Carl Sagan predicts 2017 in 1996
Local Link | Content link | Reddit Link
r/picsu/DELETED (78091)

Comments (4148)

What does he mean by presentations on pseudoscience? We're too smart for that.

Yeah, what the hell does that mean?

No clue

Oh, neat, you can see Chile and Argentina from New York if you look South?

Edit: After some rough math, this is about how large South America would be in the New York sky, with Argentina's borders indicated, compared to the moon.

That would be pretty fucking cool.

Shame about physics and reality and all that.

Especially if we could keep seasons the same. Imagine a snowy day in new York and you look south to the summer beaches in Rio. Or when it's hot as hell and you can catch a glimpse of snow peaked mountains

Well you can pull off the mountains one in some areas, I think. If they're tall enough the snow is pretty much permanent.

I actually think the map is pretty sweet. Completely wrong, but that's a really cool world building design.

Apart from this soup bowl nonsense - when I was in Chile for the first time, it blew my mind that I was East of New York. Well, South by South-South-South-East, but my internal map had fooled me my entire life.

Have you read the sources in the corner? It quotes both "four corners of the earth" and "circle of the earth" as evidence of flat earth. So is the earth circular or square????

In ancient times, the 4 corners were meant to represent the 4 lands. Europa, Ethiopia, Asia, Arabia, IIRC.

Also most people did not believe the world was flat after, IIRC, 300 BC. But most people still liked the imagery for poetic reasons.

Back then, it was standard procedure to describe things in poetry, not in plain text format like today.

Here, let me give you an example from one group of people I've studied. The Essenes. Essentially they were ancient hermit-Jews who studied the universe a lot on their spare time. Here is how they describe space and Earth.This is from around 300-100 bc:

And came to an empty place And I saw there neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place. And there I saw seven stars of heaven bound together in it, like great mountains, and burning with fire. At that moment said I, “For which sin are they bound, and for what reason were they cast in here.” Then one of the kodesh malakim, Uriel, who was with me, guiding me, spoke to me and said to me, “Enoch, for what reason are you asking and for what reason do you question and exhibit eagerness?” “These are among the stars of heavens which have transgressed the commandments of YAHWEH and are bound in this place until the completion of ten million years, according to the number of their sins.” -Enoch, Ch21

This is actually describing the constellation Pleiades , and fairly well. The Pleiades are 7 fiery blue stars bound together in gravity. Note how they describe stars as flaming mountains up close. There's no sky dome here. No holes in a great dome. For them, stars are physical objects you can go up to and see up close.

In reality, this is probably a very poetic description of early astronomy. In all likelihood Enoch here is watching four men around either some kind of camera obscura, or a simple water-based refractor.

There are many texts like this. Many which hint that they are describing a real scientific method, just not scientifically.

On topic of a flat earth, such poetic language is used here, check this out, Chapter 23:

And from there I departed and went to another place in the direction of the west until the extreme ends of the earth. And I saw a burning fire which was running without rest; and it did not diminish its speed night and day. And I asked, saying, “What is this thing which has no rest?” At that moment, Raguel, one of the kodesh malakim, who was with me, answered me and said to me, “This thing which you saw is the course of the fire and this, the fire which is burning in the direction of the west, is the luminaries of heaven.”

Here you see what sounds like a flat earth at first, but at the same time he's clearly travailing....around the flat Earth? To its ends? And he sees the lights of Heaven, which never stop shinning. One might read this as a poetic way to describe either time zones or the Sun's perpetual glowing.

In all likelihood he is describing going from one "Corner" to another. IE, From Arabia to Europa.

Very informative! Thanks for taking the time to post this.

In ancient times, the 4 corners were meant to represent the 4 lands. Europa, Ethiopia, Asia, Arabia, IIRC.

Don't think that's quite correct. This is what wikipedia has to say about it:

Several cosmological and mythological systems portray four corners of the world or four quarters of the world corresponding approximately to the four points of the compass (or the two solstices and two equinoxes). At the center may lie a sacred mountain, garden, world tree, or other beginning-point of creation. Often four rivers run to the four corners of the world, and water or irrigate the four quadrants of the earth.

In Christianity and Judaism, the Old Testament (Genesis 2:8-14) identifies the Garden of Eden, and the four rivers as the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon, and Gihon. The Tigris runs to Assyria, the Euphrates to Armenia, the Pishon to Havilah or Elam, and the Gihon to Ethiopia."

Incidentally this puts the garden of Eden pretty squarely somewhere in ancient Sumeria and [Edin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edin_(Sumerian_term)) actually means floodplain in Sumerian.

(and of course there Sumerians had their own version of the garden of Eden story)

Thing is those four rivers don't follow the compass. The Tigris and Euphrates both go North West, the Wadi al-Rummah goes Southwest, though it technically doesn't exist anymore. And the last one, likely the dried canyon going southward towards Yemen, also nonexistent.

It actually puts Eden in the Persian Gulf, likely a half remembers pre-glacial lake and valley that flooded during the last ice age.

The Sumerians didn't really have their own Garden of Eden story. They had a story that has a few grammatical similarities in terms of poetry, but the content doesn't match. In the Sumerian stories, the gods are not the original gods. They are beings whom found powers and tools of ones more ancient than they, and were overwhelmed by the power they wielded. In many ways it reads like a bunch of primitives finding nuclear weapons and accidentally blowing themselves up with them. Out of all the primitives there was one whom seemed to have known that the rest were fools, and he tries to preserve a few of his people from their foul hearty misuse of power. The story reads more like a post-apocalypse sci fi. It has the same grammar and themes as Genesis, but nothing much of the same story. Their ark story doesn't seem to imply the whole earth was flooded. Only the lands of the gods. Those same immature gods whom destroyed their own creation in their absentmindedness.

Here, let me give you examples.

It opens with a lament of the world which was lost by the gods:

Nintur was paying attention: Let me bethink myself of my humankind, all forgotten as they are; and mindful of mine, Nintur's creatures let me bring them back let me lead the people back from their trails.

Reads like a sad man lamenting the end of the world, desiring the days before destruction.

After mentioning what warlords and pre-destruction leaders were doing, it describes some construction:

These cities, which had been named by names, and had been allotted half-bushel baskets, dredged the canals, which were blocked with purplish wind-borne clay, and they carried water. Their cleaning of the smaller canals established abundant growth.

For some reason is bounces back to weeping over the destruction again:

That day Nintur wept over her creatures and holy Inanna was full of grief over their people; but Enki took counsel with his own heart. An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga had the gods of heaven and earth swear by the names of An and Enlil.

Then it goes on to speak on to the why the people were destroyed:

And as Ziusudra stood there beside it, he went on hearing: Step up to the wall to my left and listen! Let me speak a word to you at the wall and may you grasp what I say, may you heed my advice! By our hand a flood will sweep over the cities of the half-bushel baskets, and the country; the decision, that mankind is to be destroyed has been made. A verdict, a command of the assembly cannot be revoked, an order of An and Enlil is not known ever to have been countermanded, their kingship, their term, has been uprooted they must bethink themselves of that. Now... What I have to say to you...

Take note this isn't all humanity. Just this group. Elsewhere it mentions black people not part of this group:

When An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaga fashioned the dark-headed people they had made the small animals that come up from out of the earth, come from the earth in abundance and had let there be, as it befits it, gazelles wild donkeys, and four-footed beasts in the desert.

These people being destroyed are Nuntur's, not An's Enlil's, Enki's and Ninhursaga's.

In the Sumerian stories, the gods are not the original gods. They are beings whom found powers and tools of ones more ancient than they, and were overwhelmed by the power they wielded.

do you have some things I can read on this? kinda reminds me of the Mahabharata...

fuck wikipedia always

but anyways the earth isnt a sphere or flat. all y'all think you're smart but only 2 or three are even close to figuring it out amoungst the regular folk. the only thing they (the ones who made up the two lies) care about is us arguing and not finding the truth, so, uh , good job there.

plt people who follow the words exactly will never ever get it. words point to experiences. one must search inbetween words. one can do this for example by adding other's definitions of things to one's own. evermore expanding attention(the goal of all spiritual endeavors). of course many words will fall off, but they do so on their own without your help. just love truth and you will see what is meant. after awhile you will see the trick and do it on your own but without peeps you aint got much.

[deleted]

Who cares what a Carl Sagan lover thinks? hint

no one

what does your name mean anyways? that new york will be x'd? flooded?

[deleted]

easy money when it's already at ground level and it's a mess from World Trade Center

So was the great flood built by a 900 year old man and the talking serpent just poetic phrasing?

I personally read it as a poetry describing the events at the Bronze Age Collapse.

Consider the parallels:

In the Bible, the ocean is used to describe the gentiles. In Revelation, it ends with "There was no more sea" which explicitly means the end of all other religions of the gentiles. And Jesus calming the storm is symbolic of him ruling over the chaotic cultures of the word. Cultural unification. Animals which come out of the ocean are images of gentile nations. In Daniel, Babylon, Greece, Egypt, and Persia, are all described with animals. Sometimes, horrifying mutants and hybrids. The Bible uses these as images for nation-state unions. Two nations (beasts), merging to one. Mountains typically represent places of power and authority, where heaven and man intersect. This is why Moses gives his laws from the top of a mountain, It's a statement they are divine laws.

With all this in mind, Noah is the story of a prophet taking two from every nation and tribe aboard his "ark", IE his sanctuary, during a time of incredible chaos and destruction, where a "flood" of false religion filled the whole Earth, leaving only noah and his people with the truth. Noah teaches them the law of God and, once things calm down and the new order stabilizes while the old one dies, he sends them out to preach this truth.

Now compare this to the Bronze Age collapse:

A group of people called the sea people flooded the entire Mediterranean basin. Every nation was destroyed or collapsed by them. Moreover, their alphabet is the foundational alphabet of every alphabet in the west. Their religion is the foundational pantheon of every pagan religion in the west, Their culture and their art are the foundational units of all of western civilization. Their "flood", so to speak, of "Sea people", flooded every single culture in the west. The whole "world" was flooded with them. Just look at how Egypt pictured them as an oncoming wave whom Pharaoh stood against.

For me, this is case closed. The Flood is people. It's neither literal nor symbolic. It's....an embedded poem of reality. Real people, described poetically.

As for talking serpents and 900 year old men, all this could be indicative of the above. 900 year old tribe, the serpent being a nation-state that is their enemy.

Also Fyi, what we translate as serpent really ought to be translated as dragon. Which was a common flag for ancient people.

I do think there was a literal Adam and Eve,etc. But in context it sounds more like YHWH enlightened them rather than created them. The specific Hebrew word used is more akin to shaping clay (existing material). When he creates the heavens and the earth, a different word is used which means something out of nothing. The fact it uses two different words has to imply for me two different kinds of creations. Creating the universe out of nothing, vs creating mankind out of existing material. That could be the mud itself, but consider Adam translates to dirt. Literally. So out of dirt, he created dirt? No clue how to understand that, only that a man named dirt was created from the dirt.

Im just trying to figure out if you are a literalist or not.

I have known many people who are one or the other, and others who liberally pick and chose what they deem fit as fact for their own purposes.

I pick and choose based off hints in the text. I also have Jewish blood back to Russia so I do have a few traditional hints to help guide me. I can see Noah is clearly meant to be read as a poem of a literal event, just not a flood of water but of people. But tbh, there's no way getting around the red sea cutting in half. That text is meant to be read literally and quite literally uses the words implied to mean straight vertical cuts through the water.

Little known in-joke, Moses' name in pictograph means something along the lines of "From the sea, cut". The splitting of the red sea was his name made manifest :P

I thought they figured out the parting of the red sea was a mis-translation. it was really reed sea. there is a smaller marsh in the north of the red sea called the reed sea or sea of reeds.

That's just a location. What happened to the sea in question, regardless of which, is a cutting that implies walls formed. The word for split os baqa, which carries with it a certain idea of cutting open. Think like how you split a rib cage open of a dead animal or how you might rip apart a wall with your hands a la hulk style.

Sorry, but this pseudo-scientific bs has no connection to reality. I actually studied the topics at hand, and by studied, I do not mean sat down with the bible and made up stories.

The Sea People did NOT flood the entire Mediterranean, they are only recorded by the Egyptians and some of the small Levant states controlled by the Egyptians, and very sparsely, too. The notion of huge groups of people only comes from some researchers trying to explain the Hittite downfall, which is ad hoc and should be treated carefully. They are probably just tiny groups of pirates.

The "Collapse" is a process of several centuries and a singular explanation seems highly unlikely.

"Proto-Indo-European religion" is not a theory supported by actual evidence. It's only based on inference and superficial similarities, which is just bad science practice. And even if it wasn't, you have absolutely no reason to link the sea people to it, or link them to the indogermanic language.

The claims you are making are way out of proportion to the information we actually have about that time, and your explanation runs contrary to the well-supported fact that flood myths originate with people living in flood plains, referencing literal, local flooding.

Everything I said is backed up by John Green and his work. I greatly agree with him.

Egypt and those small Levant nations were the only cities in the region. there were some savages on the isles to the west, and some have speculated they were actually the sea peoples

The tables by the Egyptians show whole armadas. Not tiny groups of pirates.

Nobody here is arguing the collapse didn't take centuries. Every collapse does. Nobody in the 5th century thought the Roman Imperial system was over. But it was. Nobody thought that for a solid 300 years. But it was done.

So you're saying the fact that every alphabet in the west looks the same and all their gods have similar names and roles is not evidence? Fancy that.

You thus far have not responded to any actual source or evidence I provided. in my OP. You only stated your opinion. For one who claims to study, your profound lack of sources is telling.

You thus far have not responded to any actual source or evidence I provided. in my OP. You only stated your opinion. For one who claims to study, your profound lack of sources is telling.

It doesn't work that way. If you say there was a nation-state of Jews in England in 1000 BC there is no way I can "disprove" that by citing actual evidence. You also can't cite the wikipedia page of Sea People as evidence of your outlandish theory, that's like citing the wikipedia article of "lizards" to claim that lizardmen are secretly controlling the government. There is just no connection.

The tables by the Egyptians show whole armadas.

There are literally nine, not-so-big boats on the medinet habu lithograph, one of them egyptian. Ammurapi, King of Ugarit writes of 7 ships attaching his domain for ransacking and plundering, not for conquest:

My father behold, the enemy's ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka?...Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us

Where is the actual evidence that isn't just speculation?

So you're saying the fact that every alphabet in the west looks the same and all their gods have similar names and roles is not evidence? Fancy that.

The latin alphabet looks that way because it was reintroduced through the greek and later the romans, not because all indo-germanic tribes got that from the sea people. You are aware germanic runes are a thing?
The gods don't look similar and don't have similar names across the whole indogermainc people. Here's the critique of the indogerman religion theory in german, google translate will have to do. The english version is pretty bad because it leads you to believe that it is a widely accepted theory, which it is not. Yes, there are similarities, but those are superficial and rather rooted in what concerned ancient people, they don't denote common origin. That agrarian societies care about thunderstorms isn't a deep insight.

Also, here's a something that has a lot of similarities. You see the methodical problem with your approach?

You should also be aware that John Green is highly suspect of the Sea People story himself if you claim that he backs you up.

You can totally prove there was no nation of jews in england. Because there wer no jews yet. Judah doesnt exist in archeology until the 700s bc and jews as a concept are more a post exile idea.

9 ships which destroyed pretty much every eastern city of the levant. Yea ok. That makes sense. Totally accurate representation. Not at all going to mention the 40 ft tall pharoh. If you want to go litteral

Looks like someone's never heard of old latin tsk tsk tsk. I dont think i need to point out how phoneician that looks.

The germanic religion as we know it is only known through roman sources iirc and they seem to equate their gods as being the same.

He did not come off as highly suspect. He came off as thinking its got a lot of credence. He even seems to suspect they were likely lower class citizens of these nations. Did you watch more than 30 seconds

Judah doesnt exist in archeology until the 700s bc and jews as a concept are more a post exile idea.

Where is your evidence? Maybe they weren't mentioned because they didn't write anything down, just like the guys who actually destroyed those cities in the Levant ? (/s Yeah, I am aware about ancient Israel history, but do you actually understand what I am trying to say?)

9 ships which destroyed pretty much every eastern city of the levant.

Nobody knows they did. Scholars who are speculating that are already presuming that the sea people are large groups. This is circular reasoning.

Totally accurate representation

You said:

The tables by the Egyptians show whole armadas.

I just pointed out that they either A) don't or B) are fictionalized propaganda, and in both cases they don't actually show how large the sea people "invasion" was.

I do get what you are trying to say. The problem is that everyone at that time writes that an "enemy" was attacking their cities. And they all describe each other as friends. So if all the known civilizations are known to be allies, and there is an enemy attacking them, then there is a good chance that that enemy is the same enemy. Many of the tablets of the time are more about resource movement to help in the fight. I am incredibly surprised to find what sounds like continental logistics at such an early time period. Feel free to read

There is some simple math we can do to guess the size of the sea people's navy. For starters, we know that the Ugarit had a navy of about 150 ships, which steadily decreased in number over the centuries. But that is very important, because it means we know a successful city state at minimum had to have 150 ships to compete with the other city states. And because we know that Egypt was bigger, we can bet that Egypt would have more than 150 ships.

Furthermore in the source I linked above, the Hittite are recorded moving a cargo of some 450 tons. If we know that the total navy of 150 ships can supply about 500 tons, we can know two things. The Hittite navy was comparable at the time of the invasion, and the Ugarit had some kind of political sway to demand it.

we also see in another letter involved with the Alashia of Cyprus. So that may be another 150 as well.

Thus we can know conclusively that the Ugarit had less than 150 ships, and the Hittite had around 150 ships. And likely the Alashia had around 150 ships as well. This seems to have been some sort of mutually agreed number. We can thus conclude that these alliance of nations likely had around 150 ships each.

We also know at least one of these navies surrendered. So that gives the sea people, at minimum, 150 ship.

So yes, it is provable that they did not invade Egypt with 9 ships. They likely had a contingent navy in the Aegean, plus the captured 150 some odd ships, plus whatever they decided to plunder along the way. It was a pretty big fucking navy, comparable to the Trogjan war in scale....it may be that the Trojan war was a battle in this war.

I am starting to enjoy this discussion because I learned a few thing by now. So thanks for your patience. I also stumbled upon a nice lecture.

We also know at least one of these navies surrendered.

What do you mean by this? I am not sure what you are referencing.

During the reign of the anglo-saxon King Edgar (959-975) the english presumably had a thousand ships and yet small viking raids cased serious problems. So don't be so quick to dismiss the Ammurapi tablet.

Also, I wouldn't put too much weight on the 150 ships tablet. It's fragmented, the transliteration is unclear as hinted by the footnote, the date is unknown, the addressee and the author are unknown.

The Hittite navy was comparable at the time of the invasion

As far as I am aware the Ugarit fleet was the Hittite navy at that time. Hittite core land wasn't coastal, they relied on their vassal kingdoms for ships.

Thanks for the lecture!

It's recorded that during the Sea People's invasion, RS 20.18, Some kind of friendly fire transgression occurred, or a surrender of some sort. I'm not sure. But it seems the king of Ugarit was angry with the king of Cyprus for attacking him, but the king of Cyprus states that the ships were his own, and now "20 ships come to assault you... I am writing to inform and protect you. Be Aware!" We know the Sea People's tactics were to break their navy up into smaller parts and do small incursion runs. So if a small detachment is 20 ships, and there are assaults all along Anatolia to the Levantine, their navy must have been pretty big.

I think the 150 number makes sense given how much tonnage they were towing. If they had different kinds of ships for cargo vs war, they may have had even more.

Yes, they did definitively share forces. As they were constantly asking for each other's men to fight with. But I think they also each had their main contingent force to reckon with.

User knows their Abrahamic texts. I'm impressed.

I find it interesting that we today kinda ignore what Satan is supposed to be. Satan was never described as more than a 'serpent' or some other traditionally bad thing, and the name Lucifer comes from the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, who was all around kind of a horrible person. We think of Satan as a fallen angel because of works like Paradise Lost or, very recently, the comedy show Lucifer, but there's no proof that he is some fallen angel. He's just some serpent or dragon that was bad, and the name Satan is thrown around more and more the more recent the chunk of the Bible becomes in order to reference whatever the current 'bad guy' is. Contrary to modern belief, Satan tends to appear as more of a concept than an actual entity one can interact with.

More interesting things that are kinda relevant.

Also, obligatory Soylent Green is people!

E: As I finished up that last edit, I saw that I had been downvoted. Why? Was it the Soylent Green bit referencing the quote from the above comment "The sea is people"? What did I do that was against the rules or was so horribly offensive that it deserved a downvote? I'm genuinely interested in input, and would love it if it were standard to explain what made someone downvote another person so that that person could learn from whatever horrible thing they apparently did and improve their later content. I believe Holo said something along the lines of "Remember the lesson, not the disappointment." That's great advice, but I can't follow it if I don't know what the lesson is.

I sure would like to sit down over coffee with you and discuss your perspectives. You have some incredibly well thought out and logical approaches to biblial events. I could talk for hours about this stuff!

There'es always the PM button!

wait. why have I never heard of these "sea peoples"?

who were they and were did they come from?

also are you aware of a place called Sundaland?

Nobody knows who the sea people were. Everyone died before they could write that down. They were some kind of tribal confederation which spread across the Mediterranean and left only ruins in their wake. See John Green's video on them.

Holy shit! Are you saying that the Noah story in the Bible is really just a really old piece of nationalist, anti-immigrant propaganda?

Like...one of the oldest dog whistles?

hahaha totally possible for you to read it that way. But in reality, nations as a concept didn't exist yet. In those days everyone considered themselves part of a singular civilization, or at least they certainly write that way. Neighboring kings are called brothers, sometimes even fathers of other kings. Peoples were considered one, and the world was one. The Sea peoples came from the outskirts, united and ready for war. It's totally possible they were once members of this civilization. Nobody is sure.

They were more like ISIS than refugees. Though refugees are mentioned a few times. Here, let me get you some 3500 year old tear jerkers:

One of my favorite pieces of literature from the time period is a letter between two kings, one called father, the other son. Bear in mind these are actually two kings, each with their own cities and people:

My father, behold, the enemy's ships came

my cities were burned, and they did evil things in my country.

Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka?

...

Thus, the country is abandoned to itself.

May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us.

And "Father's" reply:

As for what you have written to me: 'Ships of the enemy have been seen at sea!'

Well, you must remain firm.

Indeed for your part, where are your troops, your chariots stationed?

Are they not stationed near you? No?

Behind the enemy, who press upon you?

Surround your towns with rampart.

Have your troops and chariots enter there, and await the enemy with great resolution!"

Other transcripts include the following tragic details:

Since my son sent me

a tablet of food

there is plenty of abundance with me

and let my son in the same way

equip a sea-ship

strengthen it

and food

.

When thy servant delivered

word to me whatever is thy desire

which thou lackest-I will

provide for my brother,

and I too, whatever

I lack my brother

will load it there

And let my brother not squander it!

.

The enemy

against us

and there is no number

our number is pure

whatever is available, look for it

and send it to me

.

To my kind Lord

say

message of Shiptibaal

thy servant

to the feet of my lord

seven times and seven times

from afar

I fall

thy servant in

Lawasanda

fortify positions

with the king

and behold

the king retreated

fled and there

he sacrificed

.

And I, too

To mount Amanus

Behold, the enemy destroyed

.

And behold, the enemies oppress me

but I shall not leave my wife

my children before the enemy

.

And if the Hittites

mount, I will send a message

to thee, and if

they do not mount, I will certainly send

a message. And thou

my mother, be not afraid

and do not put worries into thy

heart

.

Thy Messenger arrived. The degraded one

trembles and the low one

is torn to pieces

our food in the threshing floors

is burned

and also the vineyards

are destroyed

our city is destroyed

and mayst thou know it!

Source

It literally reads like an apocalypse. One by one each of these sons dies in battles. Their cities fall. Their people are slaughtered. But it does show one thing. These many proto-nations considered each other one people.

You may like Steven Green's little video on it

I don't know what they might have been taking, either intentionally or accidentally, but this sounds like one hell of an out of body experience.

So...he wasn't really familiar with THE SUN before he left so described it as above?

Sure he was. .Probably didn't expect to see the sun still glowing when it goes under the horizon. Where does all the light go?

It's been awhile since I've read it, but that text sounds like it's from the Book of Enoch. A text that was about the Heavenly Host (Angels), the Fallen and the origins of the Nephilim etc.

Anyway assuming that is scripture from Enoch wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the writer is giving culturally religious explanation (which would be poetic) for what he's seeing in the sky, rather than simply describing in a poetic way?

Isn't that one in the same? Poetry for these people is religion. To this day Al Jazera still tells the news in old Arabic. Their equivalent of old English. It's inherently religious and poetic.

I see what you're saying. I guess I just see it as a different motivation even if the practical application is the same. Still good post and have an upvote.

Enoch is a fascinating book IMO because it's not canon anywhere but the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (?) but is referenced by books in the New Testament, making it kinda canon for Christians but still not canon anywhere else.

I learned about it when learning about the groups of angels, it being the only place in any form of what we might call the Bible or Torah or whatever in which we find the names of the seven archangels. Cool stuff.

I also had no reason for writing this other than wanting to share that info, so this ain't me starting an argument.

To sort of add on to this, you have an interesting description in Job about God hanging the earth upon nothing and drawing comparisons to existing celestial objects that are known to be round and also hanging on nothing (the sun and moon). As mentioned in the comment above yours, there are also references to the "circle of the earth" in Job and other places throughout the Bible. I think the person responsible for that map with both four corners and a circular earth was having trouble sorting out what was meant to be poetic language and what wasn't, as you discussed.

What you have to realize is that ancient people did not make literal vs symbolic differences. They wrote poetically or historically, but both were "real things" so to speak. This is still seen in middle eastern languages today. Like how Iran calls the US the "Great Satan". We are not literally Satan. But in a poetic way, we are to them.

[deleted]

America.

In reality most Christians do not nor have ever thought the world was 6000 years old. You can find people from as early as the 3rd century saying not to take the age literally.

A few screeching autistic baptists in Europe made a big fuss claiming they were right. Europe responded by shipping the baboons to America so they didn't have to deal with them. When America was founded, they were still here. And they still are.

[deleted]

Heretics =/= degenerate. You may like this book as it revolves around that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_(short_story)

I keep saying this to people today but thank you for putting in the effort. I learned a lot from this and am looking forward to reading more about ancient hermit-Jews after work today.

Dead Sea scrolls are a fun read.

Also, the Romans do a great job documenting where these ideas come from in their histories. They say the Magi, and Zoroaster, all got their scientific ideas form Brahman priests in North India. Great place to start.

When Zoroaster had boldly made his way into the unknown regions of Upper India, he reached a wooded wilderness, whose calm silence the lofty intellects of the Brahmins control. From their teaching he learned as much as he could grasp of the laws regulating the movements of the earth and the stars, and of the pure sacrificial rites. Of what he had learned he communicated something to the understanding of the Magi, which they, along with the art of divining the future, hand on from generation to generation to later times. From that time on for many ages down to the present a large class of men of one and the same descent have devoted themselves to the service of the gods. The Magi also say (for it is right to believe them) that they guard on ever-burning braziers a fire sent down from heaven in their country, and that a small portion of it, as a good omen, used to be carried before the Asiatic kings.

Source

Ever wonder how the Magi knew where to find Jesus? Thank Zoraster :P

Thanks Zoraster! :D

The seven stars could be the seven bright stars in Ursa Major.

Could be. But it's traditionally said to be the Pleiades, as the 7 stars chained together. Ursa Major and Ursa Minor are usually instead described as bears, mother and child. In Job, the differentiation is explicitly stated.

Forgot about Job. Thanks for the info.

Back then, it was standard procedure to describe things in poetry, not in plain text format like today.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost = A sort of atomic theory?

Consciousness, Matter/Space and Energy... the three things you need for the existence of the universe.

There was no concept of a trinity in 300BC.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost = A sort of atomic theory?

I'm inclined to say no on that one. People have tried to make the Trinity analogous to things like water, how it can be a liquid, solid, or a gas and still be water, but the Trinity is more complex than that. I don't know if that's what you're sort of referring to.

Regardless, the Trinity has little to do with scientific theories. It's purely a theological and philosophical discussion, but that is an interesting thought.

I think maybe you're reading a little too much into it.

I think it might be reasonable to say that deities represent "forces of nature" - this is all speculation here, I don't have sources or expertise, but based on things I've heard and common sense it seems reasonable.

I know ancient polytheistic religions tend to attribute different actions and things to gods, like in Greek and Roman history they had different gods for what we now call weather, tides, and cosmology. Those gods were their explanation on why things did what they did, and now we have equations and physics which serve the same function - just much more rigorously and accurately.

In some sense, it's just as arbitrary as the idea of a god. We all know F=ma, but why? Sure it more accurately models what happens, but you could also more qualitatively model it by coming up with some "god of motion." You ask a Roman "why did that lightning destroy that building" and he says "whoever lived there offended Jupiter so he destroyed them", but I say "static electricity in the ground discharged through the easiest route possible, which happened to be that house" - they both explain that thing - just my explanation can also be applied to a lot more without changing anything.

And I know that classical greek philosophers really struggled with coming up with explanations for why things did what they did. I recall Thales of Miletus's idea that "Everything is full of gods" - in some sense giving and attribute (what we now call quantitatively "interia" or "kinetic energy") to things, causing them to move.

And I know that one of the things that monotheistic religions (at least Christianity anyway) claimed to be "proof" that they are correct is that the "one god" causes everything. It's really a pretty natural leap - go from qualitatively explaining with lots of individual things, saying "this is too complicated, it has to be more elegant than that" and then qualitatively explaining everything with one god. Something we're still trying to do today, but quantitatively this time - trying to merge quantum mechanics and special relativity with some "theory of everything"

Philosophy and metaphysics and science and physics all seem to me to be the same thing, just in varying degrees of rigor and accuracy.

Philosophy and metaphysics are pretty different from science. Philosophy and metaphysics are concerned with unobservable realities and values (what's right and wrong) while science is concerned with the why and how of the physical world.

I meant that they all try to explain the what, at least in some sense. I don't mean to claim that they are similar in validity or necessarily in the topics they cover, but they all seem to be able to satisfy that human need to understand. My guess is that that's the reason people come up with notions that 'hey maybe this idea of a god indicates such and such in modern science, so they must have known what they were talking about"

Thank you! This is awesome!

What field would you say this is? Scientific Anthropology or something? What do you study to know of these incredible connections?

I'm just an architect who spent too much time in the history section of the library. I wouldn't know what topic, but I'm sure /r/askhistorians could help you out.

[deleted]

Not at all. What they said was considered truth for many eons. poetic truth. Eratosthenes convinced everyone the world was round, and people who knew the world was round wrote like the world was flat for the entire middle ages. Sometimes people just like a concept.

[deleted]

Poetic truth can describe events though. Consider the US' poetic truth of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree. Such a story is mythical, but the people and consequences are not. Washington was a real person, and he really was known for not lying and being blunt and honest. This is encoded into a poem for our common enjoyment. And look at the results. Nearly everyone knows the story! Ancient story tellers knew this trick well.

You haven't really told me why it's not worthy of any praise. If you're just grumpy that they weren't being literal, look I'd hate to break it to you, but not every culture values literal truth. You have a right to call that stupid, but it's not going to stop the necessity to translate certain culture's language that way. If you don't, you may actually believe Iran thinks we're literally Satan. That's dangerous, geopolitical speaking.

[deleted]

Not really. This is a very common motif in Middle Eastern literature. Millions of people read, speak, write, and think this way across many nations in the middle east.

I mention Iran because they are a great example. When they call the US the Great Satan and use satanic literature to describe us, they are doing the same as the authors of Enoch did thousands of years ago.

[deleted]

If you don't see the connection, it's probably better you doubt it. You don't have the comprehension to understand culture.

lol alright then buddy.

It's not like I'm the one posting irrelevant things that are actually trash.

This is the part where you keep the conversation going because you have no sources for your claims and I do. So you just want to keep running your mouth.

Ok. Congratulations, you win.

In whatever warped view of reality you have.

Feel free to have the final word! People like you always love to! I won't stop the drunk from having his say!

Every so often a username sticks out to me and his is one of them. This guy is a dick and you're right to ignore him.

Very interesting stuff, by the way.

Wow your reading comprehension could use some remediation.

No, I got it right.

Ugh, is summer over yet?

Yes.

It's all part of the time cube

don't even get me started on four corner days, bro

Time is a flat circle bro. Checkmate.

I THOUGHT TIME WAS A FLAT CIRCLE

Doesn't matter bro navel connects 4 corners 4s.

Time is a flat.... square.

Doctor Strange 2 confirmed…

The greater good

Sagan is trying to tell them they are all educated-stupid

Imagine four balls on the edge of a cliff.

I gleamed the cube. Once.

I remain unconvinced, despite your assertion.

I hate that joke so much. Annoying and very overused.

So is the earth circular or square????

Dammit, just look at the map. It's right there.

/s

Obviously it's neither. I prefer the Goode homolosine projection.

It's a squared circle.

We're the eye of the Maelstrom.

But I don't remember hearing about the Well of Eternity blowing up.

Time Cube confirmed

Seems like Otis Eugene Ray's best work might be plagiarism.

Well obviously its a circle depression in a square stone thing like the picture, it makes perfect sense. They covered all their bases.

Squared circle

Earth is Too Hip to be Square.

All these squares make a circle...

That scripture evidence is shoddy at best O.o Even the evangelicals make more sense

As another redditor so thoughtfully replied, that's because it's fucking poetry. Whoever thought the book should be taken literally has never heard of oral traditions. Poetry is easier to remember than hard facts.

Banana shaped

/r/squaredcircle

Have you looked at the central image? It's clearly a circle inside a square.

Remarkable the intelligence and effort that went into making something so incredible stupid.

Anything looks stupid when you're eager to mock it.

It's not difficult to mock a flat earth theory.

It seems to me that he was noting that the map actually looks well-put together. It's the concept behind it that is stupid.

Perhaps /u/TazdingoBan is a ~~flat~~ square-and-stationary-earther?

What exactly was I mocking? I would be interested in hearing your description of it.

Man, that thing is pretty to look at. To think that someone could devote such talent and effort to something so preposterous. Makes me hope the guy was in on the joke, did for the lulz to sell to the real loons.

I like to think it's the map for a fantasy novel about a flat earth.

Maybe the map was a thought experiment. Like a "what if this were the case, how would our earth look?" kind of deal.

OK while flat earthers are obviously insane, that map actually looks pretty cool

Holy shit this is hipster cafe decorative gold.

Hey, at least New Zealand is on this map.

r/mapswithNZbutwithoutcommonsense

I mean, can you really doubt someone with facial hair that glorious?

That map is a work of art.

I love it.

Total mystery.

Omg, that guys hair gets me every time.

Well, I mean, at least his theory addresses some of the flaws of the typical 'flat earth', like the part where on a flat earth the sun should always be visible.

Yeah, but according to flatearthers everybody in canada would slide down to southamerica.

Wait... if that was the case why would you not see antarctica from the norther regions of the planet?

I mean, I in London should be able to see South Africa from here.

Through the fog, you mean?

(Kidding, I know the fog never lifts)

I love how it cites the bible at the top, as if the bible is some kind of factual or scientific text

Thanks for this. This shit has been around forever and it's important to notice that

I don't think the world is that gullible.

The hot springs melted his brain.

Jesus Christ. They've been around longer than I thought.

The earth isn't flat you idiot, it is hollow. Now can I interest you in a place in Florida?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreshanity

That's just a roulette table.

That is exceptionally well-drawn. I don't mean that I think it's accurate, but just that those shapes are really hard to draw correctly by hand. Drafting courses teach you how to create a pseudo-3D representation, and it is incredibly time-consuming.

OH EARTH IS A ROULETTE BOARD!!!!!

Wow. He really tried to disprove the globe using religious scripture. And then asked for money too!

I love how 50% of it is round to explain natural phenomena and then went fuck it once they got to the southern hemisphere.

Square?!

And what of gravity? How do the oceans stay where they are? And why is it so cold at the middle? And how does the sun go around this? Does this person even think?

"SCRIPTURE THAT CONDEMNS THE GLOBE THEORY." Proceeds to quote bible verses

fucking lol

Woah this is actually pretty cool.

I have done some research into modern flat earthers, and I am happy to report that they do not appear to believe in the giant turtle, at least.

TBF that drawing is dope as tits

You know...there's a lot of ice there at the center AND at the edges...I wonder what keeps the heat there in in between?

Wow ! Thanks !! its full of amazing details

I mean... He isn't wrong... I could see an atheist making this to disprove Christianity. It's just another silly thing the Bible says because people believed them when they wrote the Bible.

Example = a TV commercial that claims the product was developed in a science lab and what they don't say is: it was the manufacturers lab with its techs creating the latest supplement to help you live to be 110 yrs. old.

ANCIENT ALIENS! Yeah, The Ancient Astronaut Theory! /facepalm

https://covers.openlibrary.org/w/id/7163377-L.jpg

Check out the "history" channel of the past 5-ish years.

Ancient Aliens

Hunting Hitler

American Ripper

Conspiracy theory shows based upon conjecture, and pseudo-fact. Hunting Hitler had a dozen+ episodes set in Argentina...

Or the infinitium of staged pawn, storage unit, Alaska, oil, digging, gold, timber, mountain men, UFO, and Alaska (there's so many Alaska shows it needed to be stated twice) shows. Even "reality" shows have become fake, as what was real, wasn't real/interesting enough.

Try 15 years. That channel's been an embarassment since the dawn of the millennium.

It was an embarrassment from the start, but mainly because of H's uncomfortable fascination with Hitler.

Granted the 90s were pretty much "all WWII, all the time," but it was fairly accurate, historically speaking, at least.

Right, it was pretty much the Biography Channel, for Hitler.

Quora gave me "topic you might like: Hitler!" yesterday.

One time I fell asleep in front of the TV. My entire dream was narrated by 2 full hours of Ancient Aliens. It was kinda weird.

Another time I dreamt I was skydiving only because there was a fan blowing on my face.

Hold on. Those events seem too plausible.

Are you sure you weren't abducted by aliens while watching "Ancient Aliens?"

It was all, "what if there's a third explanation; supernatural alien technology? {macabre music}

Egyptian Pyramids that are in reality.... alien power plants!

[deleted]

OMG I forgot about Second Life...my undergrad comm professor set up our classroom on second life. I made the mistake of leaving the classroom. So many random orgies and clowns walking around 😑 We met in our physical classroom every other day. Yup. :::locks it back away in memory vault::::

2017-08-09 17:48:50
(1)
u/DELETED

https://youtu.be/JaTYFs380rI

The Bermuda rhombus and the aqua nazis

But we ARE too smart for that. Everyone knows that this is bullshit.

Everytime bullshit starts spreading, there's an ARMY of people online who delight in letting everyone know that it's bullshit.

I'll actually never forget that doc. Once my brother, a friend, and I were watching TV. None of us had our phones or anything and this documentary started.

I immediately thought it was some sort of bullshit and said so. But after the documentary, my brother and friend were reasonably convinced. They thought it was outlandish initially but whatever the evidence was (shaky cam footage and some prosthetic mermaid body as I recall) had convinced them.

I had a good laugh at them immediately and especially once we looked up that it was some "mockumentary" or whatever. But it was surprising to me that a dubious source was able to convince them of that.

I think you underestimate the number of people who are susceptible. We get a lot of information in our lives. The problem is that we don't always use our critical thinking and skepticism.

My brother is a smart person. But I think, when you aren't really paying attention, or the stakes are low, it's very easy to get bamboozled. And I think that's how misinformation on things like climate change and public policy thrives; when it's not immediately relevant to someone, often times they will not use their time to think hard on the subject.

Your story really stands out to me. My grandmother watches some big foot show, and is 100% convinced it's a thing, no matter what anyone says. Even when we pointed out that the cast members came out and said it was BS, edited for drama and suspense to imply they were actually finding bigfoot, she is still convinced it's totally true facts.

Whether someone is convinced by these BS documentaries or whatever, I think has to do with, at least in part, how much they WANT to believe it's actually a thing.

You know, that's interesting because your grandmother got evidence that should have been entirely disconfirming. Somehow, it didn't get through, obviously.

It reminds me: in college, I took a class on schizophrenia. One of the aspects of Sz is that disconfirming evidence does not affect the delusions they have. Present them with something that ought to change their minds and they go on believing whatever delusion they had before anyway.

Part of the neurobiology of delusions is hypothesized to be related to "reconsolidation" of beliefs that happens whenever the belief comes to mind. My understanding (bit rusty) is that when you present disconfirming evidence, it "activates" the delusional belief, and somehow, due to whatever biological problems in Sz, the belief gets reconsolidated.

It makes me think of how conspiracies form and spread. For some reason there are these conspiracies that spread, even when there isn't strong evidence. It seems like evidence has no relation to how well a conspiracy spreads. I wonder if it's something similar to delusions, where even when you are viewing disconfirming evidence ("5 reasons why pizza gate is a myth") it still is increasing your recognition and belief in the conspiracy.

I think beliefs held long enough can become stronger than whatever evidence points to it.

This thing had a disclaimer basically saying "this is bullshit" that ran immediately before it started and I still had people at work the next day telling me how it was real.

I don't remember that part. I wonder if we were just not paying attention or came in late or something.

The thing is, despite that disclaimer, the whole program was designed to look exactly like a documentary. It wasn't silly like Spinal Tap or other mockumentaries. I don't remember what artistic license Discovery claimed but they could have done it in a way much less likely to misinform. Even the British promos, aired after the original release link gave little sense that it was fiction and even mentions its controversy.

It's clear in my eyes that the program was designed 1) to fool people into believing it so they would watch it as a "scoop" or 2) to stoke ethical controversy to get attention and views.

Yeah I watched some of it as well, and I think the only disclaimer was at the very beginning so it was easy to miss.

It's still a self correcting system though... Someone will come along and debunk...

These things actually act as reliable indicators that someone is an unreliable source of truth... If someone tells me that they believe in Mermaids, or that we only use 10% of our brains, I know that I can dismiss anything they say that sounds slightly dubious.

Hmm, good point.

If it's the mermaid one then your brother isn't very smart if he fell for it, I'm sorry

Oh ok I'll tell him. Thanks

If it makes you feel better I'm not either

But we're not too smart for that. You might be too smart for that, but that mermaid mockumentary fooled enough people for Snopes to have to declare it false.

The army of people online don't reach everyone. Much of whom they reach are people who similarly spend lots of time online and on credible sources. People who use the internet differently, like the people who retweet memes and post political rants based on InfoWars or Occupy Democrats, might not have the same skepticism.

Right... but there aren't more of those people as a proportion of the population. They aren't something to lament. Fuck. Just let idiots be idiots, you know?

Most people aren't incredibly smart. There are plenty of functioning adults who can't easily distinguish real from fake. They're a large enough proportion to affect consumer statistics, media output, and government decisions. Even if you think they're irrelevant, they occupy the world and influence the structures around them.

Which is why all religions have been accepted as mythology, science and evidence dominate public policy, mysticism and holistic medicine and psychics are all a joke, and Trump was laughed out of the elections.

Oh, wait.

That's not what he means... He means people believing in things like evolutionary psychology and race realism and phrenology and IQ being linked to race etc. That sort of utter nonsense.

Well he said presentations of pseudoscience given credibility. That's exactly what the documentary was.

Hahaha oh geez.. I hope you're joking.

I'm not joking, there are actually people out there who believe in evolutionary psychology, race realism and phrenology. They're absolute fucking retards on the same level as flat earthers.

You're the absolute fucking retard dude. Go away.

I love how angry the little alt-right conspiritard corncobs get when their little beliefs are invalidated by actual facts and reality, which are incomprehensible to them.

I love how you assume everyone that doesn't want to trash an entire scientific field is automatically "alt-right"

They're not scientific fields. They're pseudoscience, and the only people interested in proliferating the false conclusions drawn by the 'studies' conducted by these pseudoscientists are the alt-right. It is therefore valid for me to conclude that anyone defending them is likely to be of the alt-right persuasion, whether they identify as such or not, since alt-right folk often try to claim they're centrists or liberals.

That's some nice circular logic you got there, how fast can you travel on it?

That's not what circular logic is, but thanks for playing.

(circular logic)

(but it's not circular logic!)

That's not what circular logic is though. It's like you didn't learn that that's not what it is when I pointed out last night that that's not what it is. Do you have a learning disability?

I'm guessing you're being somewhat satirical. However I've reached that stage of not knowing what's a joke and what's not on political subjects. There are so many lunatics on both sides and political agendas being pushed from all directions.

I mean, the evolutionary development of the mind is a thing right? It's how basic "natural instinct" is formed and can be empirically tested in a multitude of species.

I'm not being satirical. Pseudosciences all belong together on the same shelf marked 'Laugh at people who believe in this garbage, they're morons'.

You can add holistic medicine to that. As well as antivaxers. I'm battling people in my dog group about raw food diet. Because their ancestors ate raw in the wild! Except dogs/wolves live very short lives in the wild compared to domesticated ones. And the percentage of vets who believe dogs should be on raw diets is closely aligned with climate scientists who believe nothing is wrong. Less than 1%.

Dog food is a good example, because it's a specific enough science that most people should, ideally, be able to admit that they do not know enough about canine dietary needs to decide what is best for a dog to eat, and instead look to the experts on the subject for a consensus. But we are in this strange time where people consider scientists to be egghead idiots at best, and paid shills at worst, and would rather take the word of some dude on the internet about it.

Evolutionary psychology, lumped together with phrenology?

lmao

All pseudosciences belong together. Because they're pseudosciences.

"Evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience because I would rather my preconceived notions not be challenged by the scientific method"

lmao, you're literally no different than a creationist

evolutionary psychology

This is not pseudoscience but like evolution was misunderstood and applied to create eugenics so to could evolutionary psychology could be misapplied.

Or people saying they are whatever new gender they created

Um no, that's not a pseudoscience and therefore is not relevant to this topic, which is about pseudosciences being presented as legitimate.

Transgenderism and gender as a non-binary spectrum is accepted fact amongst the scientific community, and is therefore genuine science backed up by evidence and research.

Retard.

Transgenderim comes from gender dysphoria a mental illness, non-binary is science backed up by mental illness and people wanting to feel special.

In the end they’re male or female, despite all of their efforts not to.

Transgenderim comes from gender dysphoria

No, it's the other way around.

a mental illness

Wrong again.

non-binary is science

Yes, and that's where your sentence should have stopped.

mental illness and people wanting to feel special.

Wrong and wrong. People don't want to feel special. They want to feel like themselves without fear of persecution from others who have absolutely no business telling them who and what they are, especially as it has absolutely no effect on their lives if someone else identifies as male, female, both, neither or otherwise.

In the end they’re male or female, despite all of their efforts not to.

All wrong.

F

Wow, amazing, you're literally an example of the kind of ignorance he is decrying. Denying entire fields of scientific study like psychometrics and evolutionary psychology and lumping them in with phrenology because they produce evidence that go against your preconceived notions of fairness.

It's ironic just how close it puts your position to that of a creationist. A hundred years of consistent data isn't enough for you to believe intelligence has genetic factors; I suppose we all just snapped into existence, with no selection pressure whatsoever.

Uh no, I'm not. You are because you seen to believe in scientific racism, which is a pseudoscience and has been debunked literally dozens of times by the scientific community for decades.

Its not real, and science says it's not real. I'm the one on the side of informed, rational, reasoned facts, figures and research. You're the one that 'feels' that it's real because it agrees with your dumbass wish that white people are somehow superior intellectually.

Try not being a retard.

Sure thing champ, sure thing. A century of research vs your opinion, you've swayed me.

A century of research

19th Century maybe. Racial science has been debunked dozens of times over the last several decades.

your opinion

It's not my opinion. That's the entire point.

Please do find me a large scale psychometrics study that focuses on racial differences and shows that there aren't any. Happy to read it. All the ones I've found show clear differences in average distributions by race.

The advent of Raven's Progressive Matrices and other mechanisms which are intended to eliminate cultural bias have only reconfirmed the above, to my knowledge.

I'm willing to discover I am wrong. Are you?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

These are concrete, scientific facts that deserve to part of the national discourse.

Well, yeah, heart disease is a problem. We ought to take more measures to prevent it, and a person's ancestral background can be a risk factor for heart disease. People should be aware of the risks, and more public resources ought to be made available to prevent it. In particular, we ought to address the cultural problems at the root of poverty and stress among various minority groups.

Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience? Race differences is pseudoscience?

Yes you retard. That's why I said it.

yes you retard

I think you might have missed a memo

Ah, the old "things I don't like are Politics and things I do are Science" trick.

[deleted]

I can't claim to know anything about evolutionary psychology. But the comment you were replying to was discussing race realism, which has been thoroughly debunked.

[deleted]

Yes?

Physical characteristics are linked to a variety of regional factors. But race itself doesn't exist as a biological category, and doesn't directly influence these traits.

How much research has been done on this? Not saying I don't believe it, just surprised.

But race itself doesn't exist as a biological category, and doesn't directly influence these traits.

If you clone someone, what are the odds that the clone will be the same race?

What is race realism?

It's usually just called scientific racism. Basically a collection of pseudo-scientific ideas which attempt to define race as a biological fact rather than a social construct--measuring skull dimensions, brain sizes, etc. Historically used to justify colonialism and slavery.

Well, THAT was uncalled for.

Holy shit, what a leap... He mentions crystals and horoscopes, how did you get to race theory and phrenology?

Here is some further clarification on what he means by pseudoscience from later in the same source and again in separate articles. Don't use dead people to further your partisan bullshit.

http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/11/science-versus-pseudoscience-according-to-carl-sagan/

He mentions crystals and horoscopes, how did you get to race theory and phrenology?

Because they're pseudosciences on the same level as crystals and horoscopes, which, incidentally, is the same level that all pseudosciences exist on. The level of 'pseudoscience'.

Do you.. Do you actually believe in race realism and phrenology? If you do, you're pretty fucking stupid and/or very racist.

IQ being linked to race etc. That sort of utter nonsense.

I don’t know. It’s just false. What makes it utter nonsense? It’s not like there couldn’t have been a link e.g. between race and IQ, so it’s a fair question to ask and research. “Utter nonsense” sounds like something where the very question is completely ridiculous.

The fact that it's utter nonsense is what makes it utter nonsense.

Flat earth? Anti-vax? Global warming debate?

Even some of the mainstream science could easily be classified as pseudo-science if you look at how certain studies are carefully crafted to align with monetary interests.

All of those are pseudosciences yes, and belong on the same level as all pseudosciences, with the crystals and the horoscopes.

that shit scared me when i was young and stupid. it looks like shit now though lmao.

Oh, for fucks sake! Who fucking watches this shit?! Memba nature shows? Memba Marty fucking Stouffer?!

I assume he means this type of stuff.

You won't fall for pseudoscience if you balance your pH using the alkaline food diet. Don't eat anything more acidic than cocoa, and stick to things more alkaline than pineapple!

Kind of dissappointed the link didn't take me to some flat earther presentation.

Aliens made the pyramids.

thought this was going to be a link to Bill Nye's new music video "I Like Dicks and Pussy"

I know people who when I question all of these shitty shows (e.g. "The Curse of Oak Island") insist I have the problem. "You just need to keep an open mind!" There is a difference between an open mind and an empty one. "Ok, you're right. The Knights Templar managed to sneak their treasury across the Atlantic to a swampy island off of Nova Scotia. Then they dug, by hand with shovels, a hole so deep that even modern equipment struggles to do it and they planned to return and dig it up someday also. They did all this without anyone saying a word or noticing."

That is one of my biggest gripes with the way Netflix now does recommendations. I like documentaries so now my recommendations are all alien "documentaries," UFO files, etc. I have to actively search for real documentaries because Netflix pushes this crap.

Like now you turn on the History or Discovery channel, and all you see are shows about Yeti, pawn shops, crystals, astrology and ancient aliens. It is much harder to find new shows with significant science content.

I really can't tell if this is satire or not. If it is real, it wouldn't even be the stupidest thing Animal Planet has put out in the last decade

Ancient aliens. Christian creationist museaums. Anti-vaxxer mommy blogs. Conspiracy propaganda posing as news agencies (Breitbart, Alex Jones' Info-Wars).

He's talking about Ted talks.

He's talking about credulous presentations of pseudoscience being mistaken for real science. In particular he refers to this one guy who was huge a little while before the book came out, he would go on talk shows and pretend to get possessed by spirits and speak 'truths' to the masses and everyone was buying his bullshit. He would sell crystals with magic healing powers and the like. People need real sciences to help light up the darkness of ignorance that looms over the world. One of the earlier chapters in the book is called the invisible dragon in my garage, which makes the distinction between a refutable and irrefutable claim. He says if a man claims to have an invisible untouchable unheard dragon in his garage then you can't really prove its not there, but you also can't prove it is there. Parallels to the existence of God. But then later in the book when he's closer to his death, Carl shows more optimism in the possible existence of an afterlife.

That's not a real thing is it... of course it is. Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck.

Horseshoe theory for once...

In my day this swirl was known as snake oil and everyone knew it was a fraud, now they call it fish oil and suppliers can't keep up with demand!

I think he may be referring to the presentation and acceptance of fake science as fact.

Pseudoscience: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific methods. Ex: Everything that Gwyneth Paltrow is doing these days.

How does this ring true to Sagans point? My SIL , amazingly intelligent, bought those stupid Body Vibes stickers that promote healing. Perfectly logical people buying into perfectly packaged bullshit!!

I watched an episode of "Adam Ruins Everything" where they debunked those Dr.Phil type shows. In which they found that you can pay an affordable amount of money to publish literally anything you want into an official sounding "science" journal. They demonstrated by publishing the entire script for the episode into a food science journal which they could then use in official citations.

That is obvious enough that I'm not too worried. I'm more worried by the over abundance of weak papers in "reputable" journals. In psychology, himmicanes, power pose, air rage, and other popular findings are really just statistical noise, but they get published and blogged about and Ted-talked under the umbrella of "science".

Even worse, many nutritional studies are basically statistical backwash, but get published with the headline "studies show" by trusted news sources. Nutritional information is very important, and it is a shame that the best advice is to ignore most of the science unless you have a very good understanding of statistics.

I think the biggest threat to science today is the corruption of formerly credible sources with junk noise mining studies. Technically, you can look up the mermaid documentary and they will admit they made it up. But there are real tenured professors at Cornell and Princeton, pushing out papers in real scientific journals, which have essentially no scientific value. And nobody will admit it.

I was thinking every Dr. Oz show.

The best example is people trying to convince you there are more than 2 genders.

"Tonight on discovery channel...Mermaids: The body found"

Half of Ted talks are this kind of shit. They do the law of attraction and other stupid shit talks like that all the time

Credulous presentations of pseudoscience.  Fake news.  Propaganda.  Sound bites.  Lies and deception.  The election of Donny Chump is proof many are not too smart.

I've found that I can't tell people that I work in NLP anymore because the "say the magic words to heal your problems" Neuro-Linguistic Programming is more common than Natural Language Processing, one of the most important and largest subfields of computer science. Even Forbes doesn't know the difference

What's worse, they did it twice, and still haven't fixed one of them after an outcry on Twitter.

It was hard to watch that brave mermaid sacrifice himself to the megalodon to give his family time to escape.

Lol that cannot be real

Hey! There's a megalodon in that documentary, don't spoil it.

Its BS packaged as if based on science but just sham info, data or sales pitches. You may very well be smart enough to avoid it. In fact, I think that is why you ask what it is. You haven't taken it in bc you 'smell' it and your brain shifts focus.

Oh pseudoscience? Presented as truth? I weep for my children. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World

how about the greatest one of all.. https://youtu.be/10fDRERJh4w

Climate change, gender fluidity, etc.

This part

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

hypernormalization.

Adam Curtis, HyperNormalisation: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c

Been meaning to watch it. Think I might do just that tonight.

absolute must watch along w Century of the Self

True!!

  1. Hypernormalisation
  2. Century of the Self
  3. Dumb and Dumber (#1 Videocassette!!)

In that order.

  1. Idiocracy

In Idiocracy when they have a food shortage they find the smartest person in the world, put them in charge of finding a solution and they actually implement their plan.

Think about that for a moment...

They weren't so dumb that they couldn't recognize their own ignorance. What does that say about our own society?

We just ain't dumb enough yet.

Sigh, I'll get the vagisil.

It's got what vags crave.

Extra Cheese on your Taco?

Don't you mean, the Vasalgel?

That's pissin me awf!

The opposite. Think about it. They were smart enough to recognize a smart person and did what he said.

We are still electing buffoons to lead us and willingly chose to ignore the real thinkers.

I don't know what high school is like now, but when I was in it, it was actually kinda terrifying to be an honor roll student.

What kind of backwards ass society is this when knowledge and education are frowned upon?

Challenge ACEPTED!!

Never go full retard.

Have you heard what we have been doing with coconuts recently as a community?

It gots what plants crave?

You need to ask? Every redditor that posts the name of that movie never acknowledges that they're part of the dumb majority. 'Discussions' sprout everywhere in this site, for the stupidest of reasons, without any side really considering the possibility of admiting fault, looking at every rebuttal with the idea that they're wrong for questioning me first and looking for support of that preconception latter.

This site is a microcosmos of the western world. As our president would say: SAD!

I totally get what your saying, however while thought patterns can be distinctly regional/cultural, imo, and imo pursuit of truth is/was pillar of western world, being able to speak honestly without fear of being wrong or right but desiring complete understanding of what's outside and inside is an issue of ego every damn person has to overcome. i agree with you though I wish we were all more willing to explore the roots of these thoughts/patterns/trends.

Hey you're talking about me! Trolling or honest? You're saying I'm part of the dumb majority? I ride my bike to work, went to college for architecture, am pro GMOs, pro nuclear and pro renewable energy and I vote for whichever candidate values policy based on facts rather than beliefs. I happen to believe our society, by electing trump, demonstrates that it is on a path that meshes with the world of idiocracy . A 'populist' president like that, who has no real interest in anything except being a revered head of state, who constantly and blatantly lies, can only be a product of a society that decreasingly values scientific truth. A society that values their base instincts over critical thinking.

To quote a great movie:

You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons

Just depends on which sub you're in. I've seen plenty of fruitful discussion. I've also seen plenty of arguments where both parties only seek to win.

And how are they meant to break out of the dumb majority? They'll still be in it whatever they do almost certainly.

And how are they meant to break out of the dumb majority? They'll still be in it whatever they do almost certainly.

A good start, for both you and me, is to realize that there's no such thing as a dumb majority: that terrible movie is a work of fiction.

I've seen it. The majority is pretty dumb and ignorant etc. (through no fault of their own in some regards), I try to distance myself but I can't escape.

I wouldn't call you dumb nor ignorant. That kind of people do not even conceive the possibility of calling themselves such.

That we should rename the country The United States Of Dunning-Kruger?

Well, it says that that society in idiocracy was hungry. Even wilfully ignorant people have a general idea of where food comes from ( just not the electrolyte idea).

"The Sneetches got really quite smart on that day. The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches. And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches. That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether they had one, or not, upon thars."

Dr.Seuss The Sneetches

Still holds up

Mike Judge didn't predict Facebook, where people willingly put themselves in a bubble, where a computer algorithm only lets you see and like comments you agree with.

Welcome to Costco, I love you

I dunno. I don't think they actually conceded how stupid they were. They felt they were really smart for putting the smart guy on the problem IIRC.

That it was a shitty movie and the Wilson brothers should never work in Hollywood.

Being self aware enough to know you aren't the right person to make the right decision is a quality that too few possess.

capitalists and elites know they aren't the right people. they're just too greedy to care

Agreed, they can at least acknowledge they need the smartest person in the world.

Currently the smartest people in the world are liars and their facts are fake or something.

Yes all the smartest people are "liberals" and they lie and distort facts and hide behind "science". Really smart people have low IQ and take everything on faith.

If god wanted us to know things he would have written it in the bible, all this electricity and not dying at childbirth is against gods will.

Studies have shown that the smartest people in the world lie and lie often to suck that grant money dick. If something is funded by grants, someone is falsifying some shit.

All science is false or something

posted from smart phone on the internet

Thousands of failed studies a year disagree with that.

Thousands of failed studies would indicate nothing.

It just means that thousands of scientists aren't feeling compelled to lie to justify their research.

can i get a source on that

I can the source for us all,

IF YOU FUND MY SOURCE SEARCHING GRANT!

You got anything to back that up?

Yeah, here's a study I funded

Wow, I love that movie, and I always mention it in threads like this, but I never thought about it that way before.

Another thing I just realized... In Ideaocracy, none of the officials are trying to further their personal interests to get richer, or taking donations from corporations in return for pushing their agenda. They're not arguing about petty little differences either, they all just want to get the problem solved.

TIL Ideocracy is deeper than I thought.

Fuck. I never even made the connection that the people in Idiocracy are actually more reasonable than people in reality.

Well to be fair, in Idiocracy, the president of the US was one of the smartest people alive until Not Sure showed up.

Shut up, I'm 'batin'

The guy we put in charge has a very good brain, probably the best brain, and is also the best at smart so think about that for a moment....

Actually they reject his plan at first because they wouldn't accept that water was the solution, remember?

The president had to stoop down to their level, and instead of trying to explain the science behind it (which to be fair he kind of sucked at doing), he just said "I can talk to plants, and the plants say they want water, not Brando."

So, I guess what this means is we need a president willing to lie to everyone for the "right" reasons.

r/showerthoughts ....

Isn't that why we elected Trump?

When the plan doesn't immediately work they sentence the smartest person in the world to death by Taco Supreme or whoever. Can't leave that out.

What is the solution to less intelligent people becoming the norm? Would you like to begin to sterilize people withower IQs now and just get all the justification out of the way?

IQ has a pretty big correlation with economic status. Improving our social safety net and funding education more would work better than killing all the low IQ people.

Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning it's influenced by more than one gene. The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.

IQ is very much genetic. We can only change so much through nurture.

And that smartest person was from the past, before total willful ignorance took over. At that point, they were lucky to get Not Sure.

You could view it that they were to lazy to give solutions any thought and assumed someone more intelligent would sort it out... which is an extremely risky and dumb stance to take

We could really use President Camacho right about now. ... or at least a new season of Ow My Balls

when it's pretty much too late

I thought about it and it is too simplistic! We don't have the smartest person..we have many smart people contradicting each other...for their own interests!!

Having witnessed Idiocracy's move from satire to pseudo-documentary, I now know sadness.

For real. Here's a true story. I was chosen to be in a test audience for idiocracy about 14 years ago. It was a small group of us. When the movie ended, and mind you it was a rough draft, we were asked individually about the movie.

I said straight up it's a shit movie. I said it's simply too stupid. It's degenerate almost. But either way it's dumb to the point of being irrelevant and simply unfunny. That sentiment was common in the audience. We all pretty much agreed that it's a dumb movie and shouldn't be made. I believe they even delayed production for a bunch of years and delayed the release because of these showings.

Then years later it finally came out. I had forgotten about it at that point. Decided to check it out. Found it actually not bad. It was a bit funny. But what got me is how I actually found the message resonated with me. Where before it seemed completely un-relatable.

Then a few years ago I watched it yet again. And I went "holy fuck... this is a documentary"

Is it really though? There's nothing new about the political landscape today. It's all happened before, it's just human nature. And with our crime rate consistently dropping and our collective IQ's rising over time, I don't see how Idiocracy can be viewed as anything but a comedy about human nature.

Well our president has been in wrestling matches before so that's at least one similarity

The point is more of a personal nature though. When I watched it, I was too young (even though I was of college age). It just didn't click with me. My point is that as I got older the more I could see what he really intended to say.

It changed from being a dumb comedy, to being an accurate portrayal of society. But the movie didn't change. I changed.

Ohhh gotcha, that totally makes sense.

I'd have been too young at 11, I fully got it in my early teens though. Maybe I'm from a country that has more droll humor, that could be why.

Because your eyes are leaking, you seem to be losing electrolytes at an alarming rate. Here, have a BRAWNDO.... it's got electrolytes !

That's what plants crave!

Would you like an EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES?

[deleted]

Found the eugenics comment

[deleted]

Found the eugenics defense comment.

Seriously, a comedy film is not the best place to be getting insightful info about the fate of the human race. We can't select who is allowed to have children based on intellect. That's an infringement of basic human individual rights. It's insane that this needs to be stated. I don't think I need to go into the history books and tell you the atrocities that have been committed in the name of eugenics or similar philosophies.

[deleted]

I don't see Eugenics as a viable or moral option for dealing with overpopulation. The goal of Eugenics is improving humanity, not necessarily reducing birth rate. Would you say we should sooner adopt a eugenic policy than something like China's one-child policy? I just don't understand why, to be honest.

In my opinion eugenics fails because we cannot all agree on what is best for humanity. Our ideas of human greatness differ across time and cultures.

[deleted]

That wasn't your initial argument. You originally said there needs to be an intellect requirement for having children. That's the statement I took issue with. Your current suggestion has more in common (philosophically) with one-child policies than it does with eugenics, in my opinion.

He's not wrong.

I think reproduction as a basic right has passed it's usefulness. We're at 7 billion people and poverty is still an epidemic, curable diseases are untreated and we can't even stop net neutrality repeal. It's time to stop fucking and start thinking. Mandatory sterilization is a harsh concept but might be needed to start fixing things. The old adage of needing a license to drive but not to reproduce is still true , chillingly so.

What if we just give $20000 to anyone who wants to sterilize themselves? Completely voluntary, nobody forced or coerced. Most of the people who shouldnt have kids will take the money. Its probably a small price to pay compared to the cost (to society) of someone who ends up in and out of the prison system for example

I always thought we could probably get away with a 60" TV. Especially if the procedure is reversible when earned. Everybody likes a big TV from Walmart, right?!?

I had the same idea but I thought five grand would do it

Take a country like America. It has a relatively low population but a lot of people are still poor and barely living. The problem isn't population because we should be able to easily support the current world population. There's a much larger systems problem with how resources are controlled and distributed. It's sad that you think something like eugenics would fix anything.

Never actually stated that I supported eugenics... that's a bit of a leap in the conversation and potentially diverts the conversation into a pedantic argument. There are systematic failures all the way up the chain but one of the key areas we can affect (pretty quickly) is through looking at someones cognitive abilities and determining what the social drain is if they reproduce. A more educated populace stands a greater chance of making change. Less people means we can focus more on creating intelligent generations going forward. Instead we're raising children that can barely pass common core while dreaming of internet fame, being raised by parents who often times lack the ability to pry themselves away from technology long enough to support the child's growth.

[deleted]

Fucking a right it should. Intelligence has exploited as much as it's helped (look at organized religions various reigns of terror) but that doesn't change the fact that mass breeding will never solve any problem. Unless that problem is sacrifice to a god, in which case, let's start tossing things in to volcano's again and see what happens, gods know we have extra... :D

poor and barely living

But they live pretty darn comfortably.

Homeless people live comfortably?

The majority of poor Americans live much easier lives than the majority of the world.

Doesn't make it "comfortable."

Yes it does. They have an abundance of food and water, roofs over their heads, and many luxuries in most cases.

Was gonna suggest the same thing. It might be a dumb comedy, but it becomes more and more frightening and realistic by the day.

Is it ironic that the second but of her mentions after Dumb and Dumber is Beavis and Butthead, created by none other than Mike Judge, the man responsible for Idiocracy?

Beavis and Butthead is actually much deeper than Sagan is implying. I would understand, though, if he didn't do a critical analysis on what seems to be a degenerate cartoon.

They frequently made comments out of register for their character's education which always made me feel like the intention was to a)show people called dumbasses that they can remember things that interest them, and b) remind the 'smart' people watching that even dummies can retain interesting stuff.

Though what I most remember is Beavis repeatedly saying "Gardenias" during a Badass Beastie Boys song, and the quote "The angle of the dangle is inversely proportionate to the heat of the beat."

It's Got ELECTROLYTES.

He mentioned Beavis and Butthead too, I wonder if Mike Judges read this and said "fuck you, my satire is smart" and made idiocracy.

It's got what plants crave!

At face value, yes, idiocracy painfully presents our current situation. Unfortunately, if you look a little deeper, it's subtle advocacy for eugenics is a little disturbing...

I think we'll end up at openly split societies.

Idiocracy is often cited by Sagan-alikes for being a prescient satire. It's kinda dumb but, like Beavis and Butthead had satirical value. B&B was by the same guy as Idiocracy btw thus my reference.

Let's say bamboozle more to combat it.

Democrats and liberals. We support diversity, but you throw some science and opinions we don't like at is, and your fired. Shouldn't diversity of thought be supported, as it fosters a more creative environment?

Idiocracy, brought to you by the creator of Beavis and Butthead

Little ironic that the creator of Beavis and Butthead, which Sagan illustrates as an example of the dumbing down of America, would later create Idiocracy.

From the same person who brought you Beavis and Butthead, which Mr. Sagan maligns.

How telling is it that Idiocracy was made by the same guy who got famous with Beavis and Butthead, called out by Sagan in OP's excerpt. Pretty much indicates Mike Judge has always known exactly what's happening.

And "Idiocracy" was directed by the same guy that created the show "Beavis and Butthead", cited in Sagan's passage. Apologies if someone has already pointed this out

Idiocracy promotes eugenics. It's an insanely backward and fucked up movie. If you look at idiocracy and think 'That's what's going on! Idiots are outbreeding smart people and must be put down or sterilized!', and consider that some kind of enlightenment, you are one fucked up person. Education is far more relevant for competent decision making in a democracy than genetics and it still makes me angry that so many smart people I know take its classist, ignorant bullshit seriously.

Nope. Genetics is the main factor in intelligence, this is certified fact.

Not even close to true. While genetics does factor, environment and education are just as important. Just because you think something is true doesn't mean science agrees with you. The notion is basically the underpinnings of white supremacy and other racist arguments, who conflate race with genes, when race is not any particular genetic thing but a social construct.

The "genetically" smartest person in the world is not going to do much if he's born somewhere war-torn where he never learns to read and is forced into being a child soldier or something.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

It is also true, that adopted children hold no correlation of intelligence to their adopted parents, but that of their birth parents.

The last bit, and? That's obvious.

Also recommend Manufacturing Consent from Chomsky

Good reddit pseudoeducation. Just throw 'The God Delusion' in there and read about the Stanford Prison Experiment and by the standards of reddit you have a PHD in everything and are qualified to weigh in on any discussion.

Also Curtis' other work is worth watching - The Power of Nightmares, The Trap, All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace etc.

Don't forget Bitter Lake

  1. The Power of Nightmares
  1. Hypernormalisation
  2. Century of the Self
  3. Dumb and Dumber (#1 Videocassette!!)

*4. The Spanish Inquisition

My Dinner with Andre

Hated that film. Pretentious nothingness.

There is substance there, if you look past the rest. Don't throw away the whole pomegranate. The white stuff is bitter and nasty but the seeds are delicious if you put in a tiny bit of effort.

Will everything be ok after that?

Nothing will ever be OK again.

Because eugenics.

For anyone wondering Century of the Self is a series about the culture and governing laws that shaped our Western identity and consumer culture. It is very good, but imo leans a little too heavily into nurture over nature. Still, it's a must watch if you've ever wondered what "consumer culture" and "post-freud" and a bunch of other cultural/anthropological buzz-words mean.

It's very accessible and entertaining, despite the heavy subject matter.

I'm quite confident human life is stronger in nurture over nature so I'm gonna watch it! Thank you.

Read Steven Pinker's Blank Slate.

Isn't this one about Edward Bernays? If so, yes it was an eerie documentary. Highly recommended!

yea, he's one of the main subjects of the series.

Read A Green History of the World then to balance it out. It's all about how the natural world & how we use and percieve resources influenced every civilisation from rise to fall.

balanced how?

He's overreaching more than a little with some of his hypotheses in HyperNormalisation, to the point where I don't agree with all the conclusions or presumptions he presents. Still worth a watch, but I think The Power of Nightmares is a far better piece of work in every way. Century of the Self also stands far above it.

Read Amusing Ourselves to Death as well.

Sure, if you like watching propaganda. You do know that HyperNormalisation is anti-Russian propaganda right?

Be wary of any person who reduces the world's complexities to a neat little story. The real world isn't like that.

Are you suggesting that Adam Curtis' criticisms of Russian politics aren't worth saying? Do you have counter-points against them?

The concept of hypernormalization still can be applied to Western systems, my friend. I've also read the accompanying literature, and my interpretation is that the concept wasn't formulated in response to the failing Soviet government so much as it was applied in retrospect.

Well, considering the current state of affairs in Russia I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing.

Oh, know a lot about current affairs in Russia do you? I bet you can't even read Russian and have to get everything you know from a third-party western perspective.

Spin this for me then: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/20/russian-gay-propaganda-law-discriminatory-echr-european-court-human-rights

Got a link that us plebs in the States can watch? Is Adam Curtis the guy that made that documentary on Al Queda and the Neo Cons? That was some good shit.

You can find all his documentaries, in full, here:

http://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/

The videos on youtube are edited.

Or alternatively just hook into Tom Scott's Adam Curtis simulator - it never ends!

That just made my day, thank you

NASA said that the best option was to rise up in arms, but this was a farce.

this is amazing, thank you so much

Excellent link, thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS_c2qqA-6Y

Doing the Lord's work, cheers.

Every person in the western world should watch this.

Yes. You're talking about Adam Curtis's 3 part documentary, "The Power of Nightmares."

Like everything, it is on Youtube.

The Power of Nightmares. Yes.

I don't have another link for it sorry. No idea what else he has done.

It's the same director. I also really enjoy his films - especially when they touch on psychology/psychiatry. Put "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" on your list.

It's on YT https://youtu.be/-fny99f8amM

*The Power of Nightmares

do it. good shit. I also recommend adam curtis' the century of the self

[deleted]

I watched the first 20 minutes

watching the first ~8% of a piece of work is probably not enough time to thoroughly review and critique subject matter

Just read the comments on his blog about hypernormalisation. Top comment is the same iamverysmart nonsense. Someone said they saw the trailer and doesn't need to watch the whole film as they already know it all and seemingly have a full opinion on the entire film. Quite amazing.

The other comments also go straight in to conspiracy heaven which concerns me about the average viewer of this. I'll give it a go anyway but please put me out of my misery if I return and start explaining the inner workings of the CIA.

[deleted]

Power is control over the narrative of history. Parents can easily control their children through how they learn but the people writing the history textbook is more dangerous because his audience is bigger. His bias bleeds into his books and distorts the material. If you have consensus history if their were not people in the streets you would never hear about the political conflict over any of the issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_history

This whitewashes history, removes points of view in favor of presenting 'core American values'. Its probably the biggest contributor to modern older conservatives. Its still influenced which books get picked even now that its long been rejected.

Yes! It was interesting, especially the stuff about Gaddafi, but his overall narrative and the way he (pretty weakly) pins everything he doesn't like on to it just came across as overly cynical and paranoid. I.e. antidepressants are a conspiracy to numb the public and keep them from realizing they're living in a fake reality... wut

But it is thought provoking.

Especially since the documentary continually criticizes a few people for viewing a complex world as incredibly narrow and simplistic, and then goes on to weave an incredibly narrow and simplistic narrative of those events.

If we're to believe that a handful of people in 1984 set a series of events in motion based on a simplistic view of the world that creates a narrative more to their liking, then why should you trust the documentarian doing the exact same thing?

Interesting stories that grasp pieces of a larger whole, but taking it all in as absolute truth just gives you existential dread, to which any answers you do come to will inevitably be the wrong ones.

I loved the Century of the Self, and a lot of Adam Curtis' works. But like all documentaries, take them with an entire bag of salt. They are meant to cloyingly deceive and create a story just as much as any fiction movie.

Curtis is famous for not really giving equal coverage to both sides of a debate.

I've not watched it yet so I've no idea as to the claims it makes.

It only popped into my head because I saw the title from the person above. I had it saved for like 6 months on iPlayer.

