truth, and promotes lies.

Nope, it's actually a hypocrite. It criticizes lies while promoting them.

"The media" is basically a small group of people telling the rest of the population what to believe. Or at least, we have no option but to believe them because there's really nothing else being fed to us.

What people need to realise is that's not always a bad thing.

Years ago, body image was defined by how you saw yourself in the mirror. But within the past decade or so it has changed a lot, resulting in the thought of the ideal body image being a model that we see on TV or in magazines. It seems as if people are no longer happy with who they are, rather, they are determined to change themselves to achieve a look that the media has deemed attractive. With our technology and society today, instead of a little bit of makeup and exercise with a healthy diet, it is expensive surgeries and those nourishing eating disorders A visual from the Science Times section of the New York Times showed us how drastically things have changed from 1997 until 2003 in the United States. In men, use of Botox went up 5,762%, liposuction increased 118%, nose reshaping climbed 20%, eyelid surgery up 116%, breast reduction by 97%, and fat injections went up 86%. Really guys, plastic surgery, I thought men we’re supposed to be strong individuals and think for themselves, what’s next a makeover? The women on the other hand increased Botox use by 3,177%, liposuction went up 117%, breast enlargement saw a 177% increase, eyelid surgery went up 60%, breast reduction rates were up 207%, nose reshaping increased 29%, and fat injections went up 141%. Am I not aware of a new law requiring women to undergo at least one body altering procedure in her lifetime? With these statistics I wouldn’t be surprised.
Not only are the amounts of surgeries increasing around the world, but so are the amounts of eating disorder cases. In her article, “Eating Disorder Rates Continue to Rise”, Deborah Condon interviews Dr. John Griffin, the head consultant psychiatrist at the St. Patrick’s Hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Griffin states, “In the early 1970s, we were seeing young people aged 15, 16, and 17. Now we are seeing children aged 10, 11 and 12”. The rates of anorexia have also doubled in men, so much for the has been self-confident alpha male. Dr. Griffin also raises the point that the internet and socio-cultural factors are particular in contributing to the increase of eating disorder in men and younger people.
The risks and side effects associated with surgeries and an anorexic or bulimic person are life threatening. As the increase in surgeries show, along with the fact that one or two of every 100 Americans will struggle with an eating disorder, as stated in the article Eating Disorders: Anorexia and Bulimia, it is very apparent that these are big problems in our world today. The media has certainly shown connection with the boost in these rates, which may also indirectly cause the health issues associated with them. But at the end of the day, each person is left to make their own decision. People need to open their eyes and realize that they are only fooling themselves and putting themselves at risk by trying to achieve the looks of those in advertisements. At one point, society realized that a person had more to themselves than only looks, but now it is hard to say whether or not people still believe that. But looking back on it, our society has realized how dumb of a concept that was. Let’s be honest, fitting the mold and attractiveness is way more important than being yourself and longevity, right? The media has plagued our generation to the extent that people feel the need to put their lives in danger just to feel attractive, so to even make the claim that the media does not have a negative influence on our generation is naïve.

Very negative.

The majority of teenagers in a suburban American environment/school are tools of the media. They criticize people for not dressing like them, and they dress how mtv tells them to. They try to make their relationships look like the unreal, cheesy BS love stories they see in movies and on tv. They want their bodies to look like models and movie stars. They support causes just because they see their favorite celebrities supporting them. They do what people better-looking and more important than them do and by doing so promote a false cause and plastic feelings that weren't real to begin with.

I don't know man, Jamie Lyn Spears is a pretty good role model for all the kids out there....

It's no way that simple. Is fire positive or negative? Neither. It's just another tool.

No. Controlled fire = good and useful. Uncontrolled fire = bad and destructive.

Surely you know what an adjective does, right? A dull fire is dull because you put dull in front of fire. A simple fire doesn't carry those connotations, does it? But when you alter it with...


I don't even wanna beat this out because it's so stupid and not worth my time. Imma go watch T.V.

A fire cannot be dull, in any sense of the word.