But to be fair, Just So Stories are awesome. I had them on tape when I was a kid.

This guy thinks

Sagan says more in a paragraph than that film. I could barely sit through it.

Could be that your attention span has been eroded, buddy.

I'm sure I'll be motivated to sit through the 2:40 runtime by your scathing reply.

I have a question for you, and for anyone who watched it. If you're so woke, what have you done about all the international mayhem and crimes they describe? Have you changed anything, fought for anything? Or did you sit inside and tell yourself that you're smarter than the people on Reddit? What are your goals? Do they amount to anything more than ride this wagon we call civilization until the wheels fall off? Tell me you're different.

I've watched it, here's the answer: none of them have done anything. This is one of the seductive aspects of Curtis' works. He describes in dazzling detail how the world is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it, so you don't feel guilty about not doing anything, you can just feel smug because you "figured it out".

Case in point.

Honestly, it's good but also all over the place in its subject matter.

I'm in the United States and the iplayer only works in the U.K. Would you know a way around this?

Not sure if a VPN would work these days but you can always try.

Or there could be an upload on YouTube as some Americans on r/documentaries like to use that.

Or pirate. Probably the quickest method.

Got it on YouTube, thanks!

But you settled for "Dumb and Dumber" instead.

Get if off bit torrent the ones on youtube have audio that cuts in and out, often missing some of the most important dialog.

It's a great watch- I'd highly recommend

Thank you for thus recommendation.

Awesome, will check it out!

edit: anyway to get access to watch from the US?

anyone have a mirror for the states? This feels like something we should watch.

Good and scary stuff.

How do you watch this? When I tried, the link said BBC player is only available in the U.K.

Any way to get that in the States?

Great video. I've watched it completely twice. The part on Qaddafi was the very informative. I suspect Kim Jun Un learned from Libya's mistake and would rather die than give up his WMD to America so he can be sodomized by a bayonet as a reward.

How to watch in the US?

BBC iPlayer only works in the UK. Sorry, it’s due to ~~rights issues~~ insane copyright laws.

For those of us outside of the UK, here's a link that will work:

https://youtu.be/InbLmw_x6jQ

TIL the BBC's web player volume goes to 11.

doooooo iiiiiiiiiiit.

seriously, it'll blow the nips of your mind off.

Hyperbamboozlization.

Reverse Cargo Cult

bamboozlizootion

Fartknocker!

Aslo know as Hyperbamboozilation.

Hypothesizationalisticality

Hyperbamboozleization.

It's kinda funny that everyone thinks this is talking about those "other people" and never themselves. But this really applies to everyone. No matter who you are, you never have the full picture or actually know the perfectly correct decision. You are built by the society and social circles around you, and you may make a stand and decide to go against the grain of your bubble, but that would still be you working off the world around you to build your identity.

So - I take this as an opportunity to look at myself and the truths that I think are absolute and question them: my religious or non-religious belief system, economic standing and class, group of friends, country, ethnicity, basic human rights, worst enemies, best friends...

If I think a major group is being bamboozled, they probably are, but I can't change them. I can only change myself.

A Terry Pratchett quote comes to mind

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

And one of many Pratchett quotes that sounds like something from Seinfeld.

Not that theres anything wrong with that

No, it speaks great of the simplicity and sincerity of both.

It sounds like from the same observation during the war against Vietnam from the Pogo comic: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

I was thinking Dr Suess but Seinfeld also works.

Jingo? This sounds very vimesy

Yep, from Jingo.

I wrote a paper on how neoliberalism and pseudo multicultural acceptance just perpetuates racism by means of this. It's interesting how trying to do the good thing can lead to an unconscious ego boost of "I'm doing the right thing and therefor can do no wrong."

When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. 

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. 

When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. 

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.

Almost a thousand years old, and just as true today as it was then.

I was curious as to the source of your quote so I Googled it. The first hits indicate it is from an unnamed 12th century monk but this link goes to great length to describe why many aspects would not make sense for this to be attributed to a monk or from that time period.

In his top comment, he amends to add a source for it being based on a quote from a 19th century rabbi.

“I tried to change the world and I could not. I tried to change the city where I live, and without success. Finally I tried to change my neighborhood, also without success. Until I concluded: I changed myself and my light will change others around me …”.

This is actually paraphrasing Confucius.

Confuscius did once say...

This is the Confucian Great Learning (daxue) nearly to a T. The cultivation of the self is necessary in order to allow the improvement of all other things.

That's good to know. I've always heard it attributed to an anonymous 12th century monk.

That's a Confucian idea, way older than 1000 years.

I love that. Reminds me of the little advice my Uncle gave me once: If you find yourself frustrated by others' behavior, maybe it's not their behavior that should change, but your expectations of their behavior.

Source please?

This quote was very important to me when I decided to get sober 5 years ago.

Where is this from?

I like that one

As someone who's on the stage of trying to fix their rapidly decaying town, this hits a little too close to home.

I upvoted, so I'm pretty sure I fixed it.

Changing the world is extremely difficult and slow. This man failed to recognized that and I completely disagree with him.

If nobody tried to change the world, it'd be a sad, sad world. I'll keep trying. The fact that changing myself is easier is no excuse to not want a better world. Yes sometimes I feel like saying fuck the world, people don't deserve to be helped, but I still hold on to my value of wanting to make the world a better place, because that's what I believe in.

So what do we do? I have always felt that I've never truly had the whole picture, but I definitely have my political leanings and have even demonized other groups before. I'm working on it, but I simply don't have enough information and I don't feel like I ever will. How are we supposed to evaluate our beliefs if we are doing it off of half truths and incomplete information? At some point, you have to make a decision and stick to it, otherwise, nothing gets done and no progress is made.

Furthermore, I am not an expert on many aspects of society. I don't understand the intricacies of the law, of climate science, tax law, the economy, etc. I have to get my information from sources that explain in a way that someone who hasn't devoted their entire life to it can understand.

If someone is trying to bamboozle a large group, all they have to do is get enough "experts" to go along with them and I'd probably be fooled. Which is embarrassing. I work in the scientific field, but I'm not an expert on climate change, so I tend to defer to climate scientists and I agree with them. My basic understand of science let's me at least have some confidence in that belief. But healthcare? I know what sounds good, but have no idea if the plans are viable or not. Taxes? Of course I want to be taxed less, but does that help or hinder growth? And the economy? The last time I had an economics class was senior year of high school. I do independent research and I try to understand the motivating principles behind the strategies and methods, but I'm basically in the dark. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do take these opportunities to evaluate my own beliefs and it makes me feel vulnerable.

[deleted]

BINGO! I've noticed and griped about the phenomenon of Gell-Mann Amnesia for many years, as something I 'discovered' in my own experiences -- I didn't know it already had a name!

I have education and experience in journalism and marketing and I wish everyone got at least a basic education in consuming and decoding media and marketing to be able to understand when they're being misinformed, pitched, manipulated, etc. Especially on the reversed cause and effect stories.

An example of that i saw recently was with an anti-regulation libertarian person on Reddit. They cited the 2015 story of 'EPA pollutes river in Colorado'. The media coverage universally reported that EPA dumped millions of gallons of wastewater from the gold king mine, to which many people responded negatively against the EPA, called for it to be abolished, etc. the actual sorry was that the EPA was going to clean up toxic waste that had collected in the gold king mine for 100 years, completely unmitigated.

There were never any regulations on the mining company so they just left all the waste and left town. It had been leaking for years and the towns nearby couldn't ever drink the river water or eat fish from it. By the time the EPA got to it, the slightest touch would've caused the 5 million gallons of wastewater under pressure to burst. And that's what happened.

Calling the EPA a polluter for that is like a bomb squad technician who couldn't diffuse a bomb in time being labeled as the bomber.

I wish everyone got at least a basic education in consuming and decoding media and marketing to be able to understand when they're being misinformed, pitched, manipulated, etc.

You don't need everyone to get a basic education in consuming and decoding media. What you need are people to re-learn how to think critically or really at the end of the day to THINK. Period.

No one thinks anymore. You don' need to be educated in decoding he media. You need to simply put be capable of reading something and saying "hmm.... I don't know about that". FFS everyone is carrying a super computer around in their pocket. How is it that an article full of bullshit can make you believe the bullshit? You don't even have to put any effort into it. "Oh this article says the sky is red? Well let me quickly just google "what color is the sky". There are all of these people who still think vaccines cause autism. Whether you believe in or agree with vaccines is irrelevant to this point. The statement "vaccines cause autism" is false. Even barebones effort can get you to the page that shows you the original article detailing the hypothesis that vaccines lead to autism was debunked long ago.

We have all of this information at our fingertips and still want it spoon fed to us. It isn't the 1950s anymore where you barely have access to anything. I can purchase almost any book in the world in about 30 seconds and start reading it without putting on pants or getting out of bed.

FFS everyone is carrying a super computer around in their pocket. How is it that an article full of bullshit can make you believe the bullshit?

You know, I think the first is connected to the second.

I notice myself doing something curious, something which I've been trying to be more conscious of. I go to a news site, and there's a half dozen stories that catch my eye, so I queue up a half dozen tabs. But to sit there and read them all and spend a few minutes thinking about what I just read would take an hour! So I just sort of skim them all and a half hour later have a vague idea of what the points were.

Except I know deep down that all that's really sticking with me is the headline and maybe a few juicy quotes. The critical thinking that should protect me from misinformation is foregone so that I can consume all the media I want to.

And it's not just news! What about subreddits that agree with views I already hold? And do you really expect me to forego consuming entertainment media, of which there is much of excellent quality, in favor of reading dry bureau reports and speeches? How do I fit all this information consumption into, you know, real life?

It's old hat at this point that the inundation of information leads to wide but shallow learning, but what are we gonna do about it? It's not mere happenstance that the world's most sophisticated information dissemination systems coincide with the advent of "post-truth" society.

And of course, if we care enough about our societies to be informed citizens, it's our duty to actually be well-informed. Yet paradoxically a surplus of information makes that harder to do!

tl;dr - The Spectacle is reaching new heights of efficacy

And it's not just news! What about subreddits that agree with views I already hold?

Confirmation bias and the comfort you gain from surrounding yourself with people/things/sources that have a similar viewpoint as your own is a serious problem and if anything is a way bigger issue than what's being talked about here as far as being manipulated by the media is concerned.

It is a major issue to surround yourself with only like minded and similar individuals and never open yourself up to conflicting personalities/viewpoints. Back in the day you got stuck with the community you found yourself in. Bob down the street was a fucker but there weren't many people around for you to talk cars with. So you put up with Bob being a fuck because there wasn't really much of a choice. Nowadays if someone rubs you the wrong way or is a bit of a douchebag you just ditch them. Why put up with someone you don't particularly like because you like to talk about cars when you can just boot up your computer and find thousands of people online to talk to. This is a good thing. You no longer have to deal with fuckers like Bob. But it's also a bad thing because you no longer have to deal with fuckers like Bob. It's a paradox.

Anyway that was a huge off track side note. What is relevant to this discussion though is when you say "what are we going to do about it?" You're right there is too much information out there and it is not possibly to research all of it in depth to construct an informed opinion. My point however is that you don't have to. All you have to do is think to yourself "Hmmm... I don't know about that". You work 40 hours a week, have hobbies, 2 kids and a dog you don't have time to look up whether it's actually true that the sky is in fact red. But don't just read the article and think "well, this says it's red, so obviously that's the case." and start telling everyone you know the sky is red. Read the article, if it sounds shoddily put together and there are no sources well that's flag #1, if the article is really well done and seems like they're on to something that's great but that doesn't mean the voice in your head telling you this article is full of shit is wrong. Listen to that voice. Think. Say "hmmm... I don't know about that" and question what you're being spoon fed. The key is to question what you're being spoon fed, not smack away the spoon. There is too much information to parse, which makes it harder and harder to become "well-informed" and more reliant on people feeding you the relevant bits and bites. You shouldn't stop thinking though. Just because you don't have the time to fully disprove a statement doesn't mean you can't question it.

On the point of not having time to vet ALL news/media a tactic that I have taken up is to recognize when news is making me angry or fearful.

If I feel either of those emotions being activated I immediately try to determine if that is a valid emotion based on what I ALREADY know to be true, for example news about child abuse.

If its not something that is triggering a valid emotional response, I will immediately try to find another source/article on the topic to see if it brings a similar response. If it does, I will spend the time to really research. If it does not, I drop the first article and read the newly found version.

One thing I have figured out for myself and seen backed-up by behavioral economics is that fear and anger can easily be used to manipulate people. If I think I am being manipulated, I ditch the article (and sometimes the source altogether).

One thing I have figured out for myself and seen backed-up by behavioral economics is that fear and anger can easily be used to manipulate people.

100%. I don't have the time or the resources to quantify the following statement with actual proof but go and look at reporting of plane crashes in a #s capacity. # of news reports talking about planes crashing, malfunctioning, issues, etc... over X period of time. I am absolutely convinced that when the economy is doing poorly there are more frequent reports of issues relating to international air travel than when the economy is performing well. Puts on tin foil hat I think that they are using people's fear of flying in combination with media campaigns detailing the negatives of air travel to keep populations from traveling internationally during bad economic times in an effort to stimulate the economy at a local level. Takes off tin foil hat.

Go read a book called Predictably Irrational and then spend the next few weeks scared to leave the house. The author brings up a good point though while using book stores as an example. The displays in book stores are designed to heard buyers into specific purchasing habits. This isn't a good or bad thing though. There are so many books being released every year that it becomes overwhelming to find something to read. There is a good chance that one of those books on that display table will be enjoyable to you. Sometimes you just have to let the current carry you to your destination but the key difference is you should always be keeping your eyes open while you're being taken for a ride. It only becomes a problem when you start to function on auto-pilot.

Predictably Irrational

I love Dan Ariely, and that book is terrific!

Sometimes you just have to let the current carry you to your destination but the key difference is you should always be keeping your eyes open while you're being taken for a ride.

That's some accidental poetry, right there. Bravo!

What is relevant to this discussion though is when you say "what are we going to do about it?"

That is fine on the individual level, but I don't think that it's hyperbolic to say that at this point we are seeing concentrated mass disinformation/propaganda campaigns that are being exacerbated by information surplus. What do we do to rectify this on a societal scale?

You can't change society. You can change yourself. You don't change society by working towards changing society.

"Yea we need people to teach us how to scan for bullshit. I hope they don't bullshit us."

Wait, the story I heard is that the EPA did release the toxic waste, though it was accidental.

Yes, they accidentally released the toxic waste. But like I said, saying "EPA Pollutes Animas River" with minimal reporting is severe and reckless oversimplification, sensationalist, and intellectual dishonest in the same way as saying "Police Officer Detonates Bomb, Kills 5" without going into the details of clarifying that he was on the bomb squad and trying to disarm it. He didn't set the bomb, he didn't see it and ignore it until the last minute, but he was technically the last person to touch it and he cut the wrong wire and exploded it. He shouldn't be labeled as the bomber for that.

The EPA didn't operate the mine for decades without any pollution regulations or remediation, it didn't leave it festering for nearly 100 years, it didn't cause the mine to leak 200 gallons/minute, it didn't ignore the problem for decades, it shouldn't be scapegoat for the problem. I'm sure the EPA made mistakes, there wasn't a manual for how to deal with such a mess.

Meanwhile, there are still a lot of leaking mines polluting waterways.

By the time the EPA got to it, the slightest touch would've caused the 5 million gallons of wastewater under pressure to burst.

Well my uncle is on the water board in Boulder Colorado, and is by no means conservative or anti-EPA but he believes that the EPA handled the situation very poorly with a lack of proper planning. You're kind of doing the same thing as the people blindly bashing the EPA here.

Hmm, I too have an uncle....

You don't have to believe me but I have no bone in this fight.

I'm inclined to think you are the type to lie about stupid shit on the internet if you are going to accuse me of such things.

Why is it hard to believe that the EPA might have handled a situation poorly? Never did I claim it was 100% their fault. Do you not believe that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle? So if you do not live here in Colorado and you are only posting to call me a liar, kindly fuck off.

Whoa man, chill out. It was just a joke because you referenced your uncle as an appeal to a sort of authority.

This is the internet, and you are going to have a bad time if you take a six word joke post linking to family guy on the pics subreddit so seriously.

For the record, I think it is likely that the mining company is probably at least 90% to blame for creating a dangerous situation. That is pretty much the MO of mining companies in the West. But the EPA obviously fucked up, too, if all that poison water was spilled.

This is the internet, and you are going to have a bad time if you take a six word joke post linking to family guy on the pics subreddit so seriously.

I have been around the internet for a while ;)

My blood wasn't boiling or anything and I don't watch Family Guy but I will try to lighten up!

It was an appeal to authority because he works on a water board(In one of the most excessively liberal cities) in the state so I am sure he would be more knowledgeable on this specific incident than a redditor complaining about the viewpoint of our lowest common denominators.

Obviously it wasn't the EPA who put the chemicals there in the first place so placing all the blame on them and demanding them to be slashed is asininely stupid. However ignoring the fact that they were at least partly responsible for the fucking river turning bright orange because they did not plan/execute properly is also stupid.

And in a particular irony related to the topic at hand, Michael Crichton's own later works (most notably State of Fear) fall victim to poor understanding or misrepresentation of scientific theories in much the same way. Being aware of common misconceptions and being critical of sources is very important, but he didn't apply that same critical thought to the sources that validated his skepticism. Many intelligent skeptics fall into the same trap.

[deleted]

I'm sorry, but it was clear 13 years ago what the scientific consensus on climate change was, and the weakness of Crichton's arguments. Rebuttals to his arguments made no less sense back then than they do today. I was in high school at the time of the book's release and a big Crichton fan so yes, I read it. It was disappointing, to say the least. If you believe that thousands of climate scientists and institutions were not thinking "what evidence would you need to see to convince you that it's not true" then I don't believe you have a clear conception of what research looks like.

[deleted]

If that was what he was trying to do, then I would commend the intent, though I definitely feel that this message was undercut by some of the arguments he used. There are certainly some causes and beliefs today that people have elevated to the status of near-religion, and which are more interested in ideological consistency than in following the evidence where it leads. I honestly don't think that climate science is a very good example of that trend. There were probably fewer examples of this back in 2004, though.

I also by and large agree with you about that last part. The long-term benefits of alleviating poverty are huge, but we as a society seem to have difficulty thinking things are important unless they're staring us in the face. Climate change is also hard to see, but it's also something that affects us directly. I don't harbor any illusions that the prioritization of climate change over global poverty isn't significantly based in self-interest. But I don't think it has to be a zero-sum game or that we can't invest in both. Green energy is a huge and growing industry, and the amount of economic pain making some changes now would inflict (for example, following the Paris accords) is very low when viewed against the future benefits in limiting climate change. I agree we shouldn't be scolding Nigeria for using coal.

Amen. I saw a story on Facebook a while back about a man who shot up a German nightclub. When I scrolled through the comments on the first article, it was quoted that the man was Iraqi but "terrorism was ruled out." The commenters were in an outrage, upset that so "obvious" a motive could be eliminated. I Googled the topic, and the top articles indicated the same thing: Iraqi, terrorism not a motive. I, too, wondered how the police could miss something like that – surely no one was that "politically correct?"

That's when I looked up what I thought was the most unbiased source – the Associated Press version. This is where the truth became apparent. Yes, the man was Iraqi (though here it was clarified that he immigrated as a child years ago)... but he was also the club owner's son in law. This crucial detail was omitted from those other articles, which no doubt made "ruling out terrorism" look ridiculous. But of course, if you shot up a nightclub owned by your father in law, there probably isn't much to do with radical religious ideology.

So... go to the source, people. You may find that there are actually answers to unusual or unexplainable stories.

American of Irish ancestry here. Nobody would bring up the IRA if I had done it... even 30 years ago they wouldn't have.

This sort of rabbit hole tends to only reinforce in me the impulse to keep my head down, try to be knowledgeable on topics/hobbies that are important to me and give me pleasure or enjoyment and just focus on myself and those around me. I know that I can't be as knowledgeable about most things as some people are, and I know that one day I will die and none of my knowledge will have been all that important really, especially if I decide not to procreate. So, I focus on those things that make me happy, I acknowledge the other things but usually try not to focus too much on those things I can't change.

I would love to be the smartest person I know and knowledgeable on all things but I'd just rather be happy and healthy during my limited time in this body.

It is fine to have political leanings, but if you really want to be objective about something, use science. All throughout history, science has been the best way of knowing things we have ever come up with. It's our greatest achievement.

This means listening to scientific consensuses, even if they go against your beliefs. Even if they go against what your closest friends are telling you. Even if they go against your own experiences.

And by "consensus" I mean majority of scientists in whatever field you're trying to learn about. There are a handful of scientists who can be very loud and write books and make persuasive arguments, but if they are out of step with 90% of their peers, they should be treated more skeptically.

I'm a liberal guy. I voted for Hillary. I think Bernie has a lot of great ideas. Of course I accept climate change, that's easy. But what about GMO's? What about alternative medicine? These are areas that a lot of my fellow liberals get completely wrong. I see the appeal in believing GMO's are harmful and that all-natural herbs can cure cancer, but the science doesn't support that.

Being objective about the world means being humble. It means being passionate about your beliefs, but never to the point of ignoring reality. Reality and truth should always take precedence over whatever things your fallible human brain wants to think.

It takes work, but it's actually very liberating. And you and the world will be better for it. : )

If someone is trying to bamboozle a large group, all they have to do is get enough "experts" to go along with them and I'd probably be fooled.

First they'd have to get people to listen to the experts. In America the intellectual elite was unified against Trump, and the man who says Global Warming is a Chinese hoax, that NAFTA kills American jobs, and a thousand other things every expert disagrees with is President.

In my own country the Brexit referendum is causing political chaos. Before the vote, a senior government minister supporting the Leave campaign was asked why he was going against all expert opinion . In a different political climate he might have lied, and claimed to have expert support. Instead the honourable gentleman replied that "People have had enough of experts".

Simple answer: NoAgenda podcast. The only place I've found that takes the media to task over biases. They treat all sources with skepticism.

Exactly what enifer just said. If a subject or news article interests you, look up the primary sources for that information. It usually doesn't take a lot of searching online to find solid, real data. Then check to see if the article has any basis in reality.

Then, like most things, if you hear people spouting BS from a 10 second sound bite, show them the real information.

Don't be surprised if people get REALLY angry at you when you show them actual data on a subject. We get emotionally invested in our decisions, good bad or otherwise.

It's definitely one of the major issues with the internet. You can state that you don't agree with a person's findings based off of X data, and be immediately flamed for it. I've been accused of hating cops, because I stated that I thought continuing education and accountability for police officers was a good thing. shrug

I'm all about finding the actual source of an article, event, data, whatever. The only problem with some of that is when the topic becomes complicated. Healthcare is the one that comes to mind because of what just happened a few weeks ago. I have to have that explained to me because I don't really know much about healthcare. It's important to me and I've done what I can to understand it, but those bills get so bloated and weighed down by unimportant gibberish that you've got to have a law degree to understand any of it. How am I supposed to go to the source if I don't understand the source? I'm sure the same can be said for pretty much any scientific data if you go back to the original paper or report of the findings. People seem to think you can pick and choose which studies to "believe" in. Science literacy isn't taught unless you have a science degree. And it's still hard to understand even if you do.

There should be a place to go where you strictly get the facts on a topic and can trust it 100%. So far, I haven't found it. I'm just tired of being manipulated because I'm not an expert in everything and my access to information that can actually help is restricted. It shouldn't be this hard to be informed, we are supposedly living in the Information Age, after all.

Bottom line is, I'm not perfect. I have my own biases and blind spots. I realize this and work to overcome them, but I'm not getting any help. Everyone seems waiting to take advantage of my vulnerabilities and spin me around so I don't know which way is up anymore and I haven't found any techniques to stop the spinning, yet.

Healthcare is one that has very few 'right' answers. It boils down to how much do you want to pay in taxes for X service. That's the same equation for anything government, when it boils down to it. Is the money paid worth the value offered?

Where you get 'spun' is different people seeing different values. For example, my best friend has a beautiful Dodge Challenger that he loves and adores. To him, its worth it to pay the monthly payment and insurance for it, so he willingly pays the 'Tax' for the 'Value' it offers him. To me, the value isn't that high, so I didn't buy one.

For health care, everyone agrees that it would be great if Everyone could just go to the doctor whenever they felt like it and not pay an arm and a leg for it. But when it comes down to how much they are willing to pay out of pocket for OTHER people to go to the doctor, the value changes from person to person.

Political parties want to touch on the points that trigger your 'value' triggers. "this person was released from prison and murdered again!!!" Oh no! "I'll be TOUGH ON CRIME and make sure it doesn't happen again!" Oh great! but wait, that guy is doing 8 years for manslaughter and the dude next to him is doing 10 years for possession of marijuana? What gives? "I'm tough on CRIME!!! I'm fighting the DRUG WAR!!!" Holy crap, its a WAR!?! Okay!

and on and on and on.

For politics, http://www.politifact.com/, is a pretty good resource. And personally, I know I'm gonna get downvoted for this, but www.foxnews.com and www.cbsnews.com are decent fact based reporting. Fox just has serious click bait headlines, avoid the comment boards and op-ed pieces, and the Fox News Channel. Fox also allows you to NOT autoplay videos, which is one of the reasons I go there first, then pop over to CBS and between the two articles I usually pick up all the actual facts versus opinions.

I totally agree with your sentiment here. To ease the anxiety this causes me, I simply do the best I can. If I FEEL a certain way about an issue or topic I try not to make a comment unless I have facts and solid research to back it up. I'm definitely not completely immune to whatever virus causes me to vomit my unsubstantiated opinion, but I have found that when I apply this method I end up saying a lot less on fewer topics. If I can't know the truth, at the very least I will do my best not to dilute the conversation with my bullshit. At the worst, my opinion could normalize whatever dumb idea is floating around or even shift the conversation in the wrong direction.

This is a fantastic exposition of how the lack of conscious education combined with intentional information withholding has set a sort of frenetic distrust in systems themselves.

We have been so mistreated as a population of individuals that I think that we have been tricked into thinking that those things are things that we need to understand to be good people. Those things should be taken care of by people that care about the wellbeing of all people.

Sorry for the ramble, but I think I understand where you're coming from. I don't have any answers, but I think questions like yours are important.

The honest to god answer is you/we have to understand our own limits.

With regards to society that means things like use your influence (on people and systems) for good.

Do what objectively improves something, no matter how small. Your good friend is doing something wrong? Try and correct it. You can make the local playground better? Do it, and get others to join in if you can.

This is the what is referred to as the "soft power" side of society. We police/care for ourselves and in turn lessen the need for "hard power" (laws, police, etc; government.)

It also means involving yourself in politics, and this is where so many misunderstand how politics work.
Politics as it pertains to you, the average Joe, is essentially a huge system with levels of agents. The mistake people tend to make is focus on the top level(s), and this is a mistake because the levels are more than anything influenced by the level below them.

This is to say if you want to make a difference in the "hard power" side of society, you need to think smaller. You need to focus on the agent(s) directly representing you. The school board, the mayors, etc.
Because influence as said travels upwards. If you have the agents closest to you on your side your influence upwards in the system multiplies by incredible amounts.
The challenge is being consistent, being vigilant. These things take time, it's a huge system. It's like pushing a boulder up a hill, if you stop or reduce your effort, it might roll down to the bottom again.

As for things like taxes etc. There is for instance a very acknowledged economic theory (I can't recall the name) saying between an upper and lower limit the amount of taxes you pay doesn't matter to you. 20 or 25 percent? It ultimately comes back to you either way. A 1% tax break does not mean you become 1% richer.

I like the idea of soft power. There is only so much we, as individuals, can do. I wish more people were involved in it as far as basic no-brainers go. Whoever you support, I think we can all agree that trash in our local creek is bad. Too bad it only takes one asshole to ruin it for everyone. More people need to be made aware of things like Tragedy of the Commons. It works on large and small communities and really advocates for us working together.

The simple fact you're aware of your lacking expertise and understanding of these fields is proof you're on the right track as far as what to do is concerned. That's more than a lot of people out there can say.

All you can do is question everything you're told and continue to complete your own independent research. Everyone should be ready and willing to accept how wrong their methodology, beliefs and understanding of any topic can and often is in some ways.

Few people out there are truly experts on the subjects you listed. And even fewer are experts in more than one of them. Yet you go on to Twitter, comments sections of articles or YouTube and even the average Reddit replies and you'll see plenty of people that talk as if they have the entire world figured out. As if it's all so easy, "how can these politicians not see how simple healthcare reform is?"

We're all bamboozled daily and in many ways we don't realize are even going on. Knee jerk reactions, jumping to conclusions and hypersensitivity to opposing viewpoints are your enemies. The only person you can control is yourself and working on your own biases, openness to ideas you disagree with and most importantly a willingness to be wrong and be able to admit you don't know everything is the path to truly understanding it all and feeling satisfied with your choices and who you are.

The vulnerability you feel when you evaluate yourself is good. You want that. If you're not feeling vulnerable then you're not challenging your own ideas/beliefs enough.

If there's one thing that shows your lack of knowledge or wisdom the most it's the absolute certainty that you even carry those two things at all times.

So what do we do?

Step away from the computer, put down the phone and step out with friends for a pint, or coffee, or whatever. Then argue eyeball to eyeball, laugh, cry, rage at the injustice. But get out there, make a new we, a better we, a we that will do the things we want. Otherwise, it's just mental masturbation.

Holy shit, this is the truth. It amazes me how quickly people from both parties/ideologies are willing to compromise their (supposed) morals so long as the negative consequences are borne by 'those other people who think differently from me'. I feel like we are in the middle of a battle between to competing secular religions.

The last few years I've noticed that I've been starting to reflect the ADD only read the headline don't question anything mindset of society and I actually feel less intelligent because of it. It have to consciously try to fight against it.

I've noticed the same thing. I comfort myself by trying to watch various people discuss a topic so I can get differing viewpoints and hopefully come to my own conclusion on the topic, but what I should be doing is actually reading the articles and then looking at the sources and trying to understand those as best I can, but by then I've wasted an hour of my work day. Sure, I could do the research at home, but I've got to go to the gym, and walk the dogs, and then I want to relax and my brain is tired because it needs food, so I have dinner but then I'm really tired because I've had a long day and it's almost time for bed so I'll just play a game for an hour or watch Netflix.

so long as the negative consequences are borne by 'those other people who think differently from me'. I feel like we are in the middle of a battle between to competing secular religions.

Now brotherhood in most of the myths I know of is confined to a bounded community. In bounded communities, aggression is projected outward. For example, the ten commandments say, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next chapter says, "Go into Canaan and kill everybody in it." That is a bounded field. The myths of participation and love pertain only to the in-group, and the out-group is totally other. This is the sense of the word "gentile" -- the person is not of the same order. - Joseph Campbell, 1986

On a smaller scale, you see this in families and corporations. The idea that a family member can be disowned, and the dramatic Trump / BTTF Your'e Fired! - or a city can segregate residents or drop people outside city limits (Rambo opens that way).

Humans love tribes.

yep, Urban versus Rural.

While I think she's getting nuttier by the year, and I don't typically read politically focused books: Ann Coulter's book Godless was suggested to me and talks about statism as a religion. It uses some contemporary examples, for sure, but still relevant I think. Even if you don't fully agree with her politics, her analysis of the progressive-left in the US is pretty accurate and damning.

The book, thinking about it now, is ironic as she is full on a Trump supporter.

It's kinda funny that everyone thinks this is talking about those "other people" and never themselves. But this really applies to everyone. No matter who you are, you never have the full picture or actually know the perfectly correct decision.

I've never liked relativistic arguments like this one. We aren't all equally wrong, we aren't all equally bamboozled. Sometimes it's really just the "other people".
Some people are more wrong than others. Some people's beliefs about how the world works are demonstrably false, and some people's thoughts on how things should be done are undeniably bad.

Yes, it's hard to find an absolute truth, it's hard to be perfectly right, often times it's even impossible - but with an open, curious and critical mind, it's perfectly possible to get pretty damn close, and I feel like your argument trivializes that. A lot of very bamboozled people will read your comment, pat themselves on the back say "This dudes gets it, $OtherGroup are just as bad as they always portrait us!", trivializing their own bamboozledness.

But what is that absolute truth based on? Do you personally know everyone in the government? Do you have the time to fact check everything by running your own studies and experiments? This truth you speak of is still most likely going to be based on an assumption that you aren't being bamboozled by someone because what they're saying makes sense to you. If you get enough people in on the bamboozle, then your references are compromised too.

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

A wiser man knows he knows little.

See, I reject this hypothesis that the sum total of one's knowledge is zero. Even the most imbecile has knowledge. It's not humility that speaks "I know nothing" it's hubris.

Just like when surveying a random group of people, and you ask them are you in the top 50% of drivers on the road for skill, safety etc. it is always a obscenly high number, 90+% of people will say yes. When statistically half of those people are the bad drivers, texting, eating, doing makeup etc.

People never admit to being the problem

You had me right up until the end. The idea that, "I can only change myself" is clear evidence of neo-liberalism. We used to talk about societal change and how to change things for everyone. That's what made the social movements of the 1960s so dangerous. As Noam Chomsky wisely observes, the best way to control the dialogue is to confine it and then have spirited debate within those confines. The whole idea that we have to take individual responsibility for these problems and choices removes us as agents of change in greater society. The better solution is, "We are being bamboozled and we all must come together and change ourselves."

Very very well said.

No matter who you are, you never have the full picture or actually know the perfectly correct decision.

The key point is to know how much you know and how much you do not. And if you are not an expert yourself (=nearly everywhere), it is probably advisable to ask an expert.

thats why the best defense to this is the rejection of monetary system. that is whats keeping us together in this machine. That is the most powerful thing the ruling party holds over us.

I am wholly aware I'm an ignorant moron and not very intelligent. However personally don't want a lot out of life, just a house for myself and fast internet.

I think educated people are more prone to challenge their own beliefs, or be more receptive to new information which contradicts what they previously believed.

I don't mean 'educated' as in ' you went to a place regularly and they told you things that you accepted as truth', I mean 'educated' as in 'you've been trained to think critically, demand evidence for assertions, and try to look at all angles / the broader picture when making decisions or establishing your own beliefs'.

Without being taught to think critically, you tend to accept information from authoritative sources without questioning the source.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

Richard Feynman

Carl Sagan pupil here. Yeah, Anyone who is religious, have a lack of scientific understanding, and desire self-gain over country Sagan's argument is talking about you.

Excellent point.

Few rarely have the ability to look inward for problems. For the most part we want to point the blame elsewhere. Especially when our beliefs coincide with the accepted or common thought.

Reddit is a perfect petri dish for proving this theory. Make a comment that is different than the typical group think/echo chamber/circle jerk and get downvoted into oblivion... even if you have facts to back your statement.

found the conservative

Found the problem.

Just to clarify to our listeners, I am a conservative.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Did you reply to the wrong comment? Or is introspection a conservative trait in your mind?

Conservatives create passive aggressive, non-confrontational ways to tell liberals that they need to be introspective with regard to their own positions. This post just sounds like a classically conservative spin. "I can only worry about myself", which is conservative speak, in my opinion.

If they say they are only responsible for themselves, how is that telling other people what to think? You are ultimately the only one responsible for your actions. I can't understand how examining your way of thinking would be a bad thing. It's a self-evaluation, not an imperative for change.

Never said it was a bad thing.... I frankly think conservatives are more introspective than liberals, and a conservative will say as much, in ways that are as non-confrontational as possible.

YEA! THOSE STUPID PEOPLE! GETEM CARL!

Looking at you, u/lordtuts

Never forget, never forgive

I hope you're happy

/u/waterguy12 might like this post

The perfect bamboozle.

Mr Sagan u r doin me a heckin bamboozle

the irony of this comment is so fucking great

How is it ironic?

Because the entire post is talking about the dumbing-down of America and how easy it is to praise ignorance and avoid knowledge, and the top-rated reply is a stupid fucking meme that has no relevance to anything here other than using the word "bamboozle".

Username checks out.

Shit I'm part of the problem.

What you're saying makes sense but it feels like I'm reading a Genius annotation discussing the intricacies of a random line in a Katy Perry song, if that makes sense.

Thanks I guess? haha

Don't let my previous comment confuse you; you did an excellent job comparing Carl Sagan's quote to the meme-ification of society. You just applied that great critique to a comment that definitely just didn't know the definition of the word "irony" lol

He means you are casting the calcium carbonate secretions of ocean dwelling bivalves before porcine quadrupeds.

Using the word "casting" gives it away a bit too much. Still, bravo to you.

Can you dumb this down for me please, I honestly can't tell what phrase you mean

Pearls before swine. Jfc read a book.

Don't hurt the poor man

Read the good book*. (Honestly, I don't see what's so good about it. I read the whole thing and the ending is incomplete)

Lmao what's a book

Those things you tear paper out of to wipe with.

Oh. You can read those?

Are you being ironic? otherwise you belong on r/iamverysmart Fuck, nearly this entire thread does you fucking pretentious condescending, conceited dick heads.

I was aiming for funny. Sorry if I hit your feelies instead.

What was the humor supposed to be derived from though? The verbose way that you said the thing?

Yeah, sort of. Plus I thought the incongruent use of big words to communicate a common expression, which was relevant to the discussion, might be humorous. By this point it no longer seems funny.

Any other questions?

I think the distinction between this guy and r/iamverysmart lies in the fact that he was not implying his words or thoughts were superior, just being humorous with verbosity..

Yeah, I realized he wasn't the one I had an issue with. it was misplacesd criticism.

No harm, no foul. [fist bump]

Uhh no they just didn't see the irony

[deleted]

Well, then I apologize for assuming otherwise.

I think he was referring to EdgarFrogandSam, not you.

I think everyone in this chain is just confused.

if that makes sense.

No, not really.

I am personally okay with this particular version of "dumbing down". It is an innocent, silly joke in which nobody is hurt or offended, gets a nice chuckle out of most of us, and one which we can all agree is a dumb joke. I enjoy the stupid jokes purely because I am at least intelligent enough to understand the stupidity and simplicity of it, and the fact that it is done on purpose. Its silly, has nothing to do with anything very important, and just sounds ridiculous. Its also a great way for me to feel a connection with others, by mutual entertainment from this silly little joke that most of us can understand.

The worst thing that can possibly come from this meme is when people just get annoyed or sick of it. But that is literally the worst of it.

This, incidentally, is how I feel about his remarks on Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead

Thanks for being sensible, it was just a dumb joke I happen to like ;-;

Are you referring to u/ready2comply's comment or u/curlysnail's comment?

[deleted]

oh haha yeah, pardon my misunderstanding.

/r/me_irl is reddit cancer.

How dare you say this on Wednesday of all days.

Jeez my dude, this is a holy day, save your insults for Thursday

Someone bringing up heckin bamboozles isn't necessarily dumb, ignorance praising, or displaying a penchant for learning avoidance. It's just a fun little meme in the face of Sagan thinking that it hasn't always been like this. Sure, the tech is different, but there's nothing new under the sun and his words are wind.

I thought it was funny how in the next paragrah after the highlighted part he went on to knock Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead, both of which are intenionally stupid forms of comedy media. Does that mean there are no "smart" people who watch those things? It's an apples to oranges situation. I think there should be more critical thinking going on here sometimes, rather than biased judgement.

Hell, I bet there are some truly brilliant people that post/comment over on rarepuppers because it's a fun, light-hearted, happy place.

Dumb and Dumber

I felt a bit bad because I love that movie.

And this is how the silencing and shaming works in science. It's not a problem to like Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead. Most people who watch those have enough awareness of themselves to not act like that. (In b&b in particular they huff paint) The problem isn't the media we consume, it's the attitudes we have that some forms of media are superior than others. People think just because there's phones out there today that we're all off in our own, but what about the days of books? It's not like books were "too boring" to not be read. People need to stop acting like they're superior to one another and start coming together more.

Nine out of ten top comments to threads are low effort memes or jokes. You could definitely argue that this fact is a sign of society dumbing down.

The fact that even in a thread about society dumbing down the dumb jokes rise to the top is ironic, no matter how you try to spin it.

Light-hearted silliness isn't necessarily dumb, though. And the real joke is that people honestly think any of this is some new development.

When the silliness overshadows everything else, it's the sign of dumb.

Baby talk is dumb as hell.

I agree baby talk is fucking stupid, but this is just a meme.

I would say most people go to the /r/pics sub with the intention of having a joke about the picture or proving it false, there are plenty of other subs where a picture like this will invoke meaningful conversation in most of the comments.

Ye I'm confused. This is fuckin /r/pics not /r/science or /r/iamverysmart
I don't come on reddit specifically for intelectual discussions, I come here to have fun.

I say let the conversation go where it goes, but nobody hate on jokes

Try typing the word Senate on Reddit and see what happens.

Are people not allowed to take in information seriously while also making a joke?

Thanks, Helpful_guy!

thatsthejoke.jpg

theguyaskedforanexplanation.exe

heisthatguy.gov

ohshitdidntseetheusername.co.uk

Thisfuckingthread.org

the joke is overplayed, and is not funny anymore beside the people who are "in" - the people who have seen the same damn joke being said in the same damn 1000 contexts.

Not like I'm trying to appear to be "smart", yeah, that's what I feel.

I feel you. That's the part I hate most about reddit. The constant regurgitation of played out memes and jokes. It's like people don't know when to let something die.

Yep. There's only so much "This" and "Me too thanks" comment that I can stomach.

It really seems like some people don't know how to communicate without memes and inside jokes, those subreddits where memes are moderated out are getting few and far between.

It's probably top rated because most people found it entertaining rather than dully informative. It's not dumbing down, as today's top minds would also show their appreciation towards something that made them chuckle. Get enough people to chuckle, and boom there you have it.

At it's nature reddit is an entertainment site with information woven in. What do you expect? The parent of this conversation isn't that comment and has far more views as well.

tl;dr have a calm, fren. heck

It's a joke you dick head. Not everything has to be 100 percent serious all the time. People like to laugh, it doesn't make them dumb. Fuck off.

/r/iamsosmart/

It’s like rain on your wedding day

http://i.imgur.com/ayk9Uno.gif

what is this from?

Dogma

Alanis Morissette playing God.

Since that's not ironic, and it's ironic that it's not ironic, was the irony intentional?

irony

a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

It actually is ironic, according to the actual definition of irony. You've been fooled (bamboozled, if you will) into thinking that irony falls within a very narrow frame when it actually represents a very wide idea... an idea that the lyrics of that song actually describes very well, regardless of what people have mistakenly come to believe.

And the fact that you felt you were correcting him due to that misunderstanding... and the fact that you have multiple comments supporting that misunderstanding while I'm the only one correcting you... that is ironic, if you were wondering.

I don't know about that, why would you "expect" your wedding day to be sunny? Although I suppose if anybody expects something, no matter how illogical, and then something happens that contradicts it, it's ironic

So that definition of irony is ironic to me

All I know is last time I posted this Ed Bryne video on FB regarding a comment not being ironic, I got called an ahole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

Apparently, it's ironic because it's not an example of irony.

That's what I was wondering thanks

That's what I was wondering thanks

It would be ironic if they specifically chose the wedding venue for its low likelihood of rain.

Misfortune isn't the same as irony, Alanis!

it's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

A free ride, when you're already late

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9MWE7DdtIw

~~rain~~

RAAAaaaAAAin

Exactly! That yodeling shrew doesn't know the meaning of irony either.

He could criticise others for bamboozling but not himself. It's not a story redditors would tell.

He could save others from the bamboozle but not himself.

"Proglacial lakes can exacerbate mountain glacier and ice sheet margin ablation via mechanical and thermal stresses, but very large lakes can moderate summer air temperatures and relatively retard summer ice ablation.

Hydrological routing and consequent geomorphological activity can be radically modified by sudden drainage of proglacial lakes and resultant glacial lake outburst floods; exceptionally large proglacial lake drainages affected global ocean circulation and global climate during the Quaternary."

So in other words he's saying a few things:

  1. Although a proglacial lake can increase glacial melt by being a higher temperature in the fall and winter, and also providing wave action to physically erode the edge of the glacier like a cliff by the sea, very large proglacial lakes can moderate summer temperatures to such a degree that the glacier persists....remember how Lake Superior and Lake Huron cool the warm gulf of mexico air masses in summer, making areas to the north much cooler? Same concept.

  2. In the second paragraph he refers to the draining of Agassiz and a few other similar lakes...and the Younger Dryas, a slight dip back down to global cooling during a period of overall warming.

That isnt what he is saying. He is referencing shows and general entertainment (memes included) that do not impart any valuable knowledge, as the most popular ones. He laments that this seems to be something where the lowest common denominator in general seems to win more and more popularity, and the more idiotic the subject the more popular the subject becomes.

And in a majority democracy beliefs of the majority wins.

So when the most idiotic opinion is the most popular one, society will lose in general.

And here forsees (not incorrectly) that this is a threat towards society in the future.

Proof. Trump.

If you glorified valid objective statements. If well supported arguements won the day more than emotional demagogery the world would a be better place.

Oh fuck off. The idea that "well-reasoned arguments" are somehow lacking and would save the world is nothing more than an excuse to be an insufferable pedant and circlejerk around with a bunch of other "like minded intellectuals".

heck mr. knobtremor ur doin urself a heckin bamboozle

I am not saying its lacking, i am saying it isnt popular. I am saying the stuff that doesnt have it is not what is being celebrated. The "low brow" stuff wins in popularity so often that it's coarse content wins over the more well reasoned content. And that when this becomes a trend, it endangers us all. And there is sufficient empirical evidence to back up this statement. Enough so, that we can start to argue specifics If you so desire.

The last two years or so has had ample examples in the US society to warrent this as a valid conclusion.

It will take time, but I will dig up every example I can find from media where unsupported statements has swung the popular opinion to disasterous effect.

Teen pregnancy after abstinence only wins out. Claims that planned paranthood did harvested organs from live babies. Pizzachain basement childmolester case. Climate change. 9/11 first responders being abandoned and no one gives a damn. Politicians in charge of science comitees that dont believe in science. And much much more.

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT TRUMP. That is EXACTLY what he meant, imo. The same things have been happening in media through news & secondary information outlets before his campaign​ and will not suddenly change after (especially with generations of social-media friendly and quick to jump on sensationalism). The part about Trump that relates is he laments the media to the point where people (rightfully) see that he's doing so defensively rather than sensibly.

But otherwise it's the exact opposite about Trump - that he's America's biggest problem - which has to do with Sagan's statement. The DNC leaks weren't false, nor was the FBI interrogation, his campaign had actual direction, and it'll come back to bite people in the ass if every liberal is willing to constantly diminish that idea for a validation that the GOP are the only idiots. Both parties are paid teleprompters for the wealthiest, the media, the corrupt industries, and consistently favor taxing the middle-class for social-welfare nets meanwhile we have a concentration of wealth unlike anything since the slave-era. But fuck all that cuz "muh Trump, must make sure people know his Twitter is click-bait."

He laments that this seems to be something where the lowest common denominator in general seems to win more and more popularity, and the more idiotic the subject the more popular the subject becomes.

Do you see how saying "Proof. Trump." is the exact same thing. I'm prepared to be downvoted but you can check my history, I'm not a Trump supporter nor do I vouch for anything he's done in office. But YOU are finding the LCD every time people dump all the shit on Trump's narrative as if the liberal agenda, Obama himself, all of the bipartisan establishment AND nearly all of US haven't been living under the powers of the elite (media-controlled).

If you glorified valid objective statements. If well supported arguements won the day more than emotional demagogery the world would a be better place.

What happens in 3 years when we have to vote again? I for one am not okay with: "candidate is better than Trump." When you make him the devil people will vote for winners, and remember where winners get their funding from.

I am not attacked the republican party here. I specifically say "trump" The man is an objective demagog that peddles hate and fear to win support. He stirs the heartstrings of racism to accomplish is goals. And he does so by using objectively false statements (lies) He is often ignorant of the issues he is a decider on, and celebrates this as a fresh view and strength instead of the objective disadvantage it Is. Call me a liberal all you want. But I am objectively correct.

If you don't see that he is the LCD than I don't know what else to tell you. Read through my post again. Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president in history. You are speaking to an echo chamber. I have met more people who regret voting for Trump than I even see Trump supporters on Reddit anymore. There's only one foreign power to agree with anything Trump's said and they will go back to having no power in 4 years.

Sagan's point is people eat up sensationalism and swift judgements, nothing more. Look forward, have a little perspective, because doing this cyclical parade of "Trump did it first," or "Trump did it worse" is going to make it a whole lot easier for the media to control everyone next election on the other spectrum. I'm fighting against another future election where shills (bipartisan) win and we all spend our time fighting over social-policy while we lose everything.. and nothing changes but the facade of American patriotism.

First. His low approval does really fix that he actually got elected using terrible qualities. I do think trump himself is a terrible choice for president for reasons outlined in this conversation. Lying and being ignorant. This was all obvious during his campaign and he still got elected. That the right lessons might not be learned from this presidency underlines my point not countering it. I am confused abit about your posts. I think we might be agreeing with eachother to a certain extent. But pick up a sense of hostility from you?

Read this whenever you get the chance because I do feel we can agree, but I am challenging something about your position.

Republicans felt Obama was the devil, and I certainly don't think he was a saint - but because he rallied Progressive Dems and had so much consistent popularity (foreign & domestic), that narrative was mostly a meme. With Trump, the world hates him, his popularity has significantly dropped off since being elected, and still he dominates the national rhetoric.

Politics is as much about projection of the future as it is about the present situation (and reflection of our history). We are sorely imbalanced by sensationalizing every tweet, making every topic of conversation about him or Russia, and associating so many flaws in the American system with his actions or position of power when these flaws permeate through each administration under the guise of bipartisan rhetoric.

I'm hopefully getting you (or whoever) to consider what happens in 3 years & beyond, to have some greater perspective and not be too myopic. Confidence in almost everything American is at an all time low and simultaneously the electorate isn't taking responsibility in having foresight. We're so caught up in these small, addictive 'sound-bytes' that we have no attention left over for the bigger picture.

These issues (Sagan's) are systemic, not partisan and not due to one president. I understand your example is valid at face-value, but in terms of what using his name over & over does to us in the future, I think it's a massive disservice and will do nothing but keep us in a loop of control.

Consider that we are more controlled than ever before by campaign rhetoric & narrative, use Trump as an example for this if you need to.. but ask yourself, why is our treatment and handling of the rhetoric we create for our enemy any different - short-sighted, reactionary, insecure (about our future), etc?

The Republicans painted Obama as the devil and went with Trump as their rebuttal, only to find out that was a terrible idea.. do you think Dems are immune to voting in their worst-candidate-possible-but-a-winner and then immediately regretting that too? Believe it or not I get your point, I'm just arguing that talking about a quote from Carl Sagan has to devolve to pointing out the big bad wolf amongst a sea of mythic demons.

I agree totally. I think the only distinction i would like to make is that when i wrote "proof trump" i didnt mean he was the only president that would ever be subject to this simili. George w bush is a strong second. And I honestly mean that it's a coincidence that he is also republican.

Imo the problem is democracy at its core. A majority rule, even if offset in a republic to protect the minority, is only ever as clever as the majority.

In the case of trump, his campaign highlights this point, precisely because he did all the things that should normalt disqualify a presidentcy candidate in terms of lying and ignorance. Yet during his campaign, this was seen as a strength by so many that he actually one.

I am sorry to say, that this is the electorate at fault. The majority needs to educate itself better if it thinks that he was honestly the best candidate for the job.

I am not saying that hilary would have been a good leader. Better than trump? Undoubtedly, but so would almost any other republican candidate.

Its not of a comparison to the shiitiest possible choice. And that is indirectly sagans message.

Dont celebrate the stupid and irrelevant. Celebrate the clever, tye well thought. Intelligence is not something to demean. It is a requirement for a functional society. Without it, syptoms like idiotic leaders, choices that harm the general public instead of helping happens etc. You need to habe brain to be in charge. And thus the electorate that decides needs to know what brains are.

There's nothing you've said that I don't agree with in terms of political ideology, it's just my perspective on using Trump (LCD) to exemplify what I believe is a much broader & more complex issue. The overall, current political narrative has me concerned (more like, angry, frustrated, and fearful) that we're ignoring topics of discussion & replacing it with comforting rhetoric & anti-party sentiment (just in paying attention to rhetoric). And we'll stated, discussions about how to educate the electorate is definitely one of them - also how to amend the powers of control over information.

Hopefully my response to your own comment & Carl Sagan's illustrated how even for 'intellectuals', 'science-based', leftists, political-scientists, free-thinkers, etc, it is very easy for all of us to get swept up in emotion & overstate the significance of [x] sensationalist headline (Trump et al). Sensationalism doesn't need to be totally inaccurate btw, it may not even be angry, it just needs to keep your attention fixated and unable to see a greater picture (a better future).

And you make a lot of good points about exactly that, we need better leadership for one. I hope that we can see these issues with the foresight of electing someone to break us out of cyclical, bipartisan parading. Thanks for the discussion, hopefully I wasn't too hostile.. it wasn't personal but I used some aggressive text initially because breaking away from atypical Reddit conversation​ has to be a bit rebellious in order to get read.

The United States is a republic, and Trump lost the popular vote by a wide margin, so the "majority democracy" stuff is off.

Trump lost the popular vote by 2.1%. I wouldn't call that a "wide" margin, personally.

I mean "wide" in absolute terms. 2.1% of ~130 mn active voters is still 2.5 mn people, which I would consider reasonably wide.

I just dont think absolute terms make sense when talking about popular vote margins.

Well, not really. You see, even though the republic can prevent a pure majority decision, the members of government are part of the majority. They are not independent of the government. So its in theory only. But in reality, majority rules just as effectively. Its a distinction in terms only. Not in effect.

So, you think that direct democracy and the form of government we have presently would produce identical outcomes?

Well no, I am saying that the popularity of stupidity is causing a problem that neither a republic når a direct democracy is geared to fix.

threat toward society... Proof. Trump.

Your unfounded CNN hysterics are a hilarious bookend to your "entertainment doesn't impart valuable knowledge" soapbox.

Please see m y comment on why "trump" is am answer. I admit.the statement is made with too little context.

Dude. I am not american. CNN is not in my media diet

Your unfounded CNN hysterics

It depends on what someone believes is a threat against society. Removing environmental regulations and getting us in to a potential fight with N. Korea could be considered threats against society.

getting us in to a potential fight with N. Korea could be considered threats against society.

Could be IF it actually happens and IF you think you know better than our military leaders that Trump has openly said he'd defer to. I got nothing on the climate change other than the assertion that popular culture and reality tv have literally never been on the climate change isn't real bandwagon

popular culture and reality tv have literally never been on the climate change isn't real bandwagon

The issue isn't his belief but the action's he's taken to reduce regulation of industries we know affect the environment.

Could be IF it actually happens

Thats what potential means.

Oh we're using word literally then!? So you think Trump is a threat because he may get in to a maybe situation. That's a low bar.

I also said could be. Not that it was.

Oh so he could be a threat because he could get us in to a scenario where potentially there are things that could happen. Maybe.

Oh so he could be a threat because he could get us in to a scenario where potentially there are things that could happen. Maybe.

That's pretty much what was typed. That it COULD be considered a threat given he has potentially. You're being real aggressive on a non-issue.

You're being real aggressive on a non-issue.

Oh and here come the ad hominems. Typical redditor.

Pretty sure it's just a reference to the internet usage of bamboozle rather than a critique of what Sagan was saying or of the intellectual landscape of 2017 but maybe I'm wrong.

I think it's more along the lines of the top comment on seemingly every fucking post on Reddit being whatever stupid meme is most popular on that particular day.

Reddit is memes, made up shit about Russia, and T_D getting butthurt.

¯\(ツ)/¯

/r/iamverysmart

You are part of the problem. Technically we're all part of the problem, but right now you are really part of the problem.

Nah not evidence of getting dumber or anything like that, just funny that the top comment is intentionally a piece of silly humour

Maybe it's satire. /s

Maybe it's Maybelline.

You people ruined Reddit. You took all the interesting comments and replaced them with random pop culture quotes. The conversation is much more interesting if most people stay out of it.

Most of the pop culture references I see on Reddit aren't random.

Maybe you just don't get it?

All you have to do is scroll up.

We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us.

Mr Sagan u r doin me a heckin bamboozle

the irony of this comment is so fucking great

How is it ironic?

It’s like rain on your wedding day

Maybe it's satire

Maybe it's Maybelline

I'm pretty sure I skipped some Anakin/High Ground references in there, too.

It's like trying to have a conversation with a parrot who has a debilitating case of ADHD. Half the people in that conversation could have been bots and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They don't add anything to the conversation. They just regurgitate sounds they've heard other people make.

Perhaps you should seek intellectual discourse elsewhere on Reddit or simply in person rather than online.

Reddit is more a source of entertainment for me than anything else at this point.

Most attempts to engage seriously with people don't go anywhere on Reddit.

But you are in /r/pics so I don't know what the fuck you expect and frankly you seem like kind of a dick, so.

I can't believe you got offended when I said that spitting out random pop culture quotes isn't funny. You aren't being funny when you do it though. You're being upvoted by 10 year-olds.

Ah, the inevitable lazy attack on my easily-offended sensibilities.

Well, I'm not offended by you. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

It's like if you wrote a song called Ironic but didn't include any irony in it.

It could be seen as the person who is telling us not to be bamboozled is bamboozling us with his way of thinking. Also add it the dumbed down hick talk.

Are you just not familiar with /r/rarepuppers or something?

Because he's so much smarter than you. Honestly you probably wouldn't even understand. He's working on at least 27 levels of irony

Mr. Sagans purpose in writing was to avoid the scenario he describes, as it turns out, those who claim to honor the man today have willingly reduced their own influence, understanding, & abilities far beyond his predictions, so far as to seem tragicomic.

those who claim to honor the man today have willingly reduced their own influence, understanding, & abilities far beyond his predictions, so far as to seem tragicomic.

You think? I have a close friend who is a huge proponent of Sagan and spends a lot of time reading about new scientific developments, especially those involving space exploration and evolutionary biology. I know that's just one example but I don't know that many people who claim to honor the man today, as you say.

Reddit in a nutshell..

Bring on the nuts jokes, or something even dad-jokier that I'm not even seeing..

It's just a fucking joke. Calm the fuck down. people like to laugh. No is talking about how the earth is flat, or that global warming isn't man made, or that vaccines cause autism here. Christ. Same with that part in Sagans excerpt here, about how Beavis and Butthead and Dumb and Dumber are popular so that means everyone is an idiot. THOSE ARE COMEDIES. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO LAUGH AT THE STUPIDITY OF THE CHARACTERS, NOT RELATE TO OR LOOK UP TO THEM.

Are you okay

no I'm really sick of this tendency of people on reddit to act so intellectually superior to everyone else, even when they're the ones being fucking idiots. Learn some fucking humility you dick heads.

But where will I derive my sense of superiority from if I can't ridicule people taking part in the current internet culture with popular memes?

Have you ever thought about just feeling equal to other people?

Equality? Sounds like some Commie bullshit.

If I saw a fresh variety of memes daily I'd agree with you. But it's same shit beaten to death for two weeks, then on to the next thing. If you can simply get validation by quoting something with no context, you don't have to work very hard to be "funny".

tl;dr: Memes were a mistake.

The irony can relate to 2012 as well

~~Mr~~ Sagan u r doin me a heckin bamboozle

That's Dr. Sagan to you hillbilly.

I don't know why but this made me laugh for a good 20 seconds straight.

Uh-oh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QXNXWG-aUM&t=38s

Surely that's Doc Sagan

Me too thanks

,

Edit: not sure what these downvotes are about, I'm just trying to return this comma.

Me, Too, Thanks,

I think memes fall under the "dumbing down of American culture"

Like the average person now is dumber than people in the past right? Curse our reliance on technology and better education and our memes, let's go back to the past where technology and society were... vastly... less... advanced....

Not making an argument about technology here. Humor used to be much dependent on wit, quip, novelty, or whatever than senselessly regurgitating memes like "bamboozle XD"

But, hey. Karma, amirite??

Humour used to be much dependent on wit...

Sure, it still is too. There also used to be humour that wasn't, which people found funny then too. Also, humour is subjective, some people, myself included, like talking to their dogs in stupid voices. It's not supposed to be 'high brow' it's supposed to be fun.

Sorry for interpreting your comment as being about technology, that was my mistake.

Wait what? People find things funny that you dont? How dare they!

Indeed. People have been quoting and referencing shit forever, and it's not our finest brand of comedy. But I feel like it's become all encompassing in the past decade. Memes are just references. References are fine, but when all your references are belong to us, it becomes very tiring. As you said, "wit" becomes less of a tool.

o heck fren have a boop

u r the only frein here, everyone else has been having a go at me for that comment.

How dare I infect a perfect intelectual discussion on /r/pics, I should whip myself.

Because ugh stupid normal people and their "memes". "Memes" are the reason people are dumb, ugh why cant everyone be smart like me

I have a 4000 IQ and if anyone DARES to talk to me without using a thesaurus then you are a cretin that does not deserve to communicate with my obviously superior intellect.

God damn you're terrible.

For having fun? Sorry mate I'll go take my non-serious attitude elsewhere :)

"Holds up spork."

OMG im so funnnn

I said I was having fun. If you don't find /r/rarepupper stuff fun then dont read it and move on.

Easy to say when every top thread is filled with jokes you like.

There are a ton of jokes on Reddit I don't like, which I ignore because other people have different tastes to me.

You're the worst.

How? :)

Because baby talk is a stupid metastasized cancer here

Alright cool, but other people find it funny. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's cancer :)

You liking it doesn't make it not cancer.

And you not liking it doesn't make it cancer either. Why do you get to choose what kind of humour is 'cancer'?

I don't make it cancer. You and all the other braindead lemmings spamming your baby talk so often made it a cancer

No, my point being you are calling it cancer because you don't like it.

The funniest part is that the majority of the dummies Carl is talking about is in this post unaware.

"The funniest part is that the majority of the dummies Carl is talking about is in this post unaware," they said, unaware.

i'm in underwear

Exactly. Most of us are reading it thinking 'wow, fuck those other guys' when it's probably us just as much too.

Nah, I know just how dumb I am. I try and learn as much as I can but I'll never really stop being stupid.

I agree. But being humble isn't always the same as having faith in others. We can think we're stupid, but slightly less stupid than the other guy.

That's fair. I've met some people that probably should invest in Velcro shoes.

[deleted]

'"'The funniest part is that the majority of the dummies Carl is talking about is in this post unaware,' they said, unaware," they said, unaware.' - they typed, trying to be clever.

I am well aware of my dumminess, thank you very much.

Are* in this post

Dummy.

I hope this was meant to be ironic or funny.

I'm fully aware thank you.

/r/iamverysmart

That's what THEY want you to think.

uses "is" instead of "are"

Yea you're right, the idiots really are unaware.

Sorry english is my 3rd language. Ill work on it thanks.

[deleted]

O shit son I didn't know fun isn't allowed on Reddit :o

Well we know who owns the media & what really started a lot of these problems. I am getting emotional just reading the first few sentences on the paragraph. This is so true but without a lot of patience & compassion for others & ourselves, we are truly setting ourselves up to dealing with more morons around us as the status quo. I guess hideaway in some coroner while the lack of critical thinking & integrity eats out the modern society's structure & promise for some shithole kakistocracy idiocracy & the paranoia being flamed into every corner of life by the media & useless shills.

You're the fucking problem.

For enjoying talking to my dog in stupid voice? Am I supposed to not find certain things funny lest I be a detriment on society, regardless of other aspects of myself?

[deleted]

You mean /r/Rarepuppers fren

2017 upvotes at the time of my commenting... even more irony

This is why the chiropractic industry will be around for a long, long time.

Only Carl Sagan make the word bamboozle sound profound.

Wait did he actually say bamboozle?

It almost like it's a word that's existed in the English language for centuries.

That's just crazy-talk.

We've been speckle-dorfed!

THATS NOT EVEN A WORD THAT I AGREE WITH YA

Darm Dickle-Fickled again

!RedditSilver

Here's your Reddit Silver, Allredythere!

/u/Allredythere has received silver 1 time. (given by /u/Baxxb) info

You've been bamboozled friend.

I thought Spike Lee made it up!

No it didn't, Sagan was just that far ahead of the curve

He's streets ahead!

Nonsense, Ross made it up for that boardgame. I know it to be true.

I honestly didn't think it was ever used as a noun until the meme.

Yeah, but there are a lot of other words he could have used. It's funny.

Yeah, but there are a lot of other words he could have used.

Like what?

[removed]

Flim-flam? Grift? Racket? Snow job? Rope-a-dope? Allegheny two-step? Giving the old onesy-twosies a how's your father? Pulling a Jim Brown?

That sort of thing?

Appropriate username.

C O S M O S B O Y E

Yes, he actually used bamboozle quite frequently in this book

Billions and billions of bamboozles

If you wish to make a Bamboozle from scratch, you must first invent Bamboo

Thank you, Martha Stewart

A billion bamboozles is a bamboozillion.

Although this particular quote appears to come from his last interview, with Charlie Rose in '96.

And we all read along as Sagan gets niiiiice and drunk

Heheh. He's so old.

"...but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."

Read more, kid.

I dont know, But i can vividly imagine him saying it and it makes me smile.

No, he said "booo-urns".

It's kind of like yelling SHENANIGANS at the top of your lungs when you realize that you're being screwed over.

I don't get it. What's so surprising about his use of the word?

It's some dumb meme on r/me_irl right now, like "X upvotes and I will do Y crazy thing, no bamboozle"

Carl Sagan was a leading meme expert of his time.

Hey Sagan, what's the name of that restaurant you like, with all the crazy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?

r/me_irl would love this

[deleted]

It got worse when people made political affiliation into their religions.

Wait, so we get religion to move out of politics (with rather mediocre success, I might say, looking at "In Bog we trust" on the money), and then politics turns into religion? Fuck..

[deleted]

The biggest problem is that certain tribes try and tell what they perceive as "other tribes" that they are wrong even though those "other tribes" simply support whatever's best based on the evidence.

People who support science and want to do what's best for human society and the planet based on evidence get accused of being "just the as the right wingers" or whatever, every time they say someone else is wrong.

No, one side says others are wrong based on PERSONAL BELIEFS.
The other side says others are wrong based on EVIDENCE.

I think it's all linked to feelings of fear and uncertainty. Listen to this person who has all the answers, knows who to blame, and knows exactly what to do. And you don't have to do anything more than obey! Believe what they tell you and everything will be OK. They'll fix everything. Just vote for them, hate who they tell you to hate, accept what they tell you to accept, and they'll fix everything.

Doesn't matter if the world is burning around them so long as they're told the fire will go out soon. We promise. Soon.

Best thing about this is that, so long as you keep people fearful and uncertain of what the future holds, you can do whatever you like. It's far easier to control people in times of chaos than it is to control them in times of peace. Peaceful happy people have spare time to think and analyze; people in the grips of fear are in survival mode and don't have that luxury.

It's quite painful to realize that most of your identity has little real meaning.

“Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day.”

He just wanted to work on his Fjords.

He won an award, you know?

It's kind of freeing once you get there though.

Agreed. Happy nihilism seems like a pretty rational approach to life. Nothing really matters so have fun and work to make your reality a better place. Since it's the only thing you can control

Yeah, such is the case for all of us. It can be painful, but also liberating to know that identity is so fluid or even illusory.

[deleted]

I would hope if they could do it in Armageddon they could also do it IRL

But then you break through and realize that it's the only thing that has any meaning at all.

Even if it's only a subjective meaning.

Very few things have value beyond what we place on them.

Once you're entire life is built around the Fairy Godfather,

LEAVE COSMO ALONE!!!

Maybe you start realizing it isnt some Godly guy upstairs who is a prick but just humans being pricks to each other?

There are many levels of “religious people”

Wow you sound really euphoric! How come you have to be so patronizint to religious people? They have the courage to believe, atleast. In a world of disbelief and uncertainty.

Generally, people believe, at least in part, due to their lack of courage.

One or more of these statements is usually true:

  1. They are afraid that if they don't believe, they will not have a pleasant afterlife.

  2. They'd rather not examine the beliefs they were handed so as not to cause inner or outer turmoil.

  3. To believe allows them to join a community of people which helps them avoid the risk of going it alone.

  4. They feel threatened by the religious masses and are intimidated by the prospect of being ostracized.

  5. They've been captured by the Spanish Inquisition and have been tortured until they were forced to give in in order to survive. (You could substitute the Taliban or any group of religious zealots that believe in spreading their 'good word' through any means necessary.)

As it stands, in our current social and political climates, it is much easier to join the flock but takes a good bit of courage to use your own intellect and decide that there are no magical deities in the sky.

(Note: I am not accusing believers of being cowards. I am simply pointing out that non-belief is not cowardly and belief is not courageous.)

People like you make me sad.

Your hatred of the rational and your refusal to acknowledge criticism and recognize evident problems within our society as well as you catering to the ignorant... where do you believe that will lead us?

It makes you sad that a hopeless, homeless drug-addict like me can find some hope and a way to live a pleasent, "normal" life? Alright then.

Yes, it's sad that you live in a society so poisoned by religion and faith in an afterlife that people don't take care of their lives, the lives of others and the planet today.

We only have this one life and promoting false hope only makes it worse for everyone.

Channel your frustration into something productive. You, too, are a victim of the religious and political leaders who use you to promote their ideology. You, too, are a victim of a society putting you into a position of hopelessness instead of providing you with help.

A healthy society would make your suffering everyone's suffering. Would help you. Wouldn't let it come so far in the first place.

Who put you into this shitty situation? Inequality? Lack of opportunity? Bad social environment? Lack of education? Lack of transparency? Lack of health care? Lack of income?

You could live a normal and happy life, but not in a society that lets right wing ideologies, including religion, manipulate you into acting against your own best interest instead of getting the help you deserve.

Hell, even if you had terminal cancer or any other deadly illness, it's still unjustifiable. We could be much further developed and your disease might have been cured with proper stem cell research and investment in science.

[deleted]

DAE religious people are all fools?

[deleted]

Are there really that many Americans that believe in a god? That's nutty.

Or maybe you took a 10 second look at religion and concluded you were smarter than all of them.

Such hubris.

Oh that's precious. I followed my religion for 18 years and researched it for months before concluding it's bullshit. And the best part? I probably didn't need that long and just wasted a lot of time.

[deleted]

[deleted]

It just amazes me that theists think not believing in a god is a belief. Atheism is a by definition a lack of belief or disbelief.

It is really hard to think of theists as not stupid. They were indoctrinated. No shame in that. But, how do you not see it's all bullshit? It's very frustrating to us on the outside looking in.

This is the worst of /r/atheism and /r/iamverysmart together in one post

[deleted]

When you hit 18 you're going to realize how cringy all these posts are and your stomach will turn over it.

So in your worldview the world just "happened"? That sounds like faith in nothing to me. I believe Christ is who He said he was, which is FAR more rational than your argument of "its bullshit".

Don't pretend your beliefs are "factual" or "science" however. They are still just your beliefs.

Out of curiosity, what makes believing in Jesus any more rational than believing in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zeus, etc.?

The resurrection. Its the defining moment and fulfills everything that was written for thousands of years before He was Here.

Read the Bible.

I think the main contention you and other religious people are going to run into with arguing with atheists is claiming your holy scripture is truth and trying to rationalize your points on that basis. Most atheists will not agree that "because the Bible says so" is a valid argument.

Except I didn't do that. I said I believe Christ is who He said He was.

As a consequence of that, I believe the rest of the Bible.

Well what we know about the historical Christ is mostly from the Bible and some other minor sources. He probably did exist but what you're claiming "He said about Himself" comes from the Bible. The Bible says Jesus said he is the son of God and was resurrected so you believe in the Bible. That is circular reasoning.

So you are saying the Bible is .. what? Fiction? Written by whom?

You are saying that his apostles weren't put to death for refusing to deny His resurrection and divinity?
And why did Christianity take over the Roman empire? It was illegal to practice when Christ was crucified.

My belief all these things happened because of Christ is much more rational than believing it happened due to some fictional writing.

Thousands of people have been resurrected (supposedly), many within other religions. Now what?

Jews don't believe in the Bible. Hindus don't believe in the Bible. Same goes for basically every other non-Christian religions. All of those religions have their own holy books as well. Many other religions have resurrection stories too.

What makes believing the Bible is the one true holy book more rational than believing that about any other holy book?

He has a lack of beliefs. If religions were TV channels, atheism is turning off the TV.

[deleted]

Yes personal experience drives my beliefs, and yours too whether or not you wish to admit it. Everyone associated with Christ went to their death refusing to deny what they saw. Within 300 years Christianity had pushed out all pagan gods from the Roman empire.

But hey, it makes more sense that you are smarter than those people and all Christian scholars throughout history, doesn't it?

PS. Science cannot "do" anything, only describe how it was done. No more than a blueprint can build a building, nor a formula create medicine.

[deleted]

Thanks for proving you didn't understand my post. Laughing a others is so mature. So you think CS Lewis is beneath your great intellect. And you think I am the one who is believing bullshit?

There is NO PROOF for anything you did not personally witness. How is this such a hard concept for you? And spontaneous generation is what YOU espouse, not me. I gave you a cause, you give none.

The origin of the universe in your view : "It just happened!". Wow. The Scientific theory at work! Your professors must be proud.

You still keep dodging the question. Who was Jesus? I believe He is who He said he was. His life was predicted thousands of years before He was born.

And your childish insults to my beliefs speak volumes about your maturity.

Except in this case the fairy godfather is the government.

Funny how many don't realize that there is a group of people that have made the government as their religion. The government will fix everything, and dole out punishment to those who don't agree with them.

https://i.redd.it/w7sieahixcmy.jpg

[deleted]

Believing in the government is believing in your fellow man.

There is no basis for this statement. At least that's not how it's perceived, even if that's technically correct.

I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say government is anyone's religion.

In an abstract sense. People are more and more looking to the government to take care of them instead of taking care of themselves.

Username checks out

What's the name of the book? It sounds fantastic!

You're not going to like the solution to this.

Thankfully Reddit is always here to question the bamboozle and downvote it to oblivion!

We're all victims of it, even here. How often do folks just read maybe the post headline and a comment or two to validate their opinion, yet not read the article presented nor try to think critically.

It's human nature and the more I'm on the site the more I feel like my opinions are being confirmed by parties who disingenuous at worst and honest yet wrong at best.

It hurts to read these words knowing he is right on the spot.

This is the scariest quote to ever repeatedly use the word "bamboozle".

u/lordtuts will tattoo that post on his arse someday and I refuse to believe anyone who tells me otherwise

I was hoping someone posted this because it is so easily the most accurate description of where we are.

I find my parents defending something and when they are countered just getting frustrated and yelling "you know what? Its true, its just true, it doesn't matter because its true"

Cognitive dissonance accompanied with systematic brainwashing.

I'd argue that so many people enjoying a bamboozle when they should be concerned about the content at hand is part of why we are where we are. People care about nothing other than paying bills on time and being entertained. They're bamboozling themselves.

Religion in a nutshell

The sad reality that we live in a post-truth world, wherein "alt facts" and "fake news" are things we are hearing from those in authority...

Oddly enough, the "death of truth" is what led to Germany becoming an environment that not only supported the Nazi party, but welcomed it. Let us take Merkel's advice, and learn from Germany's mistakes.

The modern SJW movement

And to think we almost voted for Hillary Clinton. Good thing we could see through that, and not get bamboozled.

"Christopher Columbus was a great man, and explorer! We need a day to celebrate his awesomeness." -Bamboozle

"'In God, We Trust' has been a part of our currency since our country won the revolution. It must never be removed!" -Bamboozle

"Declining to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day is a slap in the face to our military men and women." -Bamboozle

"Being very critical of your country's choices, to the point of even throwing unthinkable accusations, is anti-patriotic. Loving your country, unconditionally, is the most American thing you can do." -Bamboozle

"We put all of these people in charge of your well-being because the math and formulas are too complex." -Bamboozle

"The United States of America is a Christian nation!" -Bamboozle

Ironically, this applies to the entire nature of our existence when you view the bamboozle as our egos.

Funny how this is all being aimed at Trump while he understands all of this, and is on the same side as us against the establishment bamboozle.

This is ever trump supporter.

Doggo and pupper heckin' agree.

Don't say "Never", cause you WILL be able to do so, as the Orange was a wake-up call of how dumb you have become. You won't let Fascism and idiocy retake their place in the hearts of men and women again.

No more bamboozle carl

It's just like the collusion story

It's easier to fool a man than to convince a man he's been fooled

The Earth is flat and we're living in a simulation

THIS is another theme in Plato's Allegory of the Cave and thus was voiced thousands of years ago... well before Sagan existed

The concept that it's too painful for people to acknowledge they were wrong and continually getting them to double down is the core method for lots of scams.

Religion in a nutshell.

This is why it's easier to dismiss conspiracy theorists as conspiracy theorists rather than listen to the reason(s) why they came to the conclusions they've come to.

The Great Filter is at work...

Is this from the same book?

yes

Looks great. I've read mixed reviews but I think I'll read it.

If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.

Sagan predicted /r/me_irl

So what you're saying is we're entering another dark ages and need a world altering plague to kill everyone off and reboot forward thinking?

It is good to know that there are still strongholds out there where people seek the truth and want things to change. There is still hope!

I've been darn bamboozled ya see!

People are fucking idiots. The fact that there are 7.2 billion idiots running around this globe fucking up the air for the other idiots tells me that we have run our course. There should no longer be fucking idiots like us.

You're giving me a bad name

Religion?

All of subjective reality, and the "charlatan" is often one's own ego.

People that still think our democracy works are looking this to me. Both Hillary and Trump did unacceptable things during the last election. Most people will defend one of them still

There was no viable third option given the system however one was vey much objectively better suited for the job and trump has been and looks to continue being incompetent at the job so was the poorer choice of the two. Unless you mean the decades of investigations that found nothing of substance on the Clinton's otherwise republicans would have crucified them at the alter of justice ages ago somehow still counts as something.

MY person didn't have a problem

It's important to remember that almost nothing is as it truly appears. We are all trapped in a constructed reality.

Perfect metaphor for the flat earth awakening. Most people can't distinguish reality from psuedoscience, while having the attention span of a goldfish.

Says the user who thinks there are children trapped in the basement of a pizzeria that doesn't have a basement.

I think your confusing a gov psy-op with the very real rampart pedophelia that exists at the highest levels of society.

You believe the child in the basement story? Or do you think pedophelia was somehow debunked by that story(lol)? Do you also believe in the mainstream 9/11 narrative? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Republican voters explained in one small paragraph.

Actively voting against their own interests, and proud to do so.

Kill them before they kill us ;)

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." -George Orwell, 1984

Can we please ban the word "bamboozle"

This will get lost, but it reminds me of a famous piece of sociology from Erving Goffman. He studied con-men. When a con-man thinks that the person might to to the authorities, they have to go back to the "mark" and reassure them, convincing them that they really are a smart person, that their getting taken doesn't reflect upon them negatively. In reinforcing the mark's self-view, the con-man also reinforces the idea that he's not really such a bad guy after all. It's bizzare.

Link to pdf

FYI, he's framing this as a prediction, but all of it was already present in 1996 when he wrote it. No prediction necessary.

You could say the same thing without specifics for practically every other generation.

Insert Plato quote complaining about how kids don't respect their elders and are lazy here.

To be fair an old warning is still valid. For example people said a lot about religion fanatics ending the society and it stays relevant till today.

It's not a warning, it's self-aggrandizing and generational warfare. "My generation were perfect adults from birth, but this new generation of children is acting immature!"

It's fucking stupid, but yes, people actually believe it. A guy at my work who listens to angry right wing radio all day actually has a sign up outside his office about how he has class and chivalry unlike these new kids, he's old school. Nothing says "class" like posting a sign proclaiming your superiority to an entire generation.

See also: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/me-generation-time/315151/ You don't even need to read it, just scroll though 110 years of headlines proclaiming superiority to the next generation.

Some things just never change, huh?

It was from the time of Socrates, but not from him or a particular famous person.

I think the demonization of education started more recently though. Before the Reagan years, having an advanced degree or being an expert in a field was considered a good thing across the board.

demonization of education started more recently though

Yeah I guess the middle ages are pretty recent

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/

58% of republicans and 19% of democrats view college as having a negative impact on society. In 2010 the numbers were 32% and 22% respectively.

This is as much an indictment on the politicization of Universities as anything. "Negative impact" can mean a lot of things - not necessarily devaluing the education and insight gained by students/graduates. Blindly calling this anti-intellectual ignores the root issues.

Also, that's a pretty sharp change in just 2 years.

They became "more political" because one side of this country started politicizing facts and tried to make how you felt about them more real than their truth value. The fact that global warming is a hot button political issue (that our current president has attempted to campaign on in the past, don't pretend it's fringe anymore) is pretty embarrassing to the country and doesn't really make me value when they say "The institution that teaches people is bad!"

I don't think this is global-warming denier driven at all, nor is it a strictly anti-intellectual thread.

I think it's driven by the oppressive cultural disconnect of college campuses being bastions for forced diversity while blaming (ostensibly) straight white males for all of the problems in the world. Denierism is pretty stable over the past decade or so, but the actual removal and demonization of socially conservative (at the least, anti-regressive) voices on college campuses seemed to have gained a lot more attention. (the coverage is there, whether or not the effect is actual or just perception - I'm not sure)

the coverage is there, whether or not the effect is actual or just perception - I'm not sure)

This was something I was also considering bringing up. College campuses have always been a place for crazy hippies to congregate. My parents have been to college and they have stories about the shit we see on the news and on reddit all the time now. But pre-cell phone footage/outrage culture people didn't really care I feel like.

I think the hippies were always/still there, but now the regressive culture has moved into the administration of universities the last 2 decades or so partially driven by Title IX and partially driven by societal forces. Now, in the last few years, safe spaces are a real thing. I get an email each week about them at my (major) university (where I'm a Ph.D. student) reminding my straight-white-male ass that I'm not welcome in parts of the union at certain times. There is also an apology email from the president or diversity VP about some exceptionally minor local or major national incident every few weeks. The constant barrage of political correctness and martyr-ism is eroding the trust of colleges. The administration injecting themselves into every issue is normalizing regressive culture. The pew results of the loss of trust in major universities is due to this more than anything to do with academics.

If you believe this is what a safe space is then its not worth talking you through how that isn't what they are.

They are specific areas that are designated for certain groups to congregate free from others. This is not a joke. They are called safe spaces in the messages. If you have a different understanding, please share.

This is totally separate from the safe space idea prevalent for 2 decades previous, which I think you're referring to, where it meant to be a place/person that someone feeling harassed could go to without being judged.

Your outright refusal to even engage without huffing about it is part of the problem that I'm illustrating. How dare I question the existence of safe places and self-segregation!

How dare I make up a problem and in the same breath openly admit to what a safe space actually is

FTFY

Look at your triggered, white-ass-snowflake self. Oh no you aren't perfectly comfortable with you surroundings 100% of the time anymore. You get emails you don't completely agree with?! OMG! You should just drop out and never send your children in the future. Those liberal agenda freaks are going out of their way to make you aware of social injustices while barely inconveniencing you in any way. The nerve!

You're right on both points. If you are American or have watched/seen FOX the uptick in college vilification is notable. I personally believe it is the driving factor of how the majority of Republicans view America and the world.

I think most of the negative impact is being subject to, or subjecting your children to a generally liberal environment. I think a misunderstanding of why colleges tend to be liberal and the fear of becoming one weigh into that. The valuation of conservative, faith driven, as it were lifestyle for the family is higher than higher education. I think the fear of "the liberal agenda," a higher emphasis on conservative values (socially), and the devaluation of higher education are all at play.

I also want to mention that hovering around 20% for the democrats is also shockingly high, it should be 0% across the board.

I think many on the left forget that they have a major base of voters in urban black communities, which often have similar faith-driven beliefs and my impression is that there is a large distrust of institutions (in general) just the same as rural whites.

I believe this comment is in relation to my last sentence? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think you are right in saying faith is part of what drives the percentage up on both sides. The idea of generations passing down "don't question God he will bring you absolution" is prevalent and what better place than a college campus for that to happen.

That is were the similarities end though in this comparison in my opinion. There are stark differences in the two groups voting records in how much they believe their faith should be legislated. Also while the distrust may be real for rural Americans its ridiculous to think they have had it/have it worse (in general) than urban black people. This is a testament to FOX news primarily if you ask me.

[deleted]

He didn't say that at all; are you honestly trying to convince anyone that universities have not become heavily skewed in social acceptance of political beliefs in recent years? Left, right, up, down, liberal, conservative, for better or worse we can all see it happening.

It's pretty easy to see why a bunch of people having debt that they'll have trouble paying off is a bad thing...

You make a good point that should certainly be taken under consideration given the verbiage of the question. Democrats are both, statistically, less well off financially and have a soft platform of reducing the cost of higher education. Though I think your point may have statistical significance, their 38% lower result of the poll, combined with the previous sentence, leads me to believe other factors are more relevant.

Not to mention there are plenty of people on both sides of the isle with a vested interest in keeping costs high.

I was just showing you that it isn't a new phenomenon like you implied. It ebbs and flows, just like everything else.

You've shown nothing other than your interest in being a (less than clever) contrarian.

Well at least they don't kill uni students in urban battles any more.

Really? You think people demonized education during that time period?

Well, thanks for the great example of why there's such a huge need for quality education at least.

I think it was an exaggeration, back in the Middle Ages all the folks did was occasionally fight university students in open battle and I think "demonise" is really too strong a word to describe their attitudes. /s

More information here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_and_gown

Interesting that you have applied these conflicting laws in small areas, and the conflicts that come from them, onto how people viewed education.

Wouldn't a peasant family still greatly desire to have an education, if the opportunity was available then?

The context of this is how education is viewed, with today it moving towards hostility towards becoming educated. Conservatives are becoming warped into believing it's a brainwashing academy to turn their kids into liberals.

And considering this presidential election had the widest gap in education among voters since 1980, with the uneducated overwhelmingly favoring Trump, it's important to look at it from the perspective of how education itself is viewed, and not some other conflicts arising from another cause.

But I'm totally sure students brawling in a tavern makes people want to remain uneducated /s

My link didn't work before, click on it now.

First, over 90 people died, so I don't think it really had to do with the taste of ale, but the fact that each side demonised the other to the point where they thought it was okay to kill them.

Second, we are not discussing the source of anti-intellectualism - conflicting laws, cultural clash or "conservatives are becoming warped into believing it's a brainwashing academy to turn their kids into liberals" - we are only discussing whether it existed in the past or not, and if it did, whether it existed in a worse form back then...which it did, in the form of armed conflicts, among other things.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it was anti-intellectualism that caused that particular conflict or not.

Until I see evidence of it, which the link did not provide, I'll stand by my opinion.

Wow, you think the United States was around during the Middle Ages?

That's fascinating.

Oh, you meant worldwide.

During the Middle Ages, education and technology were revered throughout the world. During this time, Chinese and Arab scientists and philosophers made great advancements.

Oh, you were only talking about Europe?

Weird.

Even in Europe education was highly sought after. The narrative that the Catholic Church was against science is mostly made up of misinformation.

Made up misinformation spread by the Catholic Church amirite

^^^^^^^/s

Just because learnt people were able to make advances doesn't mean demonisation of higher learning didn't exist amongst the populace, or that it wasn't way worse back then:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_and_gown#Town_and_gown_in_the_Middle_Ages

Now, you can say I'm just talking about Europe here, but tell me this doesn't sound familiar:

Many university students were foreigners with exotic manners and dress who spoke and wrote Latin...students often could not speak the local dialect, and most uneducated townspeople spoke no Latin.

It should be noted that higher education was almost always deemed superior where it really mattered: in the eyes of the authority, and on the talent marketplace. It was true then and still is true now. However, anti-intellectualism has always existed (probably because higher education allowed for greater social mobility), and in general they were worse in the past than they are now.

Uh, not really.

Colleges and universities during the 1960's and 70's were viewed as hotbeds of leftist and/or communist indoctrination (not entirely without justification), and student protests were seen as harbingers of the end of our nation.

The main difference is that kids with liberal arts majors could typically pay for their tuition with summer work, so there wasn't as big a joke to be made about kids working retail for years after graduating with their degree in English lit to pay off loans.

You're aware that you're talking about something completely different than what I'm talking about, right?

Almost certainly not. Even in rural areas in low and middle income countries today people don't have smart phones or TVs and so on. If you are going back several generations there was not "30 second soundbite culture" or a lack of menial labor for people to occupy themselves with.

What you're saying is you could call each generation of average people dumber than the last. I guess that says a lot about our society

Except that's completely wrong. (Average IQ has been rising ever since we've tracked it).

Here I was worried about global warming, financial inequality, and how many basic needs go unmet in today's society but I guess since the IQ(which 1, isn't even a complete metric of an individual's ability and 2, I know many very talented, very competent people who don't have a fucking clue how the world works) is going up then I can stop worrying now.

I realise this is dipping into ad hominem, but such a scathing diatribe might have more weight if you weren't posting under the username 'CogitoErgoCumm'.

I think therefore I cum

Yeah, no, I got it.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

No, it says more about how stupid nostalgia is. 2017 is clearly a better time to live for the majority of people than 1996, and I'm sure people will be saying "This scientist predicted 2037 in 2016" soon enough.

Can I have your source for how most people prefer 2017 to 1996? That's a big statement and you should go into detail about the many various metrics you used to make up your determination for quality of life

Here's one. https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/837751940356444160

Here's two of my own

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/american-inequality-in-six-charts

https://i.redd.it/usuxsd2ex5cy.png

I think what's happening is you look at whatever slow progress we make and say wow look at that. I look at what we could be doing and go wow look at that. Different perspectives of the same shit. If I were in a better place in society I would probably be more optimistic too.

Well I'm a left winger so I'll take criticism from the left over criticism from the right. Obviously we still have a lot of issues in society that we need to fix, and I appreciate you mentioning real economic issues instead of the "kids these days!" argument.

If you look into some of his interviews though he goes into more detail with what he means and why its worse right now. Basically since we live in a world built on advanced technology the ignorance of basic science is particularly dangerous to our current way of life.

Agreed. However, I would argue now more than ever there is widespread access to good, valuable information. I think we're getting smarter. Sure the media lies, but it's always lied, now we have other forums to call them out in their BS where thousands of people can see. The internet is making us smarter, while the people who normally pulled the strings need to try harder to dumb us down.

No other generation had Trump as a president

I was about to say that but I guess most of Reddit was too young to know that.

I mean, not for nothing, what he's "predicting" is nothing more than cyclical history.

When has there ever been a civilization that's central power didn't become the 1% speaking for the 99%? Or when fear mongering or propaganda (pseudoscience) control the people?

I mean, he was right on all points, but I can make the same prediction and tell you with 99% certainty it will be right.

I dig Sagan, and I read Demon Haunted World when it came out, and while (as this highlighted snippet suggests) it kind of has a bummer tone that his previous works didn't, I think overall it's a good book. Anyone of any age who spends too much time arguing on reddit will be familiar with 'correlation is not causation' and 'argument by authority', but Sagan does a good job of clearly and concisely explaining those and other fallacies.

But yeah, there is a sense of "old man yells at cloud" here. I'm pushing 50, and I feel it myself, and was feeling it a few years before Trump was elected. You feel it when you meet your first anti-vaxxer in real life, who otherwise seems like a reasonably intelligent person. You feel it when your neighbor tells you that SCARY CLOWNS are coming to kill your kid at their school TOMORROW, and when you ask how they know that, they're "oh it's just what I heard" and somehow you're the asshole for doubting their helpful warning. You start to realize that there are a fuckton of people, at all levels of education and income, who really struggle with rational thought. Maybe you realized that all along, but you get this idea that it's getting much worse!

It's interesting to me that 20 years before this book was published, it was 1976. Ghostbusters came out in 1984, and it's still funny today, but part of what made it funny back then was that it was true in a way... yes, today History Channel has shows with people running around in abandoned hospitals talking to ghosts on their walkie talkies. But in the 1970's, you had tenured professors at major universities getting grants to do the same thing, and publishing their results in journals. I think you can make the case that the world is a bit less demon-haunted today than it was 20 or 40 years ago.

[deleted]

The manufacturing part isn't horoscope.

While the last part of what you say may be true in enough cases, vast advances in technology in the last couple of centuries has made things increasingly unpredictable. To imply that all generations, including this one, are filled with similar "old-age" woes is a bit naive at this time. What Carl Sagan may have said that applied in 1996, may apply many more times now. When the industrial revolution began, many jobs were lost and replaced by dumb, efficient automation. However, many new jobs and types of economies appeared. We are now in the midst of a new revolution, just as grand and transformative, but this time lost jobs and changed economies may not necessarily just give way to new kinds of jobs. Artificial intelligence encroaches on the last fringes of human usefulness, with the ability to make critical, independent, and efficient decisions to create new systems and technologies and keep existing systems afloat (and then there's dealing with the whole ramifications of what artificial intelligence can even do and what it existentially even means for itself and modern humanity). You can't just conclude there will be "new jobs" to replace lost jobs, just because the same things happened during the industrial revolution. Even still, AI or not, the rise of political, social, and economic powerhouses in Asia, coupled with a sharp rise in automation of just about everything, means that the hegemony of the US cannot be considered secure in the long term and it's non-upper-class citizens cannot be guaranteed economic safety domestically or internationally. Increased automation alone always means a concentration of wealth into the hands of people who own those technologies. There is no sharp turning point where this all happens. We are in the midst of all this right now, and to be complacent in any sort of the status quo is not going to end well. We have to utterly adapt our civilizations to the technological advancements we are putting ourselves through, but the path to making politicians well aware of that future seems grim, for either US political party (perhaps one moreso than the other). We can put into question whether America really is becoming increasingly "dumbed down" or not, but I'm more concerned that we are completely lacking in leaders that could even fathom to have the foresight of the technological and economic changes our society is going through.

Yea I don't understand how this has taken off. What low effort predictions.

Cuz Carl Sagan + Reddit = $100% Karma upvote wins

Came here to say this

Yep, all this shit was going on then too, and he was merely making an observation. It was a while ago, but not that long ago.

Honestly I think we're pretty smart compared to 50 years ago. All the sensationalized events on the news and social media don't really speak for the whole of American people

My thoughts exactly. Nothing he said wasn't already occurring in 1996. That's a prediction?

but 1996 was just a few years ag...
oh my god I'm old

That's Reddit for yah.

It looks more like he's framing it as a seeing where the trend is going and how it is going to get worse and affect us a lot more.

It wasn't present at the same scale, though. I mean, in 1996, there was no way 4chan could elect a President.

4chan didn't elect the president, everyone who voted Trump would have done so without 4chan

Probably, but the rise of memes affecting life even to the point of presidential elections is rather crazy. I mean, didn't thousands of people vote Harambe?

People have done that with mickey mouse, too. It's a fairly normal thing to do in elections

Well, he does have rather reasonable platforms on cheese subsidies and national defense.

You're insane if you think not a single idiotic young person was convinced by everything they did

I'm sure a few people probably were, but there's absolutely no way for a small percentage of a website that has at most 2 million users to have significantly affected the 60 million voters who voted Trump.

I think you are significantly underestimating the power of 4chan

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the population

Edit: overestimating*

Yeah, I know for a fact that I am not. Donald Trump is president of the United States

Oh woops I meant to say overestimating lmao

trump didnt need all the votes though. He won by a small margin in three states.

What? I'm saying that every trump voter would have voted Trump no matter what.

It doesn't matter what scale it was on if it was trending in one direction.

he meant it would be more pronounced. back then no one really cared, they just lived life, now that these things come to pass... theyve made a dumb and dummer 2, so it goes to show dumb and dummer is still popular to today.

He's saying it'll get worse. It's easy to say yeah of course now but he could have easily said the opposite and have been wrong.

I blame the media/news for much of the current situation too. This was not a prediction but he was clever to extrapolate the kind of society we would end up with as the news treats people as if the most thinking they are capable of is 10-30 second soundbites. They literally acted on the news channels like he could not win and they would laugh about it. Meanwhile those of us paying attention were freaking out about his very real chance of winning and wondering why the media was so out of touch with common America.

It only got worse from there. I think we still have further to slide

Yeah was just thinking that. The worlds really been like that... for a long ass time. The worlds always been like that, but the fact that we still strive to make some sort of progress is proof that his sentiments are nothing more than pessimistic.

All the things he described were way worse in 96. The number of things I took as fact in 96 that have since been disproven, a lot more people trusted horoscopes and now you'll get called an idiot, and politicians are questioned and mocked much more in mainstream culture.

Good point. I'm not aware of any statistics but empirically...I mean, it sure does seem like far fewer people I know place any value on horoscopes.

And now there are two of us. ;)

If you read past the highlighted text, he talks about how poorly it reflects in us that dumb and dumber and beavis and butthead are some if the most popular programs.

I now hate Carl Sagan. Thanks a lot reddit.

What would it be now? Breaking Bad? That's one hell of an improvement.

Game of Thrones id think. Step up i guess.

I would take 1996 America over 'clearly-dropped-on-its-head-multiple-times-onto-hard-surfaces-as-a-child' 2017 America...

But '96 was sooooo long ago. They didn't even have Tinder yet.

Yeah. He was just talking about what he thought the problems already were, but amplified it and called it a prediction. And you could swap out a few words and make it believable for any point in time, any place in the world.

All the way back through time people thought that the generations coming up after them were doomed. Lazy, uneducated, rude... etc. That the work done by the writer's generation to pave the way for the next one was just done too well. They made it too easy for the future generations to slack off. And he goes on to reference movie rental figures of slap-stick comedies as evidence that the younger generation (the generation that most Redditors probably belong to) was being influenced by that media to think that education was something to be avoided, something uncool.

It's no prediction, and it's not particularly insightful. Just the same tune that every generation has sung for about as long as we have kept records.

Crazy ideas and stupid superstition have been around in culture for a very long time with very intelligent people believing in them. The internet just provides a very easy route for finding such beliefs and people, especially on reddit where discussion between groups are pretty out for all to see.

Except that 10 second sound bite has been cut down to a 140 character tweet.

FYI, What you basically said is "his prediction was based on evidence that existed, since the evidence existed he didn't need to make a prediction."

What's your point bro

It's a lazy prediction if the thing you are predicting is already extant.

Plus there's reason to suspect that Carl Sagan himself was part of the technology/information cover up he mentions in this image.

Looks like he was on the anti-Beavis and Butthead train too. he he hehheheheh heheh

Although Sagan doesn't necessarily argue that these shows are bad, I will still throw out a quote from Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, where he argues that the problem with TV isn't actually the stupid entertainment shows, but rather the masking of entertainment as information (news etc), and thus the destruction of meaningful information in society.

"And so, I raise no objection to television's junk. The best things on television are its junk, and no one and nothing is seriously threatened by it. Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. The irony here is that this is what intellectuals and critics are constantly urging television to do."

Great book by the way and even more relevant today than when it was written

Yes, news as entertainment is the real problem, not shows intended as entertainment like B&B. Shows disguised as educational are also a problem I think (looking at you History and Discovery channels). They teach the absolute worst logical analysis. "Well all the evidence of A is completely circumstantial and cherry picked but let's assume it is true anyway and discuss the possibility of B..."

Totally agree. Skip Bayless taught me to stop paying attention to the talking heads in sports because they bring no real value to a conversation.

For me it was Barkley.

Was reminded of this watching that History Channel Amelia Earhart special that was plugged endlessly. While they did bring some interesting ideas forward, their usual tropes are so ingrained at this point that it's impossible to ignore and completely backseats the educational aspect in favor of entertainment. Unnecessary cliffhangers, reality style formatting, rando former this-and-that hosts/talking heads, INSANELY dramatic music when it's literally just some fucker driving and talking in a car.

sigh know I'm not the first to say it, but I really do miss the Hitler Channel days.

The hyperfast editing and endless "bzzzshhhttt!" sound effect anytime they jump to something else? And then there is the tired handheld camera effect. Just buy a damn tripod, you're shooting a set piece.

We can all agree tho that MythBusters was great and still educational and scientific cant we?

Sort of. Too often they would veer off of the point of the question and I'd be left hanging. "But you never answered it!" Now granted the reason they did that was usually to blow something up so I'm cool with that.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.0539 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

It's very easy to focus on what he got right to the exclusion of what he got very, very wrong. We have much better quality entertainment on cable for those who want it. We have unprecedented access to not only reputable news sources, but the means by which we can quickly and accurately fact check for ourselves, if we are so inclined.
The assumption here is that everyone is getting more ignorant because there is more that caters to the ignorant. But the truth is the gap between the well-informed and the ignorant, like the gap between the rich and poor, just got wider. And it's much, much easier to be well-informed now if that's what one chooses. Not the case for getting rich but that's a different issue.

Television has changed since 1985 for sure. There are far more options now for those who wish to seek quality information via television. I do think it is still a relevant issue overall though, if you look at something like the recent presidential election, where the driving force behind voter persuasion was sensationalism and entertainment pieces.

That's been the driving force behind voter persuasion since the Hearst-Pulitzer days. It was not at all peculiar to nor dispositive in this election. This election was determined by a marginalized and disaffected underclass that is strong in numbers and growing because of the slow death of manufacturing. A reality TV clown happened to be the one to capitalize on it but someone else would have anyway.

Here I am thinking of Last Week Tonight

Awesome quote!

Game shows are fun. Cartoons are fun. Dr. Phil and similar day time advice shows are terrifying.
Nothing perpetuates a cycle of ignorance quite like having your own superstitions repackaged by TV producers and delivered back to you by "professionals".

I loved Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Sounds like you'd like Harlan Ellison too:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1497643031/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502287152&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+glass+teat&dpPl=1&dpID=419O8CohzUL&ref=plSrch

I love Ellison's writing but haven't seen this before, I'll need to check it out.

Here we are...now entertain us!

Didn't he write the short story that makes me depressed?

Technopoly is even better imo, but it borrows a lot from Amusing Ourselves to Death. Both great reads, and made me actually consider arguments against tech fanboy-ism I'd never heard. Anti-tech always gets portrayed as Luddite, but it's so much more nuanced.

Agreed. Postman's book in 85 was even MORE prophetic. What I appreciate about Postman's assessment is the fact that any new technology will be used for all of the purposes it CAN be used for good and bad. One of my top 5 favorite books.

Nicely put. And I will also defend junk on television. Because sometimes we get brilliance disguised as junk like It's Always Sunny.

Dee, shut up you god damn bitch!

I know this is an unpopular view around here but I've always found IASIP to be incredibly sophomoric. And that guy's whiny voice makes it totally unbearable.

I love the show but I don't even know what sophomoric means so I can't argue

Means juvenile. I get that it's a comedy but it really reminds me of high school sketches. Which is fine but I don't see the "brilliance" in it as describe by parent comment.

Like those news channels that actually are opinion channels.

Ironic that other redditors identifying The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight as examples of this "entertainment as information" you've described have been downvoted for speaking against the preferences of the average redditor.

I'm not so much disturbed by terrible daytime advice shows like Doctor Phil as much as I am by people who see a problem being identified but have convinced themselves that their specific situation is different.

I'm not sure the daily show considers its aspirations high or considers itself anything other than comedy. It's shows that sell themselves as legitimate but aren't. Dr Oz selling psuedoscience is different than a show that makes fun of the news. That said, "comedy news" certainly can present its own problem in that it rests on the viewer to pay attention to the message that it's not a replacement for actual news.

Comedy shows generally don't organize political rallies in the nation's capital.

That reminds me of the Daily Show. Jon Stewart himself said "I'm followed up by a muppet prank call show."

for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations.

Wait, he's arguing that television shouldn't have aspirations or strive to carry important cultural conversations? That's nonsense. I don't see what's wrong with it and I don't know why so many people agree with it.

But maybe we mean a different things when we talk about television.

I'l start by saying that his argument is a full book, and can't be summed in a five sentence quote. As it happens, this is sort of the overall point of the book.

But I don't think that he's saying we shouldn't strive to carry important conversations on television, but that overall we fail to do so, due to the nature of the medium. Keep in mind this was written in 1985, but I think it's still very relevant.

If your interested, the book follows the popular distribution of "information" through its various forms over the years, through newspapers, radio, television, etc. With each step of the way, the need for quality information becomes more and more substituted with the need for entertainment value, propagated by ratings which we as a society determine.

But I don't think that he's saying we shouldn't strive to carry important conversations on television

But that's what he wrote. "television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high"

The point is that the risks are high when aspirations are aswell. It's not a certainty. But as Tuhks said, its about the medium. Televised education and serious political discourse does not go well with todays telvision format.

I think this is right. It may not be impossible to have a truly informative television program, but to attempt and fail is more destructive than say a silly cartoon about a cat chasing a mouse, which makes no claim of being informative.

Wow !! So happy to see someone reference Neil postman!!

Same! I'm just finishing the last chapter of Amusing ourselves ro death, really interesting read!

I have a tape of this really great public radio interview where he critiques Sesame Street and explains his theory of education acting as a counter weight to the values being reinforced by pop culture. I really should upload it to YouTube.

Please do it! I would love to hear that. Do you have the full length interveiw?

Indeed! Even people I consider "well-informed" use news as entertainment. And so "news" shows are created to be entertainment. I refuse to get my news from anywhere other than Reuters. It is one of the purer real news sources still around.

Had to read that book back in college... fantastic read. One of the best books assigned to me and gave me great perspective on how I handle media-literacy.

Wow, that's insightful. Now I have a new book to read. Thanks!

We need more Fred Rogers, Ken Burns, and David Attenborough types on TV.

Television is a medium that has a captive audience therefore it is a powerful tool that can be used to market an agenda under the guise of entertainment. A majority of it's audience however are not watching television for intellectual stimulation but as pure entertainment. Hence the term that was created in the late sixties as referring to television as "the boob tube".

David Foster Wallace ties entertainment into consumer and psychological culture pretty well in "E Unibus Pluram"

It's kinda literary in places, but he makes the connection between Postman and Curtis. (And yeah, Curtis must be taken with a grain of salt, however interesting.)

The main reason I no longer watch Steven Colbert, John Oliver, etc. I usually agree with what theyre saying, but I feel like their methods are dangerously close to propaganda.

So basically (downvotes incoming!) the worst of television is Daily Show/Last Week Tonight/The Tucker Carlson Show, by Postman's words. Entertainment that is "totally not meant" (totally meant) to be taken as true unbiased news.

I don't think those shows claim to be anything other than comedy about the news. They're junk tv. Something like Dr. Oz selling pseudoscience or Fox news claiming to be fair and balanced while being a right wing propaganda channel (insert MSNBC here or whatever 24/7 news channel that peddles their party's rubbish). Things pretending to be legitimate.

I'm surprised Reddit has upvoted this, given how enamored they are of Jon Stewart and John Oliver...

Which is pretty silly, since Beavis and Butthead existed largely as a caricature of the so-called "raised-by-TV" generation. Like, you literally never their parents and they spent most of their free time watching TV. It was that obvious. They're not role models, and any one who took them as such missed the point entirely.

I think the problem with things like Beavis and Butthead is so many stupid people take them at face value and don't understand the satire at all. It's like when South Park made that episode about Gingers to satirize racism and it just led to people picking on Gingers even more.

This reminds me of Rorschach from Watchmen. Alan Moore explained that he created the character purposefully an unstable lunatic and an exaggerated anti-hero as satire. Nobody got the message and Rorschach became a fan favorite for the wrong reasons.

Starship Troopers and Robocop had the same effect on people.

Robocop is absolutely amazing. I'd say it's overlooked and in general just classified as an over the top action flick by the "casual observer". It's brilliant satire and social commentary / criticism. And in some ways prophetic.

Robocop becoming a feel-good badass action movie is the most 80's thing ever when you think about it.

As well as Greed Is Good (from Wall Street) being worshipped unironically

Kinda reminds me of a conversation I had with my sister about Scarface. That Tony Montana is idolized and quoted frequently is hilarious. Dude isn't meant to be admired, and I kind of worry about people who watch that movie and identify with him in some fashion.

"he died in a house that looks like if the golden girls had a coke habit in front of a comically large pile of cocaine"-John Mulaney

Scorsese is the king of this. Goodfellas, Casino, and Wolf of Wall Street all get incorrectly worshipped by a certain type of person.

I know what you mean but in all three of those films the main characters are somewhat reasonable - they end up getting way to deep into something but start from something recognizable and normal and make a series of poor decisions. You can put yourself in Belfort's shoes and say "How different would I be if I could make a fortune on Wall St?

Tony Montana was a shithead and sociopath from day 1, and he alienates literally everyone because he's such a cunt. On top of that he's chainsawing people and dies alone and despised. There's really nothing endearing or even respectable about him. Where Goodfellas can sort of serve as a caution for what can happen to regular folks who turn to a life of crime, Scarface is just a depressing story of a life-long criminal. If someone you know can say "How much different would I be if I were a poor Cuban immigrant?" then you should probably steer clear of them lol.

If someone you know can say "How much different would I be if I were a poor Cuban immigrant?" then you should probably steer clear of them lol.

Fucking dying laughing at this lmao

Wolf of Wall Street is a true story. Good book too

Goodfellas is also a true story.

You ARE supposed to identify with him though; we humans are all capable of horrifics acts, and we need to be aware of it, and how/why people do what they do.

Yup lol, "Blow is my favorite movie cus the main character is so cool"

x1000

The "Greed is Good" speech was meant unironically. Oliver Stone wrote that scene as a chance to show the other perspective on corporate raiders and private equity- they weren't destroying the economy, they were bringing much-needed reform to stagnant, wasteful companies. And "greed" as the profit motive is good to some degree, companies that don't pursue it enough will flounder and leave their employees with no means of supporting themselves. Companies that pursue it at the cost of everything else are bad, but that doesn't mean we should dispense with greed entirely.

And "greed" as the profit motive is good to some degree, companies that don't pursue it enough will flounder and leave their employees with no means of supporting themselves.

Things haven't exactly gotten better for the average employee since then though, have they? I feel like this chart of US income equality 1913-2013 is pretty telling -- the way that wealth started to become increasingly concentrated in the 80s and that the trend has continued ever since then. Given how the middle class has been eroding steadily since then, it seems odd to imply that corporate greed is ultimately beneficial for the lower-level employees.

Companies that pursue it at the cost of everything else are bad

Well, we both agree I think. But how do you define "at the cost of everything else," and how can you soften it? The whole point of greed is that it is both excessive and selfish, which is what sets it apart from similar concepts like goals or ambition.

How does one praise greed while also choosing to be selfless enough that your greed isn't damaging to those around you? I don't see how you can be both greedy and selfless, at least not consistently and not on a large scale. If doing X increases your profits and greed is good, then why would you ever not do X? Maximizing profits is all about exploiting your resources, and often those resources include both employees and customers.

Why pay your employees more than the absolute bare minimum necessary to keep them from quitting? Why hire one full time employee to work 50 hours when you could hire two part-timers to work 25 hours and avoid having to pay benefits?

People value their lives a lot and will do anything to save themselves. Why would you ever, ever, ever sell lifesaving medication for less than the full amount the market can bear? If you have exclusive rights to a pill and sell it for $10 even when people will pay $700 to save their own lives, well, you're just throwing money away. Why would you ever do that?

If you can make more money by breaking the law and paying a fine than you would by following the law, why bother following the law?

I'm not trying to strawman you and I know that we probably both agree on this stuff, especially since you said that it's bad for companies to pursue greed "at the cost of everything else."

But my point is, how and why do you draw the line? The whole point of greed is that it's a desire for more than what is strictly necessary in order to succeed. If you've decided that greed is good, why would you only do it halfheartedly? When, where, and how do you draw the line? "Greed in moderation" seems like a paradoxical statement to me, and I'm not sure how it's even possible on a large scale.

Wall street didn't make up that quote, im pretty sure that was based on a real speech Ivan Boesky gave where he said "greed is right"

The only 80s things it lacked was Robocop putting on sunglasses to "Bad to the Bone" and a kid sidekick

I'd buy that for a dollar

Edit: For what it's worth, I checked the replies to parent to make sure nobody had posted this already. Nope. But then read and see it at least twice after the grandparent post. Am not original.

Yes! Thank you for this. I feel like I'm the only one out everyone I personally know who "gets" RoboCop. It's a brilliant satire.

"Robo, excuse me, Robo! Any special message for all the kids watching at home?"

"Stay out of trouble."

(Cuts to news anchors laughing like it's cute)

I'd buy that for a dollar.

The remake sucked in comparison.

You are hanging out with the wrong people if you think Robocop is overlooked! It's a pretty beloved classic by most people I know.

I have one friend that loves it so much his entire right arm is covered in a Robocop tattoo. We've agreed that it's better than Star Wars. It's an unpopular opinion, but we stick with it.

Nah, I've read critics say Robocop is best sci-fi of all time. Only an idiot doesn't love Robocop.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

I haven't seen Robocop since I was very young (under 10) so I probably took it literally. What is the satirical message there? Was it not just an action movie about them making a robot policeman?

It was a critique of 80s corporate culture. Businessmen who were willing to accept killing a board member as a "glitch" in the name of profits. Corporate elites owning de facto private armies and colluding with criminals to purposefully destroy a city. Police unions going on strike. Shitty low-brow comedy being popular on TV. Clueless news anchors who are a self-parody and entirely not self-aware. Political propaganda masquerading as news. And the main message of dehumanizing people in the name of corporate profits.

The "action robot cop" plot is just the thin veneer covering a brilliant piece of social commentary.

Very similar critique as American Pyscho (the movie).

Also Fight Club has little to do with a club where people fight.

My favorite aspect of Fight Club is that most people overlook the glaring message of the entire movie/book; people want to follow a cult of personality in order to feel like they're contributing to something special and important, even if it means they are now felons and terrorists. If it weren't consumerism and corporate culture, people would just find something else to mindlessly follow, like Tyler Durden. "It was on the tip of everyone's tongue, Tyler and I just gave it a name."

I remember watching it as like 16 year old and thinking "why is this called fight club if there isn't that many fights. This is boring." Boy am I glad I gave it a few more watches when I got older and could understand the message.

Haha, I also watched it for the first time as a 16 year old, and I was initially drawn in because of the anti-establishment messaging, and because I too suffer from chronic insomnia. Over the years I've come to better appreciate the social commentary more and more.

favorite quote = "we work jobs we hate to buy shit that we don't need"

Huh? It's literally in the title… Oh riiiight. First rule. Gotcha.

Shhh! Don't talk about it.

[deleted]

"And I don't want just any getaway car - I want a 9000-SUX!"

One of my favorite points of cynicism in Robocop is how barely anyone bothers to ask who's face OCP stuck on the front of their new cyborg cop.

"They'll fix you. They fix everything."

Even after being murdered by a drug lord on OCP's payroll and brought back to life as a cyborg without his identity by OCP engineers, Murphy still believes that OCP will save his partner.

Double entendre of "fix" there. "Fix" as in "repair" and also "rig"

"I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation program, spare parts for 25 years. WHO CARES IF IT WORKED OR NOT?!"

Turns out single-digits-old me only caught the thin veneer. Pretty much all I remember is Robocop being a hero, then remembering who he is at the end and everything being great. Is it the first one or one of the sequels where he removes his metal mask and walks around with his creepy skin-face-on-robot-body look?

YEah, the movie was not meant for kids.....Watching it at 13 vs 30 are totally different experiences.

Him removing the helmet is in the first movie, and it remains some of my favorite makeup work in any film.

Yeah you probably won't catch these kind of things unless you actually think deeper about it instead of just watching it.

Alternatively, there are probably lots of essays written about it and you can just read those. There are probably analytical essays of a ton of movies which we've only taken at surface-value.

I wasn't even alive during the 80's yet a lot of that sounds awfully familiar

What was you say about Idiocracy?

It was absolutely not. It was a stunning indictment of corporate greed, short sighted and inhumane treatment leading to terrible social consequences that the people in charge believe they can outsource their problem solving to private companies who can solve those problems with purely technological solutions, only to have those "solutions" turn in them in a brutal and violent manner.

Here's the plot summary:

In the near future, Detroit, Michigan, is a dystopia and on the verge of total collapse due to financial ruin and a high crime rate. The mayor signs a deal with the mega-corporation Omni Consumer Products (OCP), giving it complete control of the underfunded Detroit Police Department. In exchange, OCP will be allowed to turn the run-down sections of Detroit into a high-end utopia called Delta City.

OCP senior president Dick Jones proposes assisting the police with the ED-209 enforcement droid. At its first demonstration, however, ED-209 malfunctions and gruesomely kills employee Kinney. Bob Morton, an ambitious employee, uses the opportunity to introduce his own experimental cyborg design, "RoboCop". To Jones's anger, the company chairman (a.k.a. The Old Man) approves Morton's plan.

I like to think of RoboCop as Verhoeven's criticism of American domestic policy whilst Starship Troopers is his, really quite damning, criticism of US foreign policy.

In regards to Starship Troopers, your statement is more true now than ever. The list of parallels between the war against the bugs and the war on terror is seemingly never ending, which is terrifying. They even share a similar cause: a mass atrocity that could have been prevented, but maybe was allowed to occur for... dubious reasons.

If you read the book, even more so. America really is fascist as fuck, isn't it?

Fascism is capitalism in decay.

Those in power know that the jig is on its way to being up. Time to start accelerating power consolidation, and flex it at every opportunity.

Was the initial bug attack on Buenos Aires in the movie allowed to happen? I thought it was an actual surprise attack? This was another movie that I had to see out of my teens to realize that it was incredible satire and not just meat heads with guns in space

It was actually a meteor that, thirty years prior, deviated from its normal course and smashed into Buenos Aires. The Federation took the opportunity to blame the disaster on the bugs and declared war.

Allowed to occur... Iraq was all about economics. If our govt is very willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of military and civilian lives in Iraq, for...$$?? Why wouldn't they also set up 9-11, if you're willing to kill servicemen and civilians, what's the difference other than geographic location? Killing people for profit in Iraq showed me my govt was capable of pretty much anything. Even 9-11.

Oh that's a great analysis!

Showgirls and Basic Instinct were Verhoeven's criticism of boobs and veejays.

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Yeah, <10 year old me did not get any of that. How interesting. Must re-watch.

Before Robocop there was Running Man. And if you like those dystopian "rabid capitalism" future you can't go past They Live with free market aliens and subliminal advertising.

In the near future, Detroit, Michigan, is a dystopia and on the verge of total collapse due to financial ruin and a high crime rate.

Huh so soon then?

In the near future, Detroit, Michigan, is a dystopia and on the verge of total collapse due to financial ruin and a high crime rate.

Sounds strangely familiar...

They got the description of near future Detroit perfect tbh.

Roger Ebert's review summarizes it pretty well:

"...there is something hilarious about logic applied to a situation where it is not relevant.

Because the scene surprises us in a movie that seemed to be developing into a serious thriller, it puts us off guard. We're no longer quite sure where "RoboCop" is going, and that's one of the movie's best qualities.

There is comedy in this movie, even slapstick comedy. There is romance. There is a certain amount of philosophy, centering on the question, What is a man? And there is pointed social satire, too, as the robocop takes on some of the attributes and some of the popular following of a Bernhard Goetz."

People of Reddit's primary demographic might not get the Bernhard Goetz reference, though they might remember the line from We Didn't Start The Fire by Billy Joel:

Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz...

Bernie Goetz gained infamy in the mid 1980s for shooting and seriously injuring 4 black men on a New York City subway who he claimed were trying to assault or rob him. (Goetz is white.) It sparked nationwide debates on race and crime, and could be seen as an early forerunner of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting controversy.

Goetz was definitely looking to kill all 4 of them and the 5th shot was attempted murder but I don't think the 4 guys were simply panhandling. Surround the guy and saying "give me 5 dollars" isn't much of a question

I like to think of "Starship Troopers" as Verhoven's homage to Dina Meyer's tits.

It's hilariously critical of corporate culture. It paints a (prescient) world ruled by corrupt mega corps. Watch the commercials and news reports, the homicidal inter-company rivalries (way before Borderlands embraced it), and how OCP interacts with Detroit and the police force.

There were a ton of tongue in cheek propaganda moments in RoboCop that satirized the mega-greed of the times. Do keep in mind, the movie is all about the enslavement of Murphy by a corporation for economic ends.

The problem is Zack Snyder's style makes the characters look cooler than they're supposed to be. The source material does a much better job of making Rorschach look like an unstable, embittered loser.

You know, as talented as Snyder is, I think thematically he can sometimes be a proprietor of this exact dumbing down that we are talking about. His movies consistently take source material with interesting themes about humanity and miss the point for three hours of slomo ass whooping.

Would love to read where you saw that. Not because I disagree but because I want to hear more.

[deleted]

Do I need to subscribe?

I see what you did there.

Fight Club is probably the most misunderstood satire of my childhood.

Was it even satire? Reading more of Chuck Palahniuk's books, he seems to just... acknowledge odd ways that people interact with society in general.

I like to think he knew that Tyler would, even though he clearly acted like a psychopath, be idolized on some level because psychopathy is also closely associated with being dominant or "alpha". The movie played this up even more by Brad Pitt going out of his way to get more tan and muscular for the role, while Ed Norton starved himself to make himself look strung out and pasty.

People always say this, but I'm not even sure it's true. The movie, at least, absolutely glamorizes being a macho asshole and categorizes "normal" people as weak and monotonous. The only message most people seem to get is that if you let your ego completely take control of yourself, you may actually end up doing something cool with your life. It tended to be the favorite movie of the most obnoxious assholes in high school and college.

Maybe I viewed it differently, but I didn't think it glamorized Tyler. To me, it condemned contrariety for the sake of contrariety, mainly because two (three?) main characters are rewarded for their antisocial behavior with a bullet in the head. Also, this idealized alpha male leader of theirs, the man they aspire to be, literally doesn't exist.

I assume you mean the movie Starship Troopers, which was basically satire of the book.

Starship Troopers the movie was mostly written before the writer/director even knew there was a book. They got the rights to avoid any conflicts, and only changed minor parts to be plausibly based on the book.

Starship Troopers does not fit there. If you are talking about the P Verhoven(?) flick, yes, that was satire for sure. But the Heinlein book was actually an exposition of Robert Heinlein's actual beliefs. He took a lot of shit for it, bit its actually one of my favorite books. While I am not a fascist, I think the need to earn your franchise is an interesting concept. Only people with a vested interest would even be bothered.

Yeah I was referring to the movie. The novel was genuine and had his honest beliefs, as controversial as they were.

I'd say plenty of people got the subtext but didn't agree with it, it's easier to say they're ignorant than to recognize that satire can backfire if the underlying message doesn't resonate.

Being an artist doesn't make your message inherently correct.

For example, Robocop has plenty of left-leaning messages that resonate with the people, like "too much corporate power is bad", and many right-wing messages that also resonate, however unintentionally, like "harsh punishment needs to exist".

That's the beauty of art, getting different people to relate to your work for different reasons, which in turn might lead them to reflect on the things they didn't relate to.

An artist that thinks of himself as a "shepherd of public opinion" has already failed. The moment you present your message as above reproach, you kill introspection, which is the true catalyst for change.

I will forever want to sleep with Denise Richards after S.T. she was so incredibly hot in that movie.

Side note: at the ripe age of 6 i knew I was straight from this movie.

Moore has lamented that the grimdark themes of the Swamp Thing, The Watchmen, and Miller's Dark Knight have been lifted as style, but the substance within was lost.

LOVE Moore's Swamp Thing. Such a wonderful love story wrapped in a psychedelic candy coating.

I think Rorschach became a fan favorite for exactly those reasons.

Moore is mad that fans didn't react the way he wanted them to, he is mad they loved his character? Did he actually think people would hate Rorschach?

Such an Alan Moore thing to do.

Exactly. If we didn't respond to Rorschach the way he wanted then he should have written better.

I think Rorschach became a fan favorite for exactly those reasons.

Then they missed the point.

It's like someone telling a racist joke, and someone thinking it's funny because they believe that race is inferior and should be laughed at, ignoring that fact that it's a joke.

So the only correct reaction to Rorschach is disgust?

Pity or sympathy is probably the reaction he was going for as he describes in an interview that seeing the heroes of watchmen in real life would be almost sad.

You can't give a character a line like "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me," and not expect him to become a fan favourite!

Honestly though, there's at least something admirable in his flaws. He's consistent in his black and white morality, and it's a worthwhile addition to the story to see how it plays out in the broader plot line. And he's a total badass.

So true. But I feel myself ambivalent towards the character like I'm sure a lot of people do. We can at the same time hold two opposing beliefs about him. Like you said I admire his black and white morality although I don't agree with it at all. I admire how tough he his making at to adulthood after the childhood he went through, but I feel an enormous amount of pity for him for what he has become as well. It's horrible that someone has had so much happen to them that they think that the only thing they can solve their problems is putting on a mask and dishing out vigilante justice.

I think Moore forgot that characters can be pittied and admired at the same time by the same person

Well for starship troopers they made it into a big action movie with big explosions, big guns and big boobs, and really watered down the whole war is bad theme from the book.

Robocop is exactly what it was meant to be but what it was making fun of is the reason why it became popular.

Starship troopers had a much stronger "not only is war bad but the people involved are fucking morons from top to bottom" theme than the book did.

The book is certainly not an anti-war novel.

Yeah. My understanding is that the book didn't know it was satire. Verhooven was appalled that people didn't get the point of the movie. My generation is one in which "Starship Troopers" is too subtle.

The movie too closely resembled real life to easily distinguish whether it was meant as satire or simply a reflection of reality. Either way, it should have caused people to stop and think, but some people like the current reality.

Would you like to know more?

The book wasn't satire. It was an indictment of liberal progressive politics and a prediction - increasingly accurate- of a nation represented by the votes of those who are first and foremost concerned with their own well-being and agenda, as opposed to watching out for the greater good.

I'm not taking sides, mind you, but the book was what it was. And that was not satire.

You absolutely nailed the book's message.

the book didn't know it was satire

What? The book was never satire, it was a study in military leadership drawing on the author's time in the Navy, and also laid out some of his political philosophies. (service in exchange for citizenship, for example)

The movie was intended as satire because they hired a director who hated the book's message.

My generation is one in which "Starship Troopers" is too subtle.

/r/iamverysmart

My understanding is that the book didn't know it was satire.

Well it wasn't satire. It was a sci fi war book.

Not only is ST not an anti-war novel as /u/Jamesbondmustdie said, it is (or at least was) actively used as a text in US military academies as a study in effective military leadership.

The entire story is about the growth of a young man as he rises through the ranks and learns how to command troops and care for them and love them.

ST the movie is a horrible piece of shit that ruined a generation on actually understanding the book. Much like the movie I Am Legend utterly destroyed the entire message and meaning of the book.

... I am aware. But ST, the movie, is much better than the book (which I read first).

Is that so? I would like to know more!

The movie wasn't watered down, it was deliberate satire of the idealogy behind the book.

What. That's pretty much the opposite message of the book.

The thing about Starship Troopers was that was the point. The movie was less a critique of the brutality of war and more a piece of propaganda.

Everyone is so eager to destroy, and everytime there's a basis for understanding it just gets replaced with hatred and rage.

Give this a watch: https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M

Well that's a bit depressing.

You can add Fight Club to that list as well.

I didn't like him 'cause he was ugly

How was Starship Troopers satirical? I thought it was a sci fi story of badass volunteer supersoldiers.

The novel it was based on had some extremely controversial points of view on fascism, military glorification and war.

Paul Verhoeven's film was a satire on these extreme right-wing ideologies.

Oh i see.

This interview with Verhoeven gives some context on the satire and double narrative if you're interested in it.

https://youtu.be/0QotxGy4CKk?t=135

Watched Starship Troopers for the first time pretty recently. Holy fuck I loved it. Growing up I always heard it referenced as a big dumb action sci fi, but the satire was so satisfying to watch.

Was I only hearing from people that misinterpreted it? Or did it generally underperform because most people misinterpreted?

Was I only hearing from people that misinterpreted it? Or did it generally underperform because most people misinterpreted?

I think it's that, and it was the complete opposite of the books message. My Dad and his sci fi club walked out of the theatre because they loved the book.

Starship Troopers is pretty obvious. The problem is that the fascists don't seem to be that bad as fascists go, the propaganda is really good, and I really hate insects and would totally support their galactic extermination.

The film Starship Troopers was certainly subversive whereas the book most certainly does push a borderline fascist militaristic nationalist ideology. Almost every Paul Verhoeven film (including the much maligned Showgirls) has a sharp satirical message that a huge majority of the audience seems to completely miss despite how transparent the anti-corporate, anti-authoritarian messages might seem.

Kind of like Rei, from Evangelion.

Reminds me of why Dave Chappelle cancelled his show and left show business for a while too. He was making thoughtful (and hilarious) racial commentary but some of his white fans were basically using it as an excuse to make racist jokes and say the N word. It bothered him so much he turned down millions of dollars and left the country

Not saying that didn't contribute but didn't he have some sort of mental breakdown that caused him to quit for a while?

You. I like you. Agree 100% on all three of your examples.

I think the problem with things like Beavis and Butthead is so many stupid people take them at face value and don't understand the satire at all.

I've heard this sentiment about the Bookdocks as well and I completely agree. It's one of those shows that can appeal to stupid people and smart people for entirely different reasons.

It's similar to a saying about internet communities like 4chan.

"If you get your fun from pretending to be dumb, it's only a matter of time before you find yourself surrounded by idiots, who mistakingly believe they're in good company."

... and also, the people who started by just "pretending to be idiots" very often and up transforming into the authentic thing. And they may not even notice the change, because after all... what's really the difference?

[deleted]

We are what we pretend to be

That quote from Mother Night is the first thing that popped into my head when I read these comments.

That book really drove that message home.

  1. That's very insightful
  2. I think I might be black now

When your vote for President becomes an ironic joke, that's when you need to step back and reevaluate things.

jUST v0tign 4 Teh luLz

Unfortunately, people pretending to be smart stay stupid.

and also, the people who started by just "pretending to be idiots" very often and up transforming into the authentic thing.

Yep. Dan Whitney is the best example of that.

agreed, this is the problem with ironic appreciation: after a while it looks the indistinguishable from genuine appreciation to an outsider. this is why 'ironic' racist jokes or statements are so problematic. couple this with "Poe's Law" and you've got a recipe for a really awful culture of communication.

The same is true with racism in 4chan's case

[deleted]

Aaron McGruder left after season 3, and season 4 is when it became complete trash IMO

Yep. Season 3 was still good.

Given the long break between seasons 2 and 3, during which Obama was elected, I was curious to see how it would address that. Pretty much exactly as I expected.

I just remember the episode where they were sneaking shit into the movie theatre and Huey had a fucking ninja fight with Uncle Ruckus. That was about it for me.

I loved both the stupid AND the smart of that show.

There's an episode of the Revisionist History podcast that examines how satire is paradoxical in that the people who get it enjoy it for the satirical aspect whereas the things it is mocking often relate to what the opposite side is criticizing and enjoys it just as much. They talk about how both conservatives and liberals loved the Colbert Report for opposite reasons. Its an interesting idea and I feel like it applies to this discussion.

I guess the things collided.

That kind of lack of insight has a long history. I remember when "All in the Family" came out. It received a lot of push back from unthinking types because Archie Bunker was a racist. YES, he was, and that was the point--to show the stupidity of racism.

That's similar to the outrage over that Confederate show HBO is making too. As a writer (and a black man), it really bothers me that people think entire subjects should be off limits. A show about racism isn't necessarily racist, and can lead to thoughtful discussion. And even if it doesn't, I think trying to limit what an artist can make art about is the beginning of the end for free speech

A show about racism isn't necessarily racist

Well no kidding. Is a murder mystery pro-murder? Are the writers of Dexter pro serial-killer? Is AMC pro meth-dealing? Were the writers of independence Day pro alien-apocalypse? I mean, we’re talking fiction, right? Since when are writers or networks guilty of the crimes committed by their characters? Why hasn’t Stephen Kng been tried for murder then?

Our fictional entertainment seems to have no upper bounds to the level of degeneracy it will cover, so how does a thoughtful alternate history where slaves exist cross some line that the endless shows dealing with murder, rape, incest, mass-destruction, torture, sadism, drug-dealing, thieves, criminal syndicates, and whatever the hell else didn’t already cross? But more importantly, why would we think that the creators of these shows believe whatever crazy shit their characters believe? This all seems insane to me.

I can't say the negative reaction surprises me, really, but am I the only person looking forward to this show because it's an alternate history? I don't care at all about what thoughtful discussions it may or may not start, I just really enjoy historical "what ifs" and I think that's all this show should be viewed as. It doesn't need to be some big political analogy of sorts and the knee-jerk reaction to the idea before a single episode has even been seen is just saddening to me.

I agree 100%. I love Man in the High Castle, and art can just be entertainment, it doesn't have to aspire to be more than that. We live in an outrage culture now though. People love to be upset. Not to be one of those guys who complains about PC culture (because there is merit to some of it) but it's made people upset at and unwilling to deal with ideas they don't agree with or find offensive, which is just as dangerous as the anti-intellectualism coming from the White House in my opinion. Anything that tries to limit and censor the free exchange of ideas is dangerous.

Honestly I think today we are enjoying an unprecedented level of free speech in the entertainment industry. You hear comments all the time about how certain movies from the past couldn't get made today, and I think the opposite is true. I don't think a show like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" would have been able to air even in the 90s, and now we're 13(?) seasons in of just absolute depravity and pushed boundaries, and nobody really bats an eye.

The problem as I see it is in this age of social media, something that we're all accustomed to, everyone has a voice, and overall, that's a good thing, especially for free speech, and it's led to some positive social changes. Amidst that, however, are those who cry out against something else. Negative reactions tend to get more attention. That's okay, too. It's okay to not like things or call things out or whatever but "outrage culture" has definitely become a thing.

It's not good enough to just say "I don't like this and these are my reasons why." for some people. Instead it becomes "I don't like this and this is why you shouldn't like it either and why it shouldn't be allowed and why if you diaagree with me you're a part of the problem" and then a bunch of other people who probably wouldn't care anyway start agreeing and it becomes a mob mentality.

It does cause me some concerns for the future of media. I don't think any subject should ever be considered off limits in any form of art. The only thing worse I think than government censorship is societal censorship. "You can't do that, it makes us uncomfortable" ignoring the fact that not all art is meant to be comforting.

I think the problem is people are worried it won't be done well. Focusing more on rich white people than the slaves, that sort of thing. Using those who would have suffered under that system for entertainment rather than for discussion.

The issue with that is that the show never really portrays Archie as the bad guy. Like, the idea with him was to make him seem like an old, stuck in his ways fool, but there's no one on a better intellectual level to make you see what the "right" idea is supposed to be. I think the original idea was that "Meathead" was supposed to be his match as a better modern man, but audiences had so much fun with Archie treating him like an idiot that they just made him an idiot in the show.

I think the dynamic worked because Meathead represented the young idealist who, for the most part, had his heart in the right place but lacked the wisdom to make good decisions. While Archie, though a textbook bigot, still loved his family and wanted what was best for them. It made them human instead of pandering archetypes.

The issue these days is that people don't want to be sympathetic or empathetic to issues they don't agree with. You can't really find modern shows where a racist/bigot/homophobe is a complex human that the audience would genuinely be sympathetic toward in some regard. At least, if you do, within a season or two of that show, said character "sees the light" and becomes another member of the herd mentality, and all dynamic in the show is lost.

Archie Bunker made racist jokes not to make fun of other races but to make fun of the man making them. A great example is the one where he mistakenly gets arrested with a group of protesters and as he's being released he can't help himself and makes a Pollack joke, to a police officer with a Polish last name.

Yes, something similar happened with Archie Bunker's UK counterpart, Alf Garnett. He became a sort of icon for racists who didn't get that the character was satirising them.

I was going to mention Alf Garnett too. The point was people were supposed to laugh at his stupid bigotry and racism not laugh with it. Unfortunately people didn't always get that and he became a loved character by many for the wrong reasons.

[deleted]

This is why people that "get it" don't tend to have a limit as to what they'll make jokes about. Because they understand that humor isn't usually about whatever is superficially being addressed. It's a deeper satire that's actually making light of the human condition. Clever racist jokes are funny because they're actually pointing out that it's ridiculous to be racist, not pointing out some deficiency in a race. Humor about people dying is not saying it's hilarious that someone died, it's dealing with the uncertainty that all of us feel about death, and will all have to meet at some point. IASIP is not saying degeneracy is worth celebrating, it's actually pointing out how ridiculous being a degenerate is. But people that treat (or are only able to grasp) humor superficially believe the opposite. This is why they're always getting offended at jokes. They think Yo Mama jokes are actually about their mama.

I'm thinking this may have been the point Sagan was trying to make (though he may also have just though Beavis and Butthead was a show about stupid people).

Satire has its place, but it's most effective when used sparingly. However, it has been growing as a popular form of media since well before he made this quote, to the point that it's pervasive now. And the issue is because of it's wide appeal, it makes the "smart" people who get it feel superior to the "dumb" people who don't, and the "dumb" people who don't get it feel superior because the people in the show are dumber than they are and they take that as representative of the rest of the country.

Sure lots of people thought Gulliver's Travels was about a dude meeting giants and tiny people. And A Modest Proposal was actually about eating babies.

So "A Modest Proposal" wasn't a cookbook?

Huh.

TIL.

Same with Chapelle Show. One of the reasons Dave quit is because he felt people weren't getting that he was making fun of racism, but were enjoying the skits simply because they were racist.

That and hearing "I'm Rick James bitch" twenty times a day probably really gets to you.

"you mind not calling me a bitch in front of my kids?"

I definitely had a friend in high school who's favorite quote to repeat was Clayton Bigsby screaming the n word.

[deleted]

That's Chris Rock.

Oh absolutely. Its like many "kids" movies today where adults can watch them and there's a whole other interpretation hidden in context that the kids are blissfully unaware of. Problem is that we now have more and more "adults" that are missing the subtext narratives

To be fair, this has always been present in childrens entertainment. I also just saw a college thesis about extrapolating meaning where the author didn't intend. Ray Bradbury was a noted example. Let me find it. Basically, it stated that the majority of artists polled didn't hide things in allegory. This was added later by interpretation.

That was from A TIL yesterday.

That. There you go.

This is only present in good children's entertainment, I think. Some entrainment really is pretty much as shallow as it looks. It seems to be pretty hard to make things that both children and adults can enjoy for different reasons.

Oh for sure. That's exactly what makes them good or not. A movie that can be watched multiple times interspersed throughout one's life where one takes different meaning from it each time is a special thing indeed.

I remember the kids who were into the show the most were the ones who identified with the characters the most. And worse still, it encouraged them to amplify their annoying behavior.

Very true, and I have an anecdote: My intellectual/educated friend had a college roommate that for short-story purposes was scumbag steve/bro. Obviously had nothing in common except my friend was always surprised that steve too liked "it's always sunny in philadelphia". It wasn't for awhile until he realized that steve enjoyed IASIP at face value and couldn't see it for anything more.

Yeah, there's a generation out there who don't get that the Always Sunny cast aren't good people. They often find themselves agreeing with Dennis.

I've met them.

Idk, personally I feel everyone should aspire to the carefree all-in embrace of life, fuck perpetual failure, always be a wildcard attitude that Charlie exudes on the show.

. .. ... .. . Did you fuck my mom?

That's a really shitty anecdote.

Dear God. I just started re-watching that show as we now get FXX here in Winnipeg, but if you find it funny at face value, you might be a horrible person.

There are two types of people who watch South Park: intelligent people who see the satire, and edgy grade schoolers who are too dumb to realize the show has any satire.

Apparently smart people take them at face value, too. Sagan is pushing into /r/iamverysmart territory claiming that the fact that people like a TV show he doesn't understand means society is falling apart.

Besides, even without the fact that Beavis and Butthead was actually fairly sophisticated satire, as Louis CK said:

"you don't have to be a genius to laugh at a fart joke, but you'd have to be an IDIOT to NOT laugh at a fart joke."

Or Groundskeeper Willie's "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" quote.

I feel like a lot of South Park's messages are good, but a lot of them have pandering elements to people who enjoy seeing racism or other isms on TV. Not sure if intentional, but South Park has been known to try and straddle the fence and appeal to numerous sides for reasons.

[deleted]

Beware the recessive ginger gene.

The problem of satires is many people will just take them as facts.

or like that one episode scrottymcbugerballs where people look into meanings of things when they werent actually there, and create a deeper meaning into everything.

It is the equivalent of just reading the title of an article

Because it was aimed at kids. Which is wrong, like southpark is not a kids show. These shows are great for someone who can undertstand them.

See also: people thinking Walter White was a cool guy worth imitating. Also also, Garrosh did nothing wrong.

Good point. I think lots of people in modern rap culture missed the entire irony of Tupac's "Thug Life" message and it hurt the culture in the long run.

Same problem with King of the Hill. "That dumb redneck show". No...it's not, it's much more than that. Mike Judge is an amazing writer.

Well Gingers, unlike other minorities, do not have a soul.

They're not role models, and any one who took them as such missed the point entirely.

Just pointing out that he was saying they were 'influential', not necessarily role models. Your point is very valid, but he was going more for the celebration-of-ignorance (or perhaps even lowbrow schadenfreude) aspect of their popularity.

I recall watching those two and thinking how it would be easier to be a bit more like them - selfish, childish, blissfully ignorant, crude and so on. Despite being the absolute opposite of role models, they even influenced me a little... and perhaps that influence would have been stronger over someone that was much younger.

Just watching the responses to your post, and then your responses, I've got to say that you're doing a good job dealing with the "blanket" arguments that people make, and recognizing the nuance of the truth.

This is a good example. Shuwin makes the "point" that Beavis and Butthead were not role models. You correctly identified why that was an overly-broad stroke that obscured the real issue: influence.

That's a high compliment. Thank you.

claps

Did we do it Reddit?

After reading this thread, Trump resigned, NK gave up their nuclear weapons, Russia stopped messing around with western democracies, the U.K. cancelled brexit and everyone subscribed to the_donald suddenly became rational reasonable adults. We did it Reddit!

How To Start A Circle Jerk: Complete and Unabridged

You forgot "and reddit search started working well".

Other than that extremely well done! :)

We did it Reddit!

https://m.popkey.co/8753e1/zaGxz.gif

You guys gonna kiss?

We got married two hours ago and have already adopted an entire orphanage in Kazakhstan.

Things happen quickly on Reddit.

Will you adopt me

If you're in Kazakhstan the odds are pretty good that we already have.

That would explain all this potassium.

I doubt Sagan was thinking that deeply about it. He cites two examples from pop culture with the most overtly juvenile titles imaginable. It's a surface level analysis. He thinks those shows are stupid and that people watch them because of this supposed cultural trend towards stupidity.

He could have pointed at any number of TV shows - Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc... that are among the most critically lauded of all time, and noticed the wide array of "dumb" characters to make his cheap point. These shows are not a "celebration of ignorance" or "low brow schadenfreude". They're sharply and intricately written, and audiences notice that excellence.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sagan would have, conversely, praised a show like Big Bang Theory because, well, ya know, it has a sciency kind of title.

Is this reddit or a high level doctorate debate? I need an adult! Seriously though, quite apt. Quite.

Didn't Charles Barkley try to make a similar argument about role models and influence? Or am I incorrect?

I don't know about that. No one watches Patrick from Sponge Bob and thinks "gee I wanna be just like that guy." The humor stems from being smarter than the character youre laughing at. If anything its a celebration of not being ignorant. And that's exactly how most people feel about Beavis and Butthead. I remember watching this from a very young age and thinking "damn these guys are idiots. This is hilarious!" Not, "wow the stressors of life could be much less complex and manageable if I were only more ignorant." Suggesting that the show has this particular kind of influence on its viewership is an equally broad and backless blanket statement as saying that it has no effect at all.

I always got the idea that dumb characters in movies/shows like Beavis and Butthead or Dumb and Dumber were always supposed to be a laughing stock, hence why they're in comedies. Like I don't think anyone wants to really be Homer Simpson, who without his good luck would have a hard time finding his way out of a cardboard box. But that's just my opinion, I think that Sagan clearly missed the point of the comedies.

Also, isn't "smart" kind of "in" now? I mean you have all these shows that focus on smart people/characters like Sherlock, the Mentalist, Psych, Rick and Morty, etc. Is that just me focusing on these shows, or is there a trend?

I would argue that the characters you mention are depicted as so beyond smart that they're downright magical. They essentially have magic powers. I think this just adds to this growing sense of science as religion, which is another symptom of the same problem.

Note further that often the 'geniuses' in these shows denigrate the value of traditional education/pedagogy and the value of putting in hard work on the boring stuff e.g Rick's comments about school not being a place for 'smart people'. They tend to be know-it-all autodidacts.

These views obviously have merit; but ultimately all but the highest intellects require going through the drudgery of syllabuses in order to properly master an area of study. School is bad but you can't really do without it.

I think the criticisms of school apply equally to those not of the "highest intellect", and in fact I think school is actively detrimental in a number of ways to becoming intelligent, which is what Rick is getting at by saying that school isn't a place for smart people. I think the biggest difference between most people considered intelligent and the average person is a faith in their own ability to understand new concepts which school actively weeds out.

I've noticed the common thread in people who I've helped with schoolwork is a lack of understanding, not just of the concepts at hand in school, but in general in terms of concepts taught in school. They lack a firm grasp on the concepts being taught and don't even seem to realize it, having "learned" the concepts but being completely unable to generalize from or utilize them. And this is the type of "understanding" emphasized by school, especially early on. You are taught to memorize and regurgitate facts, and can even be actively punished for attempting to actually understand the systems being taught. If you solve a math problem in any other way than exactly as a teacher taught in elementary school, often you are marked wrong and corrected, because they grade for regurgitation rather than understanding. Looking at problems from early schooling I see questions asked that are complex if you have a more nuanced understanding of the material, but anyone who does anything other than regurgitate what they've been assigned to memorize will be marked wrong.

This pedagogy not only enables but encourages ignorance of the underlying concepts which should be taught, and this is a large part of why math, for example, is a despised subject for many; because it is not amenable to a lesson plan composed of sequential memorization of facts. So the students who follow the lesson plans struggle, and only those who go beyond them to attempt to understand the material on their own find it interesting.

Later on in schooling it becomes much better (although mostly at the college level or in advanced courses), but it is of little use to the people who have already been failed by the school system and lack the foundational concepts required to grasp the new material.

No they don't, are you going to ignore the number of college dropouts who went on to found successful companies in the 80's and 90's? The academic system has made itself up to be the arbiter or what is smart and isn't, but most people who stick to the college system through PH'd, especially if they're in the humanities, they're about as idiot savant as some people have point out characters like Sherlock or Rick are. There are different types of intelligence, and the college system only really focuses on one specific avenue.

Founding a successful business is not the same as being a successful scientist. I was talking about 'mastering an area of study' rather than starting a business. You're right that most educational systems do not suit someone with the creative impulse and single-mindedness that your Jobs or Gates-types have, and that's why I acknowledged that these views to some extent 'have merit'.

To create groundbreaking scientific discoveries in this day and age you usually need to learn your area the traditional way, even if you maybe are cleverer than the people teaching you. There are no 21st-century Teslas. You also need to be part of a team.

There are lots of people in this day and age, particularly journalists, who wade into an area without really understanding it and think they can just read a few books and talk to a few people without being able to fully judge what they are reading and whom they are talking to. History is a classic example in fact - so many just think they need to read 'the sources' without thinking about whether those sources can be trusted, or the complex reality of historical truth.

There are a bunch of people in the humanities who are not smart, or who have contributed little of value, dressing up shoddy work with buzzwordy language and ostentatiously knocking down straw-man arguments. A lot of this is owed to the various modern pressures on academics to 'publish or die' and politics within fields. That doesn't mean that the traditional academic method doesn't have inherent value.

Your statements are kind of humorous. Have you ever actually spoken to a professor at a college? They're are completely single minded when it comes to a focus, hence why the specialize in very specific subjects. Business leaders actually have to be a bit more diverse in their knowledge because they have to deal with more than one subject. I'm not saying people in college are dumb, I'm just saying that college doesn't make you smart. Certain types of smart people gravitate towards academia, others do not because the environment is off putting.

Prior to the rise of modern college, most people didn't go to college to become engineers or architecture, they were just self taught explorers for much of history.

And we get to end of your comment, and you decided to point the finger at humanities. Okay, now I know you're just part of the STEM circlejerk of reddit.

college dropouts

I always feel uncomfortable calling these guys "college dropouts". When you hear that phrase you think of someone who flunked out because of grades or lack of motivation, when nothing could be further from the truth for those early tech entrepreneurs. When you drop because you're sitting on a time-sensitive chance to create a paradigm shift in the economy, you're just leaving school because it has nothing to offer you.

That's what you might think, but all I think is someone didn't complete college, for whatever reason. I know people who had to stop and start college again because of family, money, health, and just because it was too hard for them at that moment. Drop out =/= bad student or dumb student. It really just means they didn't fit into the academic environment, and maybe the business environment suited them better.

Reddit needs to get rid of its over zealous hard on for higher education. Higher education is not for everyone, and pushing people to go to it because you think it's best for them only sets up system like the one we have today. Ballooning student debt, and a bunch of useless degrees.

are you going to ignore the number of college dropouts who went on to found successful companies in the 80's and 90's?

If you are talking about tech companies then yes, actually. Those people are an anomaly.

[deleted]

Because like religion, the scientific method and system of thinking becomes bastardized to where people are justifying their own views and actions as "backed by science(religion)," when often they have tenuous foundations or no basis in science as it's historically defined. Some would say "science as a religion" is an issue we're having now- take the climate change debate. Some would even say what's wrong with religion. It's some of the people exploiting religion, and science, that are the issue.

That's all pseudo-intellectual: basically just above, but within reach, of the average idiot. Watching shows like that make the stoopid feel wicked smaht

Edit: Rick and Morty is a wonderful show

This. All the stereotypes on big bang theory too just builds up the wall between "smart people" and "everyone else"

The show amuses me, but it's basically nerds making fun of an asperger. Imagine the outrage if Sheldon got a Down's syndrome person to tease

Is that why Rick and Morty is so popular on Reddit?

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

Is this really the next copypasta

It's already a copypasta I'm just spreading the good word

does anyone have the link for where this started? I really want the context.

me too thanks.

Also, isn't "smart" kind of "in" now? I mean you have all these shows that focus on smart people/characters like Sherlock, the Mentalist, Psych, Rick and Morty, etc. Is that just me focusing on these shows, or is there a trend?

Pretending to be smart is very "in" now, yes.

You forgot to mention that brilliant show the fucking Big Bang Theory

I think people like more that these characters are not merely intelligent, but clever.

see also: the Beastie Boys 'You Gotta Fight for Your Right (to party)'

Beavis and Butthead were characters you were supposed to pity and contain, but Dumb and Dumber were characters you were supposed to sympathize with and coddle. They were all dumb characters that you were supposed to laugh at, yes, but they were unrepentantly stupid, and lead lives that demonstrably worked out.

The "smart" characters you mention are all tricksters. Rick is perhaps the most magical of them all, yet he's the only one that even considers his actions.

That said, there have been popular contemporary shows about smart(er) people - stuff like West Wing or South Park - just like there were shows about dumb people like Get Smart and Mr. Bean earlier on.

But we still were never supposed to idealize the idiots. Yes we're weren't supposed to callously just laugh at Dumb and Dumber, but do you really think the average person wanted to go around acting so dumb they could have been in the movie? Not really.

Also I wouldn't really call west wing or South park "smart(er)" TV, it's certainly more aware of it's surroundings, but that doesn't make it smart.