Jesus Horatio

No, Sen, you're wrong on this for sure. The mainstream media is a negative influence because it gives teenagers an especially confined view of what is positive and what is negative, and manipulates thoughts, ideas, and ideals. There is no subjective view of the mainstream media, with the exception of those smart enough to not be manipulated by it.

Ok, first I think many of you (not all) are misusing the phrase "media". Media refers to any form of communication that is targeted towards mass groups of people. Everything from television to the Bible is actually media, not just tabloids about celebrities.

And I hate how people say the media is a bad influence. The media itself really isn't an influence at all, the media just targets what people care about, because that is what sells. Do you honestly think that if the media stopped showing pictures of super-skinny celebrities, that all the teenaged girls would decide they didn't want to starve themselves anymore? No, society itself defines what is shown in the media, the media shows super-skinny celebrities, because our society wants to see super-skinny celebrities. The problems said to be caused by the media (since it is already in discussion I will use this example) such as the mentality around skinny being beautiful, are really caused by problems in society that aren't being dealt with because its so easy to blame the media.

For example, say a teenage girl is annorexic (sp?) and her parents blame the media. However, what caused her annorexia was actually her seeing skinny girls treated better by peers in school. Now what the media does is just re-represent what is occuring in society, therefore, the girl watches on television what she has already seen for herself, so how can it be that showing someone that which they have already seen can lead them to make a decision? The media just is making the connection to society, in our society, there are skinny people who are happy and unhappy, who connect with those in the media, so they watch it, there are people who like looking at skinny people, so they watch it, and there are people who want to be like the skinny people, so they watch it. If you were to get rid of the media, all these people would still be there, all still feeling the same way, you would only be removing the representation of the problem, not the problem itself.

This applies to all influences, positive and negative, from the media, not just skinnyness. Also, it could be said that someone could experience the representation of one of these influences in the media before they experience them in society itself, but then again how could that hurt them in anyway but preparing them for it?

This applies to all influences, positive and negative, from the media, not just skinnyness. Also, it could be said that someone could experience the representation of one of these influences in the media before they experience them in society itself, but then again how could that hurt them in anyway but preparing them for it?

And TPS what you said is totally untrue. It isn't a minority telling the majority what to believe. First of all, the media is made up of several different companies, there isn't a little club of men with curly mustaches and tophats who meet up every week and go, "Mehheheh what can we trick the people into thinking now?" No, in any buisness the marketers, and accountants have first say, and they start with the simple question of "What will sell?" and, yes, they all come out with the same answer.


What it all comes down to is this: It isn't the media itself that is the problem, its the demand for it. As long as people want something; drugs, porn, rubix cubes, someone will be there to make a buisness and make money, it is how capitalism works. The question isn't "Why oh why is the media making everyone think these terrible ways?" the question is "Why oh why are there enough people who want think this way to keep the people who produce this shit in the money?"


If people believed everything they heard, whether it be in TV or anywhere else, then as soon as we told someone they didn't have to be skinny to be happy they would start eating normally. This isn't the case, the case is that no matter how young someone is, they believe what the media tells them because they WANT to, get over it. They aren't being brainwashed, or mind-controlled to a point where they can't stop themselves, they choose this for themselves. It is that choice that is the problem, not the media who simply dipicts the choice the majority has made. The media DEPICTS the majority, it doesn't DEFINE it.

However, this doesn't apply to media based off of fiction, as these types of media do not represent society in the same way. Also, fictional works are much too diversified to make a generalization as to their influence.

P.S. Why do people always answer yes or no to multiple choice questions?

ever heard of advertising? that's media.

It's really great that you have an opinion on the matter, it's just unfortunate for you that it's wrong.

^_^

Ok, first I think many of you (not all) are misusing the phrase "media". Media refers to any form of communication that is targeted towards mass groups of people. Everything from television to the Bible is actually media, not just tabloids about celebrities.