I don't think many people emulated Dumb and Dumber, but other stupid characters are routinely seen as inspiration - such as Ace Ventura, or Bill Murray's character in Caddyshack. That's largely what Beavis&Butthead was about. The jester was traditionally used to speak past social norms, and not celebrated for their apparent irresponsibility - but that really changed in the 70's.

As for South Park, I specifically added the -er to my statement because of that show. It's a show in the tradition of the jester, where people say and do unacceptably stupid things - but there's a point to it. Sometimes it's not a good point, but they always made sure you understand that stupid characters are supposed to be in the wrong.

Those are a bit absurd caricatures of smart people.

One of the things all of those shows also impress on viewers is that being smart is just something that happens to you. No effort, it just happens.

The movie Contact featured an aspirational smart person, so did The Martian. Both have an extensive background in study and academics, but both are chided throughout the movie for being 'nerds'. At least in those, their education pays off, although Contact does take a weird religious turn at the end.

Things like "The Mentalist" or Sherlock are basically autistic savants with almost magical luck which manifests as people thinking they're "smart", and that's the going modern image of well educated people. They can solve specific problems, but have zero social skills, situational awareness, or common sense.

Contact was a piece of shit movie. I agree with all you points though. Also, the idiot savant type of genius is real. Go to any university and you'll see hundreds of them, you don't get through the college system without having a few wires wired wrong. The Renaissance man is not a modern ideal anymore to be honest.

you don't get through the college system without having a few wires wired wrong

What the fuck?

What does that mean?

Sure there are a few weirdos on campus (and at any job I've ever had), but the implication that college is "too hard for normies" is fucking ridiculous and is exactly what I was talking about being a huge social problem in this very thread.

No I'm saying that the hoops you have to jump through to become a college professor, generally are a turn off to most people outside an odd bunch. How does this sound, give up 10-20 years of your life pursuing a PhD, while taking on large amounts of debt, and at the end of the day you will be earning less money than if you had gone into the private sector. On top of that, specific areas of studies, such as classical studies, has requirements for actually pursuing it that weed a lot of people out. In general you have to learn 4 languages, but most likely more than that. I mean, how many people do you know that know French, English, German, Latin, Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Sumerian, and working on Babylonian? Not very many because A it doesn't have many uses in the modern world, and B because the classical languages are harder to learn.

Getting an undergraduate degree is nothing compared to the hoops of getting a PhD, and the system is getting worse because of the Admin bubble that has occurred.

Professors do what they love. I know relatively few who would even be close to what someone might call a savant. Almost all fell into being a professor after pursing their passion for awhile. Few set out saying "I want to be a professor" except the rare group studying philosophy or classics, like you say.

There are too many people wanting to be professors and not enough positions for all of them, FYI. Some people love being a student.

Being a teacher also has strict education requirements and pay that is often lower than the open market for similarly educated people. There is also a huge surplus of teachers in many places. Not everything is about money and you don't have to be a savant to believe that.

You and me have just met different professors. I think it's mainly because I've gone to research schools, so all of the professor's were on that path from the start. It depends on the school, I mean I had some professors who were like you describe, but they were mainly centered on the studies centered on business, eg accounting. Also it's not just philosophy and the classics, the sciences at research based schools are mainly focused on professorship. Also they're abusing the grant system, them being the research schools, didn't help that recent administrations have been throwing money at pet projects.

There isn't really a huge surplus of professors though, the bigger issue is that college are hiring professors as adjunct or associate, and never granting them full status. Its cheaper in the longer run because adjunct aren't full professors, and then they're able to pad post graduation employment through admin hires.

I don't know...when I was 14, Beavis and butt head were my role models

I see nothing wrong with Homer. He's got a 9-5, loving wife, kids, house, car. A couple friends. He can afford to get to the bar after the bills get paid.

stupid ignorant obese lazy unkind

Homer is a person who slides by in life. He has no idea how to do his job, take care of his family, let alone anything. He knocked up Marge and screwed up both their plans for life. He's raised a terrible kind in Bart, he's a asshole to his saintly neighbor. He's not a good person, we just laugh at him because he's placed in humorous situations. Saying Homer is not bad, is like saying Jenny from Forrest Gump isn't a bitch.

The episode "Homer's Enemy" specifically deals with this. That's the one with the character who's had a hard life who sees Homer for what he is. The writers, at least, if not all of the audience were very aware of the dark side of the character.

Isn't that the one with the character that's like the polar opposite of Homer, but never gets ahead?

Isn't this a quote from the show?

Those characters aren't "smart," in the same way Batman isn't really a "detective," they're superheroes whose powers happen to be intellectual-flavored rather than violence-flavored, sometimes.

In the case of Rick Sanchez, he's literally the smartest being in that entire infinite multitude of universes, such that he's abrupt and callous and manipulative to every other character in that universe. When he's shown to be a reality's God, he winds up a petty and vindictive one, and every single one of his personal relationships are strained because he uses his power to get what he wants at the cost to others.

His intelligent character isn't grounded in any kind of reality, you're simply told that one of the conceits of the show is that he's a genius, in the way you used to be told heroes were valiant and able, now their narrative power is introduced through the lens of their intellect, which if it were real would put off audiences in the opposite way as their pseudo intellect attracts them.

If Tony Stark were really a genius, he would see that it's a stupid idea to give his technology to a fifteen year old for a big fight with a team of wanted terrorists and supernatural entities, especially when his whole argument was for regulations on such superheroics, but he's not as intelligent as a billionaire industrialist, he's as intelligent as a writer working for Disney thinks an average American moviegoer will find compelling.

The supposed intellect is the new way fascism is enforced and glorified, and it only works if people specifically don't know that it's fictionalized intelligence.

And how would you, in an entertaining way, convey that Rick was a smart person without doing it the way the show did it?

I might make his family less stupid, so that his intelligence actually means something and leads to an actual contention of philosophies rather than just having it always work out for him because he's the best. I might also add some ambiguity to whether or not his perspective is the correct one, possibly through Jerry, who as an Everyman Ad exec would make a great foil vis-a-vis pure intellect versus populist chicanery.

I get that they're tropes, Jerry is bumbling dad, Beth is a competent, attractive, driven woman, Summer is Teen Girl and Morty is naive boy, but Rick is shown to be always right to the point where none of anyone else's perspectives really ever matter, which is easy when he's the only real character and he's arguing with tropes, but is also reflective of how a lot of people who think they're really smart actually behave.

Indeed, at the beginning of season 3, Beth essentially chooses to let Rick (who is not even her universe's Rick) do whatever he wants rather than stay with Jerry, who is literally trying to protect his family.

Heck, when they visit Gazorpazorp, Rick is still smarter than everyone in the advanced female psychic race, able to overpower the brutish males, able to shame Summer for her gender, and he's shown to be right every. single. time. Because he's arguing against strawmen. With pseudoscience.

The entire episode is a consequence of his buying a sex doll for his underaged grandson, another dubious move he manages to handle completely without suffering any consequences himself.

When he's with Unity, she says that he's better at what she does than (edit) she is, and we're still meant to see him as cooler than Beta-7 and Jerry.

But, that probably wouldn't be entertaining in the slightest, which is why entertainment isn't the best avenue for education, which I actually just stated in a comment I wrote elsewhere right after I wrote the one to which you replied.

Not saying it's not a good show, I'm saying it's set up to where every Jerry in the audience roots for Rick because they think they're the Rick in their own lives.

That's the thing about half hour TV shows: they can't really relay intellect, only a caricature thereof, which is why Universities still use books and independent research.

I suppose you could make the case that his constant unhappiness is the consequence of his scientism/intellectualism, but I think that would be best illustrated by showing that he chooses to reduce everything he does to science, rather than that he's unable to not do that...

Ramble, ramble. There's a reason my standup sets don't sell well.

Also, isn't "smart" kind of "in" now?

Not really. There is a huge anti-intellectual movement in this country, mostly driven by the people who are on the upper bound of the "millenial" generation (33-35+). Those shows aren't about actually being smart, they're about people who pretend they're smart to hide something else about themselves (except Rick & Morty, which is basically just pure absurdity). Sherlock and The Mentalist are about people who are so driven and obsessed with what they're good at that they push others away, which is the conflict of the show. Psych is about a good liar. Rick and Morty is a smartly-written but ultimately pretty crude show whose "smartness" I've never seen applauded over its absolute absurdity. Not to say there's anything wrong with them, I enjoy all of them (except The Mentalist).

Emotions are becoming more important than facts and statistics, the world is getting better but everyone thinks it's getting worse, we're losing our chance at getting a man on Mars and not NEARLY enough people care, climate change denial is mainstream, 3 or 4 corporations own everything, news is entertainment, and we elected a reality TV star as our president. Even the digital democracy of the internet is in question right now. We're experiencing a fight between our oldest and youngest generations about which way is the way forward for the country and it's not clear to me right now which one is winning.

Except we don't see their intelligence at work. What we see is "I know this/I figured this out because I am very smart", end of explanation. It presents their intelligence as something unique to them that the average person does not have.

Such shows do not, in my opinion, encourage the viewers to become more intelligent or work toward becoming like those characters.

Oh, and the "potatoes? Potatoes? I've got it!" figure it out trope is so much better? Could you please point out a character that DOES encourage people to "get smarter"? Generally people can make themselves "more aware" of the world, but I find it highly unlikely most people can just "get smarter", myself included.

Angry beavers, cow and chicken, ren and stimpy.

All those shows have a smart/stupid duo to run on. And cow and chicken I'd say doesn't even have a smart main character, I Am Weasel was a side character at best.

Pinky and the brain Narf

But really I think sagan was saying that since these figures of enormous idiocracy exist in the media, they influence those who are exposed to it, essentially dumbing down everyone who sees the show. But yes, nowadays I feel I'd rather watch a clever show than a dumb one. I adore Sherlock or any other show that made me feel smart for watching it. Like house taught me some stuff about doctoring and suits taught me some about lawyering. It's not thorough or accurate, but I feel like I'm being informed. Rick and morty is a beautifully satirical show that points out flaws in western societies' values, Much like south park.

Yes and he was wrong, just like the people who think the movie Idiocracy was telling the future. Just because people think society is becoming increasingly stupid doesn't mean it actually is. Generally when you look for something, you're going to find it. If you want to point a finger and say America is stupid, there's no shortage of evidence. But on the other hand, if you were looking for evidence to disprove that, you would find just as much evidence. Turns out America has a lot of smart and dumb people, 320+ million people does that.

Hey man, he was right about the ocean of ethane on titan, one of the moons of Saturn, twenty years before it was confirmed by modern astronomers. The books is named the demon haunted world. The demons he's referring to are the pitfalls of not thoroughly thinking things through. Look at how popular televangelists still are. I don't watch them, but the fact that you can still find them on tv means that enough people are watching.

Okay, so since Sagan was right about things in space, would you allow him to do open heart surgery on you? Would you fly a plane that he designed on his own? I personally wouldn't, just because you're smart in one subject, which he was, does not mean you are in others. Sagan can shove his critiques of literature and pop culture and shove where the sun don't shine, because Contact was a terrible movie and story.

This shit is on the lines of people who say Idiocracy is telling the future. Focusing on the stupid people meant that Carl Sagan ignored the smarter shows, which is ironic since he had the Cosmos series.

This is one paragraph you're reading out of a book. The book was enlightening to say the least. He doesn't bash anyone in it, he simply points out flaws in people's reasoning, like in relation to Bigfoot or alien abduction.

Let's put it this way, you have a set of twins. One is raised by the creators of aaaaah monsters and the other by quantum physicists. The latter will be more likely to see through lies and misdirection because he's informed on the scientific method of thinking.

Oh Jesus, the scientific method isn't some magic equation that makes people smart. All it is a series of steps that you take to do an experiment. Do you realize that it doesn't always lead to the right answer?

I don't think either kid would be more likely to see through bullshit, but I think picking a parent based on occupation is kind of dumb. The quantum physicists parents could be complete assholes and treat the kid like shit, and the Nickoldean guy could be a great father married to a smart women. You're making bullshit assumptions based on zero evidence, that's not what the scientific method would call for you know?

No I'm talking statistics because I recently read freakonomics, probability is that the second kid will be better educated and will be smarter. The scientific method isn't magic. It's ironic you sound say that because the scientific method is used to dispel people's illusions of magic. I wish I had my copy of the book so I could quote you some of sagans words, He's much more eloquent than I am. Understanding scientific method and the indicators of pseudoscience better helps people navigate through the multitudes of disinformation in the information age and the complexities of life.

Yea, this is basically the response I'd expect to get from someone who "just read" freakonomics. At the end of the day you're talking statistics for a very specific instance, and applying it to everything. Just because Freakonomics said quantum physicists are good parents doesn't make it a fact. Why don't for a second you stop a think. Maybe, just maybe, someone who works for Nickoldean creating shows has a bit more money than quantum physicists, especially since professor pay has largely been stagnant recently. Now, add on top of that the Nickoldean guy is more wealthy that wealthier people tend to live in better school districts and in addition to that have more control over where they can live. If quantum physicists family teaches at a school that is in a less than stellar school district, well the child is shit out of luck. Face it dude, you jumped to conclusions based on detail, when the point of Freakonomics was that things happen for multitude of reasons. Hence why the son named loser did better than the son named winner in one of their examples.

You're right, I'm extrapolating, things are vastly different in reality. But the fact remains that the demon haunted world wasn't a book about tv rotting your brain but rather a book about looking at things critically and understanding what's feasible as what's not.

Also, isn't "smart" kind of "in" now? I mean you have all these shows that focus on smart people/characters

I think these judgements are hard to make. I think with today's communication, everything is "in" somewhere. Great stuff and terrible stuff (objectively and subjectively) can and does find a place to feel at home.

Shawn Spencer isn't smart, he's hyper-vigilant a curse trained into him by his dad.

Well Homer's a good example. People certainly like to mimic Homer's antics. Someone brings a box of donuts in and everyone be all like "mmm donuts..." and then be like "I probably shouldn't have another but mmm donuts tee hee hee."

Of course I would argue that there are some important messages contained in a display of absurdity from a character like Homer, and it's probably a net positive, but I think that poster is spot on in suggesting there's maybe a negative influence as well.

I always got the idea that dumb characters in movies/shows like Beavis and Butthead or Dumb and Dumber were always supposed to be a laughing stock, hence why they're in comedies. Like I don't think anyone wants to really be Homer Simpson, who without his good luck would have a hard time finding his way out of a cardboard box. But that's just my opinion, I think that Sagan clearly missed the point of the comedies.

I think Sagan as well as me understood the point was for mediocre or stupid people to laugh at stupid people. If you have an ambition to be more intelligent than you are you simply don't waste your time with that nonsense.

ARE YOU THREATENING ME?

I need TP for my bunghole

I simply state the obvious: you are going to have a better grade in school if you study the course material instead of getting drunk every night. This is like saying "obesity has nothing to do with bad food". Of course you can watch a stupid movie once but to watch a stupid movie every day is simply not conducive to intelligence.

I don't know. I think one of the most intelligent and influential people of today is comedian Louis CK. He often plays the simple buffoon.

These dumb comedies are not unique to our times. We aren't getting dumber.

Let us not forget the big stars of our grandparents (and probably great grandparents) - The Three Stooges.

And how about Shakespeare?

These are strawman arguments. Of course Louis C.K. would have been more intelligent if he had chosen other spare time hobbies. I don't think he is stupid but he is certainly no genious and I often can't stand to watch all his stupid shit.

We aren't getting dumber.

Science begs to disagree. The smartphone kid generation lacks several skills that older generations had. Among other things they are less capable of formulating verbal communication without texting them and they show less social and empathic skills when it comes to IRL situations.

Sauce?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=smartphones+and+intelligence

No, personally I think Sagan was just on his "I'm so smart" high horse that reddit loves for him to on. I'm sure he'll say that his characters in contact are so much better, well fuck Contact. That movie sucked.

I hate this whole, "oh only people who want to act like they're smart watch that show" idea of people's interest.

Who cares what you think? Science is science and intelligence drops as soon as you stop being required to learn new things. Stone age man was more intelligent than modern man, f--king period.

I understand what you're saying here, but at what point does the fault lie with the observer/consumer of art rather than the artist?

At all points

So when an authoritative figure like a parent plops a young kid in front of a TV programme and says to watch... ?

Then it's the parent's fault for not actually raising their kids.

That doesnt change anything at all unfortunately

If the alternative is to give up liberty and have our programming policed or whatever else the solution is, it's not worth it.

Your comment is completely out of context. No one is pitching alternatives, literally just making an observation

Speaking as an artist, that is incorrect. There is a point where the artist is at fault, too.

It entirely depends on what you mean by "artist".

Because I would suggest that Beavis and Butthead was absolutely a commercial work and not "art", and thus there is more of a "business" behind this than an "artist".

Hmm. Would you really argue that Mike Judge is all about making a fast buck and has nothing to say? Given the warmth and humanity of the guy's output, that doesn't sit well with me.

Seriously, Mike Judge is full of substance, King Of The Hill is an amazing show. I love Sagan but he missed the mark on this branch of pop culture.

Now He has Silicon Valley, which is freaking awesome.

Yeah, let's not forget his hilarious (and depressing) film Idiocracy, which is basically a feature length extrapolation of Sagan's warning (and a prescient satire of today)

When I was reading the highlighted text, Idiocracy immediately came time mine.

Making a fast buck may not be Mike Judge's intention, but on second thought, what exactly is his intention? Mike Judge is an artist and businessman, and he probably thought he had something interesting and insightful to say with Beavis & Butthead. The message itself was probably intended to be as nuanced and critical as he says it is. At the same time, did he really think that message would be properly understood by a bunch of elementary or middle school kids who were likely to see the show (setting aside older viewers who may have understood the message)? Did he even care about affecting positive social change? Or did he just have a personal desire to create an animated show commenting on a certain sub-culture that he found interesting, and in turn wanted to blast that to as many people as possible -- assuming they would find it enjoyable -- without regard for what the actual social impact of the show would be?

I don't know the thoughts in his head, but while Mike Judge may be a certain kind of genius, like most artists he's probably also somewhat vain. Rather than try to positively affect the world, I would guess his main priority was to put out an entertaining and successful show that a lot of people watched, regardless of how that affected their outlook on life.

Thanks for the considered reply. I think I see where you're coming from.

On this point:

Rather than try to positively affect the world, I would guess his main priority was to put out an entertaining and successful show that a lot of people watched, regardless of how that affected their outlook on life.

... I would just say that shows that try too hard and too obviously to positively affect people's outlook on life are rarely entertaining.

One of the exceptions to this goes right back to the thread's theme.

Carl Sagan and the original Cosmos TV series was immensely informative, grandly entertaining in an educational way, and clearly contrived for the purpose of enlightening and inspiring, and I'm betting it affected a lot of viewers' outlooks.

David Attenborough's arc of nature documentaries would be another in the same category.

Fair point, absolutely. I confess I was thinking of fictional shows and completely forgot to consider documentaries.

Absolutely. Office Space was a scathing reflection of corporate drudgery and culture, and Silicon Valley, though hilarious and light, is also a sharp satire of a large subsect of a prominent American culture and lifestyle. Mike Judge is woke af

And Idiocracy was pretty much exactly what Sagan was writing about.

Almost all art since the beginning of what the Western world considers 'art' has been commercial. You're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

A weirdly broad statement and entirely untrue in almost all media. It can be argued that most of what the Western world considers art is just craft and not art at all.

"Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it." - Bertolt Brecht

We are getting wildly of topic here.

I'd say his distinction is valid. All major art is done for profit of the artist in the end (as they, like everyone, must live), but there's a difference between a single artist (cartoonist, painter, etc) making his/her living and a commercial entity putting out a work.

So what only the first novel of any writer is "art" and after they get picked up or get one contract then it's "commercial work?" Someone puts a song up that she made herself and that's "art" but if she gets a recording contract everything that follows is "commercial work?"

Be careful up there on that horse.

No, but there is a difference between creating something because you like it and want to make it and hope to make money doing it, and creating "art" for the sole purpose of making money. It's the difference between Calvin and Hobbes and Garfield.

It's nice up here, thank you very much.

So you are confident that at no point in his creation of the pretty darn large Calvin and Hobbes library and licensing, Watterson did it for the money? Maybe rushed something to meet a holiday sales publishing deadline?

Just for clarity here I'm not trying to argue that Watterson is a commercial sell-out. I'm trying to argue that you're in danger of setting a bar that no one who's pursuing their art as a means of supporting themselves could ever achieve.

I'm entirely confident, yes. There is almost no legal C&H merchandise, he repeatedly rejected offers for TV shows, movies, and other media, and ended the strip decades before its earning potential would have ran out. There is no "pretty darn large [...] library and licensing": there are 18 books, a coloring book, two calendars, and that's it. Bill Watterson is the very definition of someone who created art because he wanted to create art and not simply turn a buck. Jim Davis created Garfield for precisely the opposite reason.

Yes, it's a high bar, but how is that an argument? And anyway, what gave you the impression that I was setting up any sort of standard? I just defined the extents of the spectrum, I didn't draw any line down the middle.

I never said any such thing. There's a distinction between a single or small group of artists and the product of a company of dozens or more with the meddling of management and all that.

I think his point was, can you actually name a piece of art that was created by someone without being commissioned/being commissioned to do another thing? The starving artist is kind of a modern thing, you didn't have artist like Van Gogh in the Renaissance period or Ancient world to my knowledge.

can you actually name a piece of art that was created by someone without being commissioned/being commissioned to do another thing

I can name hundreds. Likely most people can if they think about it.

The paintings my daughter does. They're pure "art".

The framed print of one of my own landscape sketches that I gave my mom.

The perfectly composed photograph that a photographer took and donated to our annual homebrew social convention.

My mother-in-law's watercolors, which are beautiful. She gifted us one based on my request.

And so on. Those are not commercial forms of art, nor primarily business-related, at all.

I meant pre-modern period. My bad. That was kind of the whole point of my comment, starving artist that pursue art as a passion is not really a thing in the past. Think about all the masterpieces we have from the Renaissance, all that was done under the patronage of rich families, not because artist wanted to do art!

All food is meant to be eaten. There's no distinction between fast food and homemade.

Perhaps, but there is a useful distinction between a commercial artist and what you might call a passionate artist which comes down to how you make choices. If you consistently and knowingly appeal to base instinct in a low minded way because it's easy and expedient and you're expected to produce at high volumes then you're a commercial artist. If you refuse to do that on principle then you might be a high-minded artist in the traditional sense.

all art since the beginning of what the Western world considers 'art

Not sure you have any fucking clue what actually comprises 'the western world' - western civilization is not some new thing

Welcome to the world of "art as a business", where artists can create art as a product and still have something meaningful to say.

Every novel, album and movie you enjoy falls into this category.

not "art"

Anything created by man is art. Declaring it "not 'art'" is an attempt to squash discussion before it begins, discounting it using semantics. Instead argue why it is bad, or ineffective art.

yeah, i would like to think that most young adults got the satire aspect of it, but most kids it just went over their head and they laughed at the dumb guy hitting frogs with a baseball bat and talking about jacking off and the great cornholio.

On Malcolm Gladwell's revionist history podcast he had an entire episode dedicated to satire and how it's kinda pointless. Even if you're making fun of something you believe is bad, the people who identify with that bad thing will believe you're glorifying them. Satire doesn't actually fix anything when it's utilized in that form. It doesn't make people introspective, it doesn't show off the issues with that idea. That goes along with what you're saying, how it influenced you. You didn't see the flaws they were pointing out at the time, you just saw it as something you could identify with- to some degree.

Upvoted for accuracy, but with one caveat: I did see the flaws that they were pointing out at the time... and hated myself a tiny bit for still envying the characters' complete freedom to be self-centered dingleberries.

It also represented a counter culture that was anti-corporate and anti-capitalist. Sagan missed that as well.

It existed to advertise music videos produced by large corporations and it made fun of the characters for being poor and unable to consume the things they wanted.

It existed primarily to bring ratings to MTV. Free music videos were something they had access to that they incorporated into it. MTV could have done the same with Real World, Jersey Shore, and their other shows, but the lack of them suggests they thought it would hurt ratings more than help.

Some of Sagan's generation and older viewed 80s MTV with its continual music videos as a rise of dumbed down culture of some sort. Shows like A-Team and Dukes of Hazzard at least required people to sit still and kind of pay attention for an hour, and many of the silly sitcoms still had some type of message.

Beavis and Butthead were in a way a parody of a stereotype that had developed about MTV viewers, so it made sense to incorporate the music videos into it.

it made fun of all of the music videos it showed and they were mostly obscure hair bands that were easy to make fun of

You think Beavis and Butthead was anti-corporate and anti-capitalist? I have to disagree.

I see the show and MTV as an analogue to Hot Topic - commercialized counter-culture which is just a capitalistic trap for inexperienced rebelling youth.

Not unlike the passage we're reading in this thread, eh?

writers and producers can deliver a submervise message within that framework - this is what some documentary filmmakers do for example. Work within the system but actively against it at the same. Remember, the same guy wrote idiocracy.

As /u/XaeVS said, the show's conception was exactly the opposite of what you describe. It was conceived by an establishment organization to promote its own products but couch them in a format that kids who thought they were being 'counter-culture' would fall for. B&B was as much a corporate-run entity serving corporate interests as Yo! MTV Raps or 120 Minutes.

MTV, in the Nineties especially, was the successful co-opting of youth rebellion by the parents of that current generation. It represented the first time in history that teen rebellion was molded by the people at whom the rebellion was aimed.

not the first

In previous generations, the older generation profited off of youth rebellion through the artists and musicians that fed the rebellion, but the bulk and form of the rebellion - the choice of musician, fashion and appearance, etc. - was driven by the youth culture itself. MTV absolutely represented the first time that the shape of the youth culture was actively molded by the parent generation. Music videos gave, in a way never before seen in pop culture even with radio, "the establishment" a tool to manipulate the tastes of those rebelling.

Edward Bernays attached cigarettes to rebellious youth culture through marketing in 1929. Torches of Freedom.

1970s dropout culture was molded by corporate interests. Think Scooby doo, etc

you say, "In previous generations, the older generation profited off of youth rebellion through the artists and musicians that fed the rebellion" -- those artists weren't picked at random - they were funded by the parent generation.

Parent generations have been molding youth culture in modern times since the mid to late 1800's

Cigarettes were marketed at everyone equally. Soldiers were the first ones actively targeted, but so were hard-working men and even housewives.

Your Scooby Doo example is the cart leading the horse. That was a direct outgrowth of the Hippie culture of the previous decade. Parent culture capitalizing on it and even encouraging it is different from actively molding it, creating it from the ground up.

The explosion of dance pop following the New Wave movement of the eighties, the "Grunge Movement", the Boy Band resurgence, nu-Metal, nu-Punk and Frat Metal (Limp Bizkit, etc.) were all constructed in a lab, so to speak. They were the products of corporate bullet-point lists and specific dedicated marketing campaigns aimed at directing pop culture in specific ways. There were areas that 'grew wild' and were not the product of these campaigns, but The Industry captured and manipulated a billion-dollar corner of it. This was something that had never been done before on anything close to that scale and with that level of penetration and success.

marketing made it acceptable for women to smoke in public when it previously wasn't socially accepted. - google, "torches of freedom"

Scooby doo was constructed in a lab as well - to sell toys.

Your argument necessitates that things like grunge and dance music didn't exist before they were invented by a corporation, and that simply isnt true. Corporations co-opt EXISTING culture, they rarely invent, and have been doing it since the mid 1800's.

marketing made it acceptable for women to smoke in public when it previously wasn't socially accepted. - google, "torches of freedom"

You do get that that doesn't say anything about youth culture, the topic at hand, right?

In this case, they took tiny microcultures - Grunge, nu-Punk, etc. - which had local followings and promoted them to the exclusion of other competing styles, genres and bands on the primary media source for youth culture at the time. Bands were excluded from MTV (and as a result mainstream radio) simply for being "too unlike what is currently being promoted". There was an active molding of the culture by corporate interests on a scale unlike any before.

Scooby doo was constructed in a lab as well - to sell toys.

Considering there was no substantial merchandising of Scooby-Doo until several years after the cartoon aired, this is not accurate. The show can be said to have been created for the same reason any commercial TV show is: to get an audience in front of commercials, but that is a different thing and doesn't mark the show as a significant example of anything. That's all beside the point, though, since Scooby-Doo didn't create, popularize, promote or mold "1970s dropout culture" - a culture that was hardly a product of the Seventies and was definitely not a minor part of the culture when Scooby-Doo premiered.

they were predominantly young women. Teenagers didnt really exist as a sub-culture at the time. It WAS youth culture. Im talking about youth culture.

if those things existed as "microculture" then a corporation did not invent them in a lab as you say - the co-opted an existing culture.

idk know about scooby doo. Comics and records and some merchandise were available right away (i checked)... it might be a bad example - hanna barbara definitely had love for their product as well, it wasnt entirely corporate, but I am sure they had toys before scooby doo existed and were aware of creating a cartoon to sell toys. Do you think that wasnt in their head at all?

anyways my point is that youre wrong and Im right. later

anyways my point is that youre wrong and Im right.

Your logic in general is about as sound as the grammar in that sentence. But that's neither here nor there, since your logic would be shit even if you could write it properly. You say stuff that is just plain ridiculous and claim it as fact, like "Teenagers didnt [sic] really exist as a sub-culture at the time." and completely fail to recognize that taking a very minor movement and actively and exclusively promoting it until it is the predominant culture of a demographic does not require creating that culture. You don't even recognize when the things you say as part of your "argument" actively contradict the claim you're attempting to make.

later

Let's hope not.

nope.

Teenagers didn't to have disposable income until the 40's and 50's. Somewhat in the 10;s and 20's with model-T's etc, but really in the 1950s. There was no teenage subculture before then....

http://emergingadulthood.umwblogs.org/1850-1900/

"Prior to the 19th century the developmental stage of adolescence did not exist. Children typically had no education; they learned everything from their family members and went to work on the family farm as soon as they were physically capable of contributing to the manual labor. Once these children reached puberty they were considered to have reached adulthood. Therefore it was expected and common that people would start families during their early teenage years (Youth Literacy Canada)."

bye grammar police. I am done

Hey, lookit you trying to move the goalposts again and argue about something other than the debate at hand. Plus, your link and even moreso the quote you've excerpted don't even support the statement you made at the top. You really suck at this.

grammar police

"wah wah, he commented on my grammar!!! Grammar police!!!" <~~ the refuge of the person with no argument. Surprised you didn't pull a full Godwin and call me a grammar Nazi.

::plonk:

[deleted]

everything is corporate - that doesnt mean that writers and producers cant deliver a submervise message - this is what some documentary filmmakers do for example. Work within the system but actively against it at the same.

Remember, the same guy wrote idiocracy.

[deleted]

from a rolling stone article:

RS - "What advice do you have for America's youth?"

Beavis- "Like if you go to school and, like, study and stuff? And grow up and get a job at a company and, like, get promoted? You have to go there and do stuff that sucks for the rest of your life." ... "You'll be trapped, just like those worms in that grasshopper's butt. "

... is that not anti-corporate?

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/beavis-and-butt-head-the-voice-of-a-generation-rolling-stones-1993-cover-story-20110202

but I agree with you. Sagan wants us to watch stuff like science-y youtube videos not Beavis and butthead. I think theres room for both

this is why youth culture is so pro-establishment these days. Like the opposite of hippies and ravers and beatniks. No idea what counter-culture is

He also missed the fact that some of us could appreciate the show as a skewering of American culture and still go on to pursue advanced science degrees.

The point hes making isnt that there are devious plots to intentionally subvert education and seduce everyone into being idiots. People are diverse. There will be people who can overcome all sorts of negative influences to become mature and rational people. The point is that these programs celebrate ignorance in their own twisted way, and no matter how much you try to justify it as sarcasm and joking around, the reality is that it does influence you in some way, there are of people who watch it unironically, and sadly entertainment of this form is far more popular with youth than more thoughtful forms. In fact. The true problem hes pointing at is it doesnt matter if youre the sort of idiot who celebrates ignorance, or a self proclaimed nerd who enjoys satirizing the idiots, nobody in either group is seeking out more knowledge or new perspectives or thoughtful discussion.

Tldr smart people can enjoy beavis and butthead but no one became smart from watching .

'Some of us" doesn't equate to all of us or even most of us. There will always be exceptions to the rule. And i use the term rule simply to mean his argument. Let's be honest here even if the show was a parody and could be appreciated on multiple levels the core demographic wasnt exactly intellectuals. I think that was Carl's point. He didn't mean it as an insult as much as "this is what the kids are watching" and make no mistake, most of them are/were watching at a surface level.

I agree completely. The success of the show meant that it had broad appeal, which necessarily includes the lowest common denominator. But I wonder if the bigger question isn't whether culture shapes society, or if it's the other way around. Did anyone choose not to go into science because of Beavis and Butthead? Or are the people he's complaining about the non-scientist types already?

What if he didn't miss anything and we don't get to see what else he really had to say about it? The fact that we only get a glimpse of the snapshot of a single page, and his go to example, doesn't say anything about what he really feels about those movies at all and its place in culture. And using those movies as examples aren't invalid. A lot of people here are knee jerk reacting negatively because they like those movies. Nothing there says whether Sagan believes the movies are actual trash. He's probably talking about the masses of people who liked the movie at face value and nothing else. No deeper meanings. Like people who like Zoolander or Southpark but don't actually get the message, don't get the satire, dont see anything more than the superficial jokes on Simpsons.

I've never really seen it that way before, but it makes sense. Thank you for opening my eyes to this, and have a good day.

I agree. People aren't always smart enough to get the point. People took south park at face value to justify smoking or other shit, while the message was completely lost.

Even you?!

*dramatically places back of hand on forehead, leans back, and sighs

Yes! Why sadly and so unfortunately yes! It's so hard. So, so hard being me. Now where's the director, I'm ready for my cameo!

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

-George Orwell (1984)

Children are the strongest amongst us because although they have little knowledge they still grow. While they are easily influenced even kids have the ability to grasp at straws and realize the difference between reality that we see and the reality that we perceive/create.

Maybe its my upbringing but I knew not to replicate stupid when I could be my own stupid.

Exactly. Mike Judge came from a very well educated family (father is a fairly famous and respected PhD archaeologist), and Mike is no intellectual slouch either. It's why he's so adept at social satire.

king of the hill is probably his best work when it comes to social satire. he just nails conservative middle america so well.

kinda glad it ended when it did though, i dont think the show could continue in trump world. it would get too weird.

I think Hank would be heavily conflicted by 2016, and I think he'd actually refuse to vote after being so conflicted.

Peggy would self-righteously and obnoxiously be on the Hilldog train at first, but something would happen that would change her mind. I think the Hill household would be staunchly against voting.

Now Dale is where it gets interesting. He spouts off all sorts of shit about Russia and emails and leaks and shit only to be met with a sigh and shut up, Dale from Hank.

Bill would discover 4chan and MAGA all the way, he's basically an old /r9k/ poster. Lucky would MAGA. Boomhauer wouldn't say anything about it. Khan though...that's interesting. I think he'd MAGA just to be different, just because Whatever Wasanasong goes MAGA because corporate interest.

The really interesting thing is what would KotH look like in mass social media and globalized world? I mean, about 2012 this shit really took off. What's that look like for Arlen, Texas? Is Bobby trying to get youtube bux? Is Peggy tweeting all the time? What is life like?

Oh yeah? https://www.google.com/amp/variety.com/2017/tv/news/king-of-the-hill-fox-revival-talks-1202519401/amp/

o snap

I'm actually kinda excited to see how he handles it because he always did such a great job of skewering this brand of conservatism without dehumanizing or demonizing the characters. Not to say that he pulled any punches with the satire, just that he had empathy for those characters even when it was clear he was trying to show how flawed their perspective might be.

Everyone in town would be fervent Trump supporters for realism's sake.

If they're anything like my father, someone will say, "The owner of CNN should be thrown in prison. He hates America and loves Putin!"

i dont think hank would be a trump supporter. he'd probably be interested at first but get turned off. he's more of a jeb bush guy. he was a big dubya supporter. hank is conservative but he's not a crazy bigot or anything. he's just slow to change.

his dad though...he'd be all up in that shit

I would like to think this is true, but I wonder if a 65 year-old Hank Hill would grow to more irate as he ages and become a rabid Trump supporter.

maybe. depends on if the propane business starts struggling. i could see him becoming subject to a bit of economic anxiety

kinda glad it ended when it did though, i dont think the show could continue in trump world. it would get too weird.

It would be perfect for Trump era because all of the characters would be trump supporters and Dale would the only person against him. Hilarity would ensue.

Idiocracy is his best social satire.

given the current state of affairs i dont think it went far enough

Well the good news is Fox and Judge are in talks to bring it back

And didn't Mike Judge make idiocracy, a movie more or less describing Sagan's rant? haha

and Mike is no intellectual slouch either.

He has created undeniably funny stuff and made a bunch of astute observations, but at the same time he's a fan of Alex Jones. Also, The Goode Family (meant to be a satire of liberals) had absurdly lazy writing, it was like if characters in King of the Hill ranted about immigrants "stealing are jerbs" and bowed down to cardboard cutouts of George W. Bush every episode.

So even he has his blind spots.

I assume you got downvoted because someone either didn't like your Alex Jones claim or they happened to like The Goode Family, but I have to agree with you on the second point. I've watch just about every single episode of King of the Hill, watched Idiocracy (and while I didn't agree about the endpoint, I understand the concern), and can in some ways respect Beavis and Butthead as a discussion about the "MTV generation," The Goode Family just wasn't all that good. Their actions are so over-the-top, and the setups are so peculiar that it loses all sense of realism for me.

[deleted]

I never used to like King of the Hill as a kid. I guess I just didnt get it. Now as a mid-30's guy I've rediscovered how fucking brilliant it was. Recommend.

And look how they turned out. MTV i mean.

Plus they made fun of the very music videos they played.

Just because somethings cool doesn't mean that something else doesn't suck!

Omg I actually remember this

Lol indeed.I never really watched Beavis and Butthead during its heyday but after subsequent viewings I find it has a good share of moments.I actually got "Vocabulary" album on digital.Not a bad band but the video is pretty out there as the guy's have seen.

EDIT: Album name

Sadly I don't think you can find official recordings of B&B critiquing music videos because when they did the show they never got the rights to resell them with B&B. This was before DVDs and such.

Yea I noticed and its a pretty shame.

BTW, this is also why you can't get Married With Children with the opening Sinatra song or even the Beverly Hillbillies with the original Paul Henning/Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs theme. They don't own the resale rights. It really takes away from the show without the classic opening theme.

I think that is the same with The Wonder Years too.On Netflix you have a totally different singer doing the theme.

[deleted]

My favorite example of that was when they were watching Led Zepplin's "Over the Hills and Far Away". Beavis was unhappy that it started slow and quiet and immediately marked it as lame, while Butthead had to convince him to stick it out. Then when it kicks in the two of them rock out.

And that the creator of B&B, Mike Judge, also created the movie Idiocracy which has a similar theme taken to the level of absurdity. I have a feeling Dr. Sagan never actually watched Beavis & Butthead to see what it was about, and that it was clever satire.

I think he saw it, saw.....wait - I don't really need to defend him here: not like he was absolutely wrong.

Imagine him writing this 80 years earlier saying "Charlie Chaplin remains popular (and influential) with young moving pictures audiences."

Beavis and Buthead were foils used to satirize some of the very things that Sagan is calling out. To me that's evidence that he did little more than look at the name and maybe 30 seconds of it. Silly humor has been around for a long time and put to good use. Maybe he did watch it, but his opinion of it doesn't match my experience.

I think he's just pointing out that people were looking at Beavis and Butthead and werent understanding the ridiculousness and detriment of being a generation led by media, an were more looking to emulate them. I mean, if I said virtually the same about the vapid nature of The Kardashians and how that's influenced culture, it would likely be better understood.

He didn't mention intention and did specifically mention influence. The intention of Beavis and Butthead may have been one thing but their influence another -- we do tend to emulate what we're entertained by (or are entertained by what most closely emulates us, maybe?).

If that is what he intended to illustrate, he should have picked a better example then.

No one is responsible for how you interpret things - just how they say them.

I do not say this to be abrasive or insulting but as a matter of fact.

But his point is that the media are dumbing down the population. Surely an example that's not satire of that very process is not a great example? Surely there are plently more he could have chosen from, if the problem is so prevalent?

Did you find his greater point incorrect? Are you making the counter argument to his greater point of media and society dumbing down?

I'm... sceptical. I wouldn't go so far as to say his greater point is not true, but I'm not convinced. This is the kind of thing that's been said at every point of history. On the other hand, he's talking about American culture and media, and since I don't live in the US, I can't really pass judgement on that either way.

My gripe is that no matter if his overall point is valid or not, picking Beavis and Butthead as an example diminishes his argument, and it feels to me like it's been picked because of his own ignorance. Now, I'm not saying that to call Sagan dumb, anyone can make a mistake, but you have to agree that it would be rather ironic.

I think the far greater danger is intentional propaganda. Satire can be misinterpreted, but I don't think it had the effect of "dumbing down" anyone. It's the purposely false information bring pushed that is the main problem.

No one stopped believing in climate change or evolution because of Beavis and Butthead.

Nor is that what he said - basically, folks we're entertained at a high level by stupidity. We can make an argument here about satire or whatever, but we have enough data from then to see he wasn't far off on the direction for society.

He didn't blame Beavis and Butthead, he pointed that B&B along with D&D were highly popular at the time. The entertainment could have been at space, discovery, mathematics, technology, travel, adventure, whatever - but instead society spent time in the laughing, on the couch, staring at people who were laughing, on the couch, staring at people.

The argument isn't against the nature of the satire it's about what we did with it.

And here we are.

but we have enough data from then to see he wasn't far off on the direction for society.

Do we? You'd have to show that comedy based on someone doing dumb things has been getting more prevalent. I would argue that is was always a popular brand of humour. Just look at the archetype of Jester (or - the fool). Would Sagan complain about Laurel and Hardy too? Would he say that the popularity of the Marx Brothers set us back?

Furthermore, the excerpt we have here (I can't argue against the whole chapter, as I haven't read the book in question) does nothing to establish the link between what he calls "lowest common denominator programming" and his perceived dumbing down of America.

the problem is that you'd have to assume that Sagan, a cosmologist, PhD, popular author, and TV show host was somehow too dense to understand the satirical bent of B&B. He was immersed in pop culture his whole career, I think he understood it but also recognized that it celebrated stupidity as much as it mocked it. Let's be honest, other than ridiculing slacker culture, the show never even attempts to educate or introduce high minded concepts to the viewer. If you were a stupid person before you watched it, you'd be just as dumb when it was over. Contrast that with Cosmos which was at least inspirational.

Yeah but I don't think anyone was dumber after watching it. At worst they were the same, which can be said for any number of media. Like I said in another comment, no one ever stopped believing in climate change because of Beavis and Butthead.

You could say the same thing about Laurel and Hardy or the Marx Bros. The intention is to entertain by laughing at stupidity. It's hardly fair to call it a celebration and even if it is it is nothing new. Jesters have entertained us since time immemorial.
Beethoven's V symphony and the Mona Lisa don't attempt to educate or introduce high-minded concepts either (or if they do, it's only to people who already know). They are, to the common man, just aesthetic.
Not everything has to educate to be worthwhile. Things that don't aren't detrimental and should not be criticized for not doing so if they do not set out to.

Damn, you picked the exact same three examples I did in this post and beat me to it by 19 minutes. Now it looks like I just copied from you =/

That is a happy coincidence considering the numerous other examples from before the alleged modern dumbing-down I've thought of since (I'm from the UK you might guess from this list):
Norman Wisdom films (UK 1940s and beyond): A foolish, clumsy character. Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' the foolishness and clumsiness of the character.
I Love Lucy (US 1950s): A naive, ambitious character. Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' the naive ambition of the character.
The Phil Silvers Show (US 1950s) and derivatives (Flintstones, Only Fools and Horses, etc.): someone trying to be devious and clever but failing and getting into a pickle (but, spoiler alert, don't worry, everything works out alright in the end). Nothing educational about that. 'Celebrates' the foolishness of the character (if only he'd stop coming up with these hair-brained schemes).
Tony Hancock (UK 1950s and 60s): A foolish character. Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' the foolishness of Hancock.
The Goon Show (UK 1950s and 60s): Pure surreal silliness (from the mind of Spike Milligan RIP). Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' absurdity.
Bewitched (US 1960s and 70s): A foolish, naive djinni. Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' the foolishness and naivety of the character.
The Munsters (US 1960s): A foolish, naive family. Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' the foolishness and naivety of the characters.
Dad's Army (UK 1960s and beyond): A group of foolish, clumsy characters. Nothing educational (beyond the existence of the home guard and little inkling into what life was like). 'Celebrates' the foolishness and clumsiness of the characters.
Monty Python (UK 1960s and beyond): Mostly pure silliness. A few bits that could be called educational (The Galaxy Song, the Philosophers' Song, some of Life of Brian and the Meaning of Life) but the vast majority not. 'Celebrates' the stupidity of the Idiot Olympics and the Gumbys.
Some Mothers Do Ave Em (UK 1970s): A foolish, clumsy character. Nothing educational. 'Celebrates' the foolishness and clumsiness of the character.

Others have mentioned Charlie Chaplin (and therefore Buster Keaton of course), Airplane (and therefore I recall Police Squad and Naked Gun).
Nothing educational about any of it and all 'celebrating' stupidity and silliness and all highly laudable works of genius comedy writers and actors providing immeasurable benefit to the quality of our lives.
It is so unfair and annoying that modern cartoons like The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, Southpark, Family Guy etc. get these accusations of being a bad influence leveled at them by people who I bet enjoyed some or all of the shows above and many more besides and never batted an eyelid when Porky Pig shoots Bugs Bunny in the face with a shotgun.
End of rant.

Monty Python (UK 1960s and beyond): Mostly pure silliness. A few bits that could be called educational (The Galaxy Song, the Philosophers' Song, some of Life of Brian and the Meaning of Life) but the vast majority not. 'Celebrates' the stupidity of the Idiot Olympics and the Gumbys.

Monty Python crossed my mind as well, but then I realized just how much I learnt from them. For example I knew Henri Bergson was a "great opponent of Cartesian dualism who resisted the reduction of psychological phenomena to a physical state and insisted there is no point of contact between the extended and the unextended" since childhood and years later when I was studying philosophy it suddenly clicked and I realized I know exactly what they were talking about.

I also learnt what metope and abacus are, though I tend to confuse the two.

There are certainly educational bits but I stand by saying the vast majority was not. Not to downplay those bits (and I expect people have learnt things from lots of other comedy shows like some HMS Pinafore verses from the Simpsons) but most of it was not in any way shape or form educational and I don't think ever intended to be. In fact, anyone watching Monty Python to learn things would get a very bad understanding of the Spanish Inquisition and Arthurian legend.

Oddly enough, I've heard that many Arthurian scholars agree that the Holy Grail is so far the best movie made on the topic, as long as you can separate the realistic bits from the silliness, and of course Life of Brian is packed with interesting historical facts.

I haven't heard anyone claim the same about the Spanish Inquisition sketch though, and I wouldn't even expect it.

Beethoven's V symphony and the Mona Lisa don't attempt to educate or introduce high-minded concepts either

I don't agree with that completely. Even an uneducated person who lacks any insight into their cultural relevance can at least understand that that's flipping hard to do, and maybe they should work harder. Not exactly the same feeling "frog baseball" leaves you with.

"Hard to do" as in hard to compose or play? Then you're not comparing like with like. The comparison is to the artist: Hard to animate (drawn and animated by hand as Beavis and Butthead were)? Hard to develop stories that amuse and entertain? Yes to both those things. Not as hard as composing like Beethoven of course but we're all guilty of that failing. In that sense Beavies and Butthead is inspirational to a new generation of animators and comedians and in fact to the very many who do see the satire and are talking about it here. It shapes their lives for the better.
Anyone stupid enough to be inspired by Beavis and Butthead to be stupid is, frankly, probably a lost cause to begin with. We're certainly not losing a cure for cancer in any of those cases.

"Hard to do" as in hard to fully comprehend. You can write your dissertation on Beethoven's fifth dissecting all of its nuances, but you'd have to be considerably more imaginative to get a PhD out of "frog baseball".

So not hard for Beethoven but hard for us!? What possible perverse reason could there be for valuing that?
Surely, the great things about Beethoven's music is a) it was hard for him to do and b) we enjoy listening to it so much. Its value does not come from it being analyzable.
Frog Baseball - the activity that the characters engage in - itself would not be the subject of the dissertation any more than 'sitting in a room talking' would be the subject of a dissertation on Waiting for Godot.

you keep misinterpreting my position! Beethoven and da Vinci provide more than a nice aesthetic. They uplift our spirit precisely because they aspire to great heights. They ask us to abandon our petty baseness and strive for excellence. Its value does not come entirely from analyzing it, but if we are talking about intellectually stimulating media, which I think is what Sagan is talking about, then the ability to analyze it does matter. If the question is to what extent it advances popular discourse in an intelligent direction then Waiting for Godot shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath with Beavis and Butthead unless its to make a hilarious joke. I'm not denying that there is value in mindless entertainment, and I don't think Sagan was either, but it's about degrees, and there seems to be way more entertainment of the mindless kind today than there was in Sagan's day, and it shows in popular discourse.

I think you and anyone else would struggle to define 'spirit' and 'heights' without equally vague terms so there is the suspicion that that is nothing more than a preference for a certain taste given grandiose labels for egotistical reasons. Beethoven and Leonardo aspired to mastery of their craft but I think you're being very unfair if you think cartoonists and satirists do not do that too.

If the question is to what extent it advances popular discourse in an intelligent direction

I don't think that is the question. The entertainment industry has always been (back to antiquity) full of things that do not (or only do to a minimal degree) and no harm is done. Things do not have to. A glass of water doesn't. Scratching your arse doesn't. These things don't make us dumber just because they don't make us wiser.

and there seems to be way more entertainment of the mindless kind today than there was in Sagan's day

I disagree and quite the opposite in fact (except that there is way way more entertainment now of all sorts). TV in the 40s, 50s and 60s was mostly utterly mindless pap. It is still but one was hard pressed to find anything informative in those days whereas now there's a wealth of things available. TV producers wouldn't dare produce something like Beavis and Butthead in the 40s and 50s because it exposes failings in our society and not because it celebrates stupidity, which it does not any more than Laurel and Hardy.
One of the reasons that we are and Carl Sagan was aware of the failings and dangers that face us is because of a more modern media is more prepared to tell the truth and take risks in doing so than it was back then. Carl Sagan has played in important part in that (before him, Bronowski, Attenborough and co, 'documentaries' were only ever state-sponsored public information broadcasts and propaganda) but so did/do the satirists. I think more so than Leonardo or Beethoven. And with satirists there is a social comment and lesson, which is lacking in most classical music and art: they honestly make no attempt to educate the listener/viewer except to show them what mastery of their craft looks like, which is great but not the be-all-and-end-all of education. I wouldn't necessarily value that lesson more than a lesson in how to recognise and laugh at the ridiculous.
Even if Beavis and Butthead are providing nothing of value, they are indicative of a much improved media that is unshackled from a state that would prefer to keep knowledge from us and a class in society that would prefer to sweep unpleasant truths under the carpet. It does not celebrate stupidity. It does entertation. It was not easy to do. I think we should applaud it.

I think if you were stupid enough to emulate B&B you weren't going to be watching Cosmos any time soon.

I never met anyone who actually decided to emulate B&B though.

How does one "celebrate stupidity" exactly?

I feel like this is one of those dumb things my hyper Christian mom used to say but never explain.

if you revel in the baseness of something stupid then you are effectively celebrating stupidity. It's the difference between laughing and moving on versus self-indulgence, or committing lots of time to it rather than smarter things you could be doing.

Beyond on that, he acts like dumb humor being popular was new thing came about as a dumbing down of America, while ignore dumb movies and shows like Airplane!, Heehaw, and the like all coming from the 70s, or the fact even before that The Three Stooges were a huge hit in the 40s. It's dumb slapstick/fart humor, and it has existed and been popular for as long as people have produce art. I mean didn't Pompeii have carvings about dick and fart jokes? It's not like we were all studying science and learning about the stars and then dumb and dumber comes out and we all turn into idiots. It's just someone who expects humor to be professional and clean, like other types of media. It's stupid.

Honestly the whole thing could have been written at any point since the invention of the printing press. People have always liked the base and banal. When were people ever good at asking the questions that would make the most difference? When did the majority of politicians ever really get 'it'?

I think either Sagan has too much faith in what the human race could be like/has been like, or he's just a little bit too pompous!

Besides, Buster Keaton was the true comedic genius of the silent movie era.

He probably just saw news reports about kids doing bad things and blaming Beavis and Butthead for it

When I watched it I always laughed at B&B, not with them. He didn't catch the satire.

I agree with you, but to be fair to Sagan, he wasn't really the target audience of B&B so it's not exactly surprising that he would misapprehend it.

To be fair, he didn't have to watch the show to comment on its social impact. He simply needed to see the social impact, which was often antithetical to the point of the show.

Dude was a well known burner. Guaranteed he watched it and Laughed his ass off.

What does "burner" mean in this context?

Marijuana connoisseur

THC Enthusiast

It doesn't matter if it's "clever satire" if the population at large looks at it and takes away face value propositions.

and that it was clever satire.

He made the point that is was popular and influential on young viewers, perhaps alluding to the fact that those watching it were taken in by the crassness and low-brow humor, and missing the satire altogether because they're simply too young. Beavis & Butthead humor worked on multiple levels. The adults get the meta-humor and the satire, meanwhile the kids just think the farts are funny.

I feel like Sagan may have been critiquing the audience response to Beavis and Butthead rather than the show, since the show inspired emulation as much as derision of the stereotype. It reminds me of Kurt Cobain's frustration over "Smells Like Teen Spirit," which was supposed to be a satiric commentary on the generation's culture of entitlement. "Here we are now, entertain us" was meant as a critique, not him championing that attitude. The same sort of back-firing occurred with "Rape Me," which wasn't about sexual assault but then some idiots raped a girl while singing that song and it may have broken Cobain so badly he killed himself over it.

Sagan may have been shooting the recipients of the message, who misinterpreted its meaning, rather than the messenger.

It was "Polly", not "Rape Me". He writes about it in the Incesticide liner notes.

some idiots raped a girl while singing that song and it may have broken Cobain so badly he killed himself over it.

No Cobain killed himself because Courtney gave him one last chance to get clean and checked him into a rehab, and he broke out and jumped a fence and checked into a motel and did heroin again and then blew his head off. He was a heroin addict.

There are plenty of heroin addicts that don't commit suicide. He clearly had some stuff going on outside of the drugs. The heroin just made it worse.

His wife leaving him and taking his daughter.

Yup, the never stopping pain in his gut that he was using the heroin to self medicate.

the stomach thing was cured in 93, he talked about it being gone in an interview

I didn't know those specifics before, but I suspect that most suicides are rarely about just one thing.

I thought he was murdered

ah ha! Courtney Love reveals her reddit username at last!

Lol. The idea the Courtney did anything responsible and altruistic is laughable, hilariously laughable.

You mean Courtney Love the business manager and artist with a career spanning 4 decades, critical acclaim, multi-platinum sales, a successful acting career for which she was nominated and won awards, signing and managing other artists, and managing her own lines of clothing?

You may just be confused with her public rockstar image, but business Courtney privately is a very, very different person.

Yeah she does drugs, and gets arrested for being fucked up and breaking windows and getting in fights. But so do Senators and congressman, and tons of other people. Just look at Tim Allen from Home Improvement.

Like the time in Rome when she put so much ruphynol in Kurt's champagne he almost died?

Hitching her cart to Cobain was about the best business decision she ever made, I'll give her that.

Outside of her squabbles with Nirvana bandmates and appearing in the news for junkie behavior, she hasn't been relevant in 20 years.

I don't care if you have a big hardon for her, but don't paint her to be some visionary and long standing artist and industry magnate. She's Yoko with a heroin habit.

I don't even like her that much.

I just hate how people love Kurt for being a heroin junkie who wasn't even a very good musician and kids today wear his shirts because he blew his head off.

There were plenty of amazing grunge bands that nobody even cares about today just because their lead singer didn't blow his head off.

Don't disagree with any of that. It's funny how premature death tends to transform people from popular icons to long standing idols.

Satire doesn't translate well to many people unfortunately. I've given up on not using the "/s" flag on reddit for that reason.

In all fairness, text is one of the worst mediums for satire since a lot of what makes satire obvious is inflection or facial expression

True though even if you use the wildly exaggerated language of satire you still get some people who take it seriously. I believe this comes from assuming the worst online (that someone would actually say that).

Also valid, and hell if you look hard enough through the internet I'm sure you can find somebody who would

Everyone's hung up on the cobain example but I agree with your point- in crude terms he's saying look how stupid the things americans like are... we're dumb and dumbing....

[deleted]

No one in your middle school imitated those characters?

How would you even know if they were influenced? What are you looking for as evidence?

[deleted]

That doesn't seem very effective. Maybe you should actually have some way to measure before you state with such confidence that what somebody consumes has zero influence on them.

[deleted]

Funner than the guy that makes outlandish statements because he wants to sound informed, then when called out, insults the person who questioned the accuracy of his bullshit.

Not to mention that Mike Judge made idiocracy, which is a blatant commentary on the celebration of stupidity.

You can only get the point by watching too much TV which Carl Sagan probably did not.

Yeah that's the thing with Mike Judge. There are usually a few layers you have to peel back to see the real social commentary. It's what makes it so good. Sad to see that Sagan was so dismissive of this art form, but kinda understandable I guess. He just misunderstood.

Probably has been said but yup, and the creator of Beavis and Butthead went on to create Idiocracy. He was well aware of the dumbing down of America. I do remember though, hearing about a boy setting his sister's bed on fire when she was in it because of the Beavis n Butthead "heheheh fire is cool" thing. Maybe it was media scare reporting but yeah, a shit ton of people missed that it was satire.

I grew up during the time I would be the prime audience for Beavs and Butts. Never liked it, my buddy used to do the heh heh heh laugh and I thought it was stupid and annoying and so contrived. Never liked King of the Hill either, but I loved Office Space and Idiocracy and love Silicon Valley so I feel like Judge capitalized on a soft market at the time even though he definitely had (has) some really resonant ideas.

Just goes to show, even Sagan was capable of ignorant thinking.

I disagree, they were role models to me and my friends.

The irony is that they influenced what has been the most educated generation thus far

Sorry if the finer nuances of B&Bs writing got lost on me amidst the fart jokes

They don't have to be role models for people to emulate them. Just look at the guys from jackass

The thing is, most people never got this. They just saw it as Jackass the Animation.

Loved the show, I'm the only one out of everyone I know IRL that did...

I was in first grade when that show was on and all my friends and I watched it. That and South Park.

Satire still reflects the underlying society.

You the boys that been a-whackin in my tool shed?

But a lot of people missed the point. If it was intended to be satire, it was so good, that people didn't get it. Same with the Beastie Boys and (You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party).

And it was written and created by a physicist.

It's not coincidental that Mike Judge also made "Idiocracy."

Children and teenagers often don't pick up on who should or shouldn't be a role model. The kardashians are caricatures of the idiotic super wealthy, and yet so many teen girls want to be Kylie Jenner.

It was that obvious. They're not role models, and any one who took them as such missed the point entirely.

being someone who was around at the time, they might have not been intended as role models, but they sure as hell were used as such by dumb kids who thought they were being funny.

A popular show that caricatures X can still be pointed to as evidence that X has significant influence on society.

That is this guys point in a way. That people DID take Beavis and Butthead as role models, and celebrated what they represented, rather than acknowledging the caricature that they were meant to be.

Mike Judge is such an excellent writer, it's sad Mr. Sagan doesn't understand the credit where its due

That's not why most people watched that show, though. That was a show that catered to stoners and kids that didn't get the nuances of why the show existed in the first place. That's the point Sagan was making.

You're completely correct.

But B&B did inspire a handful of kids to do some incredibly stupid things back in the day, and even President Bush commented on the program.

Our media pool was smaller than today and even dumb shows had bigger impact than now.

But it always bothered me that folks are so willing to say a dumb kids show or movie is dangerous...yet we don't talk about how shows like 24 or Law and Order might distort and destroy our sense of laws, justice, and vengeance.

Naw. We're dumb because a popular movie used the word dumb in the title twice.

you literally never their parents

this hurts

Exactly, it was a satire on tv addled idiots.

Thanks for saying this for me.

That's besides the point, as a kid I didn't catch the message you're talking about, all I got was that B&B do fun, stupid shit and I want to be like them, even though they were shown to be losers it still didn't matter because they were the heroes of the show.

Exactly, I think he missed that it was satire. The creator also wrote Idocracy among many other satires the commented on the same thing that Sagen is mentioning.

Mike Judge is a satirical genius.

The problem with society is that the majority is so goddamed gullible. On top of that, it is hammered into our brains by the educational system that it is forbidden to think, just do as your told. Combined with major zealot religions/political cheerleading/mass media dogma... questioning the state of reality is frowned upon and gets you fired/flunked/sued or ostracized by the idiot majority.

Yeah, that was one of my first favorite satires.

McVicker: "Do they even have parents?"

Van Driessen: "Well, I'd have to assume so."

Sagan was smart as hell but we don't have to agree with everything he said. His criticism of B&B is rather harmless.

They were abandoned by their parents and had to hold jobs while still trying to get through high school.

Ehh, i see it as representative of what it satirizes—a type of metonymy or synedoche.

My brother used to emulate them when he was in highschool. It drove me crazy because of how shitty they were.

Like, you literally never their parents and they spent most of their free time watching TV

Beavis is Butthead's son

No he's not. You actually meet their parents in the movie "B&B Do America".

I don't think he ever watched either B&B or Dumb and Dumber.

B&B is very satirical.

Dumb and Dumber is about two guys that despite being given endless opportunities to turn things around, screw themselves over again and again because they are dumb as fuck. It's not a celebration of ignorance.

people don't watch dumb and dumber for the philosophical implications.

People also don't watch Dumb and Dumber and go "Wow, I want to be just like those guys!!!". I feel like Sagan missed the point here. You can have a smart story with dumb characters.

Agreed. If the guy wants to find a character that was probably the source of "dumb is cool" that this author notes in 1996 it was Jeff Spicoli. The comedy device used is making the audience smarter than the character, but people from Generation X actually thought Spicoli was cool and wanted to be like him. No one wanted to be Harry and Lloyd.

Truly, is there a better condemnation of the perils of intellectual incuriousity than not getting to be oil boys on the Hawaiian Tropic bus?

I do. I certainly don't think of them as role models.

So there is a chance!

Is a bird dead if you can't see it?

think about it.

thats the only reason i watch dumb and dumber

That's what Ace Ventura is for.

I mean yes, but it does all turn out OK in the end, which makes it a less than cautionary tale.

[deleted]

Haha yeah. It ends up ok if you think hitchhiking through the desert broke is ok

It's the music, if it ends with a happy song then it's a happy ending

Spoiler alert!! /s

But they end up happy

They're not bright enough to realize the situation they're in

It turns out ok. They were poor, got rich, had guns shot at them, then were poor again with no guns pointed at them. Kind of like how despite wild things happening to the Simpsons or Griffins, they always just end up where they started essentially.

It's been a while since I've watched it, but IIRC neither gets the girl and they end the movie in the same boat they started it minus jobs, a van, and a bird walking home from Colorado

But Lloyd has realized he has what he needs... 'I'm sick and tired of having nobody.' But then he DOES have somebody - his best friend.

Does it though?  Mary dumps them, then the cops take their nest-egg, and their bike breaks down. So they're broke walking from Aspen and they miss the chance to be Hawaiian Tropic oil boys. Pretty much par for the course, but I wouldn't classify it as working out in the end for them. Which is why it's so hilarious.

Have you ever actually seen the movie?

It ends up OK because they have what they need - each other.

Exactly. Both shows give you someone worse off than yourself to laugh at, rather than someone better who can inspire you. It's the Jerry Springer effect working it's way into mainstream, and if you look at the mainstream before this happened, it was shows like Cosmos and movies like 2001 Space Odyssey. There's absolutely a corrosion of intellectual discourse that took place. It's no wonder trump is president.

That's because you're comparing it with the low bar set by today's shows. Is there something more substantial in Dumb&Dumber compared with the Kardashian's? Probably. You have to realize that just 10 years before D&D came out a quarter of the population still sat down to watch Firing Line every week. It's just a different world now.

I'm not claiming dumb and Dumber to be some philosophical journey. But they end up with nothing at the end due to their own stupidity.

HARRY! HAVE YOU REALIZED WHAT YOU'VE DONE!?

Sorry about my friend, he's a little slow. The town you're looking for is 3 miles that way!

[deleted]

I never said dumb and Dumber was satirical. But they end up with nothing and simultaneously turn down a dream job at the end. I was simply stating it wasn't a pro dumb movie.

yea you're talking about kids tho, that movie was extremely popular with adults when it came out too

Dumb and dumber is a great film. The whatever brothers lost their way, focusing on the dirty jokes instead of the heart in dumb and dumber...

It's a hero's journey about learning that, as long as you have a best friend, you have what you need. No idealized love interest or worm farm or IQ necessary.

I wholeheartedly agree with his rational and prescient core argument but homeboy needs to raise the fuck up off of Dumb & Dumber fr.

In D&D they succeed despite their stupidity, like Homer Simpson.

They had nothing at the end of the movie and turned down the oil boy jobs, they didn't succeed...

Didn't they stop the bad guys though?

Hardly. If it weren't for the black lady FBI agent, they would've been killed at the end.

Well they were dumb

Well yes lol

Exactly, this is the man that brought us Idiocracy...which supports Sagan's prognosis.

It is only satirical to those who understand satire. To many, especially kids, it was aspirational.

That a thing is created to be one thing does not mean that people perceive it as such. (The Colbert Report section on how popular he was among Conservatives who genuinely thought it was a parody of liberals is particularly interesting.)

It seems like he did not understand the point of Beavis and Butthead. That show was an incredibly good mirror for America.

And written by a man with a Physics degree.

Who later went on to create Idiocracy, a satire that deals with many of the same things Sagan was writing about.

What's he got against Dumb & Dumber? That movie is a classic. (Well, now anyway) It's clear he's never seen it, but rather judging it off the title as some celebration of ignorance. Granted, yeah, it's a REALLY stupid movie. It's just the right kind of stupid to be funny. It's not like Americans are ever going to get back to a time when the blockbuster of the summer is some period piece where nothing but "witty conversation" happens.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the highlighted portion, entertainment is just that: entertaining. While yes, I'd like to see more intelligently written shows than BBT and 2 1/2 men, (and can't stand either) I don't think it's singlehandedly dumbing down America any more than it's harming anyone to come home from a hard day's work and just want to relax with some mindless crap. There's always been "dumb" comedy for a reason. Look at the 3 Stooges.

The bigger problem now is being told what to believe/think by all manner of media. Entirely too many people listen to talk radio just to parrot the one-sided arguments made. Or their 24 hour news channel of choice to be told what to think about current events. Hell, when Trump jr released his email string recently, Fox wasn't pissed that he did anything wrong, they were pissed they weren't given time to spin it into something good. That tells you everything you need to know. They don't exist to inform, they exist to control and while that may have always been the case, they're far more overt about it now.

I was with him all the way until he claimed "Beavis and Butthead" was contributing to social problems. Since he seems to have missed the satire behind that series, I'm left wondering about his awareness in other areas.

It reminds me of how the President Bush the elder (and his wife) went on a little crusade decrying another animated series, "The Simpsons". They similarly claimed it was contributing to social decline because of the portrayal of "bad kids". Huh?

I think it's worth looking at intent vs perception. While these shows are brilliant satire, for the most part we don't talk about them in terms of social commentary. What we seem to hold onto instead are things like the B&B laugh and shouting "do-oh".

I don't know, most people I know that are huge Simpson fans are quite aware of the satirical content and are in general very smart people.

That's fair. I'm fairly young, and a lot of the satire goes over my friends heads. Perhaps I'm being hypercritical of society as a whole based of personal experience.

I'm 42 so yeah, it may be an age thing. I think when I was 18 I didn't fully understand what satire even was.

[deleted]

No, they're not. That's my point.

I'm curious what is then. A Gilbert and Sullivan meme perhaps? An Edgar Allen Poe meme perhaps?
If so, then it's interesting to note that The Simpsons might have been the only exposure a great many people have ever had to both those things.

You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying that thinking and reflecting instead of regurgitating is the important thing. If it's a mindlessly reverberated meme, it doesn't matter what genius it was based off. It'll be useless so long as it's consumed as mindless entertainment.

On the other hand, the most idiotic trash can be valuable. But only so long as it's reflected on, and a larger understanding can be extracted from it.

I'm not criticising the media we consume. I'm criticizing the way we consume it.

Oh okay. Then I disagree with the initial assumption/accusation. We think and reflect as well as regurgitate. The two are not mutually exclusive and examples of one is not proof of lack of the other.
Some people will simply regurgitate but a) so what? and b) nothing new there. The criticisms of these shows, like rock and roll undermining morals, has been that they are dumbing-down society. Pointing at memes or some idiots in society is no evidence at all to that effect. It needs a far better argument to be taken seriously.
And is education the only possible value for a TV program or book or whatever? Is simple entertainment not worth anything?
Are all things that don't educate detrimental to our intelligence?

Why is it a matter of one or the other - both levels are funny. But Dr Sagan seems to have missed one of the levels, or willfully is ignoring it to make a misleading point regarding the speed at which his society if going to hell.

I'll definitely concede to that. He's pretty blatantly ignoring the other side of it.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was written as satire also. I'm not sure why you think that how something is created has anything to do with how it is received.

Beavis and Butthead was not received by the general public as satire. It was and is valid to criticize it's popularity, irrespective of the author's intent.

Gladwell has an excellent podcast on the satire paradox here: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox

The main takeaway is that satire which goes mainstream often ends up being too entertaining and taken at face value. The targets of the satire believe they're being celebrated and it works against the original intent of the creators.

Your contention is that Carl Sagan was "normal" in that he missed the satire in Beavis and Butthead show?

My contention is that the satire was not missed. It was just inconsequential to his point. He recognized, accurately, that B&B was a hit despite it's satirical origins not because of it. All the people walking around with shirts saying "i am cornholio" weren't doing so because of the intellectual depth.

Amazing all these random teenagers on Reddit nowadays that are apparently smarter than Carl Sagan.

He didn't miss anything...

Then he willfully ignored it to make a misleading point. That seems strange...

For all his forethought and scary accurate predictions, he was a man of his time in this regard. For most of his adult life cartoons/slapstick comedy had no nuance or deep meaning. They just filled in time while they were changing reels in the projector. If you are not willing to give your time watching them to find another level then you will dismiss them. By the stage he wrote that - his time was a precious commodity and running out. We all triage information.

I don't agree that old cartoons or slapstick comedy were without nuance or deep meeting. That is not a modern development.

But I do suspect that both Carl Sagan and the Bush family were not really familiar with mass entertainment and thus were using these as not-well-considered examples to show "This society is going to hell! (aka "Get off my lawn you kids!").

He claimed a madman with a nuclear weapon might alter a space rock to hit his enemies.

Really? ugh

[deleted]

[deleted]

Sure they could. Under the right conditions. It doesn't take many people to overthrow a place. You could say, "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen".

He was the great Carl-holio!

Beavis and Butthead introduced my to Rollins and White Zombie. I will forever be in their debt.

Yeah, Beavis & Butthead, created by Mike Judge, who also created Idiocracy, Office Space, Silicon Valley (and more) - one of the sharpest, most precient satirists of modern american life out there.

99% of Sagan is so spot on its incredible, and so inspiring. I guess everyone misses sometimes.

Me and a colleague have been called Beavis and Butthead and we are too young to know who they were. But now I can finally use it to laugh at your comment. he he hehheheh

Geez i am old. Look up that show, kid. It's hilarious.

I can't stand when people express their political agenda through criticizing specific pieces of art. They were made as the creator's vision, most likely having nothing to do with your political identity.

Sagan is a step above the typical usage (eg "this movie sucks cause no women interact with each other unless they're talking about a man") because he points out these movies are popular in broader society, but it's still smug and not a particularly good argument. Would the viewers of Beavis and Butthead represent a cross section of society less interested in learning and science? Probably not --- moreover the correlation between taste in art and passion for learning is very weak link to base an argument on.

I've never seen that particular laugh spelled so well.

Thank you, kind stranger. It's nice to know my English degree is going to good use.

Yeah, he kind of lost me when he insulted cinematic/artistic treasures Dumb & Dumber and Beavis and Butthead.

Whoa.... I think I just figured something out: Carl Sagan sucks. What a dumbass

You said "butt." uuuuh huh huh

I love all of the insightful discussion of Beavis and Butthead, but I remember being a kid during this time (in the puritanical south) and it was a really big deal that it was destroying american youth and culture. There wasn't anything else like this on the air and it was seen as being super influential. In retrospect, sure you can analyze it a certain way along with shows and events that happened later, but in that specific moment, it was the death of culture and the full context of that period wasn't realized.

Ironic isn't it? He is talking about the dumbing down of America and the top rated comment is Beavis and Butthead.

My name is Cornholio. I need more TP for my bunghole!

What a bunghole

And people fretted over The Simpsons which seems almost tame now.

It's funny that he can see very clearly 20+ years into the future, but he can't see through Mike Judge's toilet humor.

Yeah, I thought that was a little bit ironic because Mike Judge later went on to do Idiocracy, which was another slightly prophetic commentary on the sad direction we seem to be going.

It would be more accurate to point out all the vapid assholes on reality tv now. They are the dumb ones, cartoons and comedies are supposed to be dumb.

I was watching Dallas cowboy cheerleaders last night and one lady's response to "Finish the sentence and name the person who said it"

Ask not what your country can do for you...

Her response, "ask what you can do for yourself, by uncle sam."

Shut up, fart-Knocker!

I feel like the ratings for the new Cosmos and some of the other educational shows (e.g. Planet Earth II) are higher than Bevis and Butthead ever were. I'm not going to look it up because I'm not into study and learning, but I'm saying there's a chance.

Ironicaly the very creator of the show would go on to make a movie about this very scenario Sagan mentions

I poop too much.

TIL: Beavis and Butthead went over Carl Sagan's head.

Yeah, I love Sagan a lot but let's not make heroes out of men. He failed to spot the irony present in that show, whose author went on to make Idiocracy, which is basically 90 minutes that iterate on the theme of the highlighted paragraph in this post.

Beavis

What critics of B&B miss is that Beavis and Butt-Head was a satire warning about what would happen if "children were left behind" both by the education system and parents...
Keep in mind Idiocracy was made by the same genis: Mike Judge (as well as Office Space)

Not really, they're there to amuse, not to inform.

Which is funny because Beavis and Butthead was well written Satire, Perhaps Sagan is the idiot? Or just a bitter old man.

I think his point about TV/movies of the time is valid even if he knew that B&B was satire and Dumb & Dumber was a farcical parable: His point was that he wanted to see that the most popular stuff being watched revolved around learning and science because that was what he felt was beautiful, entertaining, and interesting. Instead we live(d) in a world that warranted B&B's satire or one where cathartic relief could be found in the absurd comedy of seeing ignorance exaggerated to the Nth degree in D&Der.

He was lamenting the desirability of entertainment like that relative to a society without those problems, but he doesn't make it clear enough, in my opinion. It comes off as typical anti-entertainment rhetoric, unfortunately.

Yeah, he treats them like like they were FBI most wanted...

In fairness to Carl, you could go back to 1996 and post the same page with the caption "Someone predicts 1996 in 1975".

I'd be shocked that the number one video rental in 1975 was was Dumb and Dumber.

Indeed it wasn't wasn't.

Why do you talk like this this.

I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers

Beat me by ten minutes, ten minutes

You motherfucking mutt

Jacob Two-Two, is that you you?

It's Johnny two times, you mutt.

Look at all you two timing bastards!

Yes! Yes, a wild Goodfellas reference! Thank you for amusing me.

He isn't talking, he's writing.

Actually he's typing typing.

How can we strip this down even more?

plot twist, he is using Dragon voice dictation.

Man, those Bad Dragon dildos are getting more and more advanced.

I'm gonna get the papers get the papers

That isn't writing, it's typing.

Thanks, Tru.

At least one person got the reference.

And you want to know how I know? Mystery Science Theater.

LOL, we have something in common then.

Crow's nasal pronunciation of it is burned into my head... "that's not writing... it's typ-ing."

Did you ever see "Capote" with Philip Seymour Hoffman? That's apparently how he really talked.

It's been a while since I watched it, but yeah I did see that.

God god damn it damn it

It if do there an maybe problem it with?

I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

It's all about the money money.

I like to wasn't wasn't

I like to wasn't wasn't

I like to wasn't wasn't

source? or are we supposed to just believe you because.

Just switch it out with Animal House or something similar

And that pink highlighting didn't come around until the 80's.

could you rent videos in 1975? When did video stores start?

Betamax was late 75, VHS was 76/77.

The first video rental store was opened in 1975 in Germany and 77 in the US.

I felt like all of this information was superfluous and killed the joke though.

According to Wikipedia... 1975 in Germany. Only one guy's homemade movies. 1977 in the US for production movies and TV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_rental_shop#History

Name me one video that rented more than Dumb and Dumber in 1975.

Checkmate

I'd be scared.

Someone with time travel capabilities brought VHS technology back in time twenty years and only thought to bring Dumb and Dumber.

[deleted]

Woah buddy, it's just a joke because the guy said "same page". Let's not read into it too far.

For the love of God, fix this.

now that would be prophetic!

Big Glups, huh? Alright!

KIDS THESE DAYS

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

That could have been written at any point in history.

It was indeed written at a point in history

This one, in particular, can be credited to Socrates some 2400 years ago.

It's truly amazing how far we've gotten as a society given that every generation ever was worse than the one that came before.

I've read somewhere that he didn't actually say that and that the quote is much younger, but I can't currently find the source so I'm not sure.

While he didn't say this, it was presented this way satirically in The Clouds by Aristophanes. The tl;dr of the play is that Socrates schooling was driving his students to believe that wisdom is the one true right of authority and thus students would go home and beat their mothers and fathers for they were wiser. It's a commentary by Aristophanes on how Socrates is having a huge affect on the children of Athens and corrupting them, charges that would be officially doled out some 25 years later and written about in The Apology that ultimately lead to Socrates death.

I saw it on Reddit, I believe this quote was made sometime in the early 20th century? Except everyone keeps spreading this as though as if it was Socrates, so good fucking luck finding it.

Its easy to remember your generation as perfect angels when the elders od your generation are all dead.

No one is around to contradict them.

Regardless, todays generations are more tolerant, science and technology minded then any in the past.

It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907. Not socrates.

  • http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-children-in-ancient-times/

It's actually supposedly from Kenneth John Freeman for his Cambridge dissertation.

It's not a Socrates quote. Socrates is one of those historical figures who have all sorts of random quotes attributed to him. If you put Socrates' name after a quote you give it a veneer of credibility.

Did the kids hes talking about at some point become enslaved by the rRomans, or were they already enslaved?

Except there's pretty good evidence this is not true http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-children-in-ancient-times/

Well, I, for one, fucking love gobbling up dainties

I'm fairly certain that the greatest generation was actually right about that. Boomer scum.

I wrote a short paper in college about how Socrates gripes about kids these days and their written language in one of Plato's dialogues (I think Phaedro) as a defense of the current reliance on externalized knowledge from the internet.

Good parents who teach virtue and respect have always been sorely lacking. Just because it was true thousands of years ago does not diminish its importance or its truth.

The same warning about the dangerous of religion fanatics can be said the same, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

[deleted]

You go on r/Europe, r/Le_Pen, and r/CringeAnarchy. What a fucking shock you believe in"the degradation of society" or something like that. /s

[deleted]

Obviously from my perspective as a progressive, I avoid those subs (though I do check them out once in a while for the same reason as you).

The fact is tho that society is far from degradation. Worldwide poverty is down, literacy is up, child mortality is down, and internet access is up. Young people are more tolerant and educated in America than ever before. https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/837751940356444160

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times,

it is the age of wisdom, it is the age of foolishness,

it is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity,

it is the season of Light, it is the season of Darkness,

it is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair,

we have everything before us, we have nothing before us,

we are all going direct to Heaven, we are all going direct the other way.

most of all they love reposting quotes they've read in other comments in order to sound erudite

Quote attributed to Socrates.

Socrates? Wasn't Socrates the guy who was sentenced to death for corrupting the young? Surely he'd be ON the side of the "kids these days", not against them?

And you have their parents to blame.

leg-crossing hooligans, always gobbling up my dainties.

Everything you said is true and makes me proud. This is how I want it.

What's this from? Sounds significantly older that Sagan's quote...

More than two millennia older

  • Donald Trump.

"The children now- now folks let me tell you, I have the best children, the very best, good genes, anyway..."

Kids nowadays use their parents as weapons for personal gain, because the parents allow them to. My mom works as a secretary in my former middle school and sees it also. "The kids are never wrong nowadays." she says. Just a couple of examples...

A kid gets in trouble by the teacher because he/she was being a little asshole. The next day, one or both of the parents come in and actually yell at the teacher because "Little Johnny/Jane is an angel and would NEVER do that! How dare you single out my child!"

Or the kid gets a bad grade. "My little Johnny/Jane is smart and should NEVER get a grade like this! Your teaching is sub-par!"

It's absolutely disgusting. Obviously it's not EVERY child, but it's a lot more frequent/prevalent now than in the past. Traditional values are kind of going the way of the dodo.

That's not what this excerpt is about

Psst...say "millennials" not "kids". It gets more attention and really pisses them off.

^^^/s

Just because people have always been complaining about the younger generation, doesn't make those complaints invalid. Some things do get worse as time progresses, and there are certainly things that the older generations did better than us. Just because they had many vices which we reject now (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) doesn't mean everything they did was worse or wrong.

Seems pretty broad, basically like a horoscope in itself. It doesn't matter when you wrote this, the future generation could make it it true to their situation.

He's basically doing cold reading on an entire generation lol

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when people live by a body of water, and have problems with a father figure or older male, somebody in a position of power, and I'm also getting the sense that you knew somebody who's passed from cancer.

And just like a horoscope it says an awful lot and means very little, all at once.

It's similar to people always saying the stock market will crash, eventually they are going to be right.

"Things are going to change at somepoint, probably for the worse, or maybe better. Things are on the decline while at the same time other things are on the rise.

Technology will be different."

Every prediction that hits the front page.

This same complaint has been made for as long as civilization has existed. With the advent of the Internet and wide spread access to higher education, one could argue that society as a whole is more educated and self-aware than ever.

one could argue that society as a whole has the potential to be more educated and self-aware than ever.

FTFY.

It already is. If you use the internet, you've already been exposed to way more than the last generation de facto.

You've also been exposed to just as many lies. The rapid spread of information can be a blessing or a curse.

Yea, I'm really not seeing this. I don't think people are more informed now than they were a few decades ago. This is coming from someone who hates all the "Millennials these days suck" articles. I do think there is more empathy and more curiosity about other cultures. But when it comes to knowing facts about the world around us, I'm very skeptical that there's been a general increase in knowledge. I know analytical skills may be more important than facts, since we have the internet at our fingertips, but I think people consume so much false information they've lost the ability to tell what's true in the first place.

Regardless of whether we're more informed than we were a few decades ago (I would argue that we may well be) Sagan's quote mentioned a fear of lesser education and public knowledge, and I'm not convinced that has occurred since 1996.

Speaking on an entirely personal level, I've had more than one belief which turned out to be some urban legend or such, which was overturned because of access to the web.

That said, I do think the largest cause of public ignorance is culture in general. For example, if parents are uneducated then they won't be able to pass knowledge on to their kids as easily. And the web might not have a very powerful effect against that.

I see all that you mentioned as a positive. I really do. I just have a lot in that negative column tilting the scales the other way, at least in my honest assessment. For every person who is lifting the veil and seeing light, someone else is being attracted to a comforting darkness that is more accessible. And not only that, the communities that propagate misinformation are often extremely inviting and inclusive, and perhaps do more to attract people than say, some correct and accurate source of information. Not only that, but people seem to believe that the world is more tumultuous now than it's ever been (despite that not really being true), which leads them to seek comfortable lies even more. There's no perceived "authority" when I google a question. I imagine being little and asking what "Islam" is or how it's different from christianity, and being told to write down my question on my notepad, then look it up at the library in the encyclopedia when we visited the following Saturday morning. Now, when I google, the first answer might be correct, but on the first page there may also be a blog or some article about banning burkas or the Quran or some such information framing the question in an odd way. If I'm already a little fearful due to media, it's much easier to go down that rabbit hole. I think more people fit in that category than in the category of people who were taught improper things and are willfully using the internet to re-educate themselves.

I'm not so sure. It's not as if it was millennials voting for Trump, le Pen and Brexit. In all these instances the driving force behind these movements were older voters. Sure millennials have their problems, but they do seem at least for now to be the ones fighting for progress against their more reactionary parents. And when you consider that the average age of the typical cable news viewer is approaching 70, one might argue that it is in fact the older generations which are the most eager consumers of propaganda.

I wasn't referring to just the rise of Trump. I talk to other younger friends, and even though they oppose him or have liberal views, it seems like they don't understand the issues that well either. They basically see him as the other team, so that's why they don't support, but they haven't really thought about liberal or conservative policies so to speak. Maybe people aren't as informed around me, but I see tons of low-information voters, even the ones that agree with me seem like they don't know why. When I talk to parents friends and such, they have a rant and "facts" ready for every policy issue even if it's based on shaky information.

I agree that there are plenty of low information millennials, but I'm not convinced that they are less informed as a whole than previous generations. I agree that older voters often do to tend to come off as more 'prepared' in debates, though they often seem to be spouting off talking points they've taken directly from cable news pundits.

I dunno, your statement seems shooped to me. Could be a bamboozle.

Just because someone can take 20 seconds and google the answer to 90% of the questions posed on reddit doesn't mean they actually know the answers though.

If they can google the answers now, they can google the answers whenever asked. The point is access to knowledge. The majority of people in 1970 probably wouldn't have been able to answer the question 'how fast does the earth travel around the sun?'. You'd have to ask someone who knew or consult a book, if you had one, otherwise go to the library. Now? Just google it. Access to knowledge, as a rule, makes the populace smarter.

I disagree. Immediate access to knowledge does not make the populace smarter. There's no reason to learn that information if you can just look it up within seconds. Access to knowledge only makes the populace smarter if they then learn that knowledge. Siri answering all my questions doesn't help me know what I'm talking about. Someone who just Googles everything is never going to write a scientific paper because they'll never have the knowledge necessary to do so.

~~Siri~~ My professor answering all my questions doesn't help me know what I'm talking about.

Asking questions and receiving answers is one of the fundamental ways we learn. Who cares if it's a teacher or an online assistant?

An educational setting is a learning setting. You are actively trying to learn. It is not comparable to the masses of people who use Google as a collection of easy answers.

We're not machines that spit out answers and then immediately wipe our RAM to make room for the next search. Even if we aren't memorizing everything we search, we're going to remember some of it. If it helps, you can replace "professor" with "parents" for an example of how we learn by sporadically asking questions while outside of an educational setting.

Technically, maybe, but it also destroys the ability to think critically because you can just look up any answer whenever you want. Critical Thinking is what made us the dominant race on this planet and if we lose that what good are we? Especially considering that Google won't always give you the right answers to questions, Just information from anyone who has talked about the subject, which can be dangerous when combined with confirmation bias. It's part of how the Anti-Vaccination movement got as big as it is, among other things.

Searching google and finding answers or researching a topic requires far more critical thinking than mundane memorization of facts.

Tons of professionals now have the ability to get over not knowing something and can immediately research the right answers.

Searching google and finding answers or researching a topic requires far more critical thinking than mundane memorization of facts.

Tons of professionals now have the ability to get over not knowing something and can immediately research the right answers.

Researching a topic requires critical thinking.

Getting the RIGHT answer from a Google search requires critical thinking.

Searching Google does not require any critical thinking at all. That's the problem with it. You can just go, click the first link, and accept whatever is there as fact.

Google is great as a calculator, or if you need to find quick, easy information, but it is not a replacement for an actual education and does serve to promote idiotic opinions taken as facts. Though I will admit schooling in general nowadays doesn't encourage real learning much either.

I'd expect anyone in 1970 to at least come up with the response '24 hours'.

And they would be approximately 8,742 hours off.

Ha, I guess that's what I get for thinking I know something without verifying on Google first.

That's exactly what it means.

Hopefully. There are plenty of echo chambers and other things though that allow people to be more close minded than ever. One could make the argument that because everyone can say things in such a way (like a forum) ideas that aren't actually agreed upon by the intellectual majority get seen as such. For example, my uncle told me he thinks Bernie Sander's is a communist. He shares exclusively fox news type stuff on facebook, and he thinks liberals are stupid as a whole because of some comments he sees on such posts.

Its always been possible to bury one's head in the sand, I think the internet simply makes it more possible to do that. But, it also makes it more possible to do the opposite and expand one's horizons. It comes more down to the person more than it used to. Scary and beneficial at the same time.

We've also dulled our faculties of inquiry on easily digestible 'facts' that masqourade as totalities and expanded the consolation of 'evidence' we can pin our belief systems to.

This comment indicates to me the extent to which metrification has subverted our epistemic outlook. Net exposure says nothin about the quality of information in circulation - but it does provide a simplified methodology. You could run this in a variety of directions and take aim at the likes of capitalist economics, utilitarianism, over-extension of scientific theory, and the current state of education. The unit has become so naturalized that we hardly find recourse to examine what it measures and what type of being imposes it.

And the vast majority of that is wildly inaccurate

It already is. If you use the internet, you've already been exposed to way more than the last generation de facto.

I beg to differ. People are branded traitors wanting to overthrow the country into chaos for speaking out against the government.

People in this country are indoctrinated that the government equals the people and the country itself. To criticize the party is to plunge the country into chaos like the Arab Spring.

I'm old enough to have grown up without internet. The increase in information is astounding. In the old days you had to read lots of books, and not that many people did that. Now, everyone has massive amounts of data and information, but it's not organized nearly as well. I think there a lot of people who have tons more information without getting the wisdom that used to go along with it when it was accompanied by someone's life of thought poured into it.

I'm making zero value judgment about that. It just is.

You may be correct, but the people who now teach and explain this wisdom now also have the tools and information that everyone else had. As a whole, society is undoubtedly more intelligent than ever.

Stupid people will only receive more fake and stupid shit and communicate with more stupid people and hence spreading more stupid shit. See: flat-earthers.

Yea, more information is only good if it's correct. More bad information is worse than nothing. Ill-informed people are substantially worse for society than uninformed people. At least uninformed people have the chance to learn, which is far easier than correcting people by unlearning and re-learning.

I think it's pretty undeniable that we're more educated and aware right now than ever before. As they said, a result of internet and widespread access to education. Throughout the 1900's the percentage of society enrolled in school across the board has increased immensely. We can have a different conversation about how effective that education might be, but, from a base point it's pretty safe to assume we're more educated.

I think the reason this might not seem so obvious in experience, is because we are simultaneously more ignorant than ever alongside being more educated and self aware than ever. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. The same tools (such as internet) that spread good information and help form opinions, are the same tools that spread inaccurate/ignorant information to the masses.

No, they are.

The loudest voices in the room are never the majority.

You, and Sagan it seems, are vastly underestimating how ignorant most of society used to be, even 100 years ago. Widespread literacy was not a thing until compulsory education became the norm in the 20th C., before that literacy was something only the uppercrusts of society ever achieved.

Something else to keep in mind is that knowledge is always expanding. There's simply more to know now, and only a finite amount of time to learn it.

Superstition and ignorance persist certainly, but they're increasingly the voices of an ever dwindling number of people made louder only because they are something of a curiosity to most of us.

Great distinction.

Nah, it's all fake news. I'll keep my alt facts, thank you.

One problem though is that a lot of "knowledge" people acquire lacks depth. Everybody seems to know a little bit about everything and have strong opinions about everything based on that. While in fact they really know shit.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing" Alexander Pope.

We have lots of information but the problem is a large chunk of it is crap, clickbait, propaganda or worse. There has never been a greater need for critical thinking and that requires work.

There is a big difference between having access to information and having the knowledge to use it.

society as a whole is more educated and self-aware than ever.

Yeah sure...

I think there's a portion that are more educated and self-aware than ever, but there is a growing number of those who bury themselves in garbage media and never attempt to learn or understand a thing.

Those people would never learn or understand anything even without media.

I think there's a portion that don't make generalizations, but there is a growing number of those who do make broad generalizations based mostly on personal experiences and the bogeyman de jour.

No you couldn't, Reddit was made in 2005 /s

Oof ouch owie my reddit

This is just typical old man thinking younger generation is stupid. You could have done the same thing 100 years ago when oligarchies were forming/formed in automotives, steel, rail, and other industries

This makes it seem like nothing has changed at all to me. This is always a problem.

Every single generation has said a variant of this about the next generation for the last few thousand years.

[deleted]

15 years previous the USA had elected a B-movie actor to be president who had Alzheimers while in power, and the nation was 5 years from electing an incoherent ex-coke head son of the previous president. The incumbent was getting head from an intern.

The incumbent was getting head from an intern.

Slick Willie's penchant for "cigar work" was even better (worse?).

That definitely sounds like all the most American shit ever. We're all just a bunch of fucking cowboys. Except for those yanks

That is such a narrow minded view of the world around you and I bet you think you're more 'enlightened' than most.

I don't buy that he believes either of those things, and I don't buy that most of the people who voted for him think he does either.

[deleted]

that he's really good at manipulating people and this entire election was a middle finger to "the establishment" and not much else

[deleted]

I don't pay enough attention to articulate a great answer, but I would say that you can only be manipulated if you allow yourself to be manipulated (talking about adults) and intelligence =/= wisdom. "The establishment" is a bogeyman grown large by our increasingly expanding access to information. In truth there has always been a socio-political hierarchy, and that doesn't just go away because of representative democracy. I don't know what needs to happen but if something doesn't give before the next election I have a feeling even less people are gonna vote.

what was the underlying unhappyness that made them want to give "the establishment" the middle finger caused by?

The economic recovery passed over large portions of society. In fact I've seen article after article about how it really only benefited the upper classes. The establishment sold out the people to the highest bidders, and people were pissed.

The funny thing is that those midwesterners that voted for Trump as a way of flipping the bird to the establishment have more in common with Occupy Wall Street than they're willing to admit to themselves.

If we could actually get both sides to realize we're trying to fight the same problem we could create some real much needed change in the system. Which is exactly why they keep us divided.

Well, he's certainly acting like he does.

He's pandering to his base. He's not as idiotic as he acts. He acts the way his base thinks he should.

What's the difference? Either way he's still working towards things he said he would. Clearly, as you just said, his base buys in to what he says. His base would be the majority of his voters.

he's not gonna stop combating climate change or stop vaccines from being used anytime soon.

think about it this way...

Lot's of people make predictions everyday, and it's only the one's which guess right that get posted to reddit.

For every batshit crazy person who isn't, there's a thousand batshit crazy people who are.
-Wayne Gretzky

Wasn't your president getting head from an intern back then?

No it doesnt.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.7751 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

we did not have our lives mapped online on social media, we did not have 10,000 images of our lives in our pocket.

Should I be concern that I don't?

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.1269 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

except i'm sure that's not a fiction statement for some people.

If you use a smart phone as a smart phone then your life is mapped out anyway, no social media necessary.

how does one use a smart phone as a smart phone?

Using the location tracking features, built in maps, various organization apps/calendars, internet searches, ect. Technically you can buy a cheap smart phone, turn this stuff off, and only use it for talk and text.

technically speaking, any two way communication device can be tracked if someone cared enough. Of course GPS allows accuracy within 10 meters... But even google gets locations wrong, especially in dense areas.

Agreed, the American economy was already very far along this path in 1996. It's not that insane of a prediction when many industries had already moved towards outsourcing while information and services were still holding strong.

Honestly, Woody Harrelson said it best in True Detective after his father-in-law comments on the world getting worse because of the younger generations: "You know, throughout history, I bet every old man probably said the same thing. And old men die, and the world keeps spinning."

For those wondering the number one movie is 1975 was jaws it was a good year for movies as well. Escape to Witch Mountain, godfather part II, dog day afternoon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest just to name a few all came out that year

Yea these were really generic predictions that a lot of people have made about every future generation and even then he was off about a couple. This doesn't deserve the attention it's getting.

not really, the decline of things started in the 80s when wages stopped growing proportionally with productivity and society fully embraced consumerism as the way of life

So your point is that there always exist people who correctly predict the demise of intellectual discourse? Maybe we should start listening to them.

I was about to say, all of this was already happening in 1996

"chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character which robs the mind of valuable time" - Scientific American, 1859

You could do it with any year. People like to believe that America was ever a Nation of geniuses and it's only recently become dumbed down. The truth is that the vast majority of people have always been superstitious and screwed over by the elite. How you could possibly think a Nation that in it's early history burned witches has become more superstitious is beyond me. 50 years ago you saw a populace that was entirely Christian. Talk to your grandparents. Even if they did well for themselves they still have the mentality of a conservative Christian farmer. They just repeat the lines "hard work pays off" as if it means anything because it was validated for them by living in America's best years.

Doubtless he'd be railing against Saturday Night Live and Rocky Horror Pictures Show.

There's talk of a Cheech and Chong movie!!

I understand what you're saying but I think you are minimizing the fact that you can have in a society, economy, political entity, and all other forms of human association real and actual decline. A people can, and do, forget things that are important to the collective memory. This is real. We are forgetting why we have democratic norms.

Technology in the hands of very few? That's not true at all, the average American has access to ridiculously power technology. It's funny that he mentions that people will believe horoscopes in his vague, horoscope-like prediction of the future.

Reddit predicts 2038 in 2017.

I actually think that this prediction doesn't much describe 2017 at all. People question authority constantly. It's almost the general state of the media right now. And people are moving away from superstition, not towards it. Sagan was experiencing a New Age fad when he wrote that, but the fad is passing.

The 30 second sound bite thing seems to be pretty accurate though.

Yeah and it would be a problem that someone should point out back then too

Pretty sure this "prediction" could've been claimed as true since 2001 or so.

And in any case, did Sagan predict 2017, or did 2017 conform to Sagan's vision?

if he would have predicted the emoji movie, now that would have been impressive

HOWEVER isn't his prediction that the future movie, 3rd in the actual theater right now is DUMBER than Dumb and Dumber?

Which is correct, and not a good sign if your finger is in the wind and you happen to live in a city with these people.

In fact, a famous fella wrote in 1949 about how this very thing would happen in the mid-80s. It was framed as fiction and used simpler words, though.

This is a common scapegoat that is used to deflect the bigger issue and accountability.

I don't think he held belief that society was better off in the time that he wrote that. The point was: based on the observance of intellectual decline in society at the time, it will only get worse in the future if it does not change.

This is exactly right. Economic data has been showing this trend towards a service industry as opposed to selling goods for probably 70 years. This isn't anything new or surprising.

Hold onto this post, in 2050 we'll be in the exact same position, and you'll have the opportunity to treat him as a prophet.

Big gulps, huh? Well, cya later!

I remember reading somewhere that that scene was improvised!

Improvised, huh? Well, cya later!

You are completely right!

The guys loitering outside the store were extras not in SAG, so they couldn't have speaking lines. Jim Carrey said that and they couldn't respond.

Big gulps, huh? Alriiiiiight! Well, cya later!*

Misquoted movies, huh? Alriiiiight! Well, cya later!

[deleted]

Huh? I expected the Rocky Mountains to be a little rockier than this.

I got worms

I'm going to hang by the bar and put out the vibe. https://youtu.be/8k9r3bM1eNQ

isn't big gulps just the name of a product at 7 eleven? why is this funny? eli5 please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_j5tDuakKU

I've seen this scene many times, I still don't get it. There's two guys drinking big gulps, Carrey comments on the product they're drinking, then says see you later and gets in the shaggy dog van. Why is it funny? What am I missing?

It's just stupid humor like the rest of the movie, I laugh at it because it comes out of no where. This line in particular was actually improvised by Carrey so the reactions from the guys he walked up to where real.

i found the rest of the movie very, very funny. i just don't get this scene. i don't think i'll ever get it.

i don't see the guys reacting either. they just stand there watching the talkative white guy get in the van

Here you go Way too fast

My only criticism of Carl's quote is that Dumb and Dumber is an awesome movie.

Interesting that he cites Beavis and Butthead considering Mike Judge would go on to make Idiocracy, which made a similar prediction.

Mike Judge has talked about this. I've also seen him discuss that people completely miss his point in Idiocracy.

Link? I'm really curious what he says on it.

https://youtu.be/khTqmN2Lths?t=1659

He didn't really make a statement about the point he was trying to make with Idiocracy. It really just sounded like he thought an exaggeration of a hypothetical reality might be good for a few gags.

I cannot find the interview in which he talks about this. Apparently this was a hot movie in the last election though and he was interviewed a LOT about it then though....

To poorly paraphrase his sentiment he basically said that society is not heading for a certain doom but could be avoided even by normal people just giving a shit. People tend to dwell on the scene showing idiots procreating without cease and smart people struggling but miss the point that an average man was enough to get society back on track because he tried to be better. Something like that.

I doubt Sagan had actually watched Beavis and Butthead, or he might have noticed it was actually satirical, often with themes ironically congruent to the rest of Sagan's statement.

It's like criticizing Starship Troopers for being one-dimensional. Mike Judge is like a Kerouac. He depicts what happens around him and artfully highlights the absurdity of it all.

Also coincidentally enough, Mike Judge earned a BS in Physics.

He didn't predict 2017. That's what 1996 was like too.

I see a lot of people responding like this. I respectfully disagree. The service economy in '96 was nothing compared to how it is now. There was a ton more manufacturing in America 20 years ago. And the rubbish of the 24 hour cable news cycle and infotainment news was new - or at least nowhere near as entrenched.

Americans are far more polarized and detached from each other in 2017 than they were in '96. And I was an adult in both of those years, I remember things pretty clearly.

I mean he's right but can't we also still like Dumb and Dumber?

Yeah he hurts his argument with that. Saying that because escapist stupid comedy is popular, it must be evidence of intellectual decline is silly. Dumb and Dumber is about laughing at stupid people, not glorifying them.

Agreed. It was an utterly TERRIBLE way to back up his argument. There have always been comedic traditions, plays, stories, dances, etc where we laugh at fools. Just because a lot of people like these particular fools means very little.

I like Carl Sagan, but we have been on this trend forever. The less we have to do for ourselves, the less we HAVE to know to survive, the more apathetic and slow minded we all become as a whole. With convenience comes complacency.

You should actually read the book. Your interpretation is wrong.

Would you be so kind as to provide the title so I'm sure to look into the right thing? I'm actually in the market for a new read and wouldn't mind being proven wrong by Sagan. My opinion on this is very subject to change. I have nothing but personal experience and pondering to back it up.

The title is in the Picture....

"The Demon Haunted World"

Ah. I'm a bonehead for not at least Googling that first. I falsely thought it to be a chapter heading.

It's as if Carl Sagan had never heard of Laurel and Hardy.

Intent and actual effect are two different things.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I see the point you're making, and I'm interested.

I think he means that the creators of dumb and dumber may be satirizing the characters but the audience might sincerely respect them. It's a common accusation against satire that without a clear expression of intent it can accidental promote its target.

Ah. OK that's fair. I've read a couple instances of that under this post. Thanks

That weird feeling when somebody literally thinks he's smarter than a genius and doesn't understand that HE is acting out the very dark prophecy we were warned about.

Argument from authority. As I said, his overall point is valid, but his immediate follow-up examples do not support the point he's trying to make. They hurt the argument. Today, "reality" TV shows might be an example of the point he's trying to make, but fiction such as Dumb and Dumber is not.

Looking at this thread, you'd think Sagan was retarded and a bunch of teenagers 20 years later were smarter than him lol.

Read the whole sentence though. It isn't about the show Dumb and Dumber, but about the idea that escapist comedy is more important to society than studying and learning.

Even now we have made those 10 second sound bites into 1 second of reading an articles headline. People take in their few seconds of news per day and then go straight back to their escapes. Be it comedy, kittens, or outrage theater.

but about the idea that escapist comedy is more important to society than studying and learning.

This argument is not supported by the fact that a comedy is the most popular video rental. It assumes that people should be renting videos in order to learn, or that everyone needs to be learning things to the same degree, which is false.

A lot of learning absolutely must be left to the experts, and the fact that everyone does not engage in it is not evidence of societal decline. Now, there is evidence today that societal respect for expert learning is on the decline in some parts of the world, and that is a significant issue. But it's also not supported by whatever the most popular film is at any one time.

In hindsight it weakens his argument. But at the time, the early 90's, there was a real concern about the rise dumb, vapid entertainment, Beavis & Butthead, trash talk shows, mindless sitcoms, and the emergence of reality TV. He likely chose Dumb and Dumber to represent that. I won't comment on the merit of that argument. (I believe smart people can still enjoy dumb humor.) But in the context of the time, it makes sense.

[deleted]

Would you rather be engaged in your own, REAL world or a two-hour recreation of what is right outside?

False dichotomy, there's no reason you can't do both. You can spend your entire day dealing with what's right outside, and then use two two hours at the end to unwind from all of the stresses that that entails. Because otherwise, you might go insane.

I think what he was trying to say is, it would be great if the number one seller was a documentary of sorts.

I think what he was trying to say is, it would be great if the number one seller was a documentary of sorts.

But that's not an indication of societal decline. There has never been a time in history where a particular educational material was more popular than a particular entertainment material. Which means that being the case now (or then, rather) is not evidence of decline.

It's absolutely fine, and perhaps necessary, to leave a lot of the learning to the experts, so long as we respect the efforts of those experts. That is an issue today, with experts being respected less in some part of the world than they used to be, but that again has nothing to do with the latest popular entertainment.

To me at least, I don't think he was speaking in the context of societal decline comparing to the past. It seems like he hopes that society itself at large will value science and knowledge more. And that the kind of best sellers which society demands, should be of much more valuable content or more mentally engaging, think movies like Interstellar, and so on.

Societal decline can only be discussed with reference to the past, because decline is a relative term.

True. You got me there.

I second that. It was a not so clever way for such a clever man to illustrate his point. Laughing at silly things when it is well established that they are silly is nothing to be ashamed of. I find much more damaging to see how educated people are attacked by the media. Politics aside, I remember this gem from Rick Santorum. Like education is something to be ashamed of. But Academia should take some of the blame for it. Are all Universities doing doing absolutely the most they can to improve our lives? how often do we see some silly research and think "man... those scholars really have nothing better to do." Sagan himself pointed that out when he talked about the fall of Alexandria. How that temple of knowledge meant nothing to the people who benefited little or nothing from it. When it was attacked, there was no one to stop its fall.

I must disagree. The problem with Dumb and Dumber is not that it's about stupid people, it's that it's a stupid movie by itself, regardless of its subject matter. Predictable plot + overacting + toilet humor without any redeeming qualities that I can see.

Dumb and dumber is so dumb it's intelligent. It's like Ali G almost.

I haven't watched Ali G but we'll have to agree to disagree.

I haven't watched Ali G

Just judging by your sentiments about Dumb and Dumber, you probably will feel the same way about Ali G, so I wouldn't bother.

In fact I've googled the name and I see it's a Sacha Baron Cohen character. Since I love SBC, I think I would like Ali G.

I don't think there is much overlap between Sacha Baron Cohen's humor and Dumb and Dumber's humor, to be honest.

Dumb and Dumber is a classic what are you talking about

Define "classic".

EDIT: Since I'm getting downvotes instead of an answer, I'll just correct your writing too.

Dumb and Dumber is a classic. What are you talking about?

Sweet fucking Jesus, do you actually exist or are you just like a tribute parody created by an /r/iamverysmart fan?

I do exist. Do you have anything of substance to bring into the conversation?

The most important quality of a comedy is whether or not it's funny.

Which is subjective.

Which is beside the point. Nobody here is saying that D&D fails to be funny, or that being funny is objective. The conversation is not even about the most important quality of a comedy. It's about one particular quality of one particular comedy and what its popularity says about a society. Sagan thinks it means that society is in intellectual decline; /u/puckerings disagrees. This has nothing to do with your comment.

EDIT: clear and clearer.

you said (edited for space and emphasis) "The problem with Dumb and Dumber is... that it's a stupid movie... without any redeeming qualities..."

the fact that it is funny to a great many people is, i would argue, a redeeming quality. i am saying it is the MOST important quality and the MOST relevant to its popularity and place in culture.

u/puckerings said that stupid comedy being popular (though i would argue it's not stupid seeing as how Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are widely regarded as being very talented and the movie was very successful) was not evidence of intellectual decline.

you disagreed, saying that it had no redeeming qualities. presumably meaning it was, therefore, evidence of decline.

and so i pointed out that, since humor is subjective and many millions of people find it funny, and that is its ENTIRE purpose, it has a quality.

and i say it is redeeming because it is fulfilling its purpose, and that purpose (entertainment and humor) is generally considered to be a positive thing.

if you follow a religion or philosophy that strongly discourages those things then i can see why you receive no benefit from this. but it is still subjective.

which was my point.

I will try to explain myself, because this back-and-forth can become confusing very quickly, and I see how the lack of context may lead to misunderstanding. In any case, thanks for coming back to it.

When I say that the movie has no redeeming qualities that I can see, I'm talking about qualities in the context of being a stupid movie, i.e. no qualities that make it less stupid. As a movie, there are many qualities you could mention that make it "not bad", such as lighting, sound editing and camera work; there are good actors in it too, as you point out. None of these things matter in the context of evaluating whether the movie is stupid or smart. To me, it is irredeemably stupid, despite any other good qualities.

Now, you actually get the point that /u/puckering misses in our exchange, which is that whether the movie is stupid or smart is very relevant both to Sagan's argument and his criticism. When you say

you disagreed, saying that it had no redeeming qualities. presumably meaning it was, therefore, evidence of decline.

you show you understand that D&D being a stupid movie would be evidence for Sagan's hypothesis, although I will clarify again that I'm not advocating for that hypothesis, only defending the evidence. ;)

u/puckerings [-4] said that stupid comedy being popular (though i would argue it's not stupid seeing as how Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are widely regarded as being very talented and the movie was very successful) was not evidence of intellectual decline.

That is fine. But then he added that "Dumb and Dumber is about laughing at stupid people, not glorifying them", which in context, and presumably, seems to say not only that the movie being stupid is not evidence for societal decline, but that in fact, it's not that stupid after all. i.e. he is attacking the evidence presented by Sagan, and I'm defending it. Then he goes on to say that my defending it is somehow irrelevant, which of course makes no sense.

This is already wandering off your point, so I'll stop here. But in any case, rest assured that I, too, can enjoy movies like D&D. It's a mode of enjoyment sometimes called "guilty pleasure".

Thanks again for arguing calmly instead of just downvoting. :)

ah.

i think i see your point. though i think i still disagree with your assessment of Dumb & Dumber, at this point it's probably just differences in how we each mean "stupid" in this context.

thanks for your reply.

To me, it is irredeemably stupid, despite any other good qualities.

This statement is based on the idea that being "stupid" is inherently a bad thing, when it comes to movies. As if a stupid movie needs some kind of "redeeming" quality for it to be worthwhile. I reject this notion entirely.

I think you're pretty isolated in that rejection. Virtually everyone would agree that being stupid is a bad thing generally.

You're also insisting in the "redeeming" bit as if it applied to something else besides the movie being stupid, right after I explained at length that it's not so.

Virtually everyone would agree that being stupid is a bad thing generally.

That would depend on what you mean by "stupid". If you mean something like low-brow (such as in Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead), then it's clear that not everyone would agree with you.

Not everything needs to be high-brow or clever to be good.

without any redeeming qualities that I can see.

How about "many people find it entertaining"?

You do understand that people can have a different sense of humour from you and yet not be some kind of unwashed mass unworthy of consideration, right?

The "I" in "that I can see" sufficiently indicates that I'm talking about myself and not other people. The "unwashed mass" bit is yours alone and I don't support the concept.

Address the essence of the question: do you acknowledge that people can have different senses of humour without it necessarily indicating a lack of intelligence or sophistication?

I have acknowledged it already, in another comment. I also said this was not the crux of the matter. A movie can be stupid without people who watch it being stupid too. And I maintain that Dumb and Dumber is a stupid movie.

And I maintain that Dumb and Dumber is a stupid movie.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point under discussion, if you acknowledge that this has nothing to do with the nature of the people watching it.

I was replying to this thing you said:

Dumb and Dumber is about laughing at stupid people, not glorifying them.

Not to Sagan's main point. I posit that Dumb and Dumber is a stupid movie regardless of what it talks about or which message it conveys.

Your whole comment says:

Yeah he hurts his argument with that. Saying that because escapist stupid comedy is popular, it must be evidence of intellectual decline is silly. Dumb and Dumber is about laughing at stupid people, not glorifying them.

And I don't need to agree with Sagan's main point to disagree with what you say. Because the fact that Dumb and Dumber doesn't glorify stupid people does not make it a smart movie, and you apparently agree with me that it's a stupid movie ("escapist stupid comedy" is the exact quote), there is no direct relationship between the second sentence in your comment and the third, and Sagan's premise that stupid movies are popular is not defeated, even if that doesn't mean we have to accept his conclusion.

Sagan's premise that stupid movies are popular is not defeated

Never suggested it was. But it's an irrelevancy to the point.

Moreover, I was addressing your statement that the film is "without any redeeming qualities that I can see." Which is why I had to ask whether your acknowledged whether people can have different senses of humour. Whether you see any redeeming qualities is absolutely irrelevant, because many people obviously do, and since they can have a different sense of humour without it affecting their intelligence, your opinion of the film itself is entirely irrelevant.

So you were addressing the statement that you see as irrelevant yourself, because it doesn't address the point it wasn't trying to address. Got it.

Yes, you can't point out that a statement is irrelevant to the topic at hand without "addressing" it.

If it was irrelevant, you wouldn't be addressing it. It's completely relevant as I explained elsewhere (I tagged you so I guess you read that explanation already, which makes your insistence even more puzzling).

If it was irrelevant, you wouldn't be addressing it.

Untrue. To begin with, in order to point out that it's irrelevant, you have to "address" it, as I already pointed out. Moreover, it can be irrelevant to the topic of the thread but still worthy of rebuttal in itself, as a tangent.

You can just not point out that it's irrelevant, i.e., not address it. It's not that hard to understand.

Also, it is relevant. The fact that the movie is stupid is evidence for Sagan's argument.

You can just not point out that it's irrelevant, i.e., not address it.

One could do that, but explaining why something is irrelevant to the topic is in itself relevant to the topic, in order to clear up confusion.

The fact that the movie is stupid is evidence for Sagan's argument.

No it isn't, unless the enjoyment of stupid movies is evidence of societal/intellectual decline.

Which it isn't.

I have explained all this already.

If the movie is stupid, D&D is part of the evidence Sagan presents for his conclusion. This doesn't mean that we must agree with his conclusion, only that the evidence is what he says it is.

If the movie is not stupid, he has not presented any evidence of the popularity of stupid movies, so his argument is undermined for lack of evidence.

This is all very simple.

EDIT: since you seem to be reading in real time, I will clarify further. You are confusing evidence with proof. The fact that evidence exists (your gun in the crime scene) doesn't necessarily constitute proof for the conclusion (that you killed the guy). My comment holds that the evidence exists, not that it proves Sagan's conclusion.

You are confusing evidence with proof.

Bollocks. My point is that it is not, in fact, evidence, because it does absolutely nothing to support the conclusion. It doesn't just not demonstrate the conclusion by itself, it actually does nothing at all to support it, even the tiniest bit. It can therefore not be called evidence by any reasonable definition of the term.

It doesn't just not demonstrate the conclusion by itself, it actually does nothing at all to support it

See? You're confusing evidence (an example of a premise, in this case "Stupid movies are popular") with proof (something that points to the truth of the conclusion).

I believe it would be pointless to keep arguing with you. Have a nice day.

You've already agreed that stupid movies being popular does not reflect on the intelligence of the people watching them. So, once again, it is not evidence because it provides no support whatsoever for the conclusion.

And you've preemptively retreated, which is an incredibly dishonest tactic. This discussion will only be pointless so long as you continue to misread what I'm writing. Stop doing that, and we could move on.

it is not evidence because it provides no support whatsoever for the conclusion.

Again, you're confusing evidence and proof. And since you seem incapable to make such a simple distinction, it's doubtful that we can "move on".

When the police visit a crime scene, they collect lots of things that can be useful for the investigation. These things are known as evidence. At that point in time there isn't even a hypothesis of who could be the killer, no conclusion to support --but the evidence doesn't cease to be evidence because of this. Saying that something is not evidence because it doesn't support a particular conclusion is not knowing what evidence is.

This is the last thing I post on this thread, because, frankly, I have no time to explain basic stuff over and over. Again, have a nice day.

When the police visit a crime scene, they collect lots of things that can be useful for the investigation. These things are known as evidence.

You're equivocating. If the police collect something that they think might be evidence, but it later turns out to be completely unrelated to the crime they're investigating, it is not evidence in the sense that word is being used in this thread.

Again, have a nice day.

That's what you said last time, before you came back to post your dishonest equivocating bullshit.

It's not about laughing at stupid people but with them ignorance is bliss

Yeah this astrophysicist really hurt his argument when he criticized a cartoon I like

Yeah this astrophysicist really hurt his argument when he criticized a cartoon I like

I hate Beavis & Butthead actually. Though I do like Dumb and Dumber.

Moreover, since his argument has nothing to do with astrophysics, his expertise in astrophysics isn't actually relevant.

And since I explained why it doesn't support his argument, your flippant response is merely that.

Glosses over the fact that The Three Stooges was one of the most popular shows while he was growing.

Yeah, that bit was pretty "old man yells at cloud". But he's on point most of the time.

It's probably my favorite comedy so yeah, I'm going to keep on enjoying it. Lloyd and Harry's stupidity isn't celebrated in the film and Beavis and Butthead are caricatures of youth wasting their lives in front of the tv everyday and don't serve as role models in the least. Carl never watched either of those.

What's ironic is the creator of beavis and butthead made a movie about exactly this future (Idiocracy).

I grew up on Beavis and Butthead. I mean I graduated at least xD

BUT OP DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT THAT PART

Oh shoot. Good call.

Yes, we can. The love triangle between Lloyd, Harry, and Mary Samsonite is timeless!

Of course, both are kickass movies that epitomize the meaning of humor, entertainment, freedom, and both are clever and well made despite their titles. I mean, some things are deeper than they appear. It's interesting he realized that about American society but couldn't realize there might be more depth to those movies. And I'm against censorship of art (I'm betting he was too, ironically) and movies are art.

Wait till he hears about what The History Channel and Discovery Channel are showing nowadays! Oh boy!

Sure if you accept that you're part of the problem

Not a Jeff Daniels fan, huh?

This movie is actually a very intelligently written movie. Writing successful comedy takes smarts.

I doubt he considers his word as gospel. It's up to you we're not robots.

Reading that line after agreeing with the whole paragraph was like a knife to the heart.

Yeah Dumb and Dumber is, often a pretty 'smart' movie. I'll grant him the diarrhea scene is a little childish, but just because the movie was about idiots doesn't mean its viewers have to be.

Certainly. The worry comes from the people who don't get the message behind the sarcasm/satire, and consume nothing but that type of media.

Mentioning Dumb and Dumber was an attempt to strengthen the argument, but those who are ignorant to the craft of film and the pursuit of depth and meaning may find themselves defending a film so basic and mind numbing. Society has morphed to that point, and those defending such a film are too far gone to even realize how much they're proving him right.

Is it not possible to like both though? Or are you saying that just because I like jokes about driving through the Colorado Rockies with 2 pairs of gloves on i am automatically "ignorant to the craft of film and the pursuit of depth and meaning" (Was that hard to type for you? It made me feel like a big wanker when I typed it. It also doesn't really make sense but I guess I'm ignorant)

And if that's the case are you saying it's impossible to like both low and highbrow comedy at the same time? What makes them mutually exclusive? Is it impossible to like comedy's and dramas and movies of all different types? Or do you either like Dumb and Dumber or The Thin Red Line?

I would also argue there is a great deal of depth in dumb and dumber. See Jim Carey's scene about being nobody and having nothing. There is also some unfunny lowbrow like the scene on the toilet.

But I guess in even defending this film I must just be another one of those people who has morphed and become "too far gone to even realize how much their proving him right.". (It's really hard to type things like that. Kudos to you for sticking through the feeling of being an absolute asshole. The world needs more people to do the dirty jobs)

Next line rails on Beavis and Butthead, its creator Mike Judge then goes on to make Idiocracy, better telling and better spreading Sagan's thoughts here. The wheel in the sky keeps on turning.

Beavis and Butt-Head was a great send-up of teenage slacker culture. You weren't supposed to emulate it, you were supposed to laugh at their feeble attempts at coolness and masculinity, and adults' failed attempts to "reach" them.

And the music video segments were great, because like the court jester, the fools could say things about how plainly ridiculous pop music videos were that no one else on MTV could.

But the reasons those stupid things are funny is because they reflect our own society.

Doesn't mean Sagan didn't rail on it as a harbinger.

I thought of Mass Effect and the brain washing alien ship " Harbinger " when you said this.

You weren't supposed to emulate it

Wait. WHAT???!

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFIRE

You weren't supposed to emulate it, you were supposed to laugh at their feeble attempts at coolness and masculinity

And yet.

I said this elsewhere in the thread:

For real. Here's a true story. I was chosen to be in a test audience for idiocracy about 14 years ago. It was a small group of us. When the movie ended, and mind you it was a rough draft, we were asked individually about the movie.

I said straight up it's a shit movie. I said it's simply too stupid. It's degenerate almost. But either way it's dumb to the point of being irrelevant and simply unfunny. That sentiment was common in the audience. We all pretty much agreed that it's a dumb movie and shouldn't be made. I believe they even delayed production for a bunch of years and delayed the release because of these showings.

Then years later it finally came out. I had forgotten about it at that point. Decided to check it out. Found it actually not bad. It was a bit funny. But what got me is how I actually found the message resonated with me. Where before it seemed completely un-relatable.

Then a few years ago I watched it yet again. And I went "holy fuck... this is a documentary"

I mildly disagree. You can dance if you want to, you can leave your friends behind.

I hated Idiocracy. It's sad when satire becomes the thing it's supposed to mock.

I remember John Oliver doing a bit where he says to notice the slow change around you, as not doing it can lead to huge changes without actually noticing anything.

Edit: Regardless of how (ir)relevant, (in)correct and/or (un)funny John Oliver may be nowadays, the point is keeping track of the slow evolution of our world and what direction we as humans are heading. In other words, never sit back comfortably without truly knowing your surroundings and circumstance.

Or do, who am I to tell you what to do, John Oliver?

It is just like gaining weight. I know I have been gaining some weight lately, but just today looked in the mirror and realized how much. Probably why I don't look in the mirror much I just don't want to see.

Unfortunately the way I am about my weight is the same way many people act about their entire lives. If I don't look at it there is no way it can be true.

The only way I was able to actually lose weight was to weigh myself each day. Whenever I stop doing that, I start to gain it back.

Seeing results is the best motivator.

That's why, when I was trying to lose weight, I had colleagues submit folders twice a day stating my weight. It made me feel great and kept me motivated to persist in the direction I was going.

Also weighing yourself daily makes you more aware of what you'd lose if you ate too much.

I'm not sure that weighing every single day is all that productive. Weight varies quite a bit day by day, even by time of day. What's important is the overall trend. Personally I prefer doing it once a week, and in a consistent way. Of course what works for everyone is different. The important part is having that information in some form so it can inform your decisions.

What worked for me when weighing myself everyday isn't necessarily in seeing the changes, but being aware of what I am doing with my day that will affect what my weight will be the next day. For example: Do I want to eat that bag of chips? If I do I'll probably regret it when I weigh myself tomorrow. It's a good and helpful reminder of my goals.

That was good advice pre-fitness apps but now you can use an app like Libra which plots a trend. I find daily weighing to be more accurate than weekly and it really opens up your eyes to the fluxuations when it's plotted on a graph. I know myself better than ever now.

If nothing else doing it every day gets you into a habit. I also can notice days when I've been eating particularly salty meals and can see my weight shoot up from the water retention (aside from feeling bloated and not peeing as much)

I went on vacation over the weekend and came back 4 lbs heavier. It really shows you how easy it is for weight to fluctuate without actual fat being added. I mean it's possible I put on a half pound of fat but I didn't physically eat enough calories to account for more than that.

I've been without a scale for two months. When I finally get home Sunday night...fuck, I'm scared.

There's so much salt and sugar in EVERYTHING. Unless I prepare meals myself I always end up with too much of both.

Ya analytically having more data points should be better, and getting a few "scares" more often might serve to motivate you in the right direction. But I never found those fluctuations that meaningful, and I can't bring myself to weigh and enter it into an app daily. What we need is a scale that automatically enters the data into an app's database. I'm sure they exist I just never looked them up.

I do find it odd that I am too lazy to weigh in every day, but I can run/bike for hours at a time.

Bluetooth scales do exist but it probably takes the same amount of effort as tapping on icon on my home screen, swiping the scale to the right weight, and hitting enter. It's become a pre-shower habit for me.

i think thats what the core concept of that post was, stay on track of it. weighing daily or weekly is probably similar in information provided about changing body structure, but staying informed and on track is important. see those changes over the course of a month can be eyeopening and help keep people on track, while if you dont weigh yourself at all you could slowly gain weight over the course of the year and not really realize it until you look in a mirror and hop on a scale and see that 30lbs increase.

Agreed. Once you admit to yourself you are overweight, and actually want to fix it, the best way forward is not simply "diet and exercise" - it's information. Once you know what you're eating and how much over your daily recommended caloric intake you are, you can make better choices. The rest is details.

Sure, there is variation from day-to-day, but weighing myself everyday helps me to remember to make good health decisions each day. Also, I weigh myself first thing in the morning, every morning. It's just a part of my morning routine.

Precisely. You have to measure yourself from an objective source. The scale doesn't lie!

I just look down. I've always been super skinny, so when my belly started to be more of a bump or I can see it at all through my shirts I started to freak out. Of course, I'm not using any significant measure of success and it's not gone yet... so I might be failing.

I completely agree. My goal is to weigh myself every single day. While fluctuations can and will happen, its going to be a better way to keep on track than anything else I have tried.

So, like my bank account

The truth of a thing is irrelevant if the thing never even enters conscious thought to begin with.

This should be voted higher. We place ourselves in front of our black screens to escape for just a moment, and when we look up from them (if we ever do) we'll realize we've forgotten who we are. Look in a mirror today.

Similarly, I'm not fat but I noticed myself gaining weight, not much, but I could see the direction I was headed in. So I decided to cut back on the junk food, eat a bit less and a bit healthier, and start jogging again. When it would come up in conversation e.g. When my parents were offering me second helpings of dinner when I went to visit, I'd explain the above and the overwhelming reaction from them (and most people) is "but you're not fat! You don't need to diet or watch your weight!"

Now I agree, I'm not fat.....yet! And it's much easier to keep weight off than lose what you've put on - so I will watch my weight thanks because that's how you stop yourself from becoming fat

So much easier to keep it off. I eat healthy as a lifestyle...It's not really a diet if you do it all the time and it just makes me feel better mentally and physically. I don't get bogged down after meals.

I think Ferris Bueller said the same thing.

That's how you boil a frog

In 1995, Professor Douglas Melton, of the Harvard University Biology department, said, "If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die."

I've had the same experience with lobsters.

Lobsters putting frogs in boiling water? Thanks, Obama.

Only works on lobotomized frogs.

[deleted]

Do lobotomized gay chem trail frogs need longer cooking time?

Asking the questions that matter

No. Source: have cooked a homosexual frog in chem trail sauciette post-lobotomy

I don't know how long or how hot, I just know it's hotter than burning jet fuel and longer than the time it took for the World Trade Center to fall. Why? Because lobotomized chem trail frogs are real and 9/11 was faked.

The earth is probably flat, human made climate change is a hoax and jesus gawdson used a velociraptor for transportation.

Pfft. Everyone knows real velociraptors weren't all that much more than knee-high. Good luck riding one of those anywhere.

Unless he strapped one to each foot, and made raptorskates...

[deleted]

You have inspired me to dedicate my life to building a time machine. I must compare the original velociraptor to its distant ancestor. I suppose I will also need to invest funds in lab-quality deepfryers and potentially up to 11 types of herbs and/or spices.

[deleted]

Slender

Not with as much deep-fried velociraptor as I can eat, I won't.

All for science, of course.

jesus gawdson

Found my next MMO character's name.

Only if vaccinated.

Isn't it dangerous eating autistic frogs?

Only if you don't use coffee enemas after eating them.

We are so screwed.

It is Wednesday my dudes

This is the exact sort of psuedoscience, false folktale spreading he warned us about...

It's an analogy, nobody thinks it's a real story.

1) Yeah, some actually do. 2) That's exactly what a pseudoscience peddler would say when caught...

Do you also believe a frog literally ferried a scorpion across a river?

We get it. You're one of them intellectual elitists the president's been warning us about. You win the internet.

I don't even know what you're alluding to. Thanks?

I hear this a lot. Who's the psychopath boiling goddam frogs to test this theory?

People who eat them?

Also. I've heard it with lobsters and crayfish too.

I've never seen anyone eat a whole frog. It's usually just the legs.

I dunno, my uncle kills them and puts them in stews and stuff.

But he also eats squirrels and basically anything that can be eaten, so I have no other frame of normal!

Nobody. You have to throw a frog into an already boiling pot. It will kill them ~~instantly~~ pretty damn fast. Frog will jump out of a slowly heating pot because it will feel the heat going up.

Thanks Al Gore

No it's not.

While some 19th-century experiments suggested that the underlying premise is true if the heating is sufficiently gradual,[1][2] according to contemporary biologists the premise is false: a frog that is gradually heated will jump out.[3][4] Indeed, thermoregulation by changing location is a fundamentally necessary survival strategy for frogs and other ectotherms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

How do you protect against the slow change around you when the academics and others who are supposed to protect against the negative aspects of that change have either no status in society or no real will to actively speak out against it?

I'm starting with the man in the mirror.

Academics are supposed to protect against the negative aspects of society? Where is that written? Academics can be the most entrenched.

I thought of that when I first posted. There is no section of society whose duty it is to do this. Clergy, Academia, Lawyers, Learned citizens etc.

Each group good and bad, seems fewer and fewer are speaking out these days.

That's pretty much America.... America is slowly erroding via special interests taking small chips away at our system... People don't notice how it's getting worse because it happens so slow and people are just concerned with getting by. People also fail to realize our potential loss.. We could be doing SO MUCH better as a whole, but since it's just slowly been taken from us, we don't notice we lost access to so much potential.

[deleted]

2% per year is not 20% over 10 years.

I feel like you're trying to make an argument about compounding interest on dumbing rate but it's just telling me that your rate is probably incorrect.

It doesn't say anything profound about the actual change over time 21 years to say that we're 42% dumber. It takes a fixed duration 1 year and then makes what you think is a "reasonable" assumption and extrapolates it to a longer duration (incorrectly, I might add) as if that's adding value to your initial "reasonable" assumption. It's just a transformation of the data...

That just tells me that your "reasonable" assumption of 2% is not actually reasonable

[deleted]

If I increase in weight 2% per year, after 10 years I'll be 20% heaver than I was at the start.

This is simply not mathematically true.

[deleted]

If I increase in weight 2% per year

102lbs + 2lbs = 104lbs

104lbs is a 1.96% increase from 102lbs, therefore you have not increased in weight by 2% per year.

...

10) 118lbs + 2lbs = 120lbs.

120/118 is 1.0169 which means it is an increase of 1.69%

how are you not getting this

I get that you're not good at math but just stop trying please.

Did you not see that he actually did the math in the *second post you replied to with and without compounding 2%?

If I increase in weight 2% per year, after 10 years I'll be 20% heaver than I was at the start. It's cumulative. In fact, if I increase by 2% every year compounding, I'll be 21.9% heavier.

That 21.9% comes from actually doing the math (because if you use an annual 2% compounding weight rate you end up with 121.9 pounds).

Not everything uses compounding interest, sometimes you can calculate a rate at the beginning and use that throughout - it is called a simple interest rate.

You don't need to be such a dick about it.

Then it wouldn't be increasing by a percentage per year, it would be increasing by a fixed amount per year.

And that fixed amount is called a simple rate, 2% of the original in this case.

[deleted]

1) I previously stated that I wasn't considering compounding

2) increase in weight by 2% per year

These statements are incompatible.

[deleted]

If I increase in weight 2% per year, after 10 years I'll be 20% heaver than I was at the start.

How's that for a quote?

I never modified anything. You're a moron.

[deleted]

Just going to hope you haven't taken middle School level math yet

Wait are we hating on John Oliver now?

We? Shouldn't it be up to you as an individual to decide that?

Not everyone supports his views, as to be expected ofcourse. .

Not just that, but every episode is very samey. I used to watch every week, as he brought unique topics not often discussed. Now every week is just a freak out on Trump. It's not that I disagree with his points, it just makes his show monotonous and unentertaining. It's the same message I hear everywhere else, but with a dash of guerilla marketing at the end of each episode.

Because trump does shit worth freaking out every week

Every week is absolutely not a freak out on Trump. Trump is brought up often because at this point it would be irresponsible NOT to cover all the shit he's doing. I don't see how you can watch Oliver's incredibly thorough and reasonable points and somehow think he isn't credible. I'm truly amazed that being a Trump supporter has caused them to reject literally everything that doesn't love Trump. That's going to be an increasingly small world.

Where in my comment did I say that he isn't credible or that I'm a Trump supporter? I fucking hate the guy [Trump]. So much so that I'm exhausted of hearing about him through every outlet, including my entertainment. I'm also exhausted of having to constantly demonstrate my distaste for Trump out of fear of being branded a Trump supporter just because I don't feel like talking about it all of the time.

Where did I call you a Trump supporter? I was just using your point to tangent to my point.

I get Trump exhaustion, but if you don't want to hear it, don't watch. It seems an unfair criticism to call out the show for covering Trump when it would literally be irresponsible to not cover it. You don't have to like the show but don't criticize with your personal opinion parading as objective analysis.

I mean, look at how air travel changed with 9/11, it was drastic at first, but now it's just the new norm - walk through the porno scanner, get cancer, get your balls checked, put your shoes back on.

Any of you follow Amy Siskind on Twitter? She keeps a running list of little changes, and it is terrifying.

The most important sub I visit: r/keep_track

Oh nice. Man it's unsettling and hard to believe so much can be undone.

does she also keep a running list of positive changes in all of the world? or does she focus on only the negatives of one part of it? how are things on the balance? would she start losing followers and influence if she found that things were generally improving over time?

What? That's like asking the doctor you're seeing why they aren't complimenting you on all the parts of your health that aren't bad. That's not their job. They are there to make sure you're aware of potential changes and problems, not to stroke your ego.

you're right - that wasn't the right place for me to make that point.

I'm...right? I thought this was the Internet

Here's a link:

https://twitter.com/amy_siskind/status/893899694023299073

This was a point that was touched on in The Handmaid's Tale, and I haven't really been able to forget it since.

[deleted]

Yeah, the whole illusion of freedom and choice where opposing opinions exist without any real change while the higher power exists in the background

He lifted that from Timothy Snyder - who is absolutely worth listening to.

It's not exactly that unique of a thought.

Post about the dumbing down of America.

Comment citing John Oliver as a legitimate source of intelligent discourse.

The irony is incredible.

Supports a television host for president

Blanket statement much? Oliver is satire-laden comic news, sure, but he still picks topics of discussion that are worthy of discourse. And it's also a nice once-a-week getaway from the seriousness of reporting from BBC/Reuters/NPR.

Satire news, be it from John Oliver and/or The Daily Show, or Hannity/Fox and/or Infowars, is fine as long as it's not your only source for news. Balance is key.

Yea but ~~no a days~~ nowadays John Oliver is a hack.

no a days

is that how we spell nowadays nowadays?

It is how my phone autospells it it seems.

Well, ass squirt dominance over your phone!

It didn't happen slow. Suddenly you just have women who idolized Britney Spears spitting out kids. Most of those kids will never be smarter than a chimp and now they are cranking out kids. This stupidity thing happened overnight.

"You know what's weird? Day by day, nothing seems to change, but pretty soon...everything's different."

-Bill Watterson

Or from another perspective, "Everyday things change, but basically we stay the same" -- Dave Matthews song "Seek Up"

Regardless of your opinion on the 2nd Amendment this exactly whats happening with gun control. Of course no one is going to take anyone's guns outright, politicians know better, but they also know they can slowly introduce legislation over time to erode the 2nd amendment and still reach the end goal that they want.

No one wants to take your fucking guns, man, give it a rest. And making semi-automatic weapons illegal, or just hard to get, isn't an erosion of the second amendment because those guns didn't exist at the time the amendment was introduced. If the line wasn't at fully-automatic weapons where should it be? In another universe would people be complaining that they're trying to take our missile launchers away? If you only need a weapon for self-defense then you don't need one that is made to kill lots of people as quickly as possible. It isn't hard to understand why people want some of those weapons outlawed.

No one wants to take your fucking guns, man, give it a rest.

No ones coming to take away your internet man, give it rest. Its funny how just posted an example and you respond with a full tantrum. No wonder the left isn't taken seriously when it comes to gun control.

You seem to have missed my point. The left isn't trying to take away your guns, diminish your religion, or impose interracial marriage on you and your family. These are specious arguments promulgated by rightwing media to evoke an emotional reaction against Dems, so you'll vote against them, rather than for republicans, because, frankly, unless you are in the top income bracket there is no logical reason for you to vote for republicans unless you have an emotional reason to hate liberals. If you actually look at the liberal position on all those issues they are more reasonable than you think. Gun ownership is fine, just not those guns made for killing multiple people in the span of 20 seconds before police can arrive. Religious freedom is good, but using your religion to oppress people who aren't members of your group shouldn't be condoned by government. I don't have time to go into all of them but when you think about any of this you'll see it's more reasonable than Hannity will ever tell you, not by accident but by necessity... Dems don't have the big industry donors so the only way they can win elections is if people hear their ideas and find them reasonable. Maybe give it as chance. There's a certain peace of mind that comes from being part of a party that isn't telling you to hate the other half of the population.

diminish your religion, or impose interracial marriage on you and your family.

I think you have mistaken me for a right winger...Much like the right, the left leaning news does its own brainwashing and contrary to the agenda they push the majority of gun owners who have those "scary" rifles are law abiding and upstanding citizens. Why punish them for the crimes of others?

Honestly, the democrats have a lot to gain by working with the 2nd amendment folks rather then forcing the feel good laws that earn them votes from the far left but do nothing to address crime. Perhaps spend some time over at r/guns to see that were not all crazy right wing rednecks despite what cnn says.

puts on tin-foil hat

What if, the gun companies are secretly telling politicians to "pretend" to work towards stricter gun laws (but never actually go thru with it) when sales of find seems to dip slightly, thus causing outrage from "gun-nuts" which causes sales to go up?

And that would imply that the democrats are in the pockets of the gun lobby...

This tin-foil hat is rather uncomfortable

I'm not big on gun control, but I do think owning a gun should be on a similar level to owning a car, licensing should be mandatory, and they should all be registered.

I don't think legislation past that is really necessary.

I can see why you're worried about this, and how legislation can be a slippery slope.

But my question now, do you think there should be more gun control than there is currently? or less? why or why not? What would be the ideal point for you to say ok, this is perfect, guns never need to be a discussion again (at leastuntil handheld gauss rifles are a thing or something but let's not get into future tech)

And smoking.

Its sad though, considering the massive change's he has created. Going from fairly well arguments sourced, to just shit. I still think hes funny, but god damn if his arguments arent horrible while he stands silent with the insane changes of the left happening.

How has it came to a point where the assassination of the President is regular occurrence of the "left", how a liberal movement has gone to the absolute opposite of what they were fighting against. Meaning racist disgusting pieces of shit but for the "good reasons".

assassination of the President

huh? Did I slip into an alternate universe while I slept?

nope

heres something youve probably forgot, Trump has already tried to be assasinated once and got quite fucking close, nearly been rushed and beaten (and given a platform by CNN afterwards) and some random guy shot someone as he thought he looked like Trump... stating afterwards hes a terrible person after listening to the maintstream media... the exact media which is literally calling for his assaination on twitter regulary...

maybe you should listen to whats happening, because its depressing.

lmao, I have never heard any of this from any mainstream media, even Fox news. Sounds like you watch a little too much Info Wars.

Some liberal hosts go too far, though. I thought @Midnight's "Trump Week" was utterly tasteless. There is so much low-hanging fruit with Trump, but they went and dug up the rotten fruit that fell ages ago.

Oliver (the Last Week Tonight writers) simply present facts about Trump so that it is obvious how stupid/misguided he is. Sometimes I wish they would cover more non-Trump material, but he just does so much ridiculous shit in a week it is hard to not want to see them make a joke of it. It's not like they're talking about how he likes "fancy" spicy mustard on his hot dogs, like some illigitimate news sources AKA Fox (how elitist of Obama, lol).

If only we could have gotten someone with actual honor like McCain instead of this fool.

The late night shows thrive on making fun of Trump. Without him their ratings would be much lower. CNN was right, "Trump is good for business".

I think that would be true of all news, really. Hopefully he breeds a new culture of generally giving a shit about politics in more than an "us vs those idiots" kind of way.

Well there's this story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/why-isnt-the-assassination-attempt-on-donald-trump-bigger-news/?utm_term=.35165c55d404 during the campaign and I'm actually (no sarcasm) shocked I didn't hear anything about it. Now, I generally don't seek political news because it's depressing no matter what party you're in. (See the democratic infighting recently over some African-Americans considering running in 2020; Bernie in-fighting etc; or Republicans failing to be able to pass legislation despite holding both houses; or 2008-era Democrats not passing substantive legislation in the same position) But I do listen to some podcasts that delve into political topics. My guess is that it's because it was a British guy and, as the WaPo story says, that doesn't fit the narrative of evil brown people.

The second half of your comment, however.....I see reputable news sources saying Johnny Depp called for assassination, but he's a movie star, not a News Organization.

It was also a very, very half-assed attempt that was extremely unlikely to succeed. A skinny untrained 20 year old taking a gun from the holster of a cop? And then managing to shoot a target from that distance while being afforded nearly no time to aim at all?

The fact that it failed had nothing to do with luck.

Yeah, thats the one. Even more scary when you look at the assinations of previous US modern presidents... and how they were done by luck, so the only reason he wasnt killed was due to actual luck.

I dont either, but you know the saying "you may not want anything to do with politics, but politics wants everything to do with you". I just cant escape it, I hate that I have to defend Trump the police etc.. there are so so many great criticisms but I simply cannot with the disgusting climate propagated by the "far left". Especially when they start personally attacking me

It was more that there was so much going on at the time, it was spoken of in the "trump side" quite a lot but it got no where maintstream from BOTH sides. How an assassination attempt wouldnt be covered is insane.

he did, but there are a lot lot more. Kathy grithin ISIS styled beheading photo, im tired and cant name the rest. But there have been a lot of verified journalists on twitter literally calling for his assassination, along with a whole slew of Professors calling the exact same

But yeah the only thing news organizations have done officially, rather than consistently having journalists working for them saying the most abhorrent things is lying, defaming, blackmailing (literally)

Celebrities gonna celeb. That's how they stay in the news. And no such thing as bad press. (Or so they believe)

Tell me about the celebrities calling for Obama's assassination and how they were treated....

I think Teg Nugent? I dunno. Like I said, I don't follow this stuff.

“if Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” ...

Nugent’s 2012 comments about Obama — who he has called a “piece of shit” and a “subhuman mongrel” — are far from the only threat he’s made against prominent Democrats. As the Daily Beast chronicled, Nugent discussed shooting Harry Reid during the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in 2015. In January 2016, he called for both Obama and Clinton to “be tried for treason & hung.” Nugent once called Clinton a “worthless bitch” and called for her to “ride one of these [guns] into the sunset.” He told Obama to “suck on my machine gun.”

He seems a bit unhinged

The media isn't calling for violence against Trump. Some people take it that far. You can dislike someone without wanting to murder them.

you can, its to bad they are constantly and constantly creating these people who call for violence... and act upon that aswell.

If it was the right doing this fucking shit, no one would blink an eye of the reality of the situation, everyone would understand its not to be tolerated.

Trump told his supporters to “knock the crap out of them … I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” The crowd vociferously cheered him on.

I agree, it is too bad that the media is creating these people who call for violence.

Defending yourself is a bad thing? Anti Trumpers are the most hateful and intolerant people I have ever met. The imaginary level of moral superiority that glows on each and every single one of them is mindboggling, but fun to watch.

Trump literally calls for violence, the NRA attack ads were not very subtle about buy guns to aim at liberals in their attack ads. point to a similar level of bs from someone with clout on the left?

True, but got to remember that John Oliver, before anything is a comedian, not a political activist.

And about what he covers, I do like that he covers a lot of stuff that is unnoticed, and usually not in any major headlines. There is only so much he can cover, and if I was him I'd choose the fairly important topics that most people don't care about.

True, but got to remember that John Oliver, before anything is a comedian, not a political activist

I feel like this is a cover for him if he fucks anything up. The Colbert Report was clearly satire and funny. Jon Stewart pushed this boundary, but it was mostly a comedy show. Oliver seems to more on the side of a political commentator who cracks some jokes.

Sorry to be tardy to the party but no, they are all political commentators who put on clown noses and pretend they're just making jokes whenever they get called out for their shitty arguments and shitty tactics.

I don't hate them because of their beliefs. I despise them for pretending they're just comedians.

I can understand thinking that for Stewart and Oliver, but the Colbert report was pure satire that never took itself too seriously like he does now

Colbert being 'pure satire' does not absolve him of a single thing. South Park is pure satire, and they are extremely political. The difference between the two is South Park's creators have the balls to admit they're often a political TV show and are trying to say something, Colbert is a coward who hide behinds 'No, its just a joke promise guys'. At that point you start moving further from just being a commentator and start being a propagandist.

And the funny thing is I'd probably side with Colbert a lot more than the people he mocks. I still can't stand the man simply because his half of his argumentation is strawmaning and dishonesty.

Yeah, I know he says that but from his actions and speech outside of his show. It seems to me that hes actually both and the "im just a comedian" seems to be a cop out when things dont work. For instance he always talks about the research team trying to get things right, while attacking people/things like Trump, immigration directly and the commedy is created around it

But even if he is being serious when he says "I am a comedian not a news source" than he has a responsibilty to change something, as right now he is considered a news source

He still sources his every claim unless it is his own opinion.

It's a bit tough for John since he probably gets a lot of backlashes for his statements, just like the one time HBO got sued by the mining guy for slander. It's not like he can say whatever he wants, whether he likes it or not.

the one time HBO got sued by the mining guy for slander.

That particular mine owner sues literally everyone who uses his name in print attached to anything remotely negative. He invited that lawsuit on purpose - that was the point of the segment - because he knew it'd be baseless and HBO has better lawyers than some local newspaper.

Yeah I know, but it's still extra money and resources

Of course, but think about it this way - it's one of HBO's more popular shows, but the actual production costs of the program are dirt cheap, it's literally just a desk in a studio, one comedian and a few writers/researchers. Compare that to the lavish sets and huge cast of GoT. So they spend money on things like that, or that time they bought up and forgave a bunch of medical debt.

I have noticed that late night shows have slowly begun to suck more and more. One in particular.....

[deleted]

Ha fixed it before I received your comment.

I was in the shower too, when I was like oh shit it's irrelevant not un relevant. Shower thoughts.

John Oliver IS a part of the dumbing down. Ironic post - at several levels.

John Oliver has pretty strong biases and has this kind of repetitive one note humor but he spends a good portion of most episodes informing people about economic, international, political and yes social issues. You can say he's not funny or that you disagree but he is not promoting lack of awareness or rejecting the importance of information.

And everyone he's talking about thinks he meant "the other side."

Yup, radical leftists think about "dumbass climate change denier rednecks" and radical right wingers think about "non binary intersectional tree hugging trans feminists"

Edit: stop replying to my comment by proving me right. I dont give a shit who you despise the most.

And it's all fucking hopeless

People are fucking stupid tbh, idiocy isn't exclusive to any ideology.

And any 'transcendence' idealogy that claims to be not so is certainly at least as stupid, so wtf are people supposed to do gg

Huh, develop individuel personalities and critical thinking skills, but that involves effort and discomfort. So yeah, we're fucked.

I think everyone has the ability to think critically. Talking about it on reddit makes them seem stupider. You have people trying to criticize other people for their opinions - when most of the time, the opinions are not shared by all of that population.

You try to take the intellectual high ground by pointing out "people don't think cause it hurts" but in reality you merely complain, and you don't acknowledge each person's individual view of life, or consider whether or not people are stupid as they seem on reddit.

The internet just encourages one to say stupid things. Don't let it change your view of society - when the chips are down, we're all human, and we can all think. We just need to talk to each other face to face, so that our social instincts work properly.

Thinking for yourself is very hard. Harder than most people think. Most political opinions you will get from people could be directly quoted from the news outlet they watch/read the most, even face to face.

I've been called a number of things for discussing "ideas" and I've been insulted on the basis of my gender and race for holding these ideas.

Don't think people are as rational as they ought to make you think.

To be fair, my critical thinking skills are far superior to everyone else's so they'll all just be wrong anyway

Ahhh the radical centrist.

On a fairly serious note, anyone have a thought why it's so heretical to suggest that governments job should be to make the nation work for as many portions of the population at once as possible, versus demanding the 49% live the way the 51% think they should?

I think it boils down to what you see as "the others" and how much you loathe them. Identity politics have made a wonderful job at turning people who agree on most things agaisnt eachother. Hence being able to force people to defend some views held by their group and allowing the decision makers to push their agenda quite nicely. Reddit is a good example, it has turned 180 degres on some issues over the years, simply because it wasn't the same people talking about it.

You're right of course. Identity politics wins elections and efforts at compromise are billed as weakness. You can't let the other guy live their life because that somehow invalidates your existence.. Oh well...

When your personality is tied to an ideology that's way beyond you and your comprehension you're in trouble.

That's why people can't debate without resulting in name calling.

Ugh hate this mindset so fucking much, "both sides are equally bad! So why bother!"

I hate that mindset too, that's not quite what I mean. So far I think the issue lies in the fact that people are referring to sides in the first place; there's identity politics which is massively counterproductive.. my comment was reacting to the fact that too many people are thinking in sides and dwell on the extremes of these contrived sides.

Being upset about "climate change denial" is not "Radical Left" in any perspective approaching reality.

It's a matter of perspective. People with wide-reaching voices frequently imply it.

Anyone radical leaning can go fuck themselves - regardless of which side they're on. I hate how ~~politics~~ any belief or opinion nowadays has to be so polarizing. Where are the logical people who can see that both sides have good ideas and why aren't any of these people running the show?

I hate how people have started projecting central to objective stances as radical. Disliking climate change denial is "radical leftist" Seriously?

Yeah, they definitely could have used a better example but I don't think that's a common thing that's happening..

The radical left does take the points of both sides. They just get shut out by the Democrats. Repeatedly.

We could do with a few full-blooded communists and anarchists in office here and there. It'd destabilize how things are currently operating and push actual progress and compromise, since a third hard-left party would be able to take away single-issue voters from both existing sides.