And I hate how people say the media is a bad influence. The media itself really isn't an influence at all, the media just targets what people care about, because that is what sells. Do you honestly think that if the media stopped showing pictures of super-skinny celebrities, that all the teenaged girls would decide they didn't want to starve themselves anymore? No, society itself defines what is shown in the media, the media shows super-skinny celebrities, because our society wants to see super-skinny celebrities. The problems said to be caused by the media (since it is already in discussion I will use this example) such as the mentality around skinny being beautiful, are really caused by problems in society that aren't being dealt with because its so easy to blame the media.

For example, say a teenage girl is annorexic (sp?) and her parents blame the media. However, what caused her annorexia was actually her seeing skinny girls treated better by peers in school. Now what the media does is just re-represent what is occuring in society, therefore, the girl watches on television what she has already seen for herself, so how can it be that showing someone that which they have already seen can lead them to make a decision? The media just is making the connection to society, in our society, there are skinny people who are happy and unhappy, who connect with those in the media, so they watch it, there are people who like looking at skinny people, so they watch it, and there are people who want to be like the skinny people, so they watch it. If you were to get rid of the media, all these people would still be there, all still feeling the same way, you would only be removing the representation of the problem, not the problem itself.

This applies to all influences, positive and negative, from the media, not just skinnyness. Also, it could be said that someone could experience the representation of one of these influences in the media before they experience them in society itself, but then again how could that hurt them in anyway but preparing them for it?

This applies to all influences, positive and negative, from the media, not just skinnyness. Also, it could be said that someone could experience the representation of one of these influences in the media before they experience them in society itself, but then again how could that hurt them in anyway but preparing them for it?

And TPS what you said is totally untrue. It isn't a minority telling the majority what to believe. First of all, the media is made up of several different companies, there isn't a little club of men with curly mustaches and tophats who meet up every week and go, "Mehheheh what can we trick the people into thinking now?" No, in any buisness the marketers, and accountants have first say, and they start with the simple question of "What will sell?" and, yes, they all come out with the same answer.


What it all comes down to is this: It isn't the media itself that is the problem, its the demand for it. As long as people want something; drugs, porn, rubix cubes, someone will be there to make a buisness and make money, it is how capitalism works. The question isn't "Why oh why is the media making everyone think these terrible ways?" the question is "Why oh why are there enough people who want think this way to keep the people who produce this shit in the money?"


If people believed everything they heard, whether it be in TV or anywhere else, then as soon as we told someone they didn't have to be skinny to be happy they would start eating normally. This isn't the case, the case is that no matter how young someone is, they believe what the media tells them because they WANT to, get over it. They aren't being brainwashed, or mind-controlled to a point where they can't stop themselves, they choose this for themselves. It is that choice that is the problem, not the media who simply dipicts the choice the majority has made. The media DEPICTS the majority, it doesn't DEFINE it.

However, this doesn't apply to media based off of fiction, as these types of media do not represent society in the same way. Also, fictional works are much too diversified to make a generalization as to their influence.

P.S. Why do people always answer yes or no to multiple choice questions?

You write too much. Summarize your thoughts. Otherwise no one is going to listen to you. Ever. Besides Nitz, cuz he is crazy.

btw the poll q&a are terribly worded. Q: is media "a" or "b". A: "yes" or "no" ???

I agree with Coldin. But then again you already knew that. But just for Gabe

*The term "Media" is misused.

* The media is only as bad as the element of Society it is representing.

* The idea that the media is on some Illuminati NWO shit is ludicrous.

* The media isn't the problem. It's the demand for it (Society's the problem).

* T.V. doesn't have nearly the amount of influence people claim.

* The options in the poll are stupid and close-minded.

Thank you Sen.

Advertising? The same thing applys, actually, it applies especially to advertising. All advertising is targeted towards a certain demographic (teens, housewives, working people) they simply insert situations, characters, and ideas into their advertising that depict the values of each demographic.

And if I am wrong, then try to tell me why I'm wrong, that is the point of debating..

God DAMMIT. I just wrote out this really good argument and I was just wrapping it up when Gprime refreshed itself and logged me out because of some Firefox (or Gprime?) setting I accidentally turned on and can't turn off. If I don't click any links then Gprime automatically refreshes itself, so typing long paragraphs is made impossible. I think it might be something to do with cookies or temporary data. Oh well.

Anyway, my point was thus, to summarize:

The media is a negative influence on teens because it makes ideal yet ludicrous occurrences, personalities, thought-processes, actions, or lifestyles seem normal, while in actuality these things are, well, ideal yet ludicrous.

This makes teens develop the idea that certain concepts (above) are quite normal, while in actuality these things would never naturally occur in the incidence that teens were not trying to emulate something they consumed from the media.

And thus an hero was born.
http://taps.gallery.iniquity.org/download/137187-5/an+hero+01.jpg

Thank you for summarizing, but actually, I didn't the poll options were closed-minded in any way, just stupid (sorry, but proofread before you post threads and polls).

I sometimes take a more complicated aproach to questions like these, therefore I elaborate heavily as not to be misunderstood as meaning something I don't.

I guess to summarize my post heavily would be to say: TV is bad because society is bad.

And Natus, that would be true if you only look at statistics, but in truth, the main reasons most of these people think and act those ways, then you realize most are for reasons other than TV.

I think it's that teens like what they see happening to characters in books, movies, or on tv, so they try to emulate these situations for themselves. Naturally, they are deeply disappointed when it turns out these things are bullshit.

And to disagree, Coldin, I don't think tv displays society, at least not accurately.

Natus giveme a specific example of what you are refering to please.

You guys realize you keep saying "Teens see this, teens do that blah blah blah." It's not just teens. (And I know you guys know that, but let me see where this is going. I always ramble.) The people affected by the media (excuse my loose use of the term) are the very adults who are analyzing and talking about teens and their problems, saying it's caused by various media sources. Maybe they are seeing their problems through us, but making some of us think they are actually our own problems, thus perpetuating the problem.

Oy, I don't even know what I'm saying. But onward!

"The media isn't the problem. It's the demand for it (Society's the problem)."
Everyone here keeps saying that. I agree and disagree.
Of course society has something to do with it. but I don't think we're the root of it. If the media shows something to a large group of people one day, and they like it, they'll go out and tell all their friends about it, and they'll tell their friends, and so on. So really society is just the dead grass the fire feeds on. Though, I can also wholeheartedly agree it's their own damn fault for being stupid enough to mindlessly gobble up such petty ideas, whatever they are.

Natus giveme a specific example of what you are refering to please.

The Notebook, i.e., and other movies of the sort. Teenage girls develop this unbelievably cheesy and entirely false idea of what a relationship should be like, and eventually, marriage. And when a relationship doesn't work out exactly like they saw in PS, I Love You or any of other countless cheesy romance movies, they seem to be extremely disappointed.

And that's only movies. Books and news stories also play a significant impact. Notably, MTV Cribs, while giving teens something to aspire to, and setting goals, does not give teens the idea that houses like that and the shit in it cost so extravagantly highly that only the very top tier of American people will ever be able to achieve that.

I can give hundreds of reasons why the former and the latter both piss me off, but they aren't directly relevant to the media's influence so we'll save that for another time and place.

Ooo, a thread regarding your first paragraph might be in order. It's thanks to those movies that there is no romantic creativity (Okay, there's plenty left, but MOSTLY.) left in this world.

Or perhaps thanks to movies like that girls think "romantic creativity" is actually important to a relationship ;)

Uh no. Girls (well, except Becca, for our intents and purposes) are jealous of what they see on tv and expect their boyfriends to be all throwing-stones-at-the-window and flowers for apologies and midnight phone conversations and love poems.

And anytime you try to do something creative that you think would be romantic, they tell you, "Just stick to what you see on tv from now on." I haven't experienced this personally, but I know some girls who would say that.

Exactly.

No one is receptive to anything even slightly out of the norm (translation: cool) and so those who are into that sort of thing (hi) are left hanging. It's a hard knock life.