The difference being that one group is a minor annoyance while the other group actively threatens the wellbeing of every living thing on this planet.
Even if idiocy is equally distributed between the political camps (which is highly debatable in my book), the consequences of the different kinds of idiocy are very different in how much they could potentially change things for the worse.

Yeah, but that's debatable, in that it has been debated frequently.

So calling out your bullshit false equivalence is proving you right? Sure thing buddy

edit translation: I don't want to back up my lazy dismissive assertions and I've I generalize hard enough I'm always right! Why can't everyone be free thinkers like me who realize no one is ever correct about anything, except me!

Oh shut the fuck up. Climate change deniers are in a position of power to do real harm. Tumblr feminists can do nothing but whine on their blog. False equivalencies like these are so fucking annoying

Tumblr feminists are destroying our higher education and are taking steps in eroding essential freedoms.

The formation of new forms of academic study isn't destroying education. Likewise, arguing for free speech isn't actively destroying lives.

It's a slow change in culture. Resist it if you want, but keep in mind that this is all normal, if freakishly bizarre to anyone who wasn't raised in it.

A guy got fired this week from Google for challenging tumblr feminists.

I fail to see how that's relevant?

Declaring one's identity as superior to others is just straight-up a bad look. The company was right for firing him because failing to do so would have cut into their profits by means of alienating significant chunks of their userbase.

Late reply but I'm guessing you did not read the memo, did you? Because if you did you clearly did not understand it whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

this is not normal

Yeah, uh... it kinda is. Student protests have been around ever since the first education institutes popped up thousands of years ago.

That's not a protest. That is a radical group seeking to oppress.

That's literally what every protest is: the seeking of stripping a "right"/privilege from others in order to gain a "right"/privilege for someone else.

That's unequivocally false.

Then falsify it. Provide me one instance of a protest you know of in which the protesting group isn't intent on gaining something while stripping it from the protested group. Just one.

No, you tell me how actively trying to control and subjugate is a protest.

Was the Boston Tea Party a protest? How about the Vietnam war protests? Is protesting in favor of "free speech" at a confederate monument a protest?

If you answered yes to all three...

Boston Tea Party was an act of protest against insufficient representation while changing tax laws.

Vietnam war protests were against the rights of the US's leadership to send people to a war.

Protesting in favor of "free speech" at a confederate monument is a protest against the rights of others to remove a monument they dislike.

War is a protest against another country's actions or inactions. A violent one, but it's an act of protest nonetheless.

Your turn, bucko.

You are talking in circles. If I try to mug you is that a protest?

You have an obvious disdain for civil liberty and I see no reason to argue semantics with a radical authoritarian.

You're failing to provide a logical basis for a claim against a falsifiable claim. I'm providing support for my argument. You're simply saying "no u".

Keep going.

Feel free to return to your pede safe space at any time where you don't have to look at actual facts

Oh look, more proving me right. Keep going.

Your statement is not falsifiable. You effectively predicted that people hold beliefs.

My statement is that people highly despise people who fall prey to ideologies just like them, only they have different personalities that brought them to an end of the other of the political spectrum.

Like the cancerous telling the mutilated he's in a bad place.

The problem comes when the mutilated starts telling the cancerous how to get treated for cancer, and the cancerous starts telling the mutilated how to get treated for mutilation.

Their hearts are in the right place in one way or another. They're just both talking out of their asses for the most part, with outliers on the furthest edges of each side talking pure ideology and people eating it up because it "sounds right".

Wait wait, treated for mutilation? I know what you mean but the analogy is falling flat in the visualization.

I'm not so good with analogies sometimes. :P

No need, your post history does it for us

Personnal attacks ! keep going !

I mean, name one representative who's a climate denier and then name a representative who's trans.

Well there was Jim Inhofe who brought a Snowball to the senate floor to say that climate change isn't real.

Michelle McConnell

Trump. Trumps denies climate change.

Okay so here's why that is a false equivalence. GOP politicians actually don't believe in climate change and actively work against any meaningful progress on that front.

No Democrat politician actually believes this "non binary intersectional tree hugging trans feminists" nonsense.

Most of them appealing to the lowest common denominator, on both sides.

Never forget Hillary Clinton declared war on a cartoon frog.

Climate change denial is part of the GOP platform.

  • Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.

  • The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.

This is directly from the GOP Platform, word for word. (pdf download)

Link to site with the full platform

Crickets from him. Guess this critical thinking was just too hard.

Well what do you expect when you cut the fishing line as you take the bait?

Hillary Clinton's thing was a self fulfilling prophecy. By calling Pepe a hate symbol, people felt the urge to start using Pepe as a hate symbol even more heavily.

The Democrats aren't even on the other side, honestly. They're on the left side of the right wing, whereas the Republicans are on the right side of the right wing. Democrats keep telling people that they're "left", while Republicans keep telling people that the Democrats are "left". And people honestly seem to believe it.

I feel that it's a problem with both parties amassing too much power. They're the biggest players in the US's political landscape, and people like following the biggest strongman that looks vaguely friendly to them.

The former are far more numerous and harmful

According to reddit, yes. Which leads the other side of thinking PC types are more prevalent. Congtatz you fell into that trap.

Climate change deniers were a majority 10 years ago and you're telling me that the tiny cross section of 20 somethings on tumblr now outnumber them?

[deleted]

Yeah, no. They're still a huge fraction of the population.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

And conservatives still account for the majority.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

[deleted]

"wow one side accepts the prevailing science and the other is sticking their head in the ground. Obviously these are both radical extremists, who can't use critical thinking skills and only parrot what they're told, unlike me!" - /u/CarLucSteeve

Just fucking let go. Leftists can't accept difference between men and women and right wingers aren't accepting climate change.

Your head is in the fucking sand you missed my point entirely while showing your true colors. Pathetic. Arguing with yourself.

Leftists can't accept difference between men and women

Perfect example of your hypocrisy, painting broad brushes and falling into extremism yourself.

The fact you can't even see that and now just resort to insults only further drives home the point.

[deleted]

Man you are triggered now!

What a lovely poster child you are for the point you were trying and failing to make.

edit: Lol deleted your post /u/CarLucSteeve, Hilarious how you call people triggered then let out that raging little temper tantrum then are so embarrassed you have to delete it.

[deleted]

Yes, conviently dismissing the fact that I'm arguing from the point of view of radicals ideologues. Stating that there is no radical left is just further proving my point.

[deleted]

just because they can see the reality of the situation and you can't.

If that's not a high horse I don't know what that is. Stop projecting. Just look at all the hate coming from the left and tell me that isn't detrimental to society as much as the hate from the right. This thread will prove me right.

[deleted]

The fun thing is everyone see the worst of themselves in that comment and that is automatically brought up in the comment, because people aren't remotely open to engage in rational discussion. If the cap fits, sir. This post itself is bringing up insane levels of projection.

[deleted]

wow, wishing me an awful day, such tolerance and openness. Working towards the common good. Keep going.

[deleted]

Casual dismissal of their own inadequacies and more projection, perfect.

Good job for being a master and debating and discussing in a civil manner.

[deleted]

Glad I taught you something today.

[deleted]

Look, I'm insulting people while pretending to be smart

[deleted]

Quote me insulting you.

[deleted]

Stating the obvious/displayed isn't an insult on your personal character, just very mocking of your statement.

[deleted]

So the fact that we weren't even able to discuss the topic and resulting in you name calling me, is still proving me right.

Keep going.

Lol, there are so many valid arguments being made against your shitty top post and you're spending all your time copy/pasting a weak phrase instead of addressing those.

What a hypocrite.

My post was about not considering the other's points of views or not falling into the extremes, not defending sides you genius. I don't have any arguments for them because they're not argumenting agaisnt my post, but defending their point of views for which I couldn't care less.

You obviously didn't read them if that's the conclusion you came to.

which I couldn't care less.

And this is a weak cop-out refusal to address the problems in your assertions.

You're a hypocrite because you're refusing to consider others viewpoints and falling into an extreme yourself.

As if I have thought out my stereotypical boogeymen for both sides real well. The fact that it triggered you so much reflects much on yourself, mostly.

Ah, and now we see the true colors. Resorting to buzzwords and insults because you don't dare for a moment consider your hypocrisy. Enjoy your high horse.

Bad faith, that's what you have been displaying all day.

And all you've had for years.

Witness in your comment replies: the battle between Neutral and non-neutral!

Birth rates dropping because everyone is a sterilised trans person because they played with the wrong gender toy aged 3, may be a threat too.

No one's forcing people to be trans, and no one's taking any hormone blockers before they're at puberty. Quit being dumb.

I guess parents have no influence on children AT ALL! And yes, blockers are being given out to delay puberty.

[deleted]

Skepticism of transgender ideology is far right now? If you tell people left wing people they are right wing often enough (because you cant be bothered to think for yourself and debate) you end up getting donald trump as president.

[deleted]

No, I think people are being sterilised unnessesarily out of choice for stupid reasons.

[deleted]

Extinction of human race? lol

[deleted]

10B Muslims and Chinese maybe :)

[deleted]

I'm Islamophobic. Sensible thing to be.

[deleted]

Chinese outnumber West now, I don't care because they don't have a backwards religion.

I'll take "imaginary strawman fantasy lands" for 300.

How those birth rates looking now? Never mind in the future.

You a crazy fucker

Oh? Have birth rates not changed?

Oh no the trans are gonna come sterilize you! Better look out!

No you are not. You've started off dismissing concern of climate change denial as radical. That is very simply hypocritical bullshit where you're trying to dismiss anything you disagree with as radical and yourself as an enlightened thinker.

[deleted]

[deleted]

That's the issue with a first past the post representative republic, the representation gets kind of amalgamated

When are people going to realize that America was built on compromise?

America was built on the idea that if you want something, go forth and take it. Paying for it is for chumps. See: Manifest Destiny, Boston Tea Party, slavery, Hawaii. Your idealistic notions about what the history America entails is a little skewed.

I understand that. I guess a better way to describe it, is that the ideal 2 party system (America's governmental structure) is built off comprise. Bernie Sanders wants complete gun control and Ted Cruz wants to protect the 2nd amendment? Maybe a compromise would be that you are allowed to have a gun on your own property.

Take the best parts of both sides and find the middle where they meet. But what happens today is just gridlock. Bernie wants this and he won't budge, Trump wants this and he won't budge. No progress is happening at all and it is terrible.

Compromise is the tool of radical centrists. Meeting in the middle is the tool of those who just want the fighting to stop, rather than those who want actual progress.

Both sides have a point on some issues and wildly miss the point on others. We need a third, much further left party to come in and take control over that and destabilize the self-maintaining problem of single-issue voters.

radical centrists

I think that is the most obnoxious way to say moderates. But what you are saying is that the 2 party system doesn't work, and I agree with you. Gridlock is happening because of the two party system. So it kinda doesn't make sense that you support parties being stubborn (which leads to gridlock) and the multiple party system. Because that third party you are talking about, will be created out of compromise. If someone wanted all liberal policies, they would look towards the Dems. If someone wanted all conservative policies they would look towards the Republicans. A third party, most likely would include both idealogies to appeal to the most Americans. That is usually what happens. But of course, parties like the green party and tea parties have formed, but none of them have worked.

Liberalism isn't leftism, but rather an attempt at compromise between full capitalism, authoritarianism, and social progressive beliefs. "Radical centrism" is the only fitting term I can think of because it basically encompasses the idea that both parties are partially right in all things and meeting in the middle is the only way forwards.

A third party would need massive public support in order to effectively spring up, which is difficult because existing third parties are basically just more ideologically extreme versions of existing parties, and the GOP and Democrats refuse to cede power to others. More moderate people make up the majority in both major parties' voting bases, so the existing third parties are... Unsuccessful. The Libertarians are the most successful in terms of trying to break the dichotomy, but they fell flat because their politics were simply a slightly more moderate/less authoritarian version of that of the GOP.

Gridlock is happening because both parties rely on single-issue voters and party line voters. Issues like gun control and abortion lie along party lines with no intent of actually resolving the problem because that's how power is currently maintained between both parties.

A third party wouldn't be a "moderate" party, but rather one that destabilizes the issue of single-issue voting. And it would take a long time for such a party to gain power, assuming the GOP and Dems didn't try to hijack their message.

I think that is the most obnoxious way to say moderates.

So what? There's no inherent goodness to moderation.

Compromise is sometimes the answer. The argument towards moderation is a fallacy. And I would be remiss to not point out that you have grossly mischaracterized Bernie Sanders and invoked the sanctity of the Bill of Rights in regard to his 'opposite'.

If one side insists that the patient is dead, and the other insists the patient needs treatment, do you compromise by amputating at the waist?

Compromise doesn't work when what the other side wants is pants-on-head crazy. Especially when they're unwilling to even entertain the notion of compromise.

[deleted]

So depressing yet so true.

What's your stance on reincarnation and the afterlife? Because the answer to your question has to do with that.

Not until identity politics and radical ideologies leave the political landscape.

See, though, when the right says "identity politics" the left thinks "civil rights"

Identity politics to me is something like the president off the cuff trying to ban transgender people from serving in the military under ridiculous pretense as a distraction tactic.

But somehow it's the lefts fault 'playing identity politics' for defending the transgender people in this instance.

Everyone is playing identity politics.

How conveniently reductive.

Yeah, it's much scarier to think there isn't one righteous side against an evil one, right ?

Almost as scary as thinking maybe there is nuance and some people can be right sometimes instead of everyone being guilty of everything and calling everyone with an opinion radical.

I personally hate time travelers from Guam, and people of mixed french-canadian and boer descent.

If you actually read the the book it's pretty clear what side he is trying to educate, too bad radical right wingers don't seem to like to read

Username checks out

Caught one!

Yes, and it seems none of us are willing to actually change ourselves. Everyone is trying to change the world or their country. But we assume our own individual selves are just fine the way we are.

That doesn't mean everyone is equally right, imagine two people are disagreeing. One is calm, thinking critically, using data, and forming coherent arguments to make their point. The other is emotional, says you shouldn't question their beliefs, repeating cliches, won't stay on subject, and is dismissing the data that contradicts them.

If you look at that and say "both have their opinions, think the other side is dumb, and are equally valid perspectives" then you are missing Sagan's point and falling for the middle ground fallacy.

There are many times when one person is doing a better job at forming their beliefs, and that was the whole point of this book. Truth isn't relative, and if you put in the work you can be more confident in your opinion. Just because something feels right, doesn't mean it's true. Facts outweigh opinions, and when you treat everything as an equally valid opinion you are undermining the entire point of science.

No where did I suggest that all arguments are valid.

No, but it misses Sagan's point to say "everyone thinks like this". That's not true, many people would scoff at what Sagan said about anti-intellectualism being a problem. Too them this is a snobby statement.

Even critical thinking is not a universally held value. For each person who says you should critically examine issues there's another who find questioning someone's beliefs to be rude and pointless.

It's easy to take for granted if you have these values reinforced in school, and open discussion is encouraged. There are still millions who live in communities where it's not the norm at all, and it's not acceptable to ask questions about the culture.

"Everyone he's talking about," not "everyone."

The people who believe in New Age spiritualism, or watch the shows he put down probably know Sagan wasn't with them on that.

One can dream.

Carl Sagan predicted 1998 in 1996. It's just that nothing has changed since then.

lots has changed since then... we carry tiny little devices with cameras and microphones, GPS and creditcard information and porn preferences on them. We walk down roads with cameras watching our every move. We enjoy when our little device dings because we are digitally liked on social media.

you can look at other aspects of society... in the late 90's we had no enemy, no fear, early in the 2000's we developed a massive fear that allowed everything to change, suddenly we had our "duck and cover" back, and that fear was used to control. We allowed our politicians to shift money and power to all of their friends/family/funders.

We have a society raised on common core, and memes. We have an economy that is so screwed (yet they tell us its great!) that its acceptable for adult children to still live at their parents into their 30's

lots has changed since then... we carry tiny little devices with cameras and microphones, GPS and creditcard information and porn preferences on them. We walk down roads with cameras watching our every move. We enjoy when our little device dings because we are digitally liked on social media.

Aside from the social media angle, everything you mentioned in addition to the NSA's penchant for monitoring US citizens was already under heavy criticism in the '90s, and not just on C-SPAN or the NYT. The 1998 film "Enemy of the State" is still wholly relevant today.

you can look at other aspects of society... in the late 90's we had no enemy, no fear

These are some pre-9/11 events that were heavily discussed in the media and stood out in the public consciousness. The messages precipitated were clear: fear the third wold, fear the immigrant, fear the underclass, fear government, fear your neighbor. Sound familiar?

We allowed our politicians to shift money and power to all of their friends/family/funders.

This had been happening for most of US history. You need look no further than the last names of our senators and presidents throughout US history to see nepotism goes a long way in Washington.

We have a society raised on common core, and memes.

We had cultural homogeneity via mass media long before internet access was ubiquitous.

We have an economy that is so screwed (yet they tell us its great!) that its acceptable for adult children to still live at their parents into their 30's

I agree that growth is stagnant and wages are stagnant. Personally, when I hear stories about adult children unable to afford to make it on their own they come across as just that-- stories. Anecdotes. One-off situations driven by mitigating circumstance, poor choices, or expectations that don't align with reality. So here's a counter-anecdote for you: I'm 37. I have no college degree. I own a house and two cars and never find myself in need or want of something. And I do it on $50,000 a year working 44 hours a week. And I don't personally know any adults living with their parents.

No particular era has ever been as halcyonic as nostalgia would lead us to believe. If you want to live a happy life, you have to create that happiness in yourself and around you. You have to cultivate it daily and it has to be independent from circumstances that are beyond your control. Want a better economy? Fine. Move to a fly-over state. Want to see less social-media? Stop using it. Want a good job? Work with your hands in a high-demand field. Don't want to vow an oath of fealty to the financial system? Don't buy shit you don't need and don't buy on credit.

While I can't make a long response as I'm mobile and typing this out while at work. The change in society is that we know we are being listened to and tracked and yet we accept it will open arms and even buy the equipment and pay for the service. Remember when people freaked out over tv converter boxes having microphones and cameras even tho it was a hoax... Now we buy TV's with microphones and cameras, and pay extra for it.

As for adult children living at home... I see it quite often and it's getting worst with some of the younger people I know through my sister and friends. I'm 33 and will have my house paid off in less than 6 years later this year, and have no other debt but utilities. I make a bit more than you base rate, but I do work much more (50-70hr/week) to achieve that goal, and live well within my means. Many of my younger friends that are on their own are much worst off and only a Payday or 2 from moving back home. And it does feel a bit like avacado toast is the issue... Many of them have a better support group (family) and have nice things they cant afford. I have nice things but they are all "frugal" nice things like my used Cadillac or my well priced tv, and making cell phones last me 3+ years.

Is having a homogenous society considered a bad thing? Like minded people with a common goal/strive working towards it. Race/creed does not have to mean a thing, however ideology does. Fearing ones neighbors when ones neighbors pose a threatened is not an unreasonable reaction.

I will likely read this a bit more later and decide to expand on it... However it does not appear as if I have anything to argue with you, as yes, I agree the good and bad have always been around. The good and bad just changes, and unfortunately can become worst.

You've made some fair points, and I won't argue against them any further. And actually, I'm probably speaking from the bias that I know things could be so much worse. My dad was born in 1929, he remembers being absolutely destitute during the depression, starting work at a pretty young age during WW2, dealing with food rationing and other war-effort bullshittery, and with no rest for the weary was drafted to fight in Korea. The first 2 decades of his life were absolute hell. He always made it a point to eat my orange rind or apple core and guilt me into knowing just how good I had it. So I will admit, I'm looking at things from that perspective.

By no means do we have it bad. But it could always be getting worst.

Coming from very low income family I can completely agree life is better for me personally, and likely better for the majority for multiple reasons.

Are you kidding me? I'd argue things have got exponentially worse with the rise of the internet and social media.

You missed the point

Carl Sagan says exactly the same thing that cynical older people have been saying since humans have been capable of putting thought into language, and then other cynical people agree with it because it kind of sounds right but is really just a Barnum statement applicable to any civilization at any point in time.

At the end of the passage he did but not necessarily the beginning. In this passage he predicted the economical and social situation of America with pretty good accuracy with regards to where all the power is located. He ended (and sadly weakened his argument in the process) with "kids these days watching stupid television that will skrew your brain up."

Noting that the rich capture the majority of economic growth isn't really a wild observation, especially in the late 90s.

Well if you aren't rich and you do capture some economic growth you will become rich so is this a self fulfilling prophecy?

No, there's a measured long-term trend where savers and owners of capital at the top of the wealth and income distributions are capturing nearly all the economic growth. It was well underway in 1996 and should have been obvious to anyone paying attention, like Carl presumably was.

Plenty of people still get rich by earning money at their jobs and saving/investing. Not sure I understand how one person making money stops you from making your own.

It's... complicated. But the gist of it is that as capital (wealth) accumulates at the top end of the wealth distribution, you run into a problem where the marginal return on capital declines, so every additional dollar you invest in capital returns less in new growth/output.

You essentially run into a situation where high concentrations of capital are "pushing on a string" and not creating growth because the marginal return to capital is too low. This causes wage/income stagnation, and a drop in technology/human capital investment. That's very bad news for a market based economy where long run supply of goods and services depends on investment.

This process is well outlined in Piketty's book Capital in the 21st Century, which is a highly recommended read on the topic for non-economists.

It's kind of like the game of monopoly but a lot more complex of course. It starts out with everyone being able to invest and make money but at some point someone tips the scales and it cascades towards them.

Yea, except Monopoly is a zero-sum game. Real life is not.

Either you do not understand the concept of zero-sum or the rules of the Monopoly game.

You can't create new businesses or property in Monopoly, you can in real life. So, what one person loses in Monopoly, another one gains. That's not how life works, because you can create new businesses and property, and people do it every single day. Besides, nearly every transaction in Monopoly is only beneficial for one of the parties, again not like real life where we have mutually beneficial contracts. What do I not understand?

Monopoly the game isn't a zero sum game. There are events that create wealth out of nothingness. Real life dang create wealth out of nothingness. Also, your 'mutually beneficial contracts' are the trade of resources for other resources. Labor and expertise are resources just as much as money.

It doesn't matter that real life isn't zero-sum. With enough wealth concentration, we reach a point where all the new wealth the economy creates goes to the top takers.

You don't have an economy if that's true. Those who own wealth will have nothing to spend it on, because no one will have a job, apparently, and there will be no societal progress. What good is money if you don't have people with their own wealth willing to pay you for your goods and services?

Which is why the economy collapsed over and over again the last time this happened, until the New Deal straightened it out for awhile.

Yes, that is exactly the complaint and the prediction.

And you think rich people are that dumb? They know money is worthless without a functioning economy, why would they purposely collapse it?

Why do you think it has to be purposeful?

Because rich people understand their money is worth nothing if no one is participating in the economy they made their wealth in?

And you're expecting rich people to sacrifice their own personal wealth for the greater good? Have you met people recently?

No, I'm expecting them to invest it in opportunities that will allow them to amass more wealth. In order to do so, they're gonna need to pay people to make the investment profitable. I seriously don't understand what you expect them to do with their money if there's no economy in which to do anything with it. Rich people don't hoard wealth infinitely. That's like money 101, invest or lose purchasing power. Anyone with any notable amount of wealth knows this basic tenant of money.

I don't understand why that is a problem. It's a natural consequence of investment.

It's usually not a problem. However, there's a problem with declining returns to capital investment globally that point to wealth distribution issues that may need intervention in order to ensure a growth path for the broader global economy.

there's a problem with declining returns to capital investment globally that point to wealth distribution issues

says who?

I'm gonna need citations on this one.

http://www.nber.org/authors/thomas_piketty

That's a good place to start.

The problem boils down to what we are trying to do as a civilization. In my eyes the goal of civilization is to give as many people as possible, as good a life as possible, while infringing minimally on their personal lives.

if we accept that as the goal of civilization, it's simply not efficient if all the resources are stuck with a tiny fraction of the population. F.ex, we could solve world hunger, malaria AND water shortages if we took 75% of the wealth of the top 0.1% (Leaving them still fabulously wealthy). Another example, the 6 richest guys on the planet, own more than the 3.5 billion poorest. This is just an incredibly inefficient way of optimizing for people with happy lives.

F.ex, we could solve world hunger, malaria AND water shortages if we took 75% of the wealth of the top 0.1% (Leaving them still fabulously wealthy).

No you couldn't because it would instantly destroy the incentive which lead to the production of that wealth in the first place.

Do you have an actual argument for that, or are you just pulling this out of your asshole?

Idk, Venezuela seems pretty efficiently allocated by your standards.

would you say they've achieved your 'goal of civilization'?

Oh, you mean Venezuela, the country that actually has worse Gini coefficients than the USA?

Whatever it is they're doing in Venezuela, it's not distributing wealth.

That data is from 2014.

hmm, I wonder if anything significant has happened in Venezuela since 2014...

not sure.

Yea, the oil prices collapsed and the whole rotten thing is coming apart. Who knew that basing 30% of your GDP on petroleum could backfire?!

I don't really get the point you're trying to make other than "Venezuela says its socialist and it collapsed! So wealth redistribution bad!". Which is:

  1. Shoddy logic. Tables having 4 legs not meaning that cats are tables yadayada.

  2. Not acknowledging the situation in Venezuela and taking them on their word. Like pointed out earlier, Venezuela has worse Gini coefficients than the USA. That's not a sign of a socialist country. Or are we going to argue that North Korea is democratic because they say it is?

  3. We both agree Venezuela is a shithole, you don't need to convince me on this.

Stop with the hateboner for Venezuela and tell me why we need a wealth disparity of a factor 18.7 between the top 10% and the bottom 10% in the USA. And take into account that for most of Europe, this factor is less than half as big, and their economies run just fine.

I think you've completely missed the point. I never said anything about Venezuela being socialist.

My point was that equality is not a virtuous goal in and of itself because having equal amounts of nothing is significantly worse than non equal distributions of very much.

it's simply not efficient if all the resources are stuck with a tiny fraction of the population

your comment implies that Venezuela is perfectly efficient because nobody has anything.

My point was that equality is not a virtuous goal in and of itself because having equal amounts of nothing is significantly worse than non equal distributions of very much.

That's begging the question, why would wealth distribution result in everyone having nothing? Hell, that's how this whole comment chain got started: When I asked you if you had facts to back that up and you responded with Venezuela.

No shit that everyone having nothing is a crap situation. But that's not what we were talking about. To pull shit to extremes, 1 guy having everything and everyone else having nothing is obviously a better situation than nobody having anything at all. But that does not mean that the former situation is better than a situation where an equal amount of wealth is distributed equally. Else you're just comparing apples to oranges. Either start coughing up some actual logical arguments or scram.

People like you sound like 14 year olds that don't have a handle on what motivates people to create economic wealth in the first place.

I imagine I've probably produced more wealth than you

Ya he says this, but it's not like the US was a manufacturing economy in 1996. We've been moving towards info/services for a long time, as evidenced by our massive banking sector. He just said a bunch of things that every economist could have predicted.

Economists were already talking about wealth/income inequality in detail throughout the period, even as the "Great Moderation" was in full swing. Simon Kuznets (of Kuznets Curve fame) was a big part of that conversation in macroeconomics.

It's literally in The Wealth of Nations, the foundational text of capitalism. It's a fundamental flaw of capitalism that has been known since day 1.

I am pretty sure you haven't actually read the Wealth of Nations, or, more importantly, Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It's not a "fundamental flaw".

I have most definitely read the Wealth of Nations and it very explicitly outlines that, left to its own devices, a greater proportion of wealth naturally accrues to a smaller and smaller group of people.

You definitely didn't understand it, because the point of capital accumulation is investment in capital goods, which increases long-run aggregate supply, which makes everyone wealthier.

It has dramatically accelerated since then.

https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-at-the-top-dwarf-those-of-low-and-middle-income-households-1

Look at ~1995 when this was written. It's gotten worse since then.

You think maybe that's because those at the top are able to invest their money into enterprises which not only provide wealth to their employees but also increase their own wealth by giving them a return on their investment? Kinda makes sense to me..

not only provide wealth to their employees

Empirically speaking, this isn't happening.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Empirically speaking, wage growth is fine.

Empirically speaking, your data goes back thirty years fewer than the Pew Research Center.

We should outlaw profits and have the state seize means of production.

Until then, I'll be making bank smuggling TP into Venezuela.

You've got the wrong guy, officer

Literally the only thing he "predicted" that wasn't a Barnum statement was the transition from a manufacturing economy to an information economy. That would be impressive if he had said it in the '70s, but the statement is from 1996- when the shift had already happened.

Everything before "and key manufacturing industries have slipped to other countries;" had already happened or was happening, everything after it has been pretty much equally true through American history and is just an old man crotchety-old-manning.

Well, and even on that point I wouldn't say he was correct. Sure growth in manufacturing hasn't kept up with other sectors and jobs have been hugely impacted by technology/productivity, but fact is that US manufacturing output is higher today than in 1996.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

Not to mention "China will own everyone in 5 years" has been a thing forever too, so that wasn't all that prophetic either. Humans just love alarmism.

Why does he say it like it's a bad thing? Why do people care so much that the labor work in manufacturing leaves the US?

Less labor work is always a good thing in the long term. You see it to an extent now-defunct mining towns - while there was mining work still available, kids would just aim for those and never bother with university. When the jobs disappeared, they were forced to "better" themselves by getting an education.

Why does he say it like it's a bad thing?

Because Carl Sagan is a physicist, not an economist.

The idea that manufacturing was eventually headed out the window in favor of technology was a widely held opinion in the economic community even in the 70's.

Carl Sagan was as full of shit as Neil Degrasse Tyson. Always oversimplifying things to fit their "science is everything" and "we're getting dumber" narratives.

It would be current if he said it in the 70s. It would have to be from the 50s if it wanted to be prophetic.

It was already happening in the 50s. The wind-down from WWII production never stopped.

This isn't quite true. The information economy was here by the '90s, but manufacturing was still around. Total manufacturing employment in the US was stable (but stagnant) through the '70s, '80s, and '90s--it was only in the 2000s that it really started taking a plunge. I think this is typically attributed to a combination of IT really spreading across the economy, the passage of NAFTA, and the entry of China into the WTO.

So really, the prediction was pretty damn good. The plunge in manufacturing started happening just a few years after Sagan wrote this.

OK, but NAFTA has been in effect since 1994. We learnt about it as schoolchildren in the 90s.

You can't look at the number of jobs in manufacturing across wide swaths of time without adjusting for population growth or looking at it as a share of the economy as a whole. In the 20 years before this statement, the US population had grown 25% while the pure number of manufacturing jobs had dropped 10%. The trend away from a manufacturing economy was incredibly clear in the mid '90s.

That's an important point; but I think there is a difference between changes to proportion, vs. absolute changes; the latter hits a lot harder than simply being stagnant. So its worth looking at total absolute employment numbers.

So its worth looking at total absolute employment numbers.

Not really, it's the same reason why when you are analyzing wages or GDP you virtually never use nominal (absolute) numbers, because it doesn't tell the whole story and can easily lead to misleading conclusions.

However, even with the drop in manufacturing jobs, America's manufacturing output is higher than its ever been before and still climbing. We've become so efficient at it that we make way more with way less input.

And it's share of the economy is lower than it's ever been, and our share of world manufacturing has dropped from 25% to 19% since 1996.

I'm getting a PhD in economics and to me that part sounded dumb, like stuff you hear uneducated people often say

Why aren't economists rich? If you really understood the economy wouldn't you be able to exploit it and get rich?

Economists study how the economy works, not how to make money. If you want to do that, go into finance or business which is related at an advanced level.

Understanding the solow model, heckshire ohlin, ADAS, Phillips curve, etc will give you a great understanding of how the economy works and can even help you craft good policy but have no applications for money making

Understanding the solow model, heckshire ohlin, ADAS, Phillips curve, etc will give you a great understanding of how the economy works and can even help you craft good policy but have no applications for money making.

I'm not familiar with any of those economics concepts (ELI5?). But surely if you understand the impact of policy, you should know the impact that that policy will have on businesses, and be able to go long or short on the right businesses

I'm not familiar with any of those economics concepts (ELI5?)

They can all be googled.

But surely if you understand the impact of policy, you should know the impact that that policy will have on businesses, and be able to go long or short on the right businesses

If you want to do this you study finance.

Study economics to master the stock market, you'll learn the EMH, which basically says you cant beat the market. Does this help with personal finances? Yes - obviously you should get an index fund. Useful beyond that? Not for personal use. If you look up these concepts you'll see they aren't really applicable like you are thinking.

You comment on r/blackpeopkearedumb and r/feminismsucks and r/whitepeoplerule.

Drumpf supporters make me cringe. Go back to Alabama!

he predicted the economical

no he didn't. the US manufacturing industry hasn't slipped away, it is just that (1) outgrown by the services/tech sectors and (b) manufacturing jobs have been impacted by productivity shifts driven by technology. US manufacturing output is up meaningfully since 1996, although admittedly stagnated over past 10yrs.

the trend towards service/info economy becoming larger part of economy was clear in 1996.

Uh the US was founded by rich, white land owners. It's literally been an oligarchy since its inception.

Except the manufacturing jobs he spoke about were already gone, cheap consumer goods. The US is still the #2 manufacturing nation in the world.

True, at first you read this and think "Wow! How did he do it?!" but yeah you're right. The issue is he's implying that America in the 70s and 80s was somehow smart and full of intelligent people. It wasn't. People were actually more likely to fall for politicians lies. How many "facts" do older people tell you that haven't been true for 20 years?

I think actually, the opposite is happening. The west is getting more intelligent. More and more people complete high school, more complete college.

What's actually happening was predicted a lot longer ago - in the book 1984. People have always focused on details of the book, the cameras, big brother, etc. People miss that it's a book about the most powerful classes squeezing the intellectual middle classes in between the state and the lower classes, the proles.

In 1984, the proles lives are fine. The party doesn't bother them. They get songs, they get vids, they can fuck and drink victory gin all they want, as long as they cheer at the appropriately patriotic times.

That's whats happening now. The middle classes, we've started to become too intelligent, the old ways no longer work on us. You can't trick the people in the middle to vote for you anymore, they needed a new plan -namely making sure the people in the middle get so disillusioned they vote for no one. Making targeting the lower classes much much easier.

Nailed it. Now what to do about it...

Part of me wants to stay cynical and argue with you. But I can't really see much fault in your statement. Kudos.

I would argue that America isn't becoming the world in 1984 (draconian government) but rather the world in Brave New World (mindless sheep)

How about maybe America is doing pretty well, all things considered, and comparisons to dystopian novels is cynical fear mongering?

Shut up dad, the world sucks and my soul is a black abyss.

That's something a mindless sheep would say ;)

Baa :P

he said mindless... make one his eyes lopsided or something like animated shows do. ;p

I think America will be alright in a few years, but I don't think we are doing particularly ok right now. We have a large segment of the population that willingly submits to an alternate reality where facts aren't true and science is a lie. This is the direct result of a decades long propaganda campaign to deliberately misinform people and redirect their emotions to causes that actively work against their interests.

Youve almost hit the nail on the head. Except your argument is steeped in classism. Id suggest you reevaluate your observation without the preconcieved notion that the poor are stupid or easily manipulated. If you look at the demographics of the election results, youd find that it was split over race moreso than class. With Trumps demographics being primarily white and/or christian. In fact, the majority of families that made less that $50k a year voted against Trump. This is not an issue of the poor being dumb, thats just more bullshit being fed to us from the top. This is an issue that is most heavily related to race. Just look at the demographics and you'll likely see what I mean. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#/results

there is no middle class

That's whats happening now. The middle classes, we've started to become too intelligent

Trump gets elected.

t2o intelligent 4 U

May I inject a bit of meditative thought into this?

Any system which is nearing perfect control is, simultaneously, nearing perfect chaos as well.

We can potentially grow more and less intelligent all at once. Sort of the intellectual equivalent of the vanishing middle class perhaps?

I agree with the first part of your comment, but I would say that it is less about the middle class becoming too intelligent and more about the new generation becoming more self aware of the position that they are forced to occupy in society. You have intelligent people from both poorer families and middle class families with access to more information than ever before realizing that there isn't much difference between the stereotypical lower and middle classes while also gaining much more exposure to the vast inequality and decadence of the upper class.

Also unlike most of our parent's generation the idea that if you work hard capitalism will reward you is proven false by both empirical evidence and statistical evidence. The alienation of modern capitalism has become so great that employers no longer maintain the illusion of loyalty to employees. The idea of working for even 5 years with an employer and getting adequate raises is gone, let alone 30 years and a pension. So you have an entire generation that is starting to wonder what is the point of participating in a system that expects us to work until we are dead, and if we aren't able to get work then it is our fault we starve to death, while at the same time people like Zuckerberg or the Kochs can contribute nothing to society or even actively harm it in the process of making more wealth than billions of people combined.

The standards for school are so fucking low, its not even worth mentioning. Teachers are not physically allowed to fail a student without parent permission now. They could literally not do anything all year and pass the class. That is the school system you are praising. College and university accept EVERYONE. Its why theres gender studies, female dance therapy, and every other retarded degree available - to get people in and collect that free government student loan everyone gets. Its a business, not higher education. They even lower standards for medical schools, something that should be the strictest standard, based on race. Your doctors are getting dumber and dumber because of identity politics. They actually turn away people that are more qualified to fill quotas. That is the school system and "more intelligent" world you are talking about.

Completing school doesnt make you more intelligent either. You can acquire more knowledge on subjects and the world and apply that, but you will generally be the same level of intellect throughout. It's like saying a prodigy child making full marks on every test is dumber than an adult because the adult completed university and knows more. That isnt intelligence and the child is likely more intelligent than the average adult. If there is no standard or achievement to be had in school and the programs all cater to the lowest common denominator and literally no one can fail/no child left behind, how can you even use stats on people passing and going on to become debt slaves at university as a measuring bar?

That chart doesn't say what you think it says. And there's no way you're going to learn as much from studying in your free time as opposed to getting an education. That's bologna.

You know, throughout history, I bet every old man probably said the same thing. And old men die, and the world keeps spinning.

-Detective Marty Hart, True Detective Season One

Yep, at first he was with it, but then it changed and he wasn't with it anymore and the new it was different and scary

It's gonna happen to youuuuuu

"...it'll happen to you too."

More seriously though, maybe it happens faster now.

Decrying people "nervously consulting horoscopes" by following the same strategy they use: be just specific enough to sound authoritative, but general enough to apply to any number of possible outcomes.

Smart guy, dumb message.

Except he listed actual relevant issues.

You couldn't talk about the loss of manufacturing jobs and the ride of information at any earlier point in history.

agreed, this could be any generic neckbeard's post on reddit

this page made me lose a lot of respect for Sagan

By that measure, nobody's analysis and wisdom should be heeded.

...and that would be a fairly foolish way to proceed.

Some cynicism is ok; too much, and it simply perpetuates ignorance and naivety.

except the part where he predicts the usa becomes an information and service industry with manufacturing heading overseas.

Mm.. Maybe, but I think he has a point about anti-intellectualism.

"Key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries" A.K.A. Outsourcing, which occurred even during the 70's, with the decline of Fordism.

Or when it comes down to the information-era type comment, I'm pretty sure the focus on changing from analog to digital in terms of exchange of information doesn't necessarily change the fact that information has been a commodity for quite a long time. It's the MEDIUM that has changed, not the commodity.

Also his prediction of the 30 second adverts could be as much of a prediction as Fahrenheit 451's depiction of a society that desired simplicity and stability.

And the criticism is mistakenly directed at the young, though the actual evidence always shows that the young are getting more responsible and better informed with time. It is the other old people he has problems with, who are set in their ways and unable to change, who vote religiously, who hold public offices, and who have been given a much louder platform by the internet, TV, and all the other innovations that have otherwise vastly improved the human condition.

Please read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" or watch some of his interviews then tell us "this is fine."

I'm not saying the past was better, but that our media (cable news, Reddit, podcasts, Twitter, whatever) have inherent biases--not left or right, but in proclivities for presentation. Podcasts for instance, are a great medium for long-form interviews, Twitter not so much.

The point is that these biases shape the way we think and interact. There are fundamental differences in the way public discourse is conducted today than it was even in 1996. To dismiss those differences as simply usual complaints of the older generation against the younger is ignorant.

I think it's the opposite of cynicism- one of hopes lost, and yes it does afflict every generation. Even son or daughter has hoped for a better life than their parents, and in doing so has seen a vision of what could be. To see the wheel turn and the same old shit come along with different clothing must be eminently disheartening.

Not like this current generation isn't committing the same mistakes (on all sides of the spectrum) as previous ones have. The wheel turns and the consequences get more severe with every iteration.

I don't see how Sagan's prediction is "cynical" at all.

Just want to thank you for giving a name to the Barnum effect for me. I describe this effect an awful lot for someone who didn't know what it was actually called!

And you're dismissing a statement based on no factual data and setting up an ad hominem argument. So...you know, log in one person's eye...kettle being black...yeah?

Disagree, because the idea of an "information economy" is an entirely new phase of humanity. When it comes to robotics, nanotech, 3d printing, crypto currencies... the knowledge gap of how hard you can be left behind if you're not in the upper brackets is astronomically higher. Robots mass replacing jobs could drive an entire lower class of willfully uneducated people into some kind of barter economy, and they'd be willingly giving up the tools and mindsets needed to adapt and evolve. (Education/science.)

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise." -Socrates ~470-399 BCE

because it kind of sounds right but is really just a Barnum statement applicable to any civilization at any point in time.

What people aren't getting about this paragraph, is that he's not predicting the rise of "stupid humor television," but rather the rapid decay of our attention span and our desire to determine the factual nature of the information we intake.

I am saddened every time I go on social media and see blatantly false information shared by millions of people without a second thought. Various 10 second clips which max out the average person's ability to concentrate. Only a very minute percentage of people actually looking for the truth. Or even worse, an even smaller percentage of individuals even caring. We live in a world dominated by a desire for instant satisfaction, which in the end leads to constant disappointment.

Carl Sagan predicted the Social Media age in 1996

O tempora! O mores!

100 BC kids remember.

Bookmark this and post back on your 60th birthday with your inevitable new opinion.

There was a time in civilization were 99% of the population didn't know how to read.

tbh (although I love Sagan) this current era has brought us mind-nubbling televisions and reality tv, but imho it has also brought the greatest era of television that's ever been seen. the amount of quality and thought provoking television our there these days is incredible..

Carl Sagan was a skeptic, not a cynic. Also, it is not a statement applicable to any civilization at any point in time.

Am i out of touch?

No, it's the children who are wrong.

Exactly what I was thinking. Glad I'm not the only one to notice this.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.6122 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

Some of the points are right, but aren't much of a prediction considering we were on those paths well before 1996. The whole feel of it, especially when you include the part about dumb and dumber celebrating ignorance, just smells like bullshit. It's him saying the equivilant of "The tv is going to rot your brain!" That every generation has. There's always some new thing that parts of the older generation are going to blame their cherry picked dumbed down descendants on. In reality were smarter than ever, more politically aware than ever, and hopefully we can deal with those major issues like figuring out how a full blown service economy that has robots competing is going to work out. If only our politicians would discuss it.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.0684 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

It is, because our age is unique in its problems. What I'm saying is it doesn't take a genius to guess the path that already existing technology is going to take. I mean, 1996 wasn't long ago, cell phones were around, the internet was around, handheld games were around, and countries were already getting into service based economies. Hell, the US was already a service based economy for the most part.

Sounds like a trump voter

From Soren Kierkegaard's " The Present Age" to Socrates being put to death for 'corrupting the youth of Athens'.

You can pretty much pick any century and find a good number of books making this exact point.

Yeah I think most of us (not all) are all stupider than we realize. Breathe it in, feel its warmth on your face. We're surrounded by stupid and always have been

Intelligence is not necessarily in decline but true intellectuals are a minority. Despite a graduate degree I don't consider myself one of them anymore

I want to see some shit where some dude, whether influential or not, predicts how awesome the near future is going to be and it turns out we are living it. So like the opposite of this post.

The part you are, and it seems most people seem to be, ignoring is that he makes this 'prediction' regarding the economic work of the US turning into the service and information economy we know today. He was likely able to make this 'prediction' because NAFTA was signed in 1994 and this was written in 1996. I would assume someone intelligent like Sagan would be able to objectively analyze and easily predict the outcome of adopting such a trade agreement.

Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted but thanks!

Yeah that socrates complaining about tv commercials. Stfu

/r/lewronggeneration

Not really, this type of talk probably dates back many decades ago.

Brave New World was pretty prescient and that was written in 1931.

Fahrenheit 451 is my dystopian-future novel of choice. The TV house walls, yup. That's coming soon.

The Player Piano will make you look at automation and universal basic income in a different light.

Man, I didn't like that book at all. I love Vonnegut, but that one felt unnecessary pessimistic. If millions of jobs are left due to automation, and then these people are compensated by the government, do you really think that these people will all just whither away and society and culture will die? I think it would result in greater creativity and the arts would prosper, if anything.

The book implies that people gain great satisfaction from their jobs and from contributing to society, actually, it implies that this is their major source of happiness. Are those lucky enough to retire early miserable?

Edit: It certainly raises some interesting thoughts on the class divide, however

No, early retirees aren't miserable, of course not. But, I do think some of their happiness and satisfaction comes from knowing that they're living off of their own work, efforts, and earnings rather than handouts.

I don't think that my satisfaction is worth the suffering of others.

What do you mean?

I feel like we're pretty much there with VR.

I keep thinking about everyone being told to step outside at the same time to look for the bad guy.

No country* is organized enough to be a dystopia, especially that kind of one.

*maybe north Korea, but they are very very bad at it.

Although correct, that's a work of fiction, not a commentary or analysis that expresses an opinion that things will actually turn out that way.

There's a tremendous number of other popular science fiction works written back then that are ridiculously inaccurate. Heinlein's 1940's "Roads Must Roll" is an example.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.4633 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

That wasn't my point.

It dates back to at least Socrates.

Did we have the internet and instant communication many decades ago? Stop hypernormalizing mass produced ignorance.

Except his economic opinions about market shifts, which are already evident.

Here is HP Lovecraft getting pretty poetic about it:

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

probably

Might want to quote an earlier source there, because I don't think it was a very common vision.

And speculative science fiction, where any idea could be explored on an equal footing, doesn't really count.

Then he loses all credibility by criticizing Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butt-Head.

Eh, people have always preferred to assume that what they're witnessing is the worst case imaginable. Yet the world keeps moving on, and somehow life seems to be a little better on the whole than it was in our ancestors' time.

dumb ane dumber was written by a comedic genius. sagan is just jealous

Swimmy, Swammy, Slappy, Sagan... Sw-Swinson? Swanson?

SAMSONITE! Ha! I was way off!

I knew it started with an "S" though.

We have no food, we have no jobs, our pets HEADS ARE FALLING OFF

My go to line when shit is starting to suck. On my old ship: "We have no fresh water, we have no morale, our engines are falling apart!"

"What's in the briefcase?"

"Man... I'd have to be some kind of low-life to go rooting around someone else's property."

"Is it locked?"

"Yeah... Really well"

I wonder if he had ever watched the movie or just judged it for its title.

Which Farrelly brother was that?

Kick his ass, Seabass

What he's saying is sort of right... and then attacking the cultural critique of exactly what he's saying is... very dumb. Or at least missing the forest for the trees.

As a hard science guy, he's not really examining the cultural significance of anything but rather shitting on elements he doesn't like/doesn't get on any sort of level.

You can absolutely draw the conclusion he's made rightly based on things far more insidious than pop entertainment -- and you could have, and people like Chomsky were, while he was alive.

Then he loses all credibility by criticizing Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butt-Head.

No, he loses some credibility, but not nearly all of it. His criticism of those media certainly make him seem like an elitist snob when it comes to entertainment, which might well be true, but his overall point is still valid.

Using those as examples of a wider societal issue cripples his entire point? Hard to see how that's the case.

Simple, the poster above you enjoys those movies/shows or ones like them. Sagan insulting people that enjoy those types of movies/shows means he's insulting the poster above you.

So basically his/her thought process throughout reading was "yes, yes, yes, yes, YES, YES!" And then he/she gets to the part where Sagan gives an example of the type of person he's talking about and that description fits him/her. At that point, instead of considering his/her own flaws, it immediately turns to a "nope, not me, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

Here's an actual criticism. Sagan writes:

I have a foreboding of an America ... when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few

This is very much not the case. Anybody with a smartphone can do things that not many imagined in 1996. "Awesome technological power" is now in the hands of very many.

[deleted]

Haven't we always had relatively small groups of people who had enormous power and influence? Those people may have more insight now into who you are individually and try to target you more effectively because of modern tools, but it seems to me that it's a continuation of the same thing that we have dealt with for quite some time.

The only thing I really worry about is the coming wave of automation.

Technology will always advance, and so his statement does not preclude commensurate advancements in technology for our generation. In terms of the combat weaponry of nations, which I felt was his actual allusion, he is correct. You and I cannot level a city from 2,000 miles away with mere smartphones.

Not the whole point, but it certainly does lose credibility. Saying that the youth is watching too much of that, and not enough "educational" content comes off as a "Im better than you, I don't toil with simpleton media like that" vibe, and taking that ground rarely works when trying to make a point to an audience. Those two 20 years down the lines are cultural icons, and a lot of people that watched them now have college degrees, masters, phds, etc. Watching comedic media, at all levels, doesn't make someone an idiot, it doesn't rot our brains out, what it does is allow people to take a time to relax and not take everything so seriously, which is part of the overall problem with society, which is how seriously everyone takes everything all the time.

It sounds like you're trying to blame Carl Sagan for the ego-driven way in which people frame things. Instead of looking at it like a slight towards yourself, which I don't believe it to be, because you "watched that show at some point," it's important to try and understand the larger picture of what he's getting at. However I do think the examples weren't the best and that they were chosen only because of their names, it's for that reason I can overlook the cultural miss-step of a man usually too busy to engage with the surrounding pop culture of his day.

I agree, zooming out to look at the bigger picture is the most important thing, but to me when you look at the paragraph as a whole and not just the highlighted part, it appears that those things were his examples of lowest common denominator programming, which does appear in my opinion to be a slight towards those who watch those. In reality, those shows weren't trying to hide the fact they come off as dumb, but unlike most modern day programming like Dr. Oz, Bill Nye, etc., they aren't lying to people pretending to be something they aren't. Push it to today, social criticism shows like those, or modern equivalence of something like South Park, are important because comedy is one of the few outlets that still will commentate on anything, and not have hidden ulterior motives.

I just think that what he's trying to get at, "The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable." loses its credibility when he brings those two into it. He might not have known much about surrounding pop culture in his day, but for someone who claims to base so much on research and evidence, he makes a flaw in his argument by picking those two out, because it shows a lack of research in his argument, which hurts him especially at the end because that portion is kind of his final driving piece of evidence to make his point, which is the last sentence of the paragraph.

Then he loses all credibility by criticizing Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butt-Head.

That's not how ideas work. Its not like a math problem where if one # is wrong, then the answer is wrong. You choose to reject everything because you disagree with one line. That's bullshit and part of this book's larger point about people choosing easy ignorance over the hard work of acquiring knowledge.

I disagree with that line too. (In fact I take much of it apart in a wall of text in this thread), but the overall theme of ignorance vs. knowledge the book makes is important.

Then he loses all credibility

Oh, sure. We all remember the obituaries.

Carl Edward Sagan (November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996), American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences. Was admired for research on extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation, until the day he lost all credibility by daring to criticize Beavis and Butthead.

Interestingly, the current generation of young adults is actually expected to be worse-off than their parents for the first time in a long time, based on several indicators of financial success such as home ownership and savings.

'Member when South Park caused a moral panic over "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"?... and now it's critics are it's biggest proponents due to its libertarian points of view.

Not at all.

Look at Dave Chapelle, his show was great but he ended up canceling the run largely due to the fact that people didn't understand the satire and just loved the racism.

B&B and D&D are the same way. The average kid watching them wasn't tuning into the satire.

I don't think he loses all credibility there. Sure, he's downright wrong. Those shows don't celebrate stupidity. But he's still a massively accomplished scientist, author, and skeptic. He definitely judged the books by the covers there, but he's still massively credible, and his actual statement holds a lot of truth. Instead of the ones he listed, we could just point to Honey Boo Boo, Ancient Aliens, Hunt for Big Foot, Mermaid, the myriad Ghost Hunter Shows etc. I mean for goodness sake some of these air on Animal Planet, Discovery, Nat Geo, and THE LEARNING CHANNEL. It's not exactly a great sign when you see these channels that started so well resort to that sort of thing.

For real. "And no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues"... meanwhile Elon Musk has us by the balls, and we are all excited about what his future holds, and it continues... "The decay of substantive content... 30 second sound bites..." etc. Podcasts are growing in popularity like crazy. One of the most popular is a 3-hour long dialogue between the host and guest which covers a ton of different topics - social, economic, entertainment, culture. etc.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.0033 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

Maybe it's just me, but in can't watch shows like B&B or movies like Dumb and Dumber. The content makes me cringe nearly immediately and I can't stand cringing for more than 30 seconds straight.

As a result I usually stick to books and reddit, and avoid TV and movie theaters, lol.

Reddit is basically pure concentrated cringe

[deleted]

Both you and him are completely missing the point of both works if you think they romanticize ignorance.

[deleted]

Yeah, but the point is that Sagan completely missed the fucking point if he's using these works as examples to support his prediction.

Such a good book, I own it. I'll probably read it time and time again

Name of the book?

The Demon-Haunted World

Lol, I thought that was a chapter name. Thanks.

I was with him until he got to the part where he doesn't understand comedy and satire.

You'd be surprised how many people don't understand comedy and satire. That's why it's dangerous. "Normalizing" school shootings with memes is probably the most recent example.

I think all of that paragraph was present and in effect in 1997 except for the last sentence. More an observation than a prediction.

But Carl Sagan so have your +1

I'd say that compared to the 90s we are less superstitious. Carl was very worried about horoscopes and fortune tellers. That kind of thing was huge back then, and generally laughed at now.

I don't know. I live in an expensive condo im Santa Fe (I know, I know - it IS Santa Fe, but still...) and yesterday my property manager seriously suggested I get my condo "smudged" and that my wife and I consult some spiritualists to find good energy sources, blahblahblah.

I'm an attorney, lady. I'd love to be high all the time and buy into how crystals can help my life but I'm anchored to the real world.

Dude that last sentence sums up my life.

I've been interested in traveling to Santa Fe. How is it out there (other than that lady...)

Oh man, it's awesome. Weather is sunny and perfect every day (almost literally) and the landscapes are just beautiful. Desert, mountains, rivers, forests - anything you want in driving distance.

It's anecdotal so not a comment on our society as a whole but I have a cousin who, instead of taking her sick child to a doctor, will put a necklace of amber beads on her neck because "amber promotes healing." The trendiness of crystals, auras, numerology, etc. has decreased but it definitely still exists in our culture. :(

I want to see how much superstitious nonsense pops up on the 21st.

  • Anti vaxxers

  • info-wars

  • GMO fear mongering

  • Rampant fear of the made up boogie man "social marxists" among even the supposedly moderate right.

  • millennial belief system that corporations should be about fun instead of producing something.

Just because the religions changed doesn't make them any less religions.

In some ways yes, but pseudoscience is still alive and strong.

I had a group of friends in college and a little after that were pretty hippy-dippy and one of them was very interested in western mysticism. She would always offer to read our auras and consult our horoscopes. I sort of stopped hanging out with that group of people after I realized that they were actually taking her somewhat seriously and not just humoring her to be polite. These were otherwise intelligent people holding degrees in mostly hard sciences like biology, geology and chemistry.

I know that's anecdotal but I'm trying to say is superstition is alive and well in America, even among millennials who always think they know so much better. Maybe your social circle laughs at horoscopes and religion but those people are definitely out there in great numbers. People choose what they want to believe in our post-truth society.

I think his main point was that anti-intellectualism was on the rise. Horoscopes and superstitions are one aspect of it, but today we have flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate-deniers, and a whole slew of people who have taken pride in their ignorance and would rather believe short catchy slogans than the complex nuanced explanations that science presents.

Uhhhhhh.... I think you are in a bubble. A good, smart bubble. But a bubble. Anti-vaxers, anti-GMOers, anti-nukers, climate change deniers, homeopath believers, flat earthers.... the superstitious woo is prolly higher than ever.

That kind of thing was huge back then, and generally laughed at now.

It's actually more accepted now, just under a different guise

[deleted]

TL;DR

Everyone in this thread thinks they are the intellectuals, including your parent comment.

I just follow orders bub.

Sage Wisdom from StuffedBeavers.

Those who do not blame others will blame everyone.

...

What??

You done stuffed my beaver.

[deleted]

What direction?

We've now successfully edited genes, we have a diverse global space program with multiple entities trying to get to Mars, we've added billions to the world population while keeping the absolute number in poverty the same, information is now more readily available to more people than ever before.

Those successes and advancements don't necessarily mean we're somehow void of issues in direction with things. My newly remodeled kitchen is great, but i still have a leaky ceiling that's getting worse in the bathroom. One doesn't discount the other.

I'm not saying we are or aren't in a sum total improving situation. Just from a logic perspective the few wins you laid out don't effectively refute worries of world direction(especially categorically speaking).

If things are generally getting better, the direction is positive regardless of what still remains to be improved.

If you had a shitty kitchen and a leaky ceiling before, now things are better, to continue your metaphor. But to say one would be delusional to not recognize the direction we're heading in is flat wrong, unless you mean people would be delusional not to recognize that we're heading in a good direction.

You're just giving the remodeled kitchen a magnitude of "good" higher than the leaky ceiling provides a magnitude of "bad".

x = 0, y = 0.

x = -4, y = 3 "The value of Y increased, we are headed in the right direction"

In reality you went from a total value of 0, to a total value of -1. I personally DO think the world is headed in an overall good direction. Your first comment, and continuation of my kitchen bathroom example, just doesn't do anything in proving that.

I guess you don't understand your own metaphor.

State 1: kitchen is shitty and ceiling is leaky

State 2: kitchen is nice and ceiling is shitty

State 2 is clearly "moving in the right direction"

I don't have time to catalog everything good and bad in the world, and compare the difference to a specific point in the past. If we agree that the world is getting better there isn't much to discuss. The person I responded to seemed to believe the world is getting worse.

I understand it pretty well. I specifically said the leaky ceiling was "getting worse", because i'm articulating the point that the ignorance of the world grows and spreads.

We don't really need to continue this. I'm not very invested. I'm not here to contest your belief if the world is or isn't better. I was here contesting the bad logic by which you said it is better.

No need to insult me. I don't think my logic was any worse than yours.

Not insulting at all by intention, sorry about that.

Essentially its "Noc i agree with your point that we live in a world that's progressing. I don't think that we can convey that accurately though, especially to those already opposing the view, by showing off a few of our great strides. We instead have to prove the sum good is outweighing sum bad, and thus look at both sides."

Id probably have come off a bit better if i'd said something like that originally. My bad.

Why would americans want to make a few dollars an hour assembly phones? Why would they want phones to cost significantly more?

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.4064 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

sounds like he was just describing America period, at almost any time in modern history

Carl Sagan is a genius, but he's also only human. People have been saying this sort of thing since the beginning of time. In 1996, people were lamenting about "lazy" Gen X and the rise of Jerry Springer. My dad told me when he was growing up, people were always saying how comic books would create a generation of idiots and morons. There was an actual anti-comic book push to save the "morals of society". He remembers protests when a comic book shop tried (successfully) to open up down the street from his house.

Nothing new about forecasting the decay of society. In the end, we are currently living in some of the most peaceful and scientifically blossoming times in history.

Exactly. Every single prediction of the collapse of society has been not only wrong, but so wrong when the next generation lives in unparalleled comfort and knowledge. Humanity is forging ahead faster and better than ever before, in an era of scientific knowledge, near world peace, and elevating standards of living for all.

If anything, predicting a future utopia is a much more logically sensible course of action, since it's always been true in the past.

I just don't see that happening unless it's the classic Corporation utopia in all the movies. The goverments don't have the money or interest by the people to ever get this shit done. America is the only first world country that has a large part of it's population who DOESN'T WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

Corporations are the only entities who have the interest, and the means to set up society like this. It's the classic, should we give up all our freedoms for the betterment of humans or keep our individuality and freedoms but at the cost of poverty and unjustice.

Your Dad was right.

Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead weren't a celebration of ignorance. Carl Sagan is being verysmart here.. We've become much nerdier as time has gone on. Idiocracy and anti-intellectualism aren't real problems. This worry comes from people who idealize a past that never was.

How condescending. People have been predicting the end of the world since it began.

Things are fine. They will continue to be fine. If anything, they will probably improve even more so in the coming years.

Well . . . yes, it is condescending, and frankly the prediction is a repeat of things said before (many times over multiple generations). However, I wouldn't automatically go to the opposite end and say "improve even more so" in the coming years . . . I think there is some merit regardless and in some ways (specifically feel good vs. true) is a particularly cutting criticism that feels very appropriate, and valid, to this time.

THIS GENERATION! KIDS THESE DAYS! EVERYTHING IS GETTING WORST! BLAME THE YEARS, NOT US!

Fuck this pretentious ass "Our society is dying DX" bullshit I keep seeing everywhere. Wanna make 2017 a great year? Why not actually do your best to minimalism these acts instead of complaining and circlejerking. Don't even give me that "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but's it's harrrrdd wahhh"

Also Carl really missed the whole point of Beavis And Butthead.

Carl Sagan Predicts 1996 in 1996.

Seriously, how long ago do you think 1996 was?

20 years. In 1996 20 years ago was 1976. groovy!

wut

This is him predicting 2017, not 1996. And that was a full 20 years ago, longer than many Redditors have been on the planet.

There are absolutely no predictions within that paragraph. All speculation and "fears".

All topics that have been discussed at length in certain circles for years prior. I mostly agree with you, but what you see as speculation and fears, I see as simply an observation of the leading edge of the future. But nothing here was new or unique. This line of thought so well established that in 1964, Richard Hofstadter won a Pulitzer Prize for his book 'Anti-Intellectualism In American Life'. Isaac Asimov, who died in 1992, built a career around the current and future implications regarding relationships among humans, technological development, and the planet. So yeah, nothing new. And seeing as how this was already an old topic about things that were already happening, I don't see too much speculation or fears. Just regurgitation of old info.

He predicted a rising belief in pseudoscience and anti-intellectualism; which we see in the form of flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, crystal healing, etc. Anti-intellectualism continues to become more popular and many have begun to take pride in their ignorance.

[deleted]

Perhaps. I see the distrust in science as being more prevalent now, but you are right it could be that we are simply seeing more of it due to social media.

And the circle jerk continues. This is going to get buried, but this kind of post annoys me so here I go.

Friends, redditors, countrymen, we have to stop celebrating thinking like this. Don't get me wrong, Sagan was awesome and brilliant, but the dude had an axe to grind. The very title of his book reveals that axe: he wanted "superstition" (which he conflated with religion) gone, and he wanted it replaced with science. I think he even called this book his "love letter" to science. So what's the problem with that?

The problem is, the reason 2017 seems to exhibit a "slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media" is because we, as a society, have decided to stop caring about things like religion and superstition. We don't care about critical thinking. Since the 1950s, we've put all our educational emphasis on STEM fields. While that has lead to amazing things––no one can deny that––and a glut of knowledge it has also caused a serious dearth of wisdom. And it's not just education––it's in pop culture, too. Our pop culture is more interested in tech than it is in anything else––and that's especially prevalent here on reddit. Even the more philosophically oriented subs have a distinctly STEM bent. The hive mind forces many of us to conform to a materialist epistemology, to postmodern morality, and to a stunning disrespect for the western literary canon.

Here's what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that we need to abandon STEM, or that STEM is bad. I'm not anti-science. I'm not anti-vaccinations or whatever else is going to get thrown at me by nincompoops only skimming this. I am saying that we've lost balance in our thinking. Partly inspired by men like Carl Sagan (though deGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, Harris, etc are all guilty of this), we have come to believe that all the world's problems come from lack of scientific thinking. The "celebration of ignorance" can be corrected, they suggest, through scientific literacy.

I think they're wrong. I think the "celebration of ignorance" cannot be cured by the pursuit of knowledge, but the pursuit of both knowledge and wisdom. Anyone can learn something on wikipedia, or can google some new information. It takes wisdom to parse that knowledge, to challenge it or criticize it. It takes wisdom to realize that knowledge is produced and therefore fallible. And wisdom comes from experience––from the thousands of years of human experience represented in the Bible, in Laozi, in the Bhagavad Gita, in Shakespeare, in Cervantes. Experience studied by humanities scholars and enthusiasts.

The problem with this post, ultimately, is that Sagan undercuts his own point. He says that the learning "of anything" has become undesirable, but his whole book is about learning science at the expense of other things because those things are either chicanery or too immaterial to matter. This is part of the problem! We have to stop thinking that "science" (whatever that even means, it's become such a vague term) is the solution to everything.

Rant over. Thanks to that of you who read it.

[deleted]

Yikes. Take a look at how you're using the word science. You've reified it, you've apotheosized it, and you've turned confused it with something that somehow exists outside humanity. Science knows that humans are fallible? Science doesn't know anything. Humans invented the concept of science. It doesn't exist outside our heads. There are no sciences roaming free in nature, waiting for us to discover them.

The scientific method may seem like a better alternative for discussion, but that also is a construct––and a construct that's not universally agreed upon, that has been argued over, and that is still evolving. Hard to say what the "core" of something is when that something is changing and, anyway, is a human construct. So that's not so useful, is it?

Now "scientific thinking" is something we can talk about. See, what you're talking about isn't "science" or "the scientific method," it's a mode of cognition. More appropriately, you're describing an epistemology. In your epistemology, science has taken on all the traits I mentioned above: it's been reified, deified, and separated from humanity. The great irony, which you don't see but hopefully you will see, is that the scientific epistemology hides the fact that it's an epistemology with a very clever misdirection: by pretending to rely solely on so-called objective proof, proponents of the scientific episteme obscure the fact that this episteme is as much a human construct as any other sociological phenomenon. "Science is knowing how to acquire that knowledge." No...humans know how to acquire that knowledge, and there are many kinds of knowledge. The scientific epistemology guides what kinds of knowledge people seek and how they seek it. This is the crux of what I'm trying to get at above: the kind of wisdom I'm talking about exists outside the scientific episteme because it involves meaning and not just factuality.

I hope this clarifies, though I don't blame you (or others reading this) if it doesn't make sense. Depending on how much of the proverbial kool-aid you've swallowed, I'm some of your most basic assumptions about the world. Whether or not I'm right is besides the point––the point is, it'll be hard for some people even to stop back and evaluate when I'm arguing because their epistemology is so obvious that it can't be challenged. I guess I'd suggest that whenever something seems so obvious is precisely when we should challenge it.

[deleted]

I'm afraid you've missed my point entirely :-/

[deleted]

It's not that I don't want to get into it. It's that I've read your reply a few times and it fundamentally misses the point I was making.

The fact that science, and the scientific method is an epistemology isn't hidden, it's assumed as common knowledge.

That it's assumed as common knowledge is the very problem I'm pointing out. I'm not at all concerned with observing the physical world––that's not the point of this discussion. The point is that this epistemology has a history and is entangled with much more than just observation of the physical universe. This isn't a "deep philosophical conversation." It's a matter of observing history. Science was created, developed over time, battled over in the political and social arenas. It means different things to different people. It symbolizes certain values. Saying that science is just about observation is incorrect. That's why I'm saying it's an epistemology, a theory of knowledge. It's how knowledge is produced and absorbed.

So, yes, semantics are important here. The way you casually use science in several different ways is a perfect example of this epistemology at work.

[deleted]

I think you're right in saying there's no point. You're failing to grasp what I mean by epistemology and what I mean when I say it's "obvious." Obvious in this case means that it's so obvious that people don't see it. Regardless, this is a perfect example of my original critique of this post:

I care about reality, what is, this moment, what can be known now.

Hopefully others reading will make sense of my overall argument, and see why apprehending science as a construct is so important to critical thinking. Otherwise, like you, we're all concerned only with what's immediately apparent, not what caused it or what's going to result from it, and not what it means. And that's scary.

I was searching for a post like this so I wouldn't have to write it myself. We live in a golden age of information and technology. Anyone who thinks we're in the dark ages is not only pessimistic, but also ridiculously naive. Especially when you expressed that fact to the world's information network from a handheld supercomputer while sitting on your toilet.

You have an interesting point of view, but I think the emphasis is meant to be on instilling rational thought as a core value and ideal rather than scientific literacy in the broad political sense you use here. One would lead to the other. I find it hard to argue that being rational is at odds with gaining wisdom.

Rational thought meaning what? It's pretty clear what it means for Sagan if you read his book: reason is the opposite of "religious" thinking. It's a slippery slope from there. Reason is the opposite of emotion and bodily experience. Following this line, reason quickly becomes the antithesis of much of what makes us human. Hell, Facebook just invented beings of pure reason––beings that lack bodily experience, emotion, spirituality, tradition, and so on. We've just apotheosized pure reason, and what happened? Facebook engineers immediately shut the project down. Being rational isn't not necessarily at odds with wisdom, but focusing solely, or even just too much, on reason can lead to massive societal shifts over time.

How is reason the opposite of emotion and bodily experience? I highly doubt that any of the people you mentioned want people to raise their children and societies to be mere processing units without emotion, experience and life. I'm unaware of any "beings" made by Facebook.

Being irrational, or focusing on irrational things too much can also lead to massive societal shifts over time - which historically speaking haven't been good.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Science is good but we should also be studying.. what? The bible?

we, as a society, have decided to stop caring about things like religion and superstition

I think that's a good thing.

We don't care about critical thinking.

Yes we do, critical thinking is a requirement for science to work.

Science is good but we should also be studying.. what? The bible?

The bible amongst many other things. See original comment. The idea is that there is a lot to be learned from humanities alongside science.

Yes we do, critical thinking is a requirement for science to work.

No it's not. Observation, evaluation, and testing is a requirement for science to "work." I see lots of scientific endeavors happen without critical thinking. How many studies are funded by interested parties? How many technologies pursued for short-term gain (nuclear weapons, for example)? How many "scientific" notions (eugenics, phrenology, etc) accepted and put into practice without time for reflection of the moral consequences?

Finally, I don't think Trump would be president if we cared about critical thinking. And this is an indictment of religious people and non-religious people alike! I think both are guilty of lazy thinking.

[deleted]

No, i don't think all .1% of Americans who are professional scientists did. I think the 99.9% who don't care about critical thinking did. :-)

[deleted]

I was being hyperbolic. My point is that the majority of Americans do not think critically. Also, I think you should read more carefully––I never said that people who "follow scientific principals [sic]" is a "blind sheeple." I'm suggesting instead that thinking of the sort that animates this post and the discussion herein (not to mention the vigorous arguments against my relatively innocuous statements) is evidence that we, as a culture, have shifted too far towards a "science and reason" (terms I don't like, because they don't actually mean what they connote), and the irony is that "science and reason" blind us to the fact that we've made such a shift. It's not conspiratorial thinking, it's simply living with a worldview. We all have worldviews, right? I'm suggesting that "science" has become a worldview––you might call it naturalism or objectivism or positivism or materialism. I'm also suggesting that, like any worldview, there are blindspots.

That's why it's curious that you suggest I'm "missing something" about science. In fact, I'm suggesting the opposite: that everyone so enamored of the objectivist/positivist/empirical (whatever you want to call it) epistemology is missing something about science. They're missing that it has a long history, and that, like any human construct, it's entangled with religion, politics, economics, and social class. Hopefully you understand that I'm not talking about specific scientific investigations, or the process of observation and testing, etc. I'm talking about the idea of science, and the impact that it has on society.

I hope that you don't write all this off as "crap" because you don't understand it. I am not just lighting you all up. I am very serious, and I am actually very concerned with the state of American culture. I'm assuming that you hate all of what I've written and will downvote me and move about your day. But if you'd like to talk more, I can try to explain more fully what I'm talking about. I can also give some book recommendations that can help give you a better idea of the history of science as a social construct (scholarly, peer-reviewed books, if that helps).

[deleted]

No, I'm not suggesting any of those things. I'm not comparing science to religion at all. They're two different worldviews with two different sets of assumptions and ways of operating. There is some overlap, but not enough to say science has simply replaced.

You're right in suggesting that I'm not communicating effectively. Though I never said anyone was dumb, and certainly it's a bit much to assume that everyone reading isn't making sense of these words. The two or three people who have written me back don't understand, and I've tried to clarify. But I would suggest that the miscommunication comes from both parties. I'm not writing all that I need to to make my point––that would be exhausting for everyone. And I definitely assume some prior knowledge on the subject, which I shouldn't.

On the flip side, my interlocutors are making faulty assumptions, misreading what I write, misinterpreting what I write, changing what I write to fit their borderline ad hominem attacks, and so on––all instead of asking questions that would help them understand my point. I'm not blaming anyone or annoyed about that––after all, it's the internet. But it's not right to call me a troll when all I'm doing is trying (patiently, without judgments or disrespect) to explain my point. Nor is it necessarily accurate to assume that I'm not "equipped" to communicate my ideas. That is a bit of a bold statement, right? That's essentially you calling me "dumb" in some way, something I haven't even approached with you in this discussion.

Now if you'd like to continue, awesome. I'm totally down to try to explain, from the ground up, everything I've been trying to convey. If you're not interested in that, and you want to argue with other things I've written here, then I think we're at a conversational dead end.

I like your thoughts on it.

We might gaze in wonder at the stars, but not wonder how better to serve our fellow man. Knowing what is true and being able to define Truth are two different things.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Your post implies Sagan only advocated STEM. This is incorrect. In fact, Sagan had a profound interest in the humanities, philosophy, history, and more generally, wisdom from our ancestors (see link below). The key distinction is he did not blindly accept "divine" revelations as in fact "divine". https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/carl-sagan-and-the-tradition-of-science/liberal-arts-astronomer

Sure, of course it's more complicated. But read Demon Haunted World and then similar works by other science popularizers. Look at school funding since the cold war. I'm not talking JUST about Sagan, but rather a larger trend embodied in pieces like the one posted. Sorry for the confusion :-)

brilliantly put. thank you!

thank you. I'm catching a lot of flak for it, which is surprising since I thought no one would read it at all!

The part that scares me is how we are careening toward the hybridizing of humans and machines. Its easy to see advantages to that. But once we become machines we are all programable. Will we still be human?

I think about this way too much. I loved "Person of Interest" for this very reason. What happens to the idea of religion (not the truth of religion, just the way we conceptualize it and the way it impacts society) when we create a god-like artificial super-intelligence? What happens if we can transfer memories into machines? Or, as you say, mix machines with humans? How will we, as a society, grapple with these things? We can barely grapple with the idea of transgenderism (something many pre-modern societies had no problem with). What about transhumanism?

I agree with you. Science is only one type of truth. Far from the "only" type

We don't care about critical thinking. Since the 1950s, we've put all our educational emphasis on STEM fields. While that has lead to amazing things––no one can deny that––and a glut of knowledge it has also caused a serious dearth of wisdom. And it's not just education––it's in pop culture, too. Our pop culture is more interested in tech than it is in anything else––and that's especially prevalent here on reddit. Even the more philosophically oriented subs have a distinctly STEM bent. The hive mind forces many of us to conform to a materialist epistemology, to postmodern morality, and to a stunning disrespect for the western literary canon.

I strongly beg to differ....by engaging in hard technical tasks, one is not simply gaining skill but exercising the mind and utilizing critical thinking.

Also, our educational system greatly encourages critical thinking....prior to the 1950s, education(as is currently the case in many societies) was heavy on rote memorization.

These stupid appeals to some mythical past where critical thinking was prized are pure bullshit: the closet thing to critical thinking for most people in western society has been bible study and church ironically.

stunning disrespect for the western literary canon.

It's becuase they force us to read it for 18 years....despite the fact it's outdated as hell.