No one cares for you
A smidge
When you're in an
Or-phanage.

*bird poops on you*

You wanna know how I wooed my girlfriend (current, not ex)? She is a huge fan of eighties hair metal, and loves dorritos. So I got a giant burlap bag, and painted the dorritos logo on the front of it, then filled it with like, 12 full sized bags of doritos. Then I blasted Talk Dirty To Me by Poison on a boombox in the quad and presented her with the gigantic bag of chips, and of course asked her if she would go out with me. She said yes.

First, metal, society is not the fuel that feeds the fire. Again, for some reason many of you seem to be under the assumption that when studios make TV shows they fill them full of all of the shallow, and ignorant concepts just because they feel like it.... I mean, use your head, these are multi-million dollar corporations, and they make their decisions based on a detailed analysis of their viewers.

Pretty much what I am saying, is TV today is almost customized by the audience who watches it, TV is the way it is because that is what people want, done any different, people wouldn't watch it.

Natus, it seems to me that if anyone here is being influenced by the media its you, because most girls would actually never say that. In fact, most people DO respond to romantic creativity rather than romantic imitation. Not to say this is 100% of the time, but everybody usually responds better when they feel something you do is made more personal to them by being completely unique, as in Gabriel's example. The only ones who don't would probably be the arrogant celebrities shown in the media.


And in response to what Metal said.........what? People DO respond to orginality, its just you can't expect every movie, tv show, etc to be original, because true originality is difficult to accomplish. Also, originality doesn't make up for lack of talent, you can make a movie that is nothing but an apple sitting on a table and it would be original, but not entertaining. Honestly, if you ask me there has been a recent rise in originality in media. I can't really understand what you are basing that assumption off of.

But u gais totally lurve how i aksed her, rite?

Eh, it would have been better if you had dressed in a dorito costume and played guitar along with the music. I would have...


Totally sub-par man...

First, metal, society is not the fuel that feeds the fire. Again, for some reason many of you seem to be under the assumption that when studios make TV shows they fill them full of all of the shallow, and ignorant concepts just because they feel like it.... I mean, use your head, these are multi-million dollar corporations, and they make their decisions based on a detailed analysis of their viewers.

Pretty much what I am saying, is TV today is almost customized by the audience who watches it, TV is the way it is because that is what people want, done any different, people wouldn't watch it.

Natus, it seems to me that if anyone here is being influenced by the media its you, because most girls would actually never say that. In fact, most people DO respond to romantic creativity rather than romantic imitation. Not to say this is 100% of the time, but everybody usually responds better when they feel something you do is made more personal to them by being completely unique, as in Gabriel's example. The only ones who don't would probably be the arrogant celebrities shown in the media.


And in response to what Metal said.........what? People DO respond to orginality, its just you can't expect every movie, tv show, etc to be original, because true originality is difficult to accomplish. Also, originality doesn't make up for lack of talent, you can make a movie that is nothing but an apple sitting on a table and it would be original, but not entertaining. Honestly, if you ask me there has been a recent rise in originality in media. I can't really understand what you are basing that assumption off of.
Well what I said was pretty hypothetical. Still though, the larger portion of teenage girls have a fantasy and have it set in their mind what they want. You get the occasional chick like in Gabby's case who's really cool, but for the most part, the popular pretty girls who everyone wants to be like are just plain generic and they all want the same thing. I'm not saying all girls just want the same old romantic shit you see on dumb movies but the sickeningly vast majority do.

My feelings toward the American teenage female population are less than warm, and rather jaded.

And as far as originality in television goes, I have this to offer:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1kbEah3wgRs
But u gais totally lurve how i aksed her, rite?

Props

First, metal, society is not the fuel that feeds the fire. Again, for some reason many of you seem to be under the assumption that when studios make TV shows they fill them full of all of the shallow, and ignorant concepts just because they feel like it.... I mean, use your head, these are multi-million dollar corporations, and they make their decisions based on a detailed analysis of their viewers.

Pretty much what I am saying, is TV today is almost customized by the audience who watches it, TV is the way it is because that is what people want, done any different, people wouldn't watch it.

Natus, it seems to me that if anyone here is being influenced by the media its you, because most girls would actually never say that. In fact, most people DO respond to romantic creativity rather than romantic imitation. Not to say this is 100% of the time, but everybody usually responds better when they feel something you do is made more personal to them by being completely unique, as in Gabriel's example. The only ones who don't would probably be the arrogant celebrities shown in the media.


And in response to what Metal said.........what? People DO respond to orginality, its just you can't expect every movie, tv show, etc to be original, because true originality is difficult to accomplish. Also, originality doesn't make up for lack of talent, you can make a movie that is nothing but an apple sitting on a table and it would be original, but not entertaining. Honestly, if you ask me there has been a recent rise in originality in media. I can't really understand what you are basing that assumption off of.

"society is not the fuel that feeds the fire. "
"and they make their decisions based on a detailed analysis of their viewers."

Okay.

I KNOW some people respond to originality. But it's hard to find the ones that do. I guess this is going into a slightly different matter, but lots of people base their standards off of other people's standards, so if one person doesn't like a certain method of wooing, maybe someone else will start to say the same, even if deep down they do like it. But gradually more people will start to say the same, and those cool ideas get weeded out of the accepted list, like social natural selection I suppose. Then, as you say, The head honchos analyze what their people seem to like, (I say "seem" because they're not going to sit down with everyone in a therapy session and dig into what tastes they're hiding) the and display it onscreen. Therefore, society is the fuel.

Props

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah.

"society is not the fuel that feeds the fire. "
"and they make their decisions based on a detailed analysis of their viewers."

Okay.

I KNOW some people respond to originality. But it's hard to find the ones that do. I guess this is going into a slightly different matter, but lots of people base their standards off of other people's standards, so if one person doesn't like a certain method of wooing, maybe someone else will start to say the same, even if deep down they do like it. But gradually more people will start to say the same, and those cool ideas get weeded out of the accepted list, like social natural selection I suppose. Then, as you say, The head honchos analyze what their people seem to like, (I say "seem" because they're not going to sit down with everyone in a therapy session and dig into what tastes they're hiding) the and display it onscreen. Therefore, society is the fuel.
True. This is one reason I liked The Game so much. Even if I don't follow its every page as my life's philosophy (like my friend Luke) it shows many aspects of relationships but it was from a guy's point of view and showed off a WHOLE different way of getting women. Plus, women HATE that they love it and fall for it every time, which makes it all the more satisfying for guys. Because with this book, it sort of empowers the male in the seduction process and leaves the female as the one eating out of the palm of the hand.

Maybe I'm cynical. Maybe I just have a thing for irony and turning the tables. Either way, it isn't conventional, and that's all we really look for in life.

That's a little different, because the guys sometimes have to improvise, but even then they're essentially saying the same stuff they always do. And as far as women eating it up all the time...we could start a whole other conversation on that.

True. This is one reason I liked The Game so much.

http://i12.tinypic.com/6k5wohv.jpg

And as far as women eating it up all the time...we could start a whole other conversation on that.
I dunno where you're going with this, but it doesn't sound very appropriate for Gprime.

:D
http://i12.tinypic.com/6k5wohv.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Strauss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Strauss


http://diy.despair.com/output/poster34474418.jpg
http://diy.despair.com/output/poster89946998.jpg

FUCK YOU

Neil Strauss is one of the most amazing men in the history of the universe.

1.) No hes not.
2.) It was more about the fact that you COMPLETELY missed the point than the fact that you were talking about a well known and over rated book by a subpar author.

No, I definitely didn't miss the point. Romantic creativity was the point.

And Neil Strauss is in no way a subpar author. You just don't say that. He's been hired by at least two of the most influential published-word sources in the nation, possibly the globe, and wrote a New York Times bestselling novel, in addition to helping with countless biographies and autobiographies. You may not like his style, but his writing is a lot better than the majority of other modern writers and his subject content is unique.