People in 1920s didn't really dig media made in the 1820s or 1720s. Surprise....neither do people now.

This borders into science is only one type of truth. Science is the only objective truth we have. Denying it is to place another truth as being equal or superior.

Is it the only objective truth? Says who? Says..."science"? Isn't this one of the points of Sagan's piece, that we should question?

What other truth is there?

Define truth

Touche. I take it mean anything that explains our physical universe.

So you are referring to "facts," i would say. Truth has a long, long history meaning things other than facts. There are lots of truths, some profane and some sacred. My problem with Sagan's piece, and pieces like it, is that it conflates facts for all manner of truth. I hope that makes sense

[deleted]

i'd say i'm ultimately concerned with reality on the whole, not just the limited aspect of reality that can be materially observed and categorized. That needn't be relativism, but I doubt you'll agree with me on that.

And just because you can't prove a right/wrong in metaphysics doesn't mean there isn't a right/wrong. There is lots of fun in that conversation, if you're willing and able to have it. You can't have it from a materialist perspective, though.

Really, this is going to go nowhere. You seem to be strict materialist and unwilling to leave that perspective––or unable to see beyond it.

[deleted]

I've never been accused of embracing chaos, but I kind of like it. It has a ring of truth to it––It's taken me a decade to work my way out of the materialist prison you've worked your way into.

Funny to think how we might've crossed paths on that journey before now, but how now that we are meeting we each call each other trolls (or at least think it) and write the other off as an ideologue with no grasp of the real world. Well, no hard feelings from this troll.

[deleted]

If I'm your creation then there's something to be said for the prankster archetype :-p

What I dont get, is why he thinks this was any different in his time. There was no golden age of journalism, celebration of ignorance certainly was prevalent in his time. What feels good and if objectively true is insanely difficult to distinguish, even when your income is on the line, for buisness owners atleast.

But those are side pieces, "when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few" this is just horseshit, I love sagan but why would you ever think such a ridiculous thing. When technologies are created for the first implementation the few get them, but in time they always go into the public sector or large scale production. Just look no further than the thing you are reading this on now for an idea of how insane technology has spread through our lifes, I just cant understand either what he is trying to say here or how he could of came to the conclusion such as thaat

If you read what he said, you'll see that he points out a number of examples where it IS starting to happen in his time. Several are given just below the highlighted section.

What Sagan does here is express concerns that it'll get a lot worse... and it's hard to argue against that being the case. Saying things weren't in their "golden ages" back then really isn't a counterargument, because he didn't state they were. He was only commenting on continued deterioration.

And "awesome technological powers" ARE in the hands of a few. Drone strikes, cyberhacking elections, bitcoin and stock market trading predictive software come to mind. Not all technology has to be something you can touch and feel.

Thank you very much

and yes, I did misrepresent what he wrote/said, honestly my brain just ticked to the common argument of "it was better back then" which I just hear way to much and interpreted what he said and inserted my own

Not really though, the technology in drones isnt that far from what you can get just commercial blue colar job, not even talking about the million dollar drones/helicopters if you have the money you can buy right now. The only different between "drones" is having missiles strapped to them in a very specific impementation, and you could get that implementation in a few years if you wanted. The divide between military and commercial is really only policy, as we dont want people with those weapons and/or specific implemetation that is prone to weaponized drones

Cyberhacking elections, well lets assume we arent talking about the major countries and look towards corrupt countries. Its not actually technology, but skills, as anyone has the technology to break into any election. But very very few have the skills, and certainly the balls to do so, and skills will always be bipodal

bitcoin is avaliable to everyone no matter how poor they are, but it is a risk, and growing currency which could at any time become worthless. Until it is a proven stable (policy only) currency will determine wide appeal, until than its only the few which choose to encounter it as it is insanely easy to get bitcoin at any exchange (but really, security reasons dont)

stock market trading is a bit closer, and probably is the only implementation/s locked from the public. Only due to trade secrets and/or business decisions for obvious reasons. but at any time anyone in the world can google anything, and instantly use a significantly more advanced AI predictive system than stock market trading for free. Its google, really the technology behind it is staggering and its open to literally everyone on earth for very very little capital and in some cases no capital other than basic computer learning due to charaties giving away computers/information for less advanced people

The USA government has a computer system that literally mines the entire internet, and archives your communications and traffic. The UK is covered in surveillance cameras. The CIA has been able to spy on you with your smart TV.

This is technology that is scary, and possessed by few.

The CIA has been able to spy on you with your smart TV.

The CIA is also able to kill you dead. But they don't because there are laws against that shit.

The fear mongering is real.

Oh im not saying it isnt, it is very concerning as it has more potential to kill than nuclear bombs. As right now, anyone with enough skills and a little bit of time, and a lot of nialistic hatred of the world could shut down power grids, destroy billions of dollars of equipment by bricking it or DDOS critical pieces of infrastructure.

and the US collecting everything has been happening for a very long time, it didnt start with the NSA spying on everyone but actually started, well doccumented first with the DEA literally tapping into every major node in the US outbound and inbound and collecting every piece of information trying to find drug dealers.

But it goes back further, if you think well there is an expiration date on certain information especially when the laws plain english state they must be destroyed after ~10 years think again. As a few months ago a murder case going back to the 1960's ish was solved by the police who got the tapped phone conversation from a random phone number moments after the mureder, and tied a suspect who gave a false aliby to the scene with that evidence. So literally every random phone conversation since the ~60's has been copied if the police could after this much time get it just a few months ago

Smart tv's, just look at your phone, it takes everything and is literally by design for consumers a personal trackign device which listens to everything and in a instant can be controlled to take audio, video, behavioral analysis. The rabbit hole goes DEEP

Its not paranoid if the people doing it have a long long long history of doing it to literally everyone

I think he was talking about mega corporations too. The Govt. is just the middle man which deals with the population. It is practically captured by corporate interests.

And "awesome technological powers" ARE in the hands of a few.

Sorry, but what did you use to post this? *If you're only using computers to quickly reinforce your cynicism, that's on you.

I used the fact that "awesome technological powers" ARE in the hands of a few.

And there aren't many "awesome" technological powers that aren't delivered through or with the aid of computers these days, so your attempt at making that a salient point is invalid.

Yes there's a reason why bombs drones and military airplanes are controlled by the government not by people.

This book is good, but this passage has a lot of ideas that are poorly fleshed out. He needed an editor.

I understand your point, but Carl Sagan is vague here. You point is better than most, and most commentators are simply applying it to their own cynicism about life right now.

No thanks for not even trying to understand me. Reread your closing statement because the first part does not support the conclusion.

Thanks for following up. My final point was in direct response to this.

*If you're only using computers to quickly reinforce your cynicism, that's on you.

This reads like an accusation that was directed at me, the author of the comment it directly applies to, hence my response. If your point was intended to be directed to others or as a general untargeted observation, it didn't come across that way. Frankly, I had a hard time figuring out where it came from as my own drones example was more physical in nature. But even besides that, we are now fully in an information economy and so ultra-efficient machines that are designed to handle information - computers - become the root of its power-handling structure.

Thanks, I should have used 'someone' instead of 'you'.

And the same power of those computers exists for everyone to use and benefit from. Indeed, government tech is slow to update...its often a decade behind.

I think your point is about the power of the military & government? A valid concern, but that's always the case. Its not a new thing just because they use new tools....others seek them, so will we. Its inevitable.

Our overpowerful, reckless militarism is a great concern. You at least have a perspective that is attached to something worth criticizing. Some of the other responses have not and are applying it to vague "man, we get so screwed by everything" notions, which is where im coming from.

Yes, the tech thing is bullshit. Still Love Sagan.

See my rebuttal to him (and the majority of comments I now realize) here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6sk998/comment/dldoszl

This is no earth shattering prediction. It was already happening in 1996, and had been for years.

Carl Sagan predicts 1996 in 1996.

I am compelled to recommend here that anyone concerned with critical thinking listen to the No Agenda podcast.

I've been a dyed in the wool, blue blooded liberal my entire life, so it was hard to start listening to them without overreacting and thinking they were being conservative or anti-liberal, but I have found that it was essential to step back from the emotional attachment to my beliefs and listen to their analysis.

I do not agree with them about everything, and of course like any other human the each have agendas that they may not be fully aware of, but their critical thinking and analysis of the media is, I think, one of the most powerful things going on in American media right now. I am not a Republican or A conservative, but I certainly do not identify as a Democrat anymore.

Try Anarchy as a political view. It's nice. And no, anarchy is not total chaos or destruction of everything. It is a way of living as a community with no gods and no masters.

Avoid r/anarchism, though.

That place is a shit show for sure.

Honestly I'm enjoying not having a political label right now. Sadly it makes for lost friends and angry conversations.

Not only are we a deeply tribal people neurologically, but everyone's emotions on both sides of the aisle are so extreme right now even sharing an observation - about unbalanced media rhetoric about Trump, for example- is like a declaration of war and a trigger for screaming.

Personally I think Trump is a total dope, but I also believe that if we aren't honest about what is happening or not happening then we can't effectively make any decisions about how to move forward.

Dumb and Dumber is a good movie. The whole point of that movie is to laugh at idiocy. I don't think Sagan gets it.

probably saw the title and stopped there. Guessing the same with Beavis and Butthead.

Same thing with Beavis and Butthead, again well written snarky satire.

I don't think Sagan gets it.

Yeah, Im sure youre smarter than Carl Sagan. Im sure there is nothing to his point that you may have overlooked.

Michael Shermer refers to "domain specific knowledge." Most assuredly Carl Sagan was smarter and more knowledgeable than me on many topics. But for mid 90s comedy films, I don't think that lies in his sphere of expertise. That film is beloved by many smart people.

And I'm sure there is nothing about this statement that has escaped them.

At the same time we live in a world that depends more and more on technology and knowledge, where bad decisions based on a lack of information do more harm, and do that faster than before.

Yet, somehow we've forgotten that information is just the base level. We get so obsessed with grabbing all the information we can, that we forget to take time to sort through it and understand it.

Even when we have all the information, we still make plenty of bad decisions. Maybe even more so now.

TIL I'm an anomaly because I teach science and I also love Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead, as noted further in the article. The quote was prescient on Sagan's part however. The gent was way ahead of his time on many things.

You're not an anomaly though, because those shows are really satire... the problem is they weren't recognised as such.

Exactly. The problem isn't the shows. The problem is we aren't thinking about what they're saying.

... Come to think of it, I think that's why I enjoy shows like Archer so much. The jokes are masked just enough that you have to sort through all the dialogue to catch them. And then you're already thinking critically when a valid commentary comes up.

Yeah, but I like Bluegrass Music and Metallica too, so I'm sure I'm an anomaly. However, I do have one saving grace. I will NEVER put ketchup on a hot dog.NEVER!

No, you are not.

Even earlier, in 1985, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I dug out this passage:

We have become so accustomed to its discontinuities that we are no longer struck dumb, as any sane person would be, by a newscaster who having just reported that a nuclear war is inevitable goes on to say that he will be right back after this word from Burger King; who says, in other words, "Now ... this." One can hardly overestimate the damage that such juxtapositions do to our sense of the world as a serious place. The damage is especially massive to youthful viewers who depend so much on television for their clues as to how to respond to the world. In watching television news, they, more than any other segment of the audience, are drawn into an epistemology based on the assumption that all reports of cruelty and death are greatly exaggerated and, in any case, not to be taken seriously or responded to sanely. (pp. 104-105).

In watching television news, they, more than any other segment of the audience, are drawn into an epistemology based on the assumption that all reports of cruelty and death are greatly exaggerated and, in any case, not to be taken seriously or responded to sanely.

...but nothing like that has happened. The generation of people who grew up in the 80's and later are not any less likely to have opposed the war in Iraq which claimed the lives of far fewer people than the wars in Vietnam or Korea because of having watched Burger King ads during the news. He says "one can hardly overestimate the damage" just as he vastly overestimates the damage.

I like the how Lovecraft put it in the 1930s:

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

what a wonderful description of r/politics

[deleted]

it's almost as if everyone here thinks this is describing everyone else but themselves Wowee

You really think these problems swept the nation in the last 8 months. You think problems of this size occur in a year or even a decade. To simplify the problem down to the leadership of one president, or even the last several presidents is naive and reckless. Our toxic political environment is part of the problem for sure, but it is both sides and it started decades ago.

It is both sides for sure. I think many on reddit already "know" that those subreddits you mentioned are echo chambers, but less agree that r/politics is.

Lol r/politics is literally the worst.

lol u literally mad

Lol a never trumper who doesn't even live in the US and can't afford a proper car. Whose mad lolll

The gap here is that /r/The_Donald is unapologetically biased. Their rules specifically state "Trump Supporters Only". If you go there, you know exactly what you're getting, and that's true regardless of if you agree with it or not.

Other places like /r/politics have a veneer of neutrality. There is no rule on their sidebar that says "Anything remotely positive regarding a Republican will be downvoted to obscurity, regardless of validity". It seems like if someone woke up from a 5-year coma tomorrow and wanted an accurate cross-section of US politics today, it would seem like it would be a natural place to go.... but when you get there, it seems like things are an absolute train wreck, nothing good is happening, Trump is mere moments away from impeachment, and the only difference between the parties is one of them hates Trump, and the other one hates Trump more.

[deleted]

https://m.imgur.com/T4voHTj

exactly, if your goal is understanding and best practices for progress, then it shouldn't matter what side comes up with anything.

we are all blind to some degree, but i just don't understand how you can seek information that only attempts to damage someone else. that is why there are so many headlines with "DESTROYS" "EVISCERATES" etc.

If you think this describes the left you're clutching your crystals too close to your face.

It describes the entire political system in the U.S., left and right.

I agree this is on both sides, but the reason I mentioned just r/politics is because so many on reddit believes r/politics is a legitimate source of news when it falls into so many of the same traps that people already acknowledge about the Trump right.

He makes a good point, Dumb and Dumber was a pretty funny movie.

Insane that the most popular movie rental happened to be literally the funniest movie ever

I said the same thing in 1995!

That all existed in 1996.

Oh, Beavis and Butthead was satire, if you actually watched the show it was idiocracy episode 1. It was smart well written satire. I didn't really get a lot of the jokes until I watched it again in my 20s.

He also forgot to mention the christian right, Newt Gingrich, and all the anti-science whackjobs

He had me then lost me when he shit on Dumb & Dumber and Mike Judge

Not exactly prophetic given that this is one of surely countless writers who speculated on the future. One of em is gonna inevitably be right.

Pointing to Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead in the next sentences sort of ruins his previous ones as those are both intelligent takes on "dumb" comedy. That sort of indicates that they went over his head when he took them at face value and incorrectly concluded that they were obvious signs of the nation's intellectual decline

For a smart guy, he seemed to have missed the satirical point of 'Beavis and Butt-Head'. I wonder what he'd think of 'Idiocracy'.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

[Isaac Asimov, Newsweek, January 1980] (http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/)

I came here to post this, Asimov and others (chomsky, et al) have been talking about the dumbing down of america for a long time.

The stinging social commentary of Beavis and Butthead went right over ol' Carl Sagan's head, like it did with most people at that time. I don't think it was until Mike Judge's later work (Office Space, Idiocracy) that the public went "Oooohhh, you were making fun of us. I see. Your show is canceled, fuck you."

Meh it's probably for the best or else we wouldn't have gotten King of the Hill or Silicon Valley (or any of the later movies)

Then you read after the highlighted part, and you realize he's being a defener because he doesn't like Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead and makes a 'point' that they're an example of why our generation doesn't like science. Each generation is going to think the next generation is fucked, no matter how smart the man who says it is. Get over it, we aren't fucked and this isn't the first time someone has said the next generation was going to be dumb (in a more simplified way of saying it). This is stupid, and just a /r/Iamverysmart post, this generation is fine and I can 100% guaranteed the next few will be too.

Very well spoken. I agree with you.

What Carl Sagan said here was a better prediction of a decade ago than the present. U.S. manufacturing is now on the rise after a decades-long slide. Questioning those in authority (i.e., the establishment) is in vogue in both political parties. The dumbed-down T.V. media with its "30-second sound bites" is on the decline, and more sophisticated internet sources have grown rapidly. Many of them may be strongly opinionated, but that's better than having a few monolithic T.V. news stations that all give the same hypersimplified center-left "mainstream" perspective. As for most "awesome technological powers" being in the hands of a very few, that's always been true -- but less so now that smartphones, computers and internet access are virtually ubiquitous.

I agree with much of what he said. But come on, Carl. Can we really blame our situation on Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead? Those are elements of a popular form of entertainment that has never been for intellectual debates. The problem is that we no longer have intellectual debates in any medium.

I'm reminded of the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, where he blames the medium itself, which was in his day television.

Can we talk about the irony of this single paragraph being highlighted, captured via digital camera, then posted to a social media platform?

And the sad thing is, each 'side' thinks the other is wrong. But we can't prove who actually is because of that. No one is willing to extend a hand, have real conversation and learn anymore. Everything is seen as an offensive attack, and slipping directly into defensive mode closes the mind. Discussion has been replaced by personal digs.

I don't know how to solve it. I try every chance I get. But I can't do it alone.

Good points, but the part about Dumb & Dumber and Beavis & Butt-head being popular is just silly. Did the popularity of The Three Stooges or the Marx Brothers detract from what Einstein or Turing or Feynman were doing?

He impressed me until dissing Dumb and Dumber, now I just think he's a clueless nerd.

Except he's wrong. More people voted for rationality and calmness in 2016 than for a celebration of ignorance.

I don't think people have gotten dumber or less able to think critically. If we had then we wouldn't be so aware of the problems we face - things like this quote would be disregarded instead of seen as prophetic.

I think we've been pretty thoroughly beaten down and bought off. We know our world is fucked up, but we're mostly not uncomfortable enough to risk rolling the dice in an attempt at improvement, and anyway we don't really have the means to do so.

The problem isn't that we're dumb, it's that we're losing. We don't fail to recognize our problems, we feel powerless to resist them and are understandably scared to try.

Don't get down on yourselves and your neighbors, thinking your suffering is due to your lack of intelligence. Organize. Build communities that will provide you the strength and courage to resist the kinds of things Sagan saw coming. The kinds of things you also recognize as wrong.

"unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true"

Damn, that just struck a chord.

6 minutes in and you already got gold!?

Good job!

Unpopular opinion puffin meme time.

It's kind of disappointing when this is the top comment in a thread that has so much greater potential for actual discussion. :(

But that's how Reddit rolls sometimes.

In a way, this is what Carl Sagan predicted as well. It's our disengagement with the real issues which is a symptom of what he's talking about.

Perceptive comment.

and even when we talk about the issues, we never actually talk about the causes. Rather trying to ramble off, hoping if we dont talk about it than our world view doesnt have to be challenged because it doesnt matter that terrorism exists and is dramatically increasing. It doesnt effect me that much, and I can have an easier life if I dont actually try to challenge by bias's and find out reality to properly adjust myself in this ever evolving world

Wow, crazy that an extremely general, universal sentiment can be applied to this comment

This is so deep :/

How about an even more Unpopular Opinion Puffin comment:

It's kind of disappointing when "pictures" of text are seriously upvoted in /r/pics. The agenda posting is getting out of hand. No one subbed to a sub called /r/pics to look at pages in a book. At least the idiots who put up pictures of graffiti and billboards are making an effort. This isn't even really a picture. I could have scanned this on my shitty home office printer/scanner combo. OP is bad and they should feel bad, and all you "LOL IDIOCRACY WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE DOCUMENTARY" types should feel worse for enabling OP's feeble agenda posting. We get it. You're mad about the election. Everyone who didn't vote your way is either a cartoon villain twirling their mustache or they patronize the short bus. It's been eight fucking months. Move on and quit shitting everything up because you're pissy that the orange man beat your corrupt grandma.

You started off so well, it really was the best comment I'd ever seen, the best. Too bad you went a little crazy at the end, SAD!

You're being ignorant.

I'm conservative. I'm not a Trump supporter. However, I upvoted this pic, and so have a lot of others. Dismissing entire ideas on the basis that the idea-holders are a caricature (in your case, crying libtards) is toxic to real discussion.

edit: this issue is not a partisan one. When you try to make it into that, you are part of the problem.

Dismissing entire ideas

I'm not dismissing the idea. There is plenty to discuss about what Sagan said in that paragraph. I'm dismissing the post, because it's not a goddamn picture, it's just fucking text.

this issue is not a partisan one

The "issue" is that this is /r/pics, not /r/texts.

Gonna point out something here.

I got here, and many others did, from /r/new or /r/rising.

We did not get here from /r/pics, and thus might not be as married to this specific subreddit and its purpose and rules as others. We're upvoting and discussing its CONTENT because it's a worthwhile observation - something that Reddit in general is really good for - and not really taking into account that it's not a perfect match for the sub that it was posted in.

Your point is valid, as is your reason for sharing it, but you excessively jammed it down our throats in a ranty and name-calling fashion.

And then you added a lot of bile that made your own post go off its own topic at the end.

I think he gilded himlsef, the poor bastard.

20 minutes in and no gold for you, sorry bud

Let me change that.

I bloody knew someone would do what you did, thank you, I love you Reddit

[removed]

He contradicted someone by buying gold for the joy of contradicting. He is a true redditor.

user got reddit gold, user2 says s/he gave reddit gold, no one around saying any different... damnit /u/freefight Khellow might be right, you must now prove to s/he and I that you are the one, sacrifice the gold into Reddit once more to show you have the power to sway conversation

Your classy gift to SishirChetri has been delivered.

Thank you for gifting reddit gold. Your patronage supports the site and makes future development possible.

reddit gold is our premium membership program. It grants you access to extra features to improve your reddit experience. It also makes you really quite dapper. If you have questions about your gold, please visit /r/goldbenefits.

Thanks again for your support, and have fun spreading gold!

Did you know: The chemical symbol for gold is AU, from the Latin word "aurum" meaning "shining dawn" and from Aurora, the Roman goddess of the dawn. In 50 B.C., Romans began issuing gold coins called the Aureus and the smaller solidus.

I was joking my love <3

here, have some gold for being a good sport anyway, use it on hookers and blackjack

Ten words comment and got gold? Maybe if try it...

This is such bullshit. Stop believing we're getting dumber, stop believing everyone is lazier, stop pretending most of us actually even get our news from cable companies. If this is how you feel then it's you surrounding yourself by Idiocracy. We are at our most educated ever. Ever!

The news media bit is really quite apt.

And the "superstitious and darkness" bit. Most people, including here on Reddit, seem to discuss politics and issues based on those 30 second bites, almost akin to superstition. Libtards or Trumpsters are the boogeymen.

social media generation. it's not a reddit phenomena

[deleted]

while our country burns down around us.

lol

good lord.

Over-saturation of media/"news" has really turned people into panicking chicken-littles

if some of you pearl clutchers had been alive, and magically had the internet in any other era, you'd probably literally die of fear

[deleted]

I'm In my mid twenties dipshit, you really think we're not one course for disaster?

r/aww

[deleted]

It is a great counterpoint. You truly proved you know nothing.

[deleted]

You lived for 20+ years, all you have been able to see is what happened in that small short time frame. There are people who have lived for a few decades longer then you, that have seen the Vietnam war, Cold war, Cuban missile crisis, and several life changing events in their time where the media was stating the world was about to end. Guess what happened? It didn't end, and life moved on. Your perception that the world is falling apart around you is misconstrued. and I suggest until you start seeing bombs go off near your house/apartment or riots almost daily near the place you live, that you stop worrying. Nothing is changing as dramatically as you think it is.

[deleted]

If I recall, at no point in our history has the world been in this much disarray.

Really? Take a second to think of that. Just take one long second to think of what you just said. So you're telling me WW1, WW2, and even the Napoleonic wars were less chaotic then modern times? I got news for you buddy, we live in the most peaceful time since the dawn of man, less people have died from war or disease then ever before during this time.

keep living in your fantasy world

Thanks for making me laugh, if anyone here is living in a fantasy world it is you. You read every headline and build up this world of destruction and chaos in your head. My point stands, you truly don't know what is going on.

[deleted]

There is no arguing with someone who thinks the 1940's were a better time to be alive than today. What about the Crusades? Feel like going overseas and dying somewhere you can't pronounce, surrounded by people with similar weapons, all while being severely outnumbered? Enjoy! Maybe go back to 1348 and enjoy some of that sweet Black Death. You know, that thing that killed a third of the population back then, that now is a simple isolation and treatment.

Let's see.... when would be an actual decent time to be alive.... Oh yeah, today.

This is the most peaceful time to be alive according to stats. Tagging you Sweet Summer Child, lol

at no point in our history has the world been in this much disarray.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!!!!!

holy shit...wow.

every history teacher you've ever had just winced and shook their head

Username does not check out.

That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society: they try to divide the rest of the people; they keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other so that they, the rich, can run off with all the fucking money. Fairly simple thing... happens to work. You know, anything different, that’s what they’re gonna talk about: race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other so that they can keep going to the bank.

— George Carlin

[deleted]

...jesus...

lots of proving sagan right itt

[deleted]

You're triggered because I don't want cultural Marxism

So this post went entirely over your head, huh? Thanks for your contribution towards the "dumbing down of America".

[deleted]

I'm not your friend, just a (((globalist))))/cultural marxist/lizard person/Soros agent of doom who wants to take away your freedom.

/s

[deleted]

I forgot "fascism is a leftist ideology". That one cracks me up.

"I have a specific, ultra narrow view and only view reality through it."

This is completely off base. Listening to each other is not a bad thing. That you wish everyone treated your views first * and you want others to shut up is a problem, not a sound conclusion.

Your living in the Demon Haunted World.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Everyone needs to stop whining about how shitty society is (except me).

😂

r/iamverysmart

You're right he was pretty god damn smart

Dumb and Dumber was/is hilarious!

Its so vague tho

and taken as seriously as zodiac signs.

How is twitter NOT the leader in lowest common denominator programming? Been saying it for so long. Twitter is a fucking cancer in this planet. Trump using twitter as a platform is minuscule compared to how globalists use it.

oh boy...here we go about the "globalists"...

make sure and take your infowars brand "think gooder" pills people, otherwise the globalists win

I'd love to hear a definition of what the heck a globalist is...How do you spot one? Do they have lizard eyes?

[deleted]

Said in < 140 characters

Who has complex discourse on Twitter? That's not what Twitter is for

That being said, tweets can still be extraordinarily thought-provoking.

The problem though is the absolute vast majority of them are not, and a huge percentage of those are pretty much the exact opposite.

Like which tweets?

Jaden Smith's twitter is pretty good.

But that's true of anything humanity does. Only some of us are geniuses :-)

I'm not saying twitter is a staple of journalism, but most people worth following (at least people that provide political and social commentary) use twitter is such a way that the 140 character limit is not an issue.

I think you may have missed the point. Many of these political statements about complex issues should be met with a full explanation to inform with integrity ( as most actions have less obvious consequences ) which used to be called "being a journalist" But instead it's just become someone's short-answer opinion soap box... Which is closer to being a stand-up comedy than anything journalistic.

Both sides are doing it constantly and it really is dumbing us down. Definitely worth avoiding.

Twitter wasn't even intended for politicians/journalists though. It was supposed to be a fun little social media platform where people could express themselves in short blurbs. And to an extent it still is. But its purpose has been changed.

[removed]

It's bad because due to its 140 character hard limitation, Twitter is the absolute paradigm of a sound bite, and can be easily manipulated by celebrities with large audiences or nefarious financiers who sponsor deliberate spamming. Facebook and Reddit can be used for many more purposes because they allow for a tremendously higher level of information content.

Sure the other two can be used to promote and share brief idiocy - most people have experienced a Facebook friend that just dumps whatever stupidity occurs in their narcissist heads - but Twitter institutionalizes it.

But at least on Reddit there's subreddit-specific moderation that follows at least SOME rules, even if the quality of those rules is hugely different from sub to sub.

Twitter does foster some conversation particularly, in my experience, among educators, but as you mention the character limit keeps the discourse in the shallow end of the pool. It is a great tool for connecting but terrible for having meaningful conversation.

Reddit and Facebook both camouflage their ads so that they blend in and look like user content. Sure, they might say "sponsored", but they do it in a subtle/deceptive way.

Even worse, Reddit is like the ultimate hive mind platform. On virtually every subreddit, people abuse downvoting to silence/hide dissenting opinions. Search online and you will find plenty of examples of companies paying people and/or using bots to manipulate upvotes to give their Reddit posts more exposure.

Now, you'll probably say, "yeah, people downvote dissenting opinions, but that's not how it's supposed to work, that's technically against the rules." Yeah, well guess what, people aren't supposed to have full-fledged conversations on Twitter, that's not what it was designed for. It is a complementary communication tool. People abusing Twitter and using it the wrong way is no different than people abusing Reddit and using it the wrong way.

I don't even have a Twitter and I never navigate to it unless I'm given a link so I am far from an apologist, but I really think the two platforms are a lot closer than you think.

I think that reddit is worse. On Twitter all of the crazies have their opinions, but it's hard to spread real information. On Reddit the crazies have sophisticated subteddits with links in the sidebar to indoctrinate yourself by your own free will.

What the fuck is a globalist?

Was fortunate enough to dislike the premise of the platform initially and never used it. Now all I hear about Twitter is bad news

I use Twitter primarily to keep up with hockey stuff. Ignore most of the bullshit on there and it has its uses.

Social Media has, IMHO, made everyone crazy. It reaches into our skulls at 30 minute intervals 24/7 - so it forms a habit - and jiggles around and aggravates the Id and Ego and makes us splurge it all out on a handheld device.

After insulting, bragging or exclaiming some proud, haughty sentiment about ourselves, we pat ourselves on the back - because we get 'Likes' or Updoots or Retweets for it - and come back 30 minutes later to rinse and repeat.

I've said it too. But some seem to think it important knowing the musings of idiots and half drunk people at 3am.

Oh, so you mean Trump?

Reality TV shows are. You just turn off your brain, and watch stupid people being stupid.

Not to mention, a study back in March, found that up to 48 million Twitter accounts are likely bots.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees Twitter as the tumor that it is. Every night on the evening news, it is filled with "who said what on twitter today" as if that is real news. (Although I suppose it is when we have a commander-in-chief who makes all his declarations on the social media platform, instead of, you know... press conferences or speeches) Either way twitter has destroyed discourse in this country.

Agreed. I had a Twitter, and I used it for a short time. I got to about 100 tweets, and then realized that our civilization needs to be above this sort of short attention span communication / information. I've closed my account.

globalists

Your economic anxiety is showing.

edgy

Carl Sagan and intellectualism being mocked.

Way to inadvertently prove his point.

Way to be edgy

What is edgy?

All of what Sagan was speaking about was occurring in 1996.

"...the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less)..."

Snapchat and Vine in a nutshell

Seems clear many of the comments posted in reply are proving his point.

That was not a prediction. Carl Sagan simply described the last 30 years.

Shut up, nerd!

Carl Sagan, you don't know why I like Beavis and Butthead.

I like them too

More like Carl Sagan predicts 1996 in 1996. All this shit is nothing new.

The "celebration of ignorance" is all too real today. Demagogues cultivate it deliberately.

[deleted]

This is what I came to say, how convenient that some people always think they are defaulted to the "good" side of things in their mind.

[deleted]

I agree, the idea of "sides" is what fuels it. People need to be individual, and judged by the individual. A certain belief or political affiliation no matter how absurd it seems to you, can't entirely define a person.

People are so quick to judge these days.

[deleted]

When we stop packaging those who disagree with us into tight little labels that don't perfectly fit them anyway, we might stop the polarization of our country.

I agree with this. I was lambasted yesterday for taking such an approach of recognizing the individual, the humanness, in lieu of the group we think they may belong to.

Those dashes should be longer.

But I like dumb and dumber...

Wow, way back in the simpler days of 1996.

I predicted in 1992 in my college entrance exam that there would be a private space industry that would rival or exceed NASA and government contracted companies.... ;)

So you predicted capitalism.... good job...

Yeah but is was at a time where there wasn't even a sniff of private industry in that area. No capital no interest..nothing..It would have been like predicting YouTube...

No because space mining has been in some of sci fi since the dang seventies. How is saying "yeah that'll be real" like predicting youtube?

No offense but that is a common sci-fi trope that has been used numerous times throughout the decades but still insightful nonetheless

You highlighted a book? Blasphemy

I'm so conflicted. Love Sagan. But Dumber and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead are fucking classics.

Okay. So...what now?

Not sure if carl sagan or alex jones.

Manufacturing leaving is good

A service sector economy is an indication of wealth.

Reddit = economic illiteracy

The comments. Turn back now. Am I on youtube?

Too much text, need TLDR version.

He was one of the best astrologers. RIP in peace.

The fuck is wrong with Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead?

Not cool Carl.

I'm a scientist and Dumb & Dumber is one of my favorite comedies.

Eh, American economy was already transitioning into a service/information economy back in 1996, and I feel like this complaining about the next generation being dumb is something people have done forever. I'm not convinced that short attention span is something only this generation had.

The US still has a ton of manufacturing. Thing is, a lot of places moved into automation cutting lots of jobs. Politicians not grasping technological issues is something they've never been good at. You can argue politicians last major involvement in science was the push for the space race.

There's a lot of vagueness in this statement.

That's cool, but it's bullshit.

The same people like Sagan have said the same thing about the youth and future generations for two thousand years, and we're only getting better.

Read your good science fiction. Dire predictions of a humanity if we don't change have been happening for a long time.

Read Fahrenheit 451

Watch the movie Network, it accurately predicts news' bastardization of what it is today.

In truth it is not hard to see signs of such things happening as it doesn't just happen overnight, it takes a few generations to take hold. the worst is how our youth are being robbed of learning history, making mistakes, and eventually will be doomed by their lack of knowledge to painfully repeat our mistakes.

I must disagree.

Beavis and Butthead is really satirical and well-hidden social commentary.

Very true. It became very plain to see once it came back (and tanked) because society has sunk to new lows where even 90's Beavis and Butthead are too high brow.

To anyone who scrolls down far enough to read this comment, I strongly recommend taking a look at Marshal Mcluhan's book "Understanding Media". From this paragraph, it seems Sagan attributes the 'decay' of critical thinking to the content of media, when I feel much more can be said of the medium itself. As the technologies through which we view the world change, demanding from us different techniques of interpreting information, the way we think will necessarily change as well, to quote Mcluhan: "the medium is the message." Don't doubt for a moment that when the book superseded oral recitation as the primary medium, we lost an entire way of life; the literate man would seem like an idiot to the lawspeaker or Epic poet, whose minds were so radically different from ours. This point in history is similar to the movement from oral traditions to literacy, we are losing so much with no idea of what we will gain and it's, quite frankly, terrifying.

In my personal opinion, Mcluhan is a bit to fatalistic. I think we can guide the future, but only if we as a people control our new mediums, which are integrated so fully into our daily lives that they have become part of us: as the book became the extended mind of the newly literate, prompting scorn from oral specialists, so too are computers becoming extensions of ourselves, extensions of ourselves which are daily bought, sold, and manipulated.

The forces which control our technologies, our digitally mediated consciousness, do not want us to be critical thinkers. If the medium is the message, then there are those who are changing the message to suite their own ends: a neutered public, a docile mind, a commodity in place of the person...

Going ahead I don't know what we will become, but I do know this; we as a society need to ask ourselves if we will continue on our current path, our path of the commodified consciousness. And if not, what are we prepared to do?

*Jesus H. Christ this turned into a rant that I'd rather not edit, so please excuse whatever grammatical error I'm bound to have made.

Can you tell me more about that transistion between oral recitation and books ? Or is that topic discussed in the book you recommended ?

Oh I'd love to! And it is definitely covered, although Mcluhan is primarily concerned with the "electric age", so he moves away from talking about the transition from Oral cultures to analyze our current era: though a genius, Mcluhan writes like a rambly professor about to reach retirement, and often seems to lose track of what he's talking about.

I'll give some examples of books you can read and then give my own take on the subject:

One of the oldest ones is in the Socratic Dialogue "Phaedrus", I think it's near the end of the book... But anyways Socrates, an oral specialist, says literacy is "the appearance of wisdom" as opposed to wisdom itself.

If you want an incredibly in depth book, and one that I think changed the very way I view literacy, I would very highly recommend Walter J. Ong's "Orality and Literacy". Seriously, Ong is a wonderful writer and incredibly insightful. My interest in this topic was born through his book.

As for more entertaining works: Beowulf, the Icelandic sagas, any part of the bible, the Koran, the Illiad; these are all examples of the transition between Oral recitation and books, in which the writer transcribed the oral recitation, and the literary devices are geared towards recitation. E.G. repeated lyrical phrases, stock phrases such as "dawn's rose red fingers" in the Illiad.

Some modern writers influenced by 'rediscovering' old orality: Walt Whitman (One of my favorite aphorisms:The bible is the handbook of American free verse) and also Joyce's "finnegans wake" (I haven't read finegan's wake, one day maybe)

(all of the following is strongly influenced / from Walter J. Ong) So anyways, one of the primary reasons the transition from Orality to Literacy brought change was because the Psychodynamic associations of each medium is different. Therefore, the thought process of specialists within those mediums will be radically different as well: reading requires sight, "the dissecting sense" in order to extract information, it changed what was once a communal act into an isolating, specialist act. When Jesus gave his sermon on the mount it was a communal act: it involved everyone through the inclusivity of voice, of hearing, which is necessarily a communal sense. There was no 'study group' on the mount, or 'poetry reading' on the mount, it was a wholly oral act, and its power stemmed from the power of the Oral to bind together listeners and speakers into a group.

When we began reading we no longer needed the oral specialist, they were swept away by the tide of literacy: their community-making power rendered obsolete via the brutal logic engendered by literacy. Not only was the oral specialist not needed, but we were no longer able to think in the proper way to be an oral specialist! We lost an entire world of being, even as we gained the ability to comprehend chains of logic such as math and formal logic. E.G. Aristotle and Pythagoras.

It is late here, and I am very tired, so I'm going to cut this a bit short. But if you have any more questions feel free to ask! I am very passionate about the effect of new Media/mediums on our collective consciousness' and what it means for literacy/writing.

Oh one last thing, a very fatalistic, pop-culture-y, but fairly entertaining and informative book: "The Shallows", it talks about how we're losing attention span in the internet age. Like I said, it's a very depressing/ one sided book, but it is informative and an easy read.

Thank you for your recommendations. I'll try to read them all starting with Plato's Phaedrus.

Well the reason i asked you this question was when you talked about that transistion between oral and literary reminded me of my childhood when my father used to recite phrases from 'Ramayana' (a story written in Sanskrit; with 1000s of phrases called slokas) in a way like they do in shakespearn drama and it is meant to sung like that. Which obviously can't be written in a book. Well, that is the case with Vedas, Mahabharata, Bhagavad-Gita and many other books too. They still done that way by many people (Pandits) in rural areas and in many religious rituals ranging from birth, marriage, death etc, so not completely extinct (available in youtube). If you want to more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_chant.

What do you think about where the current situation is heading? Somewhat mild version of 1984 type of mass manipulation ?

Using "Dumb and Dumber" and "Beavis and Butthead" as a means to support the "dumbing down of America" is a generalisation and oversimplifying the issue. What a person does with their spare time, watching those films for instance, is not correlated with the idiocy of people, do people have to sit down and go to operas or deep analyse Kubric or Hitchcock's films to be considered smart? Or maybe reading sci-fi would be better for him? Actually, not only reading sci-fi, but reading his sci-fi books; does he have a point? Yes, but I believe it was poorly constructed and his arguments are not necessarily of cause and effect.

Most of that was already happening in 1996 anyway.

Mike Judge's movie Idiocracy will explain it all for ya! Upgrade!!!

Another quote from that book, that is slightly more relevant: "I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.

The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

Most of the time the mainstream just labels those who call out the bamboozled happenings, conspiracy theorists.

Carl Sagan is my favorite human. I'm forever saddened that I wasn't aware of him until after his death.

The "credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition" part scares me, considering the advent of anti-vaxers and resurgence of flat earthers.

Buying The Demon Haunted World right now. I've seen it referenced so many times and it's always fascinating

Amateur. Orwell predicted the modern era successfully in 1949.

To be fair, this isn't an extraordinary feat of prescience. Most intelligent people in the 90s saw this coming, and many others before then.

Accurate.

One of his best books.

"Celebration of ignorance"

The "Cash me outside" girl is worth over 1 million dollars while I struggle to pay for healthcare.

Hey everyone reading this GET OFF OF TWITTER. 140 characters is no way of describing anything of meaningful intellectual value. Essentially it's only 139 characters more than a caveman grunt. Tired of listening to the news talk about whatever the fuck it is that Donald Trump is tweeting? Simple, don't use twitter. Twitter is only as powerful as however many people there are in its user base.

If you want news, real news, read a newspaper, online or in print. The keyword in that sentence being read because when you read you can't hear tones of voice from talking heads trying to persuade you one way or another. Newspapers aren't 24/7 news channels so they don't have to fill up their paper with bullshit stories about Muslims raping or protesters attacking people with opposite political beliefs, and being paid to do so no less. And when you look for a newspaper to read don't go to a blog, go to a real paper whether it be the Washington Post or the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal. Yes each paper has its own bias but you can pick and choose what to read and as long as they're giving you the facts of what really happened it allows you to make up your mind on what to agree or disagree with. How many times have you read a headline that said "So and so did such and such to blank and blank." and you say to yourself "Oh wow I can't believe they did that, I don't agree with that. Onto the next story." I know I'm guilty of it. But the truth is you have to do your due diligence and read about what's going on in the world, inform yourself with fact not headlines.

This isn't time consuming either it's really not. It's more time consuming to argue with someone over a matter for which neither of you really know anything about and yet you continue to argue because you don't want to be the one that's wrong. That's not to say you shouldn't argue but you should argue to be constructive not destructive. Dialogue is good but you should be able to argue without telling the other person that their wrong for having an opinion. If they're wrong for having an opinion that's not in agreement with what you believe then by that logic you're just as wrong as they are.

And if you want to stay on twitter that's fine too, but if you participate in the hate, and you demean one another, and you continue to read tweets that you know will get your blood boiling before you even finish reading them, at least you will have an answer for when you ask yourself why the world is such a nasty place and how did we end up at this point. I would say look in the mirror but you'll probably just take a selfie instead, just the same.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Not trying to be witty.

Brevity = Twitter.

Another quote for you: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein

There's power in brevity. Definitely not saying all of Twitter is good but forming more concise arguments and ideas is a very good thing.

That's a good quote by Einstein but I wonder if he's referring to brevity or the use of, or lack thereof, words to describe something. For example you could have knowledge of something or you could simply be cognizant of it.

Id argue that twitter doesn't demand brevity but rather it constrains you to what their character count. Brevity is relative to the subject matter anyway. A brief version of the Bible might still be be 100 pages. If I asked you, "what is brief?" I dont think you'd rely with, "brief is 140 characters or less."

what a load of total and utter rubbish. Ive never read something so offensive..

Dumb and Dumber is a total classic

I'd just like to point out that for all the talk of US manufacturing "slipping away to other countries", the US still produces more manufactured goods than any other country besides China, with something like 19% of all manufactured goods being produced in the US.

Just sayin...

Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentation on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. - Carl Sagan from The Demon Haunted World

"Unable to distinguish between what feels good and what is true"

Best description of your average Reddit user, ever.

It was true in his time. He wasn't some kind of prophet, but he was a man who could perceive the world around him very astutely.

Asimov in 1980

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

As usual, Asimov said it better and far more concisely.

And long before Sagan said his piece. I like Sagan too, but this was a long time in the making. My uncle has two doctorate degrees and probably had a 3.0 GPA because grades used to connote excellence instead of diligence, and a 3.0 was fucking hard to get. See also X years' experience, and the other dehumanizing bureaucracy in modern life. We're focused on the wrong stuff now as a society.

I had to stop at the part about Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead. Never once did I think they were desirable role models; I laughed at them for being so stupid

Did he predict 72 genders though?

40.5k upvotes for this on a website that's riddled with clandestine advertising

The Too Long Didn't Read generation with the attention span of a gold fish.

On the celebration of ignorance:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

  • Noam Chomsky

People nowadays, particularly when it comes to "hot button" political issues, aren't allowed to express certain views in public. Try telling people here on Reddit that not everyone who voted for Trump is a backwoods hillbilly, for example, and see where that gets you.

And all I'm thinking is that you highlighted your book just for karma

I remember 1996. This wasn't that difficult to foresee. All credit to Sagan - he certainly was a visionary. But he definitely wasn't alone in those predictions.

This is a picture of a book page, regarding how Carl Sagan perceives the US. It's highly political, and isn't even high resolution. It's an incredibly broad title as well. How is this in r/pics?

The "celebration of ignorance" that is so prevalent right now is horrifying and heartbreaking.

1996: "Thats never going to happen" 2017: CEO of multi billion dollar company elected President of the United States

People keep saying that this is no prediction because this was already starting to happen. You see this is the problem, you aren't reading the words. He saw a foreboding of things to come in his children's and grandchildrens time. He did not predict anything, but saw it already started and on an upward trend. Words and phrases have meaning. He didn't just randomly write down some words and hope you could piece it together. Especially not you lot. It's a god damned warning for those looking for them to keep your head on straight and don't get distracted by the crap. The rest just miss them altogether. I see a lot of "look how smart I am" but a lot of you still deny climate science. Almost the entire Repuglican party. Celebrating ignorance is the same as celebrating obesity. Since it's now the norm it must be ok.

I started reading this book after stumbling across it in a bookstore last month and that passage gave me chills. I had to stop and think about his prediction for a good 20 minutes because it's scares me that our society, our species, is so predictable and how viciously most people defend and propagate falsehoods because the truth is either too frightening or doesn't serve their personal interests.

It's not a particularly difficult prediction to make when as you say, we're a somewhat predictable species. There will always be scared and closed minded people whom concern themselves fully with selfish desires.

How quaint that Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead are his examples of our fetid culture from that time. In hindsight, both are shining examples of thought, craft, and intelligence compared to the depths we now plumb.

Sounds like he just said what he saw. Its been like this for awhile. 2017 changed nothing.

Blame the echo chamber everywhere

Call Sagan lost all my respect when he shit on Dumb & Dumber and Beavis and Butthead....

Ummm, that's not predicting the future - all of it was already true in 1996, when he wrote it.

"Oh man so true"

Reads next line attacking Beavis and Butthead

"Oh this is just horseshit, fuck this guy"

My immediate thought is the lack of critical thinking that's encouraged in schools and universities. The lack of allowing people to fail. The extreme lack of logic when it comes to law, the emphasis on "feelings"when major decisions are made by supposed leaders in nearly every industry, even when evidence clearly supports the reasonable path. Google immediately comes to mind. We're there Mr. Sagan and its frightening.

Agree with the quote, but he's wrong about Dumb and Dumber. It's a brilliant movie. Real comedy takes intelligence.

I feel it morphed into the celebration of dumb celebrities. At least in the UK it has, Joey Essex literally made a career from his ignorance at school.

Your panel shows are hilariously witty though.

40 Year-old me: Well, yeah, but 1996 was just...checks calendar 21 FUCKING YEARS AGO? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?!

jumanji.jpg

a kind of celebration of ignorance

Hell, he predicted r/The_Donald as well.

The only part he clearly gets really gets right is the transformation of the US into a post-industrial economy, a trend that was well underway in 1994. The rest is much closer to r/im14andthisisdeep and a holier than thou take on American society. The reality is that people are just as interested in these topics as they have always been, if not more. Except now, it's not just the Discovery channel that's broadcasting it, there's documentaries with millions of views on YouTube. It's not just National Geographic subscribers that get to read about it, it's anyone on the Internet reading articles about it.

And, fittingly, this is posted to reddit. Oh well, off to play more xbox and watch comicbook movies and cartoons...

He is wrong about "Beavis and Butthead" tho.

Mike Judge is a goddamn genius I tell you what!

Beavis and butthead was always making the same point as he is - it just went with the funny approach

he had me till he started shit talking Beavis and Butthead. how did people not realize that it was satire?

I like dumb and dumber tho

the 30 second sound bites, now dumbed down to 10 seconds

He just predicted the gif. This harkens back to another quote:

"Its a soft, not hard "G", you idiots!"

-Carl Satan 1997

tl;dr sorry. I'm lazy.

Don't go dissin Dumb & Dumber now

While I agree with his thesis, I must take umbrage at his attacks on 'Dumb and Dumber' and 'Beavis and Butthead'.

Tbf dumb and dumber is a classic. No amount of schooling will diminish my appreciation for that movie

Honestly, you could say that about almost any age. I remember when manufacturing started going towards Taiwan in the 70s. Same thing was said.

Yanks - Every day that goes by you cement the world-wide opinion of you that you are stupid, lazy, arrogant, fat fucks.

I hope to God aliens don't arrive in the next few years because we will have to admit to them that you fuckwits became the world superpower. Not because of Merit though, because you were lucky enough to be too far away to be attacked in WWI and WWII and you live on a continent sized chunk of land dripping with natural resources.

A great parody of what is happening and how we may well end up is the movie "Idiocracy".

I was with him until he started having a go at Beavis and Butthead.

Lowest common denominator

OMG he predicated t_d and the entire alt right movement.

Attempted to fix the text alignment for easier reading http://i.imgur.com/YgDi4RP.jpg

nah

let's be honest, we're not quite this bad.

the whole idea of the decay of the common people isn't really the case, i don't think.

people aren't misinformed, they just don't care.

This book changed my life for the better and helped me understand critical thinking

Cal Ripken was far ahead of his time..and dependable.

I'm a huge fan of Carl Sagan, but to be fair, by 1996 it was becoming quite clear what direction things were going in due to technology and cultural shifts. Soundbites and the dumbing down of America due to 24 hour news etc were a thing back in the 1990s as well. 2017 has just been a radical continuation and entrenchment of that. With new media, it will be interesting to see how things evolve.

No he predicted 1996 in 1996

"all key manufacturing industries have slipped away.." It is interesting, now that we've made China the manufacturing arm of the world economy, look who's got all the cash? It was back in the 80's I first heard we were "shifting" to a service economy. I'm no ones economist, but even then I can remember wondering "can we even do that??" In my rudimentary understanding of these things, don't countries, at least first world super powers, have to produce something? Shouldn't they at least be producing for themselves the things that are most important to them, like technological items such as computers? Our GDP is something like 18 trillion dollars. Instead of looking for the quick dividends wall st. gives us, shouldn't we be investing in another kind of dividend?

How prescient. He could see this all the way back in old 1996.

s/

This is a pretty dumb post. This is no outlandish prediction. People have been saying these things for hundreds of years, and you guys are pretending like Carl Sagan was the first to have this idea.

This reads like an excerpt from Fahrenheit 451.

What a twat.

This is fine and all, but does it really belong on pics? I mean its a pic of a page in a book lol.

I love that man

Something that fits reddit's bias

To the front page!

I'm sorry but Dumb & Dumber is a classic.

This is genuinely scary.

But if you'd told Sagan that Donald Trump would be President, he probably would have responded, "No - I don't think things will get THAT bad."

How did people see Trump back then?

I can tell you how I saw Trump back then - as a monumental a**hole. Primarily from a 60 Minutes interview in the late 90s or early 00s. It was clear he was a narcissist - most of his answers were about how great he was. And he actually bragged about screwing Merv Griffin on a big real estate deal. I remember thinking that it wasn't smart for a businessman to brag openly on TV about cheating another businessman, but that he was such a narcissist, he couldn't help himself.

Pretty easy to predict this in 96…. It all basically started going pear shape in the 80s.

I wouldn't say predicts, this was true even in 1996, things have just gotten worse.

Carl Sagan - Smart, but not smart enough to know Beavis and Butthead was and is satire.

in all fairness we've been on this decline for a while now, he didnt predict it so much as just acknowledged what was happening around him.

If this was written in 1956, or even 1976, then we'd have something to talk about.

HOW YOU GON HATE ON DUMB & DUMBER AND BEAVIS & BUTTHEAD THO?! Wrong side of history on that one, sorry Carl.

I could make an argument that Dumb and Dumber was a pretty smart comedy. Especially the part where he lights his fart on fire. hehehee.

Carl Sagan was a rare type of genius, but I think it's safe to say Aldous Huxley had him beat by a few decades. This is why I think struggle is good for a society; it prevents the softening of the general public's mental faculties and forces us to improve.

Second, don't hate on Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead. That's some great satire.

He goes on to rail on Beavis & Butthead and Dumb & Dumber. Basically the old "violent video games create criminals" argument.

The flip-flop is too much.

Let's be clear; Dumb and Dumber is an iconic, monolithic masterpiece of slapstick and tongue in cheek comedy. Beavis and Butthead was the inroad for Mike Judge. Carl was correct, but couldn't predict future classics. No Harm no foul

Beavis and Butthead produced Daria, who was very much "books over looks."

I've read this before, and it rings truer today. We're a nation of idiots being run by any idiot, with a legislature of idiots too afraid to say the emperor has no clothes!

Hideo Kojima predicted 2017 in 2001.

Idiocracy, the movie shows what this will look like

Carl Sagan predicted 2017 on page 40 of The Demon Haunted World. Published in 1996.

I'm just reading this book. It's really dense and hard to read at times, but so worth the effort.

Sagan tried science fiction too with his Contact novel, and I found that worth the read but dry, so I'm not surprised at your comment on his essays.

I think we kinda got spoiled by his excellent stage presence on the Cosmos series. He really was a groundbreaking "let me take you on a cool thinking person's trip" host. I absolutely loved that series and what it tried to do.

I think Carl Sagan was really H G Wells' Time Traveller in disguise. This is absolutely spookily accurate.

[edit:] At least one person suggested that predicting the future 20 years out is easy. It'd be a neat experiment to actually try, and be this specific in the process of trying, and then "check your answers" in two decades.

I'm an older Redditor and when I look back to the late 90's at what I thought the world would turn out to be, I was WAY further off.

It's not that easy at all.

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.6352 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?

Hey now, Bruce Jenner was predicted. Al Bundy predicted that one!

lol no it's not. geez.

I'm in my 30s, and I think people today are a lot smarter, and a lot less anti-intellectual than the 1990s actually.

Anyone who looks back to the 1990s with rose tinted glasses is fucking dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD0x7ho_IYc

And then he goes on to dis Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead. What a dick!

I fuckin love Dumb and Dumber to be honest, haha.

There's definitely some weight to saying that America is like this today (a climate-change denier is president, an electroshock-therapy supporter is vice-president, these people were voted in by a large slice of Americans), but I think suggesting that superstition is on the rise and that "critical faculties are in decline" in the US is a bit of a stretch. I say this as an outside observer in the UK.

The US definitely seems to have a strange anti-intellectual situation, and I wouldn't say that its position as a science leader has advanced in recent years, but I'd also hesitate to say that it's declined. Many leading scientists are still American. If I had to guess, I'd say that Atheism (if you want to call that a scientifically-aligned belief. Controversial, I know) is on the rise in America, as is evolutionism. Though there's a lot of backlash against climate science and natural selection in America, I get the impression that more people, especially young people, than ever before are adopting these beliefs. The country may be at a stagnant crossroads, but I'd hardly say it's slipping into superstitious oblivion.

EDIT: Also, the observation on the comedies people like to watch is entirely irrelevant and subjective. I love science as much as the next guy. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy a fart joke every now and then.

For most of the people who upvoted this, he was talking about you.

Uhh no obviously he was talking about those racist scumbag conservatives!

-Liberals

No obviously he was talking about those gay feminazi deadbeat liberals.

-Conservatives

The only surprising part of this is how much anti-science is coming from the left, 47 genders, healing stickers, anti-vax, etc, etc...

Anti-science isn't a right or left issue, it's an ignorance issue.

"47 genders" may not be science, but it is anthropology. You'd be hard-pressed to deny two-spirit or hijra exists in non-western cultures.

Immediately after the highlighted portion of text, he talks shit about Dumb and Dumber. How can you hate that movie? Sagan was just a grump who got shoved into too many lockers as a kid.

Wisely recognizes a flawed bit of text in a large book he's never read. Then goes on to assume that flaw can completely summarize a person they've never met.

Never read the book, have you?

No need to get butt hurt fanboy.

This is no truer today than it was in 1996. This is a self-fulfilling prediction.

"lowest common denominator programming" - YouTube, Twitch, nailed it.

on the "decline" of US manufacturing

Stop just reading shit that makes you feel smart and jumping on the cynical circlejerk. Do some god damn research. That'd make Sagan more proud than you just parroting his words.

When people refer to the decline they're referring to the number of jobs not the output.

[deleted]

All while keeping the higher paying jobs in America. MAGA!

[deleted]

All true. China is also in a terrible situation where they have a too large of a work force that will be phased out with automation and demand. They have built empty cities and plants with this workforce now but to what point can they keep doing that?

Thank god for President Trump!

There is no such thing as god, and Trump isn't a president, he is a conman. You are the exact retard that Sagan is talking about.

Triggered much?

By the fact that my country is filled with useless ignorant retards? Yes, very much so.

Gender studies majors

Yea I know right! I can't believe so many people are falling for the far-lefts propaganda. It's pathetic......

Gimme everything for free!!!!

He predicted snapchat?

And the media has got no better in 21 years.

If anything it's worse. Especially shocking given how many 24/7 news channels there are now.

Beavis and Butthead was pretty good at the time as I recall. There is nothing barring intelligent person from learning nuclear science and liking Beavis and Butthead same time. Nevertheless he is damn right but not only about America. Education was never that freely available and poorly demanded as today.

Sagan, we need you back here on Earth, buddy. Seriously.

Don't get me wrong Sagan was brilliant but, I don't think that was exactly difficult to see coming in 1996 since during that time it was the rise of the internet.

However, this "dumbing down" of a country is why a pure democracy inevitably fails and why a republic is preferable, yet still very difficult to maintain.

The people, in general, are too stupid to handle the power democracy gives them. They vote emotionally (for handouts) not rationally or logically (for preserving founding basic principles).

"Predicts 2017" How about "predicts 2008 - 20017"

You can see the denial in this thread. There's way too many posts that aren't really taking this seriously. Not saying you can't joke around but it just looks like slight head in sand burial.

I agree. It seems to be from this "I'm too smart for Reddit" redditor type. I scrolled to the comments to make sure the attribution to Carl Sagan was true and this was not just some other crappy meme. I was very disappointed to see almost all the responses were along the lines of "Big whoop. I already knew this and he says nothing new".

It's not about whether he said something original or not, but that he said it and that it holds true today. That we're sliding back into a less rational world should be immensely worrying. Instead, we smirk and say, "It was always happening". It wasn't always happening. If it did humankind would not have progressed this far. I agree that every moment in the past was imperilled by the risk of regressing as a society. That it didn't happen always was only because some people took this shit seriously and fought against the pull. I hope all of us reading this see the same risk, even if some of us seem like we're whistling past the graveyard.

Actually, the movie "Idiocracy" predicted the future.

Go away, batin'.

ITT: Many people who are MUCH smarter than Sagan tell you how he's just being a karma whore.

Trump truly is a celebration of ignorance

And yet is a huge step up from obama.

...thanks for proving my point!

Clearly he's a smart guy and has some amazing points, but i don't think he realized exactly how much of this is probably due to a lack of balance. People need irregularity and irrationality. Cut them off and they'll do anything to get back there.

A lot of today's problems seem to have to do with a lack of self-awareness, and that's not solved very well by science, in my estimation. Science tells us what is, but not what we ought to do.

Most of what he wrote was already true when he wrote it.

I'm not buying this negative bullshit. People were suckered hard in the past. Get over your romance with consumer level manufacturing. The information age is fantastic. The past sucks more than now. Go to a history museum and see. Stop being negative crybabies and work to make the future better.

Yep. Most will read, blindly agree and then go look at cat videos.

They will always be the majority. They will never acknowledge their own choices brought them to their cynicism & inertia.

Some resonses: "W0kE" "TDLR" "Accurate".

This gem: "I like Carl Sagan. But really only for his influence on drug culture."

My favorite: "What book is this from?"

[deleted]

What's your point here?

[deleted]

Cool. Sounds like you're trying to live your reddit life as a bot? An interesting experiment.

No negativity intended by that. I love your response.

Sagan was so brilliant.

I really miss that guy.

I'm predicting right now that it will be July 22, 2026 one day

Breaking: man uses readily apparent information to make obvious, safe predictions about the fairly near future that are pretty much guaranteed to come true.

DAE this generation sucks??!? XD tips fedora towards Neil DeSagan Dawkins altar

No but seriously, I would like to see some research into this phenomenon because I do not have the feeling we are getting dumber, but with the rise of visual social media we are getting more narcissistic. Just a feeling tho.

Yeah but in the very next sentence he goes on to diss Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead so he can kiss my ass.

lowest common denominator programming

I'm looking at you, reality TV shows

Isaac Asimov - “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

"Lowest common denominator programming"

So sad and true. It's shameful and disrespectful and insulting. Maybe if we stopped treating our citizens like idiots, and started treating everyone as if they were highly educated (even if they aren't), people would have more incentive to learn and understand the world.

You can treat people with respect when speaking to them without treating them as highly educated when they're not. I'm not going to treat someone like an expert in a field in which they're not because 1) my seeming endorsement of their arguments provides them with more validity and 2) encouraging someone to think they are already "educated enough" bc you've given them the perception that people think they're highly educated will not result in them spending more time learning. It'll lead to sitting on their asses and continuing to be an armchair expert in any field they're arguing. Instead, I'll politely but firmly disagree. I will not use name-calling, I won't laugh at them, but will present the information I have which may contradict them. It's their responsibility to consider that information and to do more research to either reject or approve of the new information. They won't do that if they're being given the impression they're already right or that their arguments have equal weight to people legitimately educated in a field.

What even Sagan fails to state or realize is that this is all part of a larger plan.

We are slaves. Practically all Americans are descendants of slaves, indentured servants, or "soldiers"...all of who were trained and bred to follow orders.

The powers that be got smart though, they really did. Why continue forcing people into slavery? Why? It's high maintenance, revolts can easily happen, and ultimately the masters are hated by the masses. This isn't a smart long term solution.

Some fellers got a smart idea and asked the question: "what if we freed the slaves but still kept them captive and subordinate?".

Fast forward to 2017, and their plan has been executed to perfection. We are all labor drones and slaves. Nothing more. But we get the "privilege" of buying iPhones and going into debt for schools, houses, and cars, so we FEEL like we're free despite being in absolute control by our masters. Oh, and instead of us hating the slave owners like many once did...we actually worship and idolize them!

If you think what I'm saying is false...then prove me wrong. Go be "free". Do what you want. Quit your job. Let me know how long your freedom lasts before you're crawling back to your master or on the street hungry and cold.

You are reading my mind.

We are intentionally made slaves mostly by our school system, set up to do exactly that. Look up John Taylor Gatto on Youtube talking about the history of our school system. it's worth watching. You could have just written the intro.

Eight years of obama really magnified this prediction.

I love how most people reading this are probably thinking Trump (thanks influential media). Forgetting the last 3 disasters that led our country.

[deleted]

Not even going to read the rest of your comment. Stopped after "the_delusional." Learn to make a proper argument. Posting in a certain sub doesn't dismiss my opinions. Go back to your basement and think again.

Lmao, obama sucked way worse. Let's give Iran a green light for nukes, and do nothing about N Korea. Meanwhile I'll let everyone including isis come in illegally, and make people hate cops plus let vets die because of bad medical care. Piss off snowflake.

[deleted]

I wish I could get high like you, but I grew up and have pay taxes. Live free as long as you can Hippe, perhaps one day you'll be the majority again and free stuff for everyone will reign once more. Until then the rent's basement will suffice.

that's quite the assumption. don't even like Obama but it takes more than one president to cuck a nation.

How dare he slight the perfect film of Dumb and Dumber! A classic!

Jake Paul dabs on Post-Modern Nihilists

To say there has ever been an enlightened public is simply false. But yeah Carl saw this all coming, and sadly a lot more than just this age of the Facebook doofus.

Spot on.

Dumb and Dumber is an American Treasure Mr. Sagan!

Another great book is "Earth" by David Brin.....

Please get a new hi-liter.

*fewer

But seriously can people stop believing in astrology though, I thought we all agreed it was harmless, but ultimately stupid.

100% on the money

Megan kelly must have read that when she was a kid and creamed her pants.

Scary...

Well, even crack addicts have smart phones these days so he sort of missed that one.

Welp. Time to reread this book!

...but...Dumb and Dumber is awesome (even two decades later)! :(

Society sucks these days 'mirite?

His statement is just as true now as it was then. To me this shows that nothing has really changed at all, this is always a problem.

See reddit.com, 2017.

Woah woah, blasting beavis and butthead. Not cool

(Spelling)

Jeff Daniels is like, "Screw you, Sagan. I was Hamlet!This is all Jim Carrey's fault."

Fuck he knows how to express himself...

Its fucking terrifying.

This is why I feel that sites like Info Wars are so dangerous.

Omg, that is scarily accurate.

No way...that's great!

WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!

Carl Sagan would have loved Rick & Morty

It's also dumb to judge books and movies without watching them.

I think when the power is in the hands of the very few and the government is beyond the comprehension of those serving its best interests you would call that time to overthrow the government right?

Wooo, Dumb and Dumber!

kind celebration of ignorance 2017 in a nutshell

what book is this?

At the top of the page brotha

thanks fam, wasnt sure if that was the name of the chapter or not.

How dare he use Dumb and Dumber as an example of dumb. That's one of my faves

I blame vine

Hey, I guess they're right. Senior citizens, although slow and dangerous behind the wheel, can still serve a purpose. I'll be right back. Don't you go dying on me!

Well, that's terrifying.

As he points out, it started back then....he cites the video "Dumb and dumber" and "Beavis and Butthead" as evidence

Nailed it.

Interview on CNN. (via) The liberal media acting haughty about this.. And the right-wingnuts who cannot read "liberal media" without thinking they're terrible socialists. Both part of the problem. The liberal establishment is corporate more than anywhere on the political spectrum, similarly for the conservatives. They tell us "no politician doesn't take lobbyist money".

Anyone got a TL;DR? /s

Meh. Idiocracy got closer to reality.

You gotta hand it to Carl, though. The man can write one hell of a run-on sentence.

I think it is interesting that in the Bible The Lord says, more or less, over and over, He will bring truth. It is mentioned so often that in the past I wondered why. I no longer wonder why.

So did Kurt Vonnegut.

Any signs, or chance, of this not happening?

I think science/scientist has a marketing/creativity issue. They need to sex it up.

I'm down with this, but there is more to human experience than the empirical scientific side. Horoscopes Rule! kicks over computer

Sounds exactly right.

Devo formed in 1973. The name Devo comes "from their concept of 'de-evolution' — the idea that instead of continuing to evolve, mankind has actually begun to regress, as evidenced by the dysfunction and herd mentality of American society."

Devo - [I Can't Get No] Satisfaction (Video)

It pleases me that knowledgeably is indeed a word.

Creepy. I outsourcing isn't necessarily bad but the dumbing down of America part is pretty spot on.

Most people including in the dumbing down definitely aren't browsing Reddit right now, so we're safe to make fun of them.

I'm not sure if he predicted anything when all that has been happening since before 1996? I also think the part he wrote about everyone losing the ability to question those in authority is very subjective.

I tried reading this in his voice

holy shit - that's pretty accurate

This is extremely vague and general, hardly something that should have this many upvotes

I learned so much from Dumb and Dumber. What a dick this guy.

Ok, but why he gotta be dissin Beavis and Butthead? Not cool.

That happened

Spot on! Carl Sagan was brilliant!

I agree with his sentiment. But I think one thing people shouldn't forget is atheist irrationality (better termed as irrationality amongst atheists). We are in a time where less and less people are religious. Many of the irrational aren't "clutching their crystals" but they are irrational nonetheless. For hundreds of years, the Church and religion held back progress, science, and thought. But nowadays, it isn't just the religious. We need to attack the thinking that rejects enlightenment thinkers, especially when this reject comes from non-traditional "enemies".

A great backdrop song for this read would be "Parents Just Don't Understand" by Will Smith.

Because it was already happening in 96?

I like Carl Sagan, but this was pretty banal even in 1996.

It was a very common complaint at the time that all this was already happening and was only going to get worse.

...and you can find the exact same sentiment in figures of every generation. Yet we still keep trucking along inventing new technology, advancing scientific frontiers, amd furthering our progress. The Industrial Revolution, automobiles, airplanes, television, and the internet have been levied as the ways and means of societal degredation. When I read quotes like this I always remember a quote from BSG "All this has happened before and it will happen again." It reminds me very well that no matter how much my ego wants to make me think this time is special that it's only the continual march of human nature.

I don't think Sagan was saying Bevis & Butthead sucked, just that they weren't what people watched if they wanted to learn. It's kinda weird to see people defend our boys with such big words, but we love those boys because they were stupid. It's exactly what Sagan was saying; we're celebrating and defending stupidity

Reading that kinda stings.

Sagan is being missed in times such as these, and George Carlin even more so for me

I've begun to tire of the smug, self-important tone of these kinds of statements. The faceless horde of stupid, superstitious people is always inevitably contrasted by the author, the perfect, logically minded man of science and logic whose bright intellect shines its light across the dull-eyed yokels who entertain themselves with stupid cartoons. They claim to be humanists but hate it when people act like people and not Science-Appreciation-Bot 2000. Completely disregarding the artistic merits of stuff like Beavis and Butthead because they're too busy jerking off over how right their worldview is.

"Logic is nice, but sometimes you need actual thought"

"no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues"

It's worse that this though. It's not that those representing the public interest can't understand the issues, it's that there is no one that actually represents the public interest. No one might be a bit strong, there certainly are some individuals, but those few individuals have to work under the umbrella of parties that both clearly have almost zero interest in the good of the average citizen.

The funniest part is how you don't think that this is part of the dumbing down of things. What is this if not another variant of the 10 second sound bite?

I have a feeling if you showed today's kids Beavis and Butthead they'd probably say "that's stupid."

Everything is more dramatic once it is written down.

I'm still hung up on the skeptics (and I use that in a GOOD way) blowing the horn of truth and reason, then completely ignoring economics and psychology. They never HIRE anyone, while the CAM proponents are constantly hiring and they don't provide any psychological help while the CAM ones are constantly taking credit for any and all placebo effects they can. Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power are more real (feed your family) for the vast majority of us than Demon Haunted World. The disgusting concentration of wealth makes pleasing the wealthy a better option than thinking - which is hard.

Questioning our rights has become close to forbidden as those granted power are terrified to lose purpose. Much like a dictatorship but more like a dictator-monopoly really, both of which are extremely immoral and illegal. Really makes you question whether the system serves the people or itself?

thanks for posting this, I have a new book to read now...

"Science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking"

But at least we have dat boi.

Long story short, you accept the conditions you are born into.

And here we all are on reddit taking part in it

What a brave new world

For anyone have an idea why this process seems to go faster in America then compared to say Europe?

The best book I've ever read in my life.

Thank you for posting this - I love Carl Sagan.

Well at least Rick and Morty has a super genius main character.

Excellent book, it's next to my bed and I have to pick it up again sometime. We have no idea how much we are biologically hardwired towards being manipulated by magical thinking/propaganda, which is a constant threat. Alt-right is the latest manifestation - Alex Jones talking about Hilary being a demon, the LHC is a portal to another dimension, pizzagate etc. Science is the light in the dark.

Oh man, that reminds me of how much I miss Beavis And Butthead.

Whoa.

Soon we will have artificial intelligence which will be smarter than anybody. Nobody will ever have to think again.

Reaching. It was already like that in the nineties. Idiocracy was more accurate than Sagan.

He didn't predict the future. He simply learned from our past.

If he had been alive to see Idiocracy he could have just pointed at it and said, 'That. That's what's going to happen right there.'

I really miss Carl Sagan.

I don't know this book but I just bought it to read

oh, now I know from where goes RussiaPhobia (sarcasm)

I already knew it, long before))))

And here we all are.... on Reddit...

Less than 10 seconds? Dude straight up predicted Vine!

This is incredibly true...except I still love Beavis and Butthead.

Couple this with 'Amusing Ourselves To Death" and you'll have a pretty grim outlook.

We are so screwed now.

Coincidentally, I saw the same thing happen with Reddit

He could have changed 'America' to the Western world or world even. That is all I can critique. The man was a godless prophet.

what is wrong with a godless prophet? - you make it sound very negative? why is it negative? - I wish there were more godless prophets like him - but, no - let's believe someone who can talk w/god directly? & what does being liberal have anything to do w/this? - doesn't anyone like s.t.e.a.m.? - y'all wanna just bible thump & watch firefly & American ninja. geez.

what is wrong with a godless prophet? - you make it sound very negative? why is it negative? - I wish there were more godless prophets like him - but, no - let's believe someone who can talk w/god directly? & what does being liberal have anything to do w/this? - doesn't anyone like s.t.e.a.m.? - y'all wanna just bible thump & watch firefly & American ninja. geez.

I didn't make it sound negative, at least I didn't mean too. I'm godless. Where did I mention "liberal"? Are you referring to Gabe's steam, gaseous water or something else? I don't get it.

Edit: also I'm not American, sadly not a ninja either, don't diss Firefly though. Plenty of things should be higher on your hate list than that show.

We did it to ourselves. We deserve it.

I wonder what he would have to say about Futurama.

Sad but true

Where does he get off slagging on Dumb and Dumber? That movie was actually a great buddy road trip show. Provides a good litmus test for those who actually watched it vs those who saw the name and half a trailer and pre-judged.

Ouch. At least he's not talking about me though..just everyone else.

Replace crystals with mobile phones and horoscopes with internet commenters and he's actually pretty darn close.

Predicting it was easy, stopping it is the challenge!

The cause below the highlighted area is a bit suspicious, but yikes what a terrifyingly true diagnosis.

See, but we have choice. Choice in what we believe in. I used to agree with what this post represents, but in reality it's a choice to believe in that ideology. By believing in that you will spread that idea as Well, and in reality you, yourself, are part of the cause to a downfall of a nation. You will make others believe this to be true. To see the bad in things is a choice. I'm not saying to be blind in life and think all is okay or that all is Good, but simply to rethink what you feed into and help spread, because if what all is said in this post has some truth to it, the way this individual responded to it will do the opposite of what he intended. I gather that the individual was trying to warn, but the way he has worded his ideas actually just HELPS push the things that he seems to disagree with. Don't sit and worry, get up and become a good role model and by doing this you may change the world.

Crystals. Ha. Ridiculous.

Closes Bejeweled on phone.

Hey man, leave my Dumb and Dumber alone. That shit's just straight comedy.

What page?

HEY MAN, I liked Dumb and Dumber

This is not just America, but the first world in general. Our confortable and ignorant lifestyles are the reason the nazis are back and the climate is going to shit.

TL;DR - trump is coming. We're all idiots now.

This book should be required reading in high school.

dumb and dumber is a great movie

I need to re-read this book.

Predicting a service economy in 1996 isn't much of a prediction, it's more of an observation of what's going on around one

10 seconds or less

fewer

I totally agree with Carl here. But Dumb and Dumber is one of the funniest movies of all time, IMHO.

My hope is that humans will be seen as the creators when our creations are colonising solar systems...

Good to know at least Redditors retained their critical faculties.

ah here.. Beavis and Butthead was gas

Somehow, with the crossroads of manners and the internet, we have allowed a single idiot to have an equal voice with 99 geniuses. That has to stop if we wish to have meaningful discourse. AstroTurf must be identified early and nullified.

TLDR ?

Oh, that's cold.

Seems like a remarkable piece, golded and front page of reddit but I have no idea what's Goin on. I'm sorry!

The text is saying people don't have the inclination to learn or read anymore, they just want a 10second clip telling them what to think. Then you asked for shortened version of THAT. I thought you were being a wit, confirming that people don't even have the time to read about people not having the time to read.

Proabably the scariest thing I read this year.

I don't necessarily think it's the quality of entertainment today that's the worst part. It's the sheer volume. From reddit/fb/instagram/snapchat/etc, to streaming video from hundreds of sources to 24-hour news cycles to video games on every platform... the supply is endless and the demand is non-stop.

Folks don't have a chance to stop and just think. This, I believe is the death knell. All brain bandwidth consumed by entertainment.

Carl Sagan predicts History Channel in 2017

To be fair though pseudo-science and anti-intellectualism has always been a thing.

Life has gotten too easy. People lack motivation to thrive; simply existing is much easier.

Twitter is the prime example of "30 second soundbites (now down to 10).

Carl Sagan describes 1996 in 1996.

Think he missed the point of Beavis and Butthead

Idiocracy did it better.

Now, now! Let's not bring Dumb and Dumber into this.

The world, particularly the developed world, has put its priorities on entertainment instead of in self-improvement.

I got confirmation the other day when a girl insisted knowing who the Kardashians are, and what they do, is a matter of general knowledge and culture. That is to say, everyone should know.

It's a god damn reality show, Deborah.

One mistake Carl made...Dumb and Dumber is a genious piece of filmmaking. We need to find a way to reanimate his body so that he can apologize!

I think Teddy K also predicted the same thing in his manifesto...

I mean, let's face it, in 1996, we were seeing that already happen. China was already starting to be the running joke of everything being made overseas, for example.

One mistake Carl made...Dumb and Dumber is a genious piece of filmmaking. We need to find a way to reanimate his body so that he can apologize!

Beavis and Butthead was actually incredible satire, too bad he didn't get it

Carl Sagan was the man.

"a kind of celebration of ignorance"

Nuff said

You must not be very old. This is a pattern not a prediction. This isnt the first time either that people have this view on society.

So, I realize that this is still somewhat against what Sagan says, but I think this is the reason that I like competitive video games. I get to be lazy but I still get to work towards something and improve.

This is one of my favorite books of all time. I wish everybody would read it, since it's the finest explanation I know about why science, skepticism, and the pursuit of objective truth matters.

Holy shit! I got the chills reading that

Jim Morrison says many of the same things in a 1960s interview. I'll try to find the link

https://youtu.be/EQfr-BtcDII

«Celebration of ignorance»

Everything is said!

Big fan of Sagan and completely agree with what he's saying. But you aren't gonna win people over while bashing "Dumb and Dumber" and "Beavis and Butthead do America".

I can watch and enjoy stupid shows without giving up science.

It's called entertainment.

I appreciate this a lot but truth is only a social construct. We have to be comfortable with ambiguity, which science cannot fathom.

For the people saying every generation says this, you're only partly right. The 1950s and early 1960s were a time that really respected science. The space race was a purely scientific exercise. Yes, it was a pissing contest with the Russians, but the point of the pissing contest was to prove that we were better scientists. Things were advertised as being used in the space program, or by astronauts, or just more "sciencey" than other things, and they sold. That shifted sometime in the 1970s, and "all natural" became a better seller than "made by science."

Sagan refers specifically to crystals and horoscopes here, because those were kind of 70s hippy things. Liberal hippies would still believe in pseudoscience about crystals healing you. It was the equivalent of anti-vax stuff today.

So yeah, every generation things the next one is messed up. But Sagan is right that in his generation there was a definite swing away from science and toward pseudoscience. Liberals and Conservatives swung in different directions, but they both moved away from the idea that science was what made America great.

Yup. I've been bringing this up a lot lately. Makes me sad.

Well, Damn.

Carl was a future man.

I had a baker's dozen of monkeys with typewriters do the same thing.

Carl Sagan was an amazing mind, and he did paint a frighteningly accurate picture of 2017.

But my my favorite part is that Carl Sagan said "Beavis and Butthead".

There's always been a hesitation to adopt new theory. Those in power either have vested interests in keeping the status quo (re: pollution) or maintaining their integrity (re: pretending a new theory is wrong because it disagrees with positions they've academically stated previously). This isn't new. It wasn't even new in Sagan's time.

All that is new is the speed at which cycles iterate and the volume.

celebration of ignorance

I like dumb and dumber

He's not predicting anything, nothings changed. You could replace the 2 dates in the title with anything post 1970 and it would still be exactly the same, obviously with cultural references changed.

Two posts on front page about politics from r/pics within day?

"There are two types of people those who are saved, and those who are lost." - Bob Dylan

Wel, im going to go one better and predict that there will in fact be 2039

The thing that annoys me the most is when people (particularly politicians and journalists) say things that could be debunked with a 10 second google search. Not only do they say things that are clearly wrong, they take pride in being wrong and get visibly annoyed when people call them out.

Such a smart man, I think he missed the point of satire though.

Ever since I have been made aware of this man I have been in awe of his wonder, intellect and kindness to a people that largely ignore his amazing perspective.

r/old This was already taking place in the 90s

To be fair this was already happening in 1996.

2 school 4 cool

I mean, I'm not going to just sit here while somebody talks shit about Dumb and Dumber/Beavis and Butthead, even if that somebody is Carl Sagan.

While I can't deny that the accuracy feels oddly satisfying, I feel mostly the hopeless sadness that one feels when everything goes exactly as bad as predicted.

Celebration of ignorance - now that's a 3 word sound byte I can rally behind!

The only reason people seem dumber now is that we are exposed to more of them. And that's the way of things. It seems like everything is getting worse, but that's because we hear about crime and tragedy moments after it happens, I or even as it's happening.

And that's happened forever. News has traveled farther and faster consistantly over time. When we domesticated horses, when we built roads, and so on.

The printing press, then newspapers, then radio, tv. then it happened again with the internet, and it continues to happen as the internet becomes ubiquitous.

The world has always been terrible, but now more than ever we are aware if it. And I have some hope that that's a good thing.

"Our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels food and what's true" Wow - interesting depiction of leftists at college campuses.

Good book.

He's no Edgar Cayce.

Everybody on reddit is woke though

https://xkcd.com/1227/

and

https://xkcd.com/603/

I mean, the highlighted bit as well and good, but his argument falls apart straight afterwords. What does what kind of comedy is popular on TV have anything to do with his argument? He just seems like an old guy complaining about 'kids these days'.

And I say this as someone who does really respect Sagan's work.

Hold up, Mr. Sagan has CLEARLY never watched Beavis and Butthead if he thinks it's symptomatic of the dumbing down of America. The whole point of the show was that the eponymous characters are foils, tools that the story uses to promote critical thinking about the society they're part of.

Wasn't Beavis and Butthead satirical? Like it was supposed to poke fun at the dumb?

we made being stupid cool. that is humans current down fall

In one of his standups Joe Rogan makes a solid point about the smart people of the world, the genius'. He asks "is anyone watching these guys?" Going on to say stupid people are good at reproducing but are we making sure the smart people are? If all the smart people go away were gonna end up back in the stone age. "What do you do when the power goes out? I wait. I wait for someone smarter than me to come fix it. I don't know how that shit works!"

We have failed you Carl.

Upvote to all the useless humans who made this inevitably possible.

Mole-tastic

"celebrates ignorance"

Several times I find myself amazed out how far people will go in this regard.

Often here on reddit, I have to stop and realize. Shit this guy/girl/group enjoys being ignorant, usually not over the things you'd think either....

No one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues

This strikes a chord with me. I work in advertising and it's really interesting to see how white class executives create their own version of what a product looks like to a consumer with an average HHI of $50K. The disparity from reality is scary and it only gets scarier when you realize that it also exists with public officials and all other powers that be.

Sagan: Sending somewhat seriously solemn slowing sentient synapse signals.

It's interesting that the creator of one of tv shows criticized (Beavis and Butthead) also made a movie (Idiocracy) that described the absurd extreme of what Sagan was lamenting. Now I am really curious about who was missing the point.

Sagan lost me when he said "nearly all key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries" while I keep hearing about new auto plants being built on US soil. Do the modern college kids actually believe there is almost no US manufacturing?

Actually yes! The politicians and business media are always focusing on that so if you keep bombarding the public with that message, sooner or later they'll believe it. Sorta like immigrants are the reason you don't have a job.

If only a man like Carl could run this country. :(

Watching Dumb and Dumber and Beavis & Butthead - guilty.

"We didn't listen!"

I wonder how Jim Carry or Mike Judge would feel about the next sentence after the highlight.

It's sad that Sagan didn't grasp the genius of Dumb & Dumber.

Rudyard Kipling predicted 2017 in 1919.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&noapp=1&v=hqemdFvCFgg

I loved Dumb and Dumber and Beavis n Butthead, Jay and Silent Bob. Nope, i am not dumb and my IQ (i know, i know) is 140. I know a lot of dumb people that watch "smart movies" , learn on Coursera but still lacks rational thinking and believe in pseudoscience.

I loved Dumb and Dumber and Beavis n Butthead, Jay and Silent Bob. Nope, i am not dumb and my IQ (i know, i know) is 140. I know a lot of dumb people that watch "smart movies" , learn on Coursera but still lacks rational thinking and believe in pseudoscience.

Fuck you Carl Dumb and Dumber is hilarious.

He goes on to point out "Beavis and Butthead". That was a satire that actually made fun of ignorance and the willfully dumb and violent. There will always be silly entertainment that will make those who only give it a cursory glance to clutch at their pearls.

Lol what? It was 1996. It wasn't much different then as it is today. You guys are making it sound like he wrote this in 1928. The Sagen circle jerk is cringeworthy.

Sad but true.

Can someone TL;DR this?

It's humorous that a lot of our activity on here too falls under this passage

Not to be an ass, but he is literally writing down what was happening at the time and attributing it to a potential future. The reason he feared it would happen was because it was already happening in 1996, so no real 'predictions.'

Carl Sagan +1

Honestly you could almost say this about any era outside of the fucking Stone age.

Replace Beavis and Butthead with Laurel and Hardy in that time and it's basically the same shit repeating.

As a Beavis and Butthead fan, I will say that at least with Laurel and Hardy and the like back in those days, they weren't devolving morals at the same time.

This not true. They have been claiming that for years. Go look at early cinema or even how all the restrictions were put into place to begin with in movies and tvs.

I know they claimed it back then, just like the complaints against Elvis. And perhaps they did contribute to the race to the bottom of morality. BUT, I feel like it really started to ramp up in the 80s and 90s.

Kind of scary!

It sure is fun to cherry pick, isn't it?

Dumb and Dumber though, 5/7

That's any year on earth. Not impressed that it reads like a vague horoscope that will fit any year we live in or not live in.

The cult of ignorance has long been a presence in america, and will be a major factor it's downfall. How can you be the best country on the earth if you're the most stupid?

don't you dare question dumb and dumber

I mean, his words are striking, but none of the trends he identifies were exactly opaque in 1996. Manufacturing had long been slipping away, information technology was exploding, and the conservative right was impeaching the president over a blowjob. Meanwhile, infomercials and junk medicine were everywhere.

If anything, Sagan's predictions fail to capture the explosion of self-guided learning, the proliferation of citizen journalism (with all its attendant crap), and the changing landscape of public accountability with the proliferation of recording devices. There's a lot of good with the bad.

TL;DR version? I'm at work and I can't read all that that fast and I'm to curious to find out later

Pretty damn true if you ask me. Carl Sagan is one of the few people of any fame I'd consider "Smart".

And below the highlighted text is exactly what I thought in school - and people called me a nerd back then. Honestly I think I should have taken up lacerating people's legs instead of trying to fight back with logic - logic does not work in a world fulll of dumbasses.

Pretty damn true if you ask me. Carl Sagan is one of the few people of any fame I'd consider "Smart".

And below the highlighted text is exactly what I thought in school - and people called me a nerd back then. Honestly I think I should have taken up lacerating people's legs instead of trying to fight back with logic - logic does not work in a world fulll of dumbasses.

Conversely, we now have the easiest access to information we have ever had in the history of the world. I can put thousands of books on my crystal in my pocket. I can access them in a variety of ways. Further, we have thousands of podcasts, longform articles, great libraries, and documentaries all of which are easily accessible.

This is a very extreme prediction and assessment of our current state. And there are definitely grains of truth, but seeing as he isn't here today, it's not very nuanced

Ray Bradbury predicted the dumbing down of the world already in 1953.

And I'm sure there were tons of people who did so before Bradbury.

And Beavis & Butthead was great.

What is the name of this book and where can I find it??

All due respect to Dr. Sagan and his excellent book, the trend really wasn't difficult to spot in 1996.

The "technological powers are in the hands of a very few" part is ass-backwards. Access to technology has gotten way, way better since then, not worse.

Agree with most of Sagan except the Dumb and Dumber part. Dude needs to learn what comedy is, and that is been around since we've been roaming the earth.

The sad part is that 99% of the people who will read this on Reddit will think that Sagan's condemnation only applies to people on the other side of the political spectrum.

Can we repost this with the title: 10 Carl Sagan predictions that came true. You'll never believe #7!

Well shit

Marshall McLuhan was saying this in the 60s. BTFO Sagan

Seems like a good year to break out the 'Baloney Detection Kit' ! (chapt. 12)

when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few

What does he mean by that? Is it because these are the bright ones?

This is very vague and could be used at any point in our time or the future. If you look beyond the text you will see he is referring to it already happening. Before 2017.

And which ideology controls the majority of today's media? And which message is most perpetuated by the majority of today's media?

You do realize this is reddit, right? As in you're on a website full of clickbait titles, 1 sentence-selling links, karma whoring galore... The list goes on.

If "Dumb and Dumber" made this guy sad. Don't tell him about the sequels.

dammit Carl, why do you have to be so prescient?

a kind of celebration of ignorance.

thats shockingly accurate.

That's because people have been saying this for a very long time.

We don't seem to do well with the muddy mess of reality that we exist in. We really want there to be one answer to and for everything.

Say you have 100 different and various people in 1 group, and they all do things in basically the same way, but it's 100 people doing it. Now take those same 100 different and various people and split them up however you want into 10 groups of 10, and each group does things in 10 different ways. Is one example more diverse than the other? Does one example have less diversity than the other? Does it depend on your perspective from inside or outside of the various groups? Is an inside or outside point of view more or less valid than the other?

[deleted]

"According to a study, 58 per cent of 18-24-year-old Americans believe astrology is scientific."

Googled because I was curious too, and oh my fk'ing god, that hurts to read.

edit: link to study so it can be ripped apart at your leisure - https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7h.htm

This is terrifying and incredibly accurate.

This needs to be posted over and over and over again. Every day it's not on the front page it must be reposted for the good of mankind.

He had me until he started in on Dumb and Dumber, and Beavis and Butthead. Them's fighting words...

Damn, that's spot on...

Not much of a prediction in '96. By then the world already had had nearly a decade of MTV and we were already starting to see the massive draw of reality shows. If he'd written that in 76 or 86 it'd have been much more impressive.

Wow so true. Sadly

Fuck you Carl sagan! Those comedies were comedic genius. Evolve a sense of humor! But spot on for everything else

While I can't disagree with what he said, it wasn't too hard to foresee that in 1996. Society isn't all that different from then to now.

Also, as a teenager in 1996, watching Beavis and Butthead made me laugh but wasn't in any way influential. I'd argue that the stupid, mindless humor of Beavis and Butthead is much less destructive to society than today's reality shows (that actually do influence society a lot). Nothing in Beavis and Butthead ever painted them as something you should aspire to be. They were broke and basically homeless bums. Modern reality shows, on the other hand, are (generally) portrayed with lifestyles of glamor, fame and fortune.

This however, was already happening in 1996.

No, Carl Sagan predicted 1996 in 1996.

I was onboard until he ripped on Dumb and Dumber and Beavis & Butthead.

I love it but he shits all over Beavis and Butthead in the next sentence. :(

It saddens me that Sagan uses Dumb and Dumber as a reference to the dumbing down of America.
It was pretty great. I learned about Samsonite from the movie. Sagan was waaay off.

Sounds like he predicted 1996 in 1996.

Check out Jose Ortega's Revolt of The Masses, he calls this shit back in the 1920's but through a different set of evidence.

Continue reading below the highlighted portion...

Wonder what he would say about South Park, Simpsons, etc.

This made me extremely nauseous

The #1 movie in America was called "Ass." And that's all it was for 90 minutes. It won eight Oscars that year, including best screenplay.

But there are more educated people than ever before, Carl.

I like Carl Sagan. But really only for his influence on drug culture.

I'd like to point out, at least in that positive, sentimental paragraph, there's no criticism of his own performance or his colleagues' insofar as being teachers and stewards of knowledge.

So as to stem the tide of dumb.

How can that happen with pupil-blamers?

Science as a candle in the dark

Hilariously, it wasn't simple entertainment. It was the self-obsessed narcissism that is social media that is the wool blanket that covers our better senses, skepticism and dignity.

What's scary about this is that even if people do wake up and see what social media is doing or has done to their life, I'm willing to bet that few people would quit. Case in point, I quit Facebook a couple years ago mainly to get away from all the political hostilities, but I also wanted to free myself from the constant comparison and narcissism that goes on there.

As a result, I have actually felt freer, but more isolated as well. It's like some of my friends can't stay friends because they can't message me on Facebook or invite me to their events using a Facebook invite. While I've gotten used to it and have now found out who my real friends are, I'm almost 100% sure that most people wouldn't have the courage or desire to attempt that kind of change.

That's the trick, you isolate yourself at the same time you free yourself from the status quo, however its a warped mirror, you drown yourself in what everyone else is doing, you'll never be heard unless you scream at the top of your lungs for attention.

The dumbing down of America is most evident in the media. Exactly! Turn off the television!

turn off your phone

"The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable."

This part is so true. I remember going out of my way to not study or learn because that was the uncool thing to do and I wanted to be like the cool kids. It was a very weird transition too because I originally grew up in the middle east and over there being smart was highly praised in every part of life, but not in North America.

I thought the title said Peter Sagan...

While this kinda rings true, it is itself an example of the 10-second sound bite or one paragraph excerpt.

Dumb and dumber is low-brow, lowest common denominator rubbish, but he's missing the point of Beavis and Butthead. If only he knew Mike Judge as we all do now. However, I suppose it's hard to blame him given the time this was written, and I doubt many fans appreciated those two were never meant to be role-models; the exact opposite in fact.

If only Dumb and Dumber and media in general (as a passive party) was the cause.

Instead it was pure deliberated malice on the part of reactionaries and anti-intellectuals.

I finished reading Demon Haunted World two days ago and I think it's more timely now than when Sagan wrote it 20+ years ago.

I dog earned so many pages and this page is one that's dog warred. It's a book that everyone should read. The perils or an under educated population is terrifying.

I need to read more.

The problem is that the state of the art in many fields is now to the point where it takes years of training just to understand WTF they are talking about. You need years of context to understand where things are and where they're going even in fields like philosophy.

Even to the extent that normal humans might be smart enough to understand, they simply aren't willing to put in the amount of effort it takes. And then you have to multiply that by years for each field. And then you have to realize that the fields are proliferating too.

Keeping up is a nigh impossible task, so most people stop trying because life is easy and they don't need to.

The problem is that the state of the art in many fields is now to the point where it takes years of training just to understand WTF they are talking about.

Yes. This is always the case. Do you think Sagan just learned everything in Six months?

Did you think knowledge just exists? This is not a problem. This is how it works. Of course its harder, because we know so much more.

And when you finish school it only gets harder. School was about the past. What we already know. The future is unknown. Creating it is hard work. Hard work makes the world better.

carl sagan would have hated vines and shit

It's all just so last Millennium and stage six societal collapse.

Sounds like he predicted Ancient Aliens youtube clips.

Incredible

Without the internet this would be 100x worse

After the next economic crash because of Trumps deregulation the US dollar will loose its place as reserve currency. The general population in the US will suffer paying off banks debt. The risky and dangerous international and national policies will spell the doom for the US. Perhaps they know and are trying to create a distraction for their people. War, an artificial enemy makes you forget who the real enemy is.

Don't worry, Reddit will save us all.

2017?!? This has been going down for decades, well before you were born, OP.

Is it really true that there was some magnificent 'golden age' of reason, or was that just before we noted the opinions or behavior of anyone who wasn't a rich white landowning man?

He'd have wept to see social media...

Well it didn't come true at all, everyone is uber informed now a days. I mean I learned more on Reddit than i ever did from traditional media.

Man knew how to write a run-on sentence.

Eerily accurate.

"...Beavis and Butthead remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers."

hey, Mike Judge made Idiocracy and Beavis and Butthead!

It took me way too long to figure out why the manufacturing of keys was such a concern to him.

Everyone needs to go and watch the movie "Network".

That is 2017 exactly. The guy was better than Nostradomus.

I'd have to say not much of a prediction.

This could easily describe 1997

We are the mice, marching toward the cat.

What? You can't enjoy Beavis and butthead and still be smart? Fuck outta here.

Reminds me of that quote from 1984 about football that I can never remember.

"Video cassette rental"

Sounds like '96 allright...

TIL Carl Sagan doesn't get why Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead are funny.

Well to be honest, my ultimate life goals are just to live somewhere that I can relax and be happy and not have to think or worry about the world's problems.

wow

Ironically the creator of Beavis and Butthead may have better predicted the future of America

WAY ahead of his time.

Pretty much a description of the the film Idiocracy ..

It's hilarious because as a relatively neutral "outsider" i can sit back and laugh at this.

Both sides have upvoted it because they think it 100% represents the other side and both sides are circle jerking each other about how this is about the other side. And both sides will scoff at my comment because "it's obviously describing the other side, they are just too ignorant to see that they are wrong."

Politics is both hilarious and very sad at the same time.

I just read this book and there were a LOT of parts that were eerily apropos. A definite good read - we should send a copy to every member of Congress.

One small drop in a sea of ignorance, but Carl ignores that in 1995 world's richest man was a technology genius as opposed to a banker, politician or oil Barron, the first time in history. Since then, many many more engineers/chemists/programmers have risen to become powerful elites that can and do instill positive change to the world.

This book changed my whole world. I read this book and grew from a dumbass kid into a slightly less dumbass adult.

Beavis and butthead lead to a satire called Idiocracy which was about the very content highlighted within this post....interesting.

Damnit Carl, now you've said it.

[deleted]

Ya, I mean this world without high speed internet, smart phones, GPS, instant communication to anywhere in the world, electric cars, self driving cars, VR, amazing speech recognition, Bionic contact lens, ReWalk, and various artificial organs sure does suck.

I don't know why this is so interesting or marvelous. I think a ton of people saw this coming. This isn't the new Nostradamus.

"distinguish between what feels good and what's true." God that's been bugging me with increasing intensity over the years. And arguing with people like that is infuriating.

Dumb and Dumber is really damn funny though.

To be fair, everyone "predicted" this in 1996, it was already happening.

Having a bit of trouble discerning all the highlighted parts... Anybody wanna help a colorblind brother out and write it out for me...? Or just tell me where to start and stop reading if it's an entire consecutive part.

The marked text starts with "I have a foreboding..." in the second paragraph and ends with "...celebration of ignorance". It is the majority of the page, so you may as well read all of it.

Thanks for that. I mostly couldn't tell if it skipped parts in between or not. You're a fantastically helpful human.

Cognitive dissonance accompanied with systematic brainwashing.

Reminds me that I still have to read Slouching Towards Gomorrah

which for some reason I had in my head that it was a Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote, not Robert Bork. Probably confusing it with "defining deviancy down".

you mean 1995

No, he predicted 1996 in 1996. By 1996, Clinton was halfway through his first term, NAFTA was on the horizon and incredibly controversial, and Clinton's education reform act was in the works. The Clinton years brought about the world Sagan was describing. The Bush years solidified it with unleashed globalism and No Child Left Behind. Everyone knows what came next.

J.G. Ballard predicted it in the 1960s.

So basically, r/youtubehaiku?

I just lost all imaginable hope

Easily applies word for word to here in the uk as well. What a shambles

I miss Beavis and Butthead.

I was able to read aloud this in a manner I think is pretty close to how Carl Sagan would say it.

While this is interesting, I think it's funny that he tried to lay blame at Beavis & Butthead and Dumb and Dumber, when what we should have real been worried about is the news. Fox News, but still the news nonetheless. Our flaws has nothing to with Beavis and Butthead.

when awesome technological powers are in the hands of the very few

I think he missed the mark on this part.

Im going to Upvote this and continue browsing reddit and facebook.

Terrifying

[deleted]

Karma whoring.

The highlighted section is a bit long. Can someone summarize it for me?

I thought the Rocky Mountains would be a little rockier than this.....ya that John Denver's full of shit man!

Unable to distinguish what feels good and whats true Sounds like oxford

This is far from impressive (for lack of a better word). Authors like Ray Bradbury, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley have done this, it was hidden in their writings. It was written because they feared the fiction would become reality.

Popularizing science - trying to make its methods and findings accessible to non-scientists - then follows naturally and immediately. Not explaining science seems to me perverse. When you're in love, you want to tell the world. This book is a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science.

But there's another reason: science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. As I write, the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. Beavis and Bullhead remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable.

  • Sagan

That's so accurate it terrifies me

I love Sagan, but Dumb and Dumber and Bevis and Butthead are great.

Carl Sagan predicts broscience.

Yes lets force everyone to have intellectual conversations all day. We could put sensors on everyone so if you make a dick joke you get zapped or something. Unless you are talking about the "issues" intelligently (ie. in line with my personal opinion) you shouldn't be able to speak. /s

Mr. Sagan was such an intelligent man. We need more like him; not like our current Great Leader.

As soon as i read the page i went a bought it just now. Im so excited. Thamk you

All this same stuff was true in 1996. Not sure what he's talking about

carl sagan is, and always will be, a real nigga

He foretold the coming of Idiocracy!

ugh, "key manufacturing industries."

Who gives a shit? In 1996 actually manufacturing things mattered. In 2017, being the company that outsources to robots or slaves is what matters. Again, I'm not in line for when the fabrication + coal mining plants open again, so spare the "clutching my hat hoping to support my fam'ly" rhetoric.

Also, the concepts behind Beavis and Butthead + Dumb and Dumber were genius, and they were well crafted pieces of art. Does sagan find room for "frivolous art" in his utopia? Because the societies that don't make room for art and put it at odds with commerce and progress is the true anti-humanist stance.

Automation gives people more time to not work. Capitalism is the problem here, not technology itself.

I think you are missing the point. "Manufacturing" is representative of the way you think. It involves a certain way of thinking - "scientific thinking" - this is because you have to be able to fit things together to get a finished physical and real product - not something put together for the "camera frame" - this concrete thinking is what slips away - when manufacturing industries move away. Man is the "tool making mammal" - but this "tool making" is what requires the scientific mind.

I love this book. Read it a couple times now. Need to read it again.

Get over yourself, Carl.

Man...i love dumb and dumber

"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is no where else at least in the near future to which our species could migrate. Visit? Yes. Settle? Not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the earth is where me make our stand...".

An excerpt from his "Pale Blue Dot" speech. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PN5JJDh78I&t=253s

Carl Sagan was truly ahead of his time and one of the greatest geniuses America has ever had.

Flatearthers

Are crystals and horoscopes really to blame? Sure they don't dictate how to work the political/technocrat world, but they might help the more elusive side of living

Hell, Mencken identified this pattern in the 1920s, although admittedly he gave a different reasoning for his conclusion:

All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost. … All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

Also:

How does so much [false news] get into the American newspapers, even the good ones? Is it because journalists, as a class, are habitual liars, and prefer what is not true to what is true? I don't think it is. Rather, it is because journalists are, in the main, extremely stupid, sentimental and credulous fellows -- because nothing is easier than to fool them -- because the majority of them lack the sharp intelligence that the proper discharge of their duties demands.

Prejudices: A Selection [p. 220]

Bad/Fake news is a tradition that hails back at least a century, much likely further. I'm sure a classicist can provide an example dating back to Rome. The only thing of note, really, is not that we let things degrade this far, but rather that we have managed to not collapse into utter chaos despite unwittingly pursuing it.

I think we can all agree, based on the lines after the highlighted section, that the real tragedy here is that he did not live long enough to see the release of the movie Idiocracy.

Not sure Beavis and Butthead were dumbing down America any more than it was just a comment on society and youth culture. Mindless comedies and satire are usually more intellectual than they appear on the surface. Not sure I can defend Dumb and Dumber though but I love the movie lol.

Not to discredit Carl Sagan. He is fantastic writing and a great observer. But weren't these issues all present in the mid-90s? Even the pseudosciences. Television networks gave spotlight to folks like Uri Geller. James Randi even created his own show in the early 90s debunking these claims.

Explains the issue at Google pretty spectacularly.

Biology is hateful!

I was halfway on board til he blamed Beavis and Butthead.

The celebration of ignorance. This is what terrifies me so much because this isn't just something the Right does but so much of the SJW movement of the left is based in this. It willfully ignores reality and people choose to see it in this ignorant optimistic fashion. It tries to throw out significant research and statistically sound studies that don't fit their agenda. Just know for all you people who scream your head off that conservatives ignore the facts of global warming, know that you're doing the same thing when you down vote data that doesn't support your notion that men and women are exactly the same or that gender isn't a real thing.

i wish i had one Carl Sagan to explain people why they are wrong everytime i stumble upon some brain washed person, which is 90% of the ppl i meet. I myself am victim of this society, but at least i realize it to some extent; i just dont have the words to preach and defend my belief

Welcome to the Kardashian-ization of America.

I agreed until he brought up comedic entertainment like Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead. Even the titles of the media suggests that the people are idiots. Last time I checked Dean Martin was a bumbling fool that walked around the whole movie doing stupid stuff

Its not entirely fitting to 2017. Tidbits are but not this whole passage.

Incorrect analysis of 2017 - there is zero mention of fidget spinners.

I agree with everything except the anti-faith and anti-comedy stuff.

I like Dumb and Dumber.

You need look no farther than the "Discovery" channel and the "Learning" channel to see how far we've fallen. (Nearly forgot "History". "Ancient Aliens"? Really?)

They used to be networks that showed knowledge programming. Now, you just have to look at their "shows" page to see they are exactly as Sagan predicted.

Ancient aliens is the shit bro... back off!!!

This is just describing the world at anytime

You think this is impressive, you should read "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. It was written in 1943 but it feels like it was written yesterday with the way he predicts what the modern education system will look like.

Carl Sagan shoutout to Beavis and Butthead - Mike Judge's proudest moment? Ed: he studied Physics at UC San Diego.

Definitely insightful. But if you want to really be blown away by someone's predictive ability read Democracy in America by Tocqueville... Writing 200 years ago he dissects America to a remarkable degree and some of his predictions are uncanny

Is this CarlSagan42?

He made an accurate estimation based on his observations.

All respect to Carl Sagan, but Beavis and Butthead is a fantastic show.

He could be describing Rome or another empire on its slow decline

What is the name of this book? u/theDeft0nes

Nevermind. Found it on another thread. The Demon Haunted World.

Unfortunately there just isn't enough Carl Sagan content in the world. One of the most reasonable people ever blessed with one of the great brains. Made it a goal to understand then explain complex problems in a way most people can understand.

It was either this book or Billions and Billions that first convinced me about global warming way back when. Even as its getting older and some of the science is less explosive, I think this stuff is required reading.

https://xkcd.com/1227/

The last two sentences needed to be included.

Sounds like he is just describing 1996 before 24 hour news and reality tv.

I need to read this book now,ty Reddit

The knock on Dumb and Dumber is uncalled for, Carl.

This is vague enough that you could apply it to any country at any time if you're pessimistic enough

"so you're saying there's a chance?"

I follow a Facebook group that shares science articles and you should see some of the comments people post. "Chemtrails are real and poisoning us!" "The Earth is flat you can't prove it's a sphere!"

It reminds me of the scene in Interstellar where he goes to Murph's school and finds out they don't teach kids about the moon landing anymore.

I am usually one that is hesitant to say any time period is worse than others, but I do feel like this dumbing down has gotten worse in recent years. Or maybe it's just easier to see with social media.

Hey now watch what you say about dumb and dumber.

Great book! I recommend everyone read it!

More like he predicted 2010 in 1996.

And the dead shall rise and the zombies shall rule, seriously, this is just a random guy gibbing, u can find things like this everywhere from historians, humans are predictable

Criticizing Dumb & Dumber is not the way to my heart, Sagan

I agree with all of the highlighted part. But right after that, I mean, we don't need to throw shade at Dumb and Dumber.

picture of text

Hey, leave Beavis and Butthead out of this! We're grown up now and that shit was funny, its not like it was a model for living.

Thanks Barack Obama and CNN for bringing us closer to this point.

I still don't know why some people believe in superstition. In my eyes religion is included as it is only "supported" by one book written a few thousand years ago.

Ok i know astrology doesnt make sense to some people but theres literally no more proof for that than there is God or any other religion

Hail Sagan

Dumb and Dumber was and is still hilarious.

Yep. Television is produced so the dumbest person in the room doesn't have to think. I struggle to find good space and science documentaries but there is a treasure trove, and entire networks (Bravo) dedicated to drama of semi-scripted "reality TV."

I've got to admit, part of me is appalled that you marked the book, and the other part thinks you need a better highlighter.

But "awesome technological powers" are in the hands of everyone now, and not just a select few. That's largest change in America since 1996.

Not really, the awesome technological powers are now neural networks held by silicon valley not hand held computers.

We're heading towards an era where computer systems can start taking low level jobs away from people. Imagine those select few not even needing you to stand at their tills or drive their trucks

tl;dr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism

Sure is working to incrementally stop war and global warming and corporate lobbyist rigging am I right...

Repost from /r/conspiracy.

Woah.

Wow, I'm extremely impressed. Granted, this was already starting to happen back in the day, so he saw the precedent, but still very impressive to get it so right.

It pretty crazy i have the same paragraph highlighted in the same exact color in my copy... And about half the book... Pink and green actually... Where is that book? No reason to joke about this i carried this book almost like a bible for years.... Where the hell did i leave it??

Socrates called it out much much before

There is nothing new under the sun.

What is this from? Have to read

Great book. Highly recommend. Should be required reading in school.

Wow that's so good

Oh the spaghetti!!

God damn it Carl.

That's the most generic except I've ever read.

Ahhh ain't tryin' to hear DAT!!!

So...He predicted religion and it's followers would continue to rule without any understanding of what the world currently is. I'll make the same prediction now for 20 years from now. Especially if religiosity continues to be a litmus test for leaders. Even liberal ideologies, once friendly to science, now cater to the worst religion has to offer. If this continues on the left we will not be able to vote our way out of this obvious conclusion.

Predicts ? Nah. It was happening then as well, he was observing.

Great Scott! He's right!

He's talking religion, just so you know.

I actually don't think this is happening to the extent Sagan feared. This thread is evidence that it isn't. Thousands of people in just one thread online are aware of and critical of pseudoscience. More and more people are moving away from televised news which deals in sound bites and the news is coming directly from the source via social media more and more often. We no longer have to rely on a news cast to objectively cover a police shooting for example. We don't need to hope that they're giving us all the details we can see the video for ourselves.

For those who are saying he destroys his argument with mention of 'Beavis and Butthead' and 'Dumb and Dumber'. He clearly states that the "plain lesson" is that studying and learning anything is undesirable and unnecessary.

Can anyone tell me what book this is? I wanna get it

Probably wasn't that difficult to see in '96.

Foresight is almost always better than hindsight, but try explaining that to people so deeply rooted in their beliefs/ideology/upbringing that they'll either hurt other people or even themselves over it, or let everything collapse because they can't possibly fathom any other way working.

Might be a big difference between, society collectively picking up the tab and making sacrifices for a better future. Versus being a sunglasses warrior, saying "there's nothing we can do about it anyways" and making circle jerk arguments that are nothing more than defending a position instead of trying to have a conversation and learn.

And I continue to scroll through

oof

I'm not sure that's fair. There's been a renewed interest in science and engineering in recent years. Tony Stark is one of the most popular fictional characters, and he's an engineer who became a super hero. TV evangelicals peaked in the late 80s. There is intense public scrutiny (or at least debate) over issues like net neutrality and global warming. There's public backlash over nationalism (at least these things are true in the USA). Have we really slipped backward? I don't think we have since 1996, and we might be going in the other direction again. This is probably more true from 1976-1996.

This has been a thing for 10 years.

Carl saga predicted 2007 ftfy

Sagan was so pretentious and cringey it hurts. His fanboys are even worse.

Wow dead on.

He was wrong.

"awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few..."

He didn't predict the iphone and weaponized memes. And for anyone that doubted memes can be weaponized, go look for the wikileaks article on how the CIA tried to do this. also bidenbro, cringe memes shoehorned in epic proportions.

He predicted an obsession with memes and GIFs for sure. This is obvious shit why is this so profound.

This isn't a prediction. dumb teens liked Beavis and butthead in the 90's and now they are in charge... it's a very simple idea

What book is this from?

Did he forget reality tv?

Anyone else read this with Carl's voice?

He's right, but I stand by Dumb and Dumber + Beavis and Butthead.

Celebration of ignorance and promotion of dis-ease indeed spot on

2017? This behavior was going on in '96 when he said this.

Some good words. Funny to see that Carl Sagan never got the social commentary that beavis and butthead is.

No offense meant to Mr. Sagan, but I too can make a generalized prediction of the future. Anyone can!

Spot the trend, apply it to the woes that have plagued man since the dawn of time and viola. I have now created a prediction of the future.

Many do this subconsciously- it's why the elderly collide often collide with the youth. Change is always villainous and a sign of stupidity and etc. etc. etc.

I recall that Socrates (I believe) thought that books were complete wastes of time and showed poor power of the mind- just simple tools for the lazy. Modern information transaction is no different- our 'library' is just a hell of a lot bigger.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

Dumb and Dumber is a great movie tho, easy there Carl

sound bites and jokes = reddit

I find for some reason that Beavis and Butthead is considerably smarter than The Big Bang Theory. We're fucked

The word prescient comes to mind.

I agree with aspects of this ...but there is no way our society has dumbed down since his time...we've become a lot more skeptical and informed in the last 40 years....our critical faculties have gotten better

Trump is in office.

So the entire population is stupid and uninformed????? You forget that we just previously elected a black president. Also, Trump is president more because people are scared and feel underrepresented by liberals--less so because a lot of people really believe in him

You forget that we just previously elected a black president.

What does this statement have to do with anything??

My comment was more comedy than anything else. But hey, since you were kind enough to respond, one more question.

How does your quote below imply that the Trump being voted the president was the smartest choice demonstrating that people are today better informed than in the past. Demonstrating that our critical faculties are better.

Trump is president more because people are scared and feel underrepresented by liberals--less so because a lot of people really believe in him

I mean why would you ever vote for someone that you didn't, at least partially, believe in?

On average people are better informed and more critical than they were 40 years ago...idiots will always exist

What does he mean about Dumb & Dumber. It have a 7.3 on IMDB.

I write, the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. Beavis and Butthead remains popular(and influential) with young TV viewers.

AND??!?! So Sagan needed a better sense of humor is clear. #Ineedtpformybunghole

It is in the interest of religious and corporate institutions to keep people stupid.

How dare he throw shade at Dumb & Dumber AND Beavis & Butthead. Beavis & Butthead is at it's core a satire. But yeah, he got the rest of it right.

The point he makes immediately after sort of undermines his whole thing. Dumb and dumber and Beavus and Butthead being popular entertainment is not evidence of the cult of anti-intellectualism.

I'm going to play devils advocate here by pretending to be a symptom of the problem.

Dear Mr Sagan, Life sucks. I work 50 hours a week but only get paid for 40 because apparently salaried employees at my retirement home have to wash dishes to make up for sending hourly employees home on time. I'm their bitch. So when I get off work and think about how much the world sucks, all I want to do is coddle myself with Amazon.com purchases, looking forward to the new iPhone I will have to open a new credit card to purchase, and trying not to think about the madman leading our country. All I care about is the here and now and I will work myself to death for pennies so I can surround myself with baubles that at least bring me momentary comfort in this fucked up world. If I use my brain, I realize how much my lot in life sucks, so I prefer to switch it off and watch situation comedies where they even show me where I'm supposed to laugh. Thinking causes me actual pain because I know how hopeless it is so I have subconsciously learned to suppress all critical thoughts and just go with the flow because who am I to change the world? I move like a leaf on the wind wherever the world takes me, even if it's circling a toilet bowl. While I long for change and to restore sanity to my life, I feel utterly powerless to do anything about it. The world keeps spinning, lubricated by the blood of the disenfranchised and grinding the bones of the weak.

/r/gatekeeping ?

Carl Sagan predicted 1996 in 1996. What a stretch.

Had me until he showed he doesn't understand satire.

So, the last 30 years.

Sounds like this guy doesn't like Beavis and Butthead, what does he know about anything?

Yeah . Dumb and dumberer was good as well.

Word.

I'll go on the record here and predict the year 2038.

Yes, that Obama got elected isn't that surprising I guess.

How fucking prescient can you get? It reminds me of a story I read as a child called "The Marching Morons" by CM Kornbluth, which was a sci fi tale about a really stupid general populace that was kept from disaster by intelligent technocrats. The really stupid populace part stuck with me.

Shuttt upppp

/r/iamverysmart

If you say "liberal" or "republican" you're missing the point entirely.

Idiocracy was prophecy.

It's interesting too how he mentions Beavis & Butthead made by Mike Judge the same creator of Idiocracy

He would have really hated idocracy, and what it described.

Oh, wonder! / How many goodly creatures are there here! / How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, / That has such people in 't!

On THAT note, I think I will go spend some time in /r/science

tl;dr

People just think they know, but they don't. Ignorance is not lack of knowledge. It's the indifference to acquire them.

The high lighted part is spot on but he completely missed the point of Beavis and Butthead. Mike Judge knows what he's doing.

sorts by controversial

Not really that hard to predict . .

"What do you suppose will happen when everyone grows up spoiled and no one knows what hard labor actually is?"

So, for those willing to do something about this, at least at the local level, how? What can we do to fight ignorance in our day-to-day? The best I've been able to do is argue with people in my social circle and nobody changes their mind anyway.

TLDR

We must find and eliminate the people responsible for this state of affairs. I was raised to believe the future would be better than this, not this shitstorm where the skies are going to be terminally scorched in a few years. Hey, guys, like LA's sunset? Its going worldwide! Not to mention this whole neofascist take over. I thought my grandparents got rid of that shit? I mean seriously there are old warriors still alive from that, ancient men who once flew B-17s to make sure that kind of evil didnt rise again.

Problem is they set it up so you cant even question the core of the matter., or the people doing the damage.

Its gotten to the point where intelligence is being classified as a disease in a rather tasty "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down" manner. Unless youre of the right people. then you get to go to the gifted magnet school.

In the vein of the post below me by Ready2Comply, religion is the biggest bamboozle of all, and the people behind it great charlatans. This applies to all 5 of you major ones down to religion going on at the tribal level because primitive tribes dont know what "Cluster B" and "schizophrenia" and "autism" are.

We need to fix this before we all die.

Ah, for the good old days, when our hairy ancestors hunted and gathered in small clans, hooting out to each other invitations to share in the tasty grubs found under the fallen tree, or to warn of bears and ghosts lurking in the shadows.

Hard truths are hard to swallow as opposed to comforting lies...

Hey, what's wrong with Beavis and Butthead?

MOCK

95*

That wasn't that long ago

I don't care how smart he is, Dumb and Dumber is a classic.

We now upvote and gild pictures of highlighted text in r/pics

Think it's time this sub is removed from default status

r/lewronggeneration

...And every time someone writes something like this, they use examples so bad it makes me heavily doubt what they're saying and why they said it.

Dumb and Dumber- one of the best, most well crafted comedies of the past 30 years

Beavis and Butthead- legendary Mike Judge (Office Space, Idiocracy) satire of exactly what Sagan is criticizing, tv, modern America, "dumb culture," etc

To be gair Dumb and Dumber is awesome and I bet he laughed his over analysing butt off when he watched it.

RIP CARL SAGAN

Truth is arbitrary. A man finds truth in what feels good and feels the sting of fact if he is wrong.

"Billions and billions of idiots!"

Right below the highlighted portion it goes from "Nostrodamus-like Truth" into /r/lewronggeneration territory.

You stopped at the best part...."As I write, the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. Beavis and Butthead remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers."

Classics!!!!

It was already like that in 96...

Vine is dead so maybe we're moving forward. Nah jk everything is going up in flames

He steps over the line when he starts to blame Dumb & Dumber. Brilliant movie.

No truer words have been spoken.

This is both awesome and sad.

Actually, disturbing.

(please read in the voice of Carl Sagan)

Even in death, that great man reaches up through the grave, just to once again delight and enlighten our very being with the light of truth for us to carry with us, to hold back the dangerous shadows of ignorance.

Every generation has nearly this same complaint about future generations. Just because a famous person said it doesn't make it exempt from that pattern.

That last line..... Gives me the willies

This came true way before 2017.

Whoa, hold on Carl Sagan. I love you and all but you obviously hadn't watched much Beavis and Butthead. Yeah, the narrative story of episodes were weak. But the heart of the show, the music videos with their commentary is pure genius. Same intelligent humor that's present in King of the Hill and Silicon Valley.

God damn!

You all know this could play just as well on r the Donald, right? Except over there, the problem has already been solved by electing a true leader, ignoring the MSM and draining the swamp.

Wow ...

So glad I can go to /r/pics to read a page from a book.

Hey, wait. Dumb and Dumber And Beavis and Butthead is some solid entertainment!

"Now down to 10 seconds or less".
Vine!

Holy Sweet Christmas!

"Celebration of ignorance" def checks out

1996 isn't really that long a go tbh. Quite a few nations are like that such as Britain

Im kind of ashamed that I currently have "Life of Kylie" on the TV at this exact moment.

You should be.

I know!

But I needed something frivolous on as noise, and I have this weird fascination with the Kardashians.

For example, on the show one of Kylie's fans thanked Kylie for "all she has done". WTF has Kylie done?

And she might actually be the most boring and insipid person to ever have walked the earth. I mean her affect is flat, she has zero education, no sense of humor, terrible taste in men, horrible fashion sense, etc. She is a walking, talking doll.

So why do so many females love her? I can't figure it out.

Then don't "have a weird fascination" with them. You're only supporting exactly what you claim to not like.

Yup. You are 100% correct and I am 100% a hypocrite.

Swear I heard him say that in a very good interview.

OP, this is not a "prediction," corporate America raping our economy and entertainment journalism go back before 1996. nothing changed, just slowly gotten worse.

"2017 will probably happen"

“all key manufacturing industries have slipped away….” It is interesting, now that we’ve made China the manufacturing arm of the world economy, look who’s got all the cash? It was back in the 80’s I first began hearing that we were “shifting” to a service economy. I’m no ones economist, but even then, I remember wondering “can we even do that?” In my rudimentary understanding of these things, shouldn’t countries, at least first world super powers, be producing something? Shouldn’t they be producing things for themselves that are most important to them, like computers? Instead of seeking the quick dividends of wall st. style investing, shouldn’t we be seeking another kind of dividend?

Nailed everything but the manufacturing almost perfectly.

Not to be that guy, but this was originally published in 1995. I was just following Sagan's advice and checking for accuracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

We had to read this my freshman year of college. It was eye opening.

Love Sagan and agree with the ideas in this mini prophacy, but have to wonder why he wasn't grasping the joke of Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead. The characters and the humor, if anything, are warnings against stupidity and ignorance. Just because you find B&BH hilarious doesn't mean you're contributing to the transformation of America into the idiocracy nation.

First read that as '1966' and thought "how the hell did he know Dumb and Dumberer was going to be a movie!?"

U.S. real manufacturing output is at an all time high

While I agree with the sentiment and some of it is true, the information economy and representation particularly, but the rest, we're hardly moving in that direction, while superstition and pseudoscience are prevalent, it's just more noticeable given the ease of finding such on the net.

Fascinating. To think the only reason he world is in this state is because not that people haven't become 'woke', but because there is nothing that can be done.

Severely level is ence enough it's not tyrannical, but it is a problem. The government supports the government, and the people support the government. US citizens pay taxes to feel safe in a country where their leader is riddled with the possibility of starting wars! They pay taxes to have massive defence in a country playing offensively. That's completely fucked. Their taxes go to the government, so that they can do what? They haven't been doing their job very well whatever it is, because the country is filled with constant protests and constant problems the people are having. Perhaps the taxes are used to slow down the ever growing debt of the US economy? But is that the people's responsibility? Did the people want the government to throw it's taxes and costs all at things it can afford, or did the government make an executive decision? Do you even know who's truly at fault for that situation? The government or the people? Honestly it's gone to a matter of opinion. Whether you believe the government didn't do the right job, or the people weren't strong enough to voice out against it. In a democracy the people are supposed to be the governments best interest, but is that really the case with the US right now?

The bit about Dumb and Dumber and Bevis and Butthead is kind of insulting, and unfortunately makes me respect him just a little less for it. As smart as he was, he was still a judgmental asshole that missed the point, and is using his ignorance of them to impugn the youth at the time.

True, but if you consider his age at the time and that at least in mainstream media cartoons were still "kids stuff" it's not too surprising.

Beavis and Butthead was one of the most salient cultural triumphs of our time. Who is this Carl Sagan baboon butt?

Picture of a page in a book

PBS, save us

Nah it's not you're just finding individual things to fill each sentences requirements and ignoring what a small part of greater society those things really are. Like someone being outraged by some scuffs on a huge painting and damning the whole thing.

Is this fake

Sounds like a lot of bullshit. Products are outsourced because of people who know how business works.

He's got a point, but I'll be damned if Dumb and Dumber isn't hilarious

The fact that we can have intelligent conversations about this quote proves that it hasn't come to fruition yet.

Hey, dumb and dumber is a solid movie.

So, think he'd have supported us getting out the ol' guillotines? Because honestly, it sounds like we need to clean up.

This is how I feel when something (or the mere existence) of "iamverysmart" hits the front page. Sure, people might be over doing it; but at least they're fucking trying.

If that was in 1996 then it's not exactly a great prediction. Almost all of that was true at the time already, and these ideas were pretty mainstream and common before that.

Fuck him...

how do you not like Dumb and Dumber?

Love Sagan, but hating on Beavis and Butthead is just unnecessary.

Weak Peasants and Sheep. Waiting on Termination day.

Read this in Johnny Carson's impression of Carl Sagan.

And sadly even after 73 thousand redditors have read this, absolutely nothing will change

Is there a subreddit for things like this?

Ironically Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead and considered intelligent comedies these days.

They were then too?

No one's going to comment on the title? "Demon-Haunted World" ?? Wtf Carl what secrets do you know that we don't...

I Was with him until the first sentence after the highlighting.... dumb and dumber is one of the best movies of all time.

Cool. Thanks for sharing. I just downloaded the book.

This was just as true when he wrote it as it is now. It's just become more transparent due to technology.

LOL

I'd love to hear what he has to say about someone like lil pump after reading that last bit about Dumb and Dumber / Beavis and Butthead..

Anyone have the name of the book

Lol... Seriously? It's at the top of the page...

*fewer

It was actually published in 1995, but my god, how accurate this paragraph is today.

idk about throwing Dumb & Dumber under the bus tho

Dumb and dumber is a pretty good movie though

Does anybody know what page number this is?

For a second, I thought I was in r/philosophy

NAFTA was in 1994 this assumption could have been made much earlier.

Another series, which you may think the author predicted the future events, is Orson Scott Card's Shadow series. Not with the Formics, or genetic engineering, but what's going with the world.

Russia is attempting to expand itself, sucking up those states that were once under the iron curtain, behind a leader that closely resembles Putin.

America isolates itself from the world, and the problems manifested on the planet.

And a caliph is the head of a expanding Islamic state.

Doesn't like Dumb and Dumber?!? Literally mongoloid!

Dumb & Dumber is good ol fashion fun. The section about the news, media, and all that jazz is completely true. Don't fall for headline clickbait or watch the news. Try to get your sources from something you have to read in full (still be cautious of the sources)

Why is this from?

Couldn't read the whole thing. Too many words. ELI5?

Maybe humans were better off in the Feudal Times -- work work , yes my lord , Peons all of us

The fact that this has so many upvotes and comments points to the idea that maybe we aren't lost. The silent majority needs to be louder

We're already there Carl!

Many people have, all you have to do is see what is on TV today.

It must be true.. I only read less than 10 seconds of this and got bored

If you want a darker version of the same -- read "Infinite Jest" by David Foster Wallace -- started in 1991 and published in 1996.

[Not only him.] (http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf)

Amazing the number of comments here about Bevis and Butthead and Dumb and Dumber. The salient idea is that which the OP has highlighted.

Based on the comments, Sagan's point has clearly been made.

Dumb and Dumber is my favorite all-time movie.

tl;dr.
/s

Yeah, well in the past, there was a TV show about a talking horse. How is that substantive content? Or how about movies like The Giant Gila Monster?

And do you actually think kids would never procrastinate or avoid studying in the 1950s -- 1960s? Do you think they always chose study and learning over listening to the latest records or throwing spitballs?

Sounds like he was talking about india from 1000 BC to 2017 AD.

TL;DR

This guy goes on to criticize Beavis and Butthead, which nullifies his other points tbh.

That could be the title of the chapter my friend. They do that in books.

Ah, the Demon Haunted World. It should be required reading for all high school students. It's a step by step guide to logical thinking presented in a way that almost anybody can understand . Both my boys will read this book when they're old enough.

beavis and butthead was actually a pretty high brow despite first glances. mike judge is, without a doubt, a genius. his work can be appreciated as intellectual, higher comedy. only the obtuse would see it as obtuse because theyre too stupid to see its true brilliance

chills

I think Sagan's principal criticism then was the diminishing seriousness of an American culture too busy entertaining itself to notice it's own decline. We have greatly enhanced our sense of social satire and irony at the expense of general knowledge - knowingness without actual knowing.

Don't worry our president will make it all great again

Where do i send in for my crystal?

But he's wrong a bout Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead.

So you're telling me there's a chance.

I was with him until he started badmouthing Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead. Then he just started sounding like an angry old man.

KTS

The first (highlighted) sentence is a masterful example of how to make a long sentence work. It's oddly satisfying to me; 112 words, 4 semicolons, and 7 commas. hmmmm

Buttheyred clutching their "good book, not crystals....

The saddest part is that it is his generation to blame....

More than two genders.. pseudoscience, check! Russian collusion.. superstition, check ! Affirmative action.. Lowest common denomination programming, check! All news station.. Modern news media decaying AND Ignorance, check THOSE OFF TOO!

Tired of typing now thanks ahead of time for the down votes echo chamber

Sounds like any cranky old man. "Things were better in my day, sonny."

Ok hang on now. I loved the hell out of Dumb and Dumber, but I'm also a strong advocate of science. I subscribe to both Astronomy and Sky & Telescope magazines, read astronomy news, own four telescopes, read and watch Carl Sagan's work when possible, and wrote a (not very good) college paper on string theory. I was that nerdy kid in middle school who always did presentations on the universe and solar system for science, and watched Mr. Wizard's World, and Bill Nye.

Clearly there's room to be entertained by both slapstick comedy like Dumb and Dumber / Ren and Stimpy, as well as science and information.

Another "amazing prediction" which consists of the standard very cynical view of trends that have been going on for decades already. Or have been around forever, like "politicians being selfish dicks". Unless you don't remember the 90s at all, and think that everything the world today just happened the moment you were aware of it.

Hi reddit. So my friend made this comment and then it disappeared. As someone who has read and owns pretty much every Carl Sagan book, I know that Carl himself would not allow this sort of censorship. Here it is fully restored.

http://i.imgur.com/Vh0L8x7.jpg

Billion

Sometimes I feel that reading A Demon Haunted World made me a kind of bitter person, but sometimes I'm kind of glad about it.

Whoa whoa whoa...Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead are classics of satire.

Need a new highlighter.

/r/Beholdthemasterrace would prove he's correct.

Ps:It's a satirical sub as you can tell by the side bar.

Great book. It's scary how much of it is true

'when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few' - this definitely isn't true (not when we all have iPhones) and everything after that and before 'the dumbing down of america is most evident' is entirely subjective and i guarantee there has been a subset of society with that worldview in virtually every era.

we've had such rapid advancements in technology and globalization over the past decade or two that we are still catching up as a society and learning how to exist in this era. With the massive amount of information and tech becoming available in such a short period of time there are obviously going to be growing pains and mainstream worldview are naturally going to need to ask ' how do i come to terms with this' but this pessimistic and apocalyptic worldview many have adopted is a cheap cop out: adapt, don't curl up and cry about it claiming the world is mean and bad.

THANK YOU FOR THIS REMARKABLE INFO! I hope with all my being that at least a significant number of young people assimilate this 3/4 page and use it throughout their lives to ward off the shyster politicians who are always lurking.

Highlighting an entire passage... Disappointing.

hmmmmm

Many people predicted how things would become now, and it's because it's been going in that direction for a long time.

Why just 2017? How about the last 10 years...

This sort of thing is a tautology - equally true at any time. I was first introduced to tautology when I grew up in the Mormon church. Their founding prophet was really good at them.

(I don't necessarily disagree with what he wrote, though)

"Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"

This post made it to MarketWatch.com

Just being stupid, silly and insulting to us.

In other words, hell on earth

Yeah but he didn't see the video of that woman shitting on the grocery store floor as she walked in

I'm a huge fan of Carl Sagan, but to be fair, by 1996 it was becoming quite clear what direction things were going in due to technology and cultural shifts. Soundbites and the dumbing down of America due to 24 hour news etc were a thing back in the 1990s as well. 2017 has just been a radical continuation and entrenchment of that. With new media, it will be interesting to see how things evolve.

I read this book as a senior in highschool.

The man is a bonafide genius

We don't have to care about each other anymore. So we don't.

to be fair this was already kind of a thing in 1996.

Not to be a dick but it doesn’t sound that crazy hat someone can predict very general details about a country 11 years from then, just saying

So he predicted democrats in 2017. Based Sagan.

Seth Rich was a time traveler sent from 2020 to warn that warn us of The Rocks rise to unfathomable power. He wasn't murdered, he ran into his doppelgänger and was immediately destroyed in which looks like a botched robbery but was obviously an event of the time space continuum splitting into another time line once future seth ran into present time seth.

Comet Pizza is actually a spacetime conduit in which enemy time travelers and lizard people use to travel freely through space time. Why do you think it's named Comet Pizza? Because planet Niburu is actually a prison planet for a subterranean species of children exist in which they are trying to escape through the tear in space time in their specially designed transport aka "the comet".

Believe me its true. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it.

I love the uneducated, but we must keep seeking the truth. We are the few that are not influenced by the media. Their attempts to subliminally manipulate our minds do not work on people like you, me, and /u/ashishduhh1

You're literally being the idiotic person he's talking about here. Just being stupid, silly and insulting without any substance whatsoever, simply because you NEED to feel part of a group.

It's really pathetic and I can only hope that when high school ends you realize how petty you're being. Problems aren't black and white and they are definitely not solved by "hurrr durrr demon dems maga yolo!"

found the liberal who thinks this exact same way about conservatives. look at yourself.

no u!

Nobody wins!

*chuckles as I sit back and remember that I hate the circus politics has become and how I've abandoned both sides as idiots

*sit back up as I realize we're about to be nuked by NK and these people are still complaining about the election and parties

Nobody wins!

literally...

r/justneckbeardthings

Have you READ the political discussions on reddit? Have you seen EVERY post being derailed by a random political comment? Have you seen how the left treated people prior to the election when they were "winning"? Have you seen how many issues the POTUS has had and how to right still ignores every bit of it?

Yeah, neckbeardy to be disillusioned and having given up on any meaningful contribution to the leadership of this country because the people in wealth and power are too far gone to even be reached by normal humans anymore.

But sure, keep clanging your bell for whatever side you "support" while I neckbeard out by distancing myself and ignoring it all so I can at least enjoy a peaceful life without constantly being bombarded with negativity and hype.

I am not an American.

Oh, well, my mistake.

Gotta admit, no offense, but with all the bullshit going on over here I have a very hard time giving a shit about your opinion. Sorry.

Laugh it up at us, or be paranoid. Dependent on which country/natural resources you own. But don't try and insult someone for distancing themselves from the issues you're entertained by over here.

r/justneckbeardthings

What do you mean? Are you implying that Sagan isn't talking about some group of people? I'm pretty sure he doesn't consider himself part of the group of people that he's talking about, so by definition he's talking about some group other than his own groups just like you and I both are.

#MAGA

MAGA

cringe

I'm embarrassed for you.

And there it is.

Sorry to stop you here, friend but you seem to have made a mistake in your post. I'm here to help you clear that up.

What you seem to be referring to as democrats, left-wingers or liberals is actually a caricature of hatred that you've grown to agree with based on those around you's view from a distance, much like I would possibly have the opinion that all conservatives are backwoods gun-toting rednecks, but I know this is not the case.

However, this is entirely false. The actual perpetrators of your rage are those on both sides of the fence who are supporting corporations and lobbyists. The only reason you don't hear about the Republican money-bags is because... well, you wouldn't, same as I wouldn't hear about a corrupt Democrat, but actually, I would, because I read the news on both sides. You should too. It could help ease this error in the future.

Thanks for taking the time to settle this out with me. I hope I've been a good help!

I said democrat. Basically all democrats are corrupt and support big money and corporate interests. This is evidenced by 98% of them voting for Hillary.

Also I read all the news, even though most of it is fake. Also I'm not a Republican, but at least you admitted you're a democrat.

Over half of republicans think college degrees are bad for America.

The degree itself isn't the problem.

Encouraging people to take $100,000 in unsecured, non-dischargable loans to get a degree that doesn't actually prepare you for any real job is a problem. And by extension, I'd say that "getting a degree" is not nearly as great an idea as advertised, and that young people should be a lot more cautious about it.

This is the study OP is referencing. It's a more general phenomenon.

They can be depending on which you choose and how much money you start with. Non money making degrees can burden you for life with student debt and make you unproductive on the delision that you can make a living off of your degree. The republican argument is that the people who get these degrees should stick to the interest as a hobby and instead bite the bullet for a less desirable degree or trade that makes money.

This is the study OP is referencing. It's a more general phenomenon.

They are. Taking $25,000 of loans right out of the gate is setting yourself up for failure. If you go to college, you better pick a good major or else you'll be in debt forever. And no, the worthless degrees aren't good for society either. No one cares how well you can critique films or English literature.

Well I agree on the fact that a degree to critique flims is stupid but a degree in English Literature has value.

This is the study OP is referencing. It's a more general phenomenon.

Source? Oh wait, I've seen this already. The study asks republicans if they think "campus culture" is good for America. Weird how you have to twist the facts (it's not).

You're wrong. Republicans are inherently complete idiots.

This is the study OP is referencing. It's a more general phenomenon.

just lol at your gender studies, woman studies, psychology, communication degrees. Many MANY degrees are absolutely worthless and colleges are being used as breeding grounds for far left socialist movements.

Sound bites down to 5 seconds now, tops

a three second cat gif

This shit's too long to read. Got a 10 second or less YouTube summary?

I don't think he got it very right. Except for the last bit, the celebration of ignorance. It's what I like to call the "Liberal Tears" movement. It's the idea of of being willfully blunt, offensive, and ignorant, if only because you feel that it offends the liberal world.

Funny, it seems to be the "liberal world" that is constantly trying to suppress wrongthink and thoughtcrime.

The thing is, I know far, far more people who complain about PC things than people I know who push over the top PC issues. That's because the former is an invented argument that, at best, has a few anecdotal stories to fall back on and use as proof of why today's world is a shadow of it's former self.

The thing is, I fully reserve the right to point out if your views are simply wrong. What you are looking for is the suppression of ignorance.

Making a compelling argument that someones views are incorrect is one thing.

Insisting that someones views are morally repugnant, twisting and misrepresenting what they said in order support that claim, and then demanding they be punished so they don't speak again is quite another.

Free speech is a thing. No one is demanding anyone get punished for having dumb ideas. That's why I consider the Alt Right to be one of the emotionally (among other things) weakest political movements in US history. They fail to understand that most people don't like their fringe views. So, when they get made fun of or shouted down, they cry that their right to free speech is being violated. It's not. That's not how free speech works. They still have consequences for saying the stupid things they say.

You forgot to post that stupid XKCD comic that always comes with this song and dance...

Yeah, people are absolutely demanding people get punished, by having their livelyhoods destroyed, for having contrary ideas. That they're not using the government as the avenue to do it, and thus not running afoul of the First Amendment, doesn't make it justifiable behavior.

Yes it does! If your life is getting destroyed because people find your political views so offensive, then something is wrong with you! Even if your views are good, if they offend the majority of people, then you need to find a way around that. It's not for the rest of society to make room for your snowflake views.

You are allowed to have your views, and no one can stop you. But you can be spoken against. How does that destroy your livelihood?

And what comic? I don't know what you are talking about.

Here's a big clue for you: There is no alt right.

With your utter failure to explain your point, I guess I'll just have to disregard your thoughts. I'm sorry that you wasted my time.

Not even close. You saw a nut or two on the internet get outraged, then made assumptions about half of the country based on that. It's literally retarded. Your standard liberal is a freedom loving, gun owning, extremely hard working American, just like, you guessed it, your standard conservative.

I get that you have nothing and you need a team to cling to because your life is pointless, but shut the fuck up and get real for a second.

It has much more in common with a bowel movement to be honest.

what the fuck is wrong with Dumb and Dumber???

[deleted]

Well TIL. I agree - but didn't realize there was a word to encapsulate this concept until now so thank you!

TIL Carl Sagan thought people watch movies to enlighten themselves.

His "evidence" is two popular comedies. We're human and we all need escapism, not to come home after a long day's work and dig into the harsh reality of climate change or child labor.

Grow up, Carl.

Incorrect. If that's all you took away from this, then you were either close-minded about him in the first place or somehow insulted by the notion that you took it personally or perhaps you don't understand subtext...

Anyway, it's a sign of the times, when movies about idiocy are the most popular, as opposed to something enlightening or at least that move humanity forward in some way.

Definitely there is something to be said for the merits of escapism, but that the escapism behavior is so pervasive IS the point: barely anyone is willing to deal with harsh realities EVER to such a staggering degree that the mission critical issues such as climate change or the political arena's growth towards fascism/totalitarianism go uninvestigated by the populous that only a scarce few understand the issue but yet all are expected to have an informed opinion on which to base votes.

I'm sure Carl Sagan could have a drink now and again, but if his main source of fluid is alchohol that would be analogously equivalent to having a comedy about idiocy be the #1 movie, even for a brief period.

For those reasons, it appears to be you who must do the growing up to gain the coping mechanisms to deal with harsh realities rather than defend the pervasive escapism that is leading humanity to destruction.

I see you told me to grow up. I'd love to humor your arguments, but I'm not about to take time out of my day to read some voluminous rambling bullshit from an internet stranger who leads and ends with insults regarding Carl Sagan. Be easy, weirdo.

Whoooooosh. This whole thing was so over your head you'd have to break your own neck just to catch a glimpse.

lol. okay.

Honestly I just wanted to type that out. Sorry for being a dick.

Comedy and beavis and butthead don't cross .

Dumb and Dumber is 23 years old? Holy hell! What happened to my life? Where did it go?

HOLY WALL OF TEXT! I ain't reading all that.

Thanks for illustrating his exact point!

He didnt predict shit, he saw those things already in 1996 and its just gotten worse since

Fuck you Carl. Dumb and Dumber is still fucking funny today.

only if you can relate and that is not a compliment.

I am just saying that he could have went after Alley Mcbeal or the show friends. Those were around when he wrote that and those shows sucked. Dumb and dumber was stupid, but that was the point. It did what it tried to do and it was funny. I respect the hell out of Carl and grew up on his show, but the man does NOT know funny.

OP unfortunately didn't include page 176, where Carl correctly predicts next month's winning Powerball numbers.

Sagan was an American original- a great man.

Tyson is a very poor substitute- embarrassing to him and insulting to us.

Better title; "People have always described societal changes with negative connotations." See anyone over 30 anytime in history for reference.

Sound like he predicted 1996 in 1996. Nice try Millennial.

Well we got that last line from Obama. Where to next?

Basically describing the sham of the liberal philosophy in a nutshell

[deleted]

I don't think you get that he is talking about people like you in this work. He isn't saying liberals are idiots he is saying people who don't listen to the full story are idiots. Which are most people who regard the other side as complete idiots

the current democrat platform.

Oh look, it's an AM radio listener!

The only thing they clutch harder than their crystals is their pearls.

Are you talking about the poor "real Americans" who got unfathomably butthurt because Hillary Clinton said that racists who supported Trump were "deplorables"? Or the people who had to pass legislation about where people can pee because they're afraid of chicks with weewees?

They believe this Russia conspiracy theory the media has been peddling with not ONE piece of evidence to back it.

If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.

Real classical liberals and democrats are practically opposites at this point.

In the America of the Democratic Party, you have a constitutionally protected right to spew whatever idiocy you want, and others have a constitutionally protected right to respond with ridicule and contempt. The lack of respect for your ideas in educated society is not a function of illiberalism, but of how bad your ideas are.

Oh look, it's a Late Show and Last Week Tonight watcher!

Haha alright, nice to see you defending Hillary "Super Predators" Clinton. But the democrats have never been racist before that! Everyone knows the Klan has always been republicans, can't argue with facts. "Chicks with weewees" arent chicks. I love how republicans are the science deniers for not thinking the best way to combat global warming is massive regulations, but you think anyone is whatever sex they claim to be and biology is wrong.

Show me ONE piece of evidence proving the Russian connection. Conjecture and unnamed sources don't count as evidence. I mean something like the Uranium One deal except Trump is the guilty one instead of democrats

HAHAHA WHAT?! What do you think classical liberalism is? It's live and let live, if that's how you see leftists you are too far gone for logic. Who are the ones getting angry over subjective hate speech? Who are the ones who want more government involvement in our lives? Who are the ones trying to take away our freedoms like free speech and the 2nd amendment? Real classical liberals are now considered libertarians because the leftists have hijacked the term liberal

nice to see you defending Hillary "Super Predators" Clinton

I wasn't; I was only pointing out how hilariously offended everyone was by the "deplorables" comment. Not to mention stuff like "cling to guns or religion" or "If I had a son he would've looked like Trayvon." You are in no position to accuse people of pearl-clutching just because the civilized world doesn't like racist sexual assailants.

But the democrats have never been racist before that! Everyone knows the Klan has always been republicans, can't argue with facts.

Oh, it's that strawman again... The Democratic Party was unashamedly racist before the Progressive Era, and continued to have millions of racists in its coalition well into the 20th Century. Oddly enough, when the Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans opposed it, the racists became Republicans. This isn't even debatable. People like Robert Byrd (who, as a West Virginian and KKK member as a child, hasn't really done anything substantially racist aside from a wacky quote or two) are outliers compared the laundry list of politicians like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond who left the party when it proved insufficiently racist.

Chicks with weewees" arent chicks.

...and yet you're terrified by them to the point that you support laws about where they can pee, before lecturing me about "classical liberalism." 🤔

I love how republicans are the science deniers for not thinking the best way to combat global warming is massive regulations...

me too!

...but you think anyone is whatever sex they claim to be and biology is wrong.

Gender is a different concept from sex, and it's an area where liberals (you know...those people who are supposed to believe in liberty) think the government shouldn't be deciding how people live their lives!

Show me ONE piece of evidence proving the Russian connection. Conjecture and unnamed sources don't count as evidence.

If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.

I mean something like the Uranium One deal except Trump is the guilty one instead of democrats

Manafort and Flynn are under criminal investigations, Trump can't say a critical word about Papa Vlad, he won't release his tax returns, and he even outed an ally's undercover asset for no reason other than to show off to the Russians.

Who are the ones getting angry over subjective hate speech?

People with a constitutionally protected right to get angry at whatever they want to get angry about. When Congress makes a law abridging the freedom of speech, let me know.

Who are the ones who want more government involvement in our lives?

The ones who want a deportation force, a wall, protectionism, a muslim registry, a religious test to enter the country, a drug war, restrictions on access to contraception/abortions, laws about who can pee where, laws about who can marry whom, etc.

This reply makes almost no sense whatsoever

Nailed it. Thank you for expanding on my point.

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

This got more intense as I read it. Wake up call if I've ever seen one

I'd only say that, in addition to Beavis and Butthead, Mike Judge also made Idiocracy. B&B is kind of a brilliant satire that a lot of Baby Boomers don't get.

A lot of boomers didn't get Beavis and Butthead, but I think Sagan did. Beavis and Butthead are like Family Guy, and I think that Sagan is more of a South Park man (fewer fart jokes, but more satire)

At quick glance, I read this as "Craig Sager predicts..." and after I read it I respected Mr. Sager even more. Still love u Craig!

The fact that he mentions dumb and dumber and beavis and butthead kinda puts him in the. /iamverysmart crowd

Absolutely genius quote and couldn't be more accurate.

But..here is an irony too: The dumbing down in America is ALSO evident in how science needs to be conveyed and made "attractive" to people..and ironically, Carl Sagan was the PRIME EXAMPLE for this!

A scientist must come across like an entertainer, with "popular" TV shows and books, today Youtube, science itself becomes a media circus because otherwise the average person cannot even be reached. (I don't say this is bad per se, but just stating how it is).

Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson's role...seem to be more entertainers than actually "serious scientists", if you know what I mean. And this alone is sad, in some way. When you need a Youtube channel or go on Oprah, because this is the only way to make it clear to common folks that the earth is not flat....

Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson's role...seem to be more entertainers than actually "serious scientists",

Carl Sagan predicted and modeled the theory of greenhouse gases heating up a planet. He assembled the first messages sent into space. He was the first to theorize that titan had water on it.

Yes Sagan was an entertainer, but he was an incredible scientist.

"a celebration of ignorance" Sagan predicts T_D

Is this Twitter in 1996? Did they not have the 140 characters limit?

a celebration of ignorance

Someone needs to put that on a red hat

I mean, he said because bevis and butthead is popular, nobody wants to learn science.

He guessed. This guess is looking similar if you squint.

I'm so sad we don't have Carl's words of wisdom anymore. In a way though, I'm glad he never lived to see the rise of terrorism, countless wars, increases in conflict between former Cold War adversaries, and the trump era. (He would have loved to have seen Obama in office mind you.)

no it was actually Huey Long (1930s) : "When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism.”

Give me the TLDR version.

JK.

Then stop it, most of you want to blame something else, government, political parties, corporations etc when the problem lies at our own feet, no one elses. We are the consumers, capitalism works as supply and demand, if YOU didn't watch those clips, if YOU didn't get so emotionally invested in soundbiting manipulative news and then tweet/facebook all your friends about it, things could change.

Sagan was a genius, but this isn't such a novel prediction. Many people have been saying the same thing for the last 50 years. It's much easier to see idiocy now on social media sites since anyone can have an account. If you are a thinker, you wouldn't normally interact with many of these people or even talk to them before the advent of social media, you would just ignore them.

Intellectualism however is alive and well. It always has been and likely always will be. All it takes is a curious mind. Phrase like "tyranny of the majority" and "there is a sucker born every minute" didn't arise because previous societies were consistently filled with great minds. If the majority of people in the past were intellectuals history would look a lot different. Illuminating all of this was the purpose of Sagan writing The Demon Haunted World.

r/im14andthisisdeep

Sounds true, doesn't it? Are you reading my words or did you read the headline, let it's bias guide you and then click on the first funny comment and move on to another distraction? Are you going "fuck this wall of text?" Too bad. Memes aren't an actual economy and you're being a lazy dumbass.

Ignorance is huge, Thanks in part to the meme economy.

But here Carl got the future wrong.

The USA is still are a world leader in industrial productivity. In fact, manufacturing has been estimated to match China's again by ~2020. But automation requires fewer workers. Whats the matter, you afraid of a little global competition that will only bring solutions to problems faster?

Awesome technological capabilities are not held by a select few. In fact, the barriers to access are lower than ever before.

Where do you think all the cool stuff comes from? Oh, you're under 30? You grew up in an era of extreme plenty. You don't realise how many things you take for granted didn't even exist 3 decades ago.

Today an idea can go from inside someone's head, then expressed on CAD software and quickly brought to market with far less resources and cheaper technology. In my neighborhood here in Seattle there's a company where you can walk