The Game may be a little overrated, just because of the people that read it and follow it religiously, but it's a good story and a good moral lesson, and by no means is it poorly written.

No, I definitely didn't miss the point. Romantic creativity was the point.

And Neil Strauss is in no way a subpar author. You just don't say that. He's been hired by at least two of the most influential published-word sources in the nation, possibly the globe, and wrote a New York Times bestselling novel, in addition to helping with countless biographies and autobiographies. You may not like his style, but his writing is a lot better than the majority of other modern writers and his subject content is unique.

The Game may be a little overrated, just because of the people that read it and follow it religiously, but it's a good story and a good moral lesson, and by no means is it poorly written.

OMG. Point = COMPLETELY missed. I give up. Hes just never gonna get it.

No, I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

Becca and I were discussing how movies and novels influence teenage girls into developing false ideals for a relationship, which is bad because a guy can't keep up with some writer's fantasy, let alone many. And I said that's what I like about The Game: it puts guys in control of the situation and it becomes less about the chick's fantasy and more about manipulating her personality to like you.

It may be slightly off-topic from the whole media influence subject, but the relevance to the conversation is rare.

And if we facepalmed everybody who got off-topic, well, facepalm images would be to moderators like Battletoads to a gamestop employee.

And I don't understand why you have to be such a high-strung douchebag about everything.

No, I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

Becca and I were discussing how movies and novels influence teenage girls into developing false ideals for a relationship, which is bad because a guy can't keep up with some writer's fantasy, let alone many. And I said that's what I like about The Game: it puts guys in control of the situation and it becomes less about the chick's fantasy and more about manipulating her personality to like you.

It may be slightly off-topic from the whole media influence subject, but the relevance to the conversation is rare.

And if we facepalmed everybody who got off-topic, well, facepalm images would be to moderators like Battletoads to a gamestop employee.
Yeah, still completely missing the point. I wasn't even talking about the book. I posted a pic about the game, and you tried to explain the game by neil strauss by posting a wiki link, so i facepalmed your idiocy, thus starting a stupid arguement.

And I don't understand why you have to be such a high-strung douchebag about everything.
I'm not. I'm just an asshole. You should know this by now.

Um okay, so by assuming you were actually discussing something relevant...I missed the point? Whatever. Moot point.

http://i12.tinypic.com/6k5wohv.jpg

ARE YOU A BAD ENOUGH DUDE TO RESCUE THE PRESIDENT?


oh and heres a link about media influence that actually is pretty interesting

http://www.troubledwith.com/ParentingTeens/MediaInfluence.cfm (http://www.internetisseriousbusiness.com/)

That was really enlightening. Thanks for that.

Um okay, so by assuming you were actually discussing something relevant...I missed the point? Whatever. Moot point.

No, by not reading my post, and then atttempting to inform me on something I know full well about because you ASSUMED I didn't you missed the point of the humour that is the game.

http://a677.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/63/l_1c5f20778be553245e3e5d53ffcd310c.jpg

:lolo:

First, Metal, while there are some people who fit the stereotype you are refering to, not everyone shares some list of accepted standards. Everyone has different standards, and really the only attempts at orginality that are "selected" out, are those lacking in their creativity. That is one thing about creativity, when someone actually puts something together that is creative and romantic, nearly anyone would like it. I'm not sure what girls you are basing your pessimistic assumption off of, and your wide generalization that a majority thinks a certain way, when it is really a minority.

Honestly I don't think the media has any effect on the perception of romantic creativity, except romantic stories turning orignal ideas into something to copy.

Society is the content that supplies the picture. If someone takes a gruesome picture of a war, its not the photographers fault its gruesome, its because its war. You are blaming producers for depicting the ugliness of American values.

I know full and well lots of people are open to creative ideas. I was having a cynical day. I still stand by most of what I said, though. Even if it's a minority who shuns these ideas, they are the ones people pay attention to the majority of the time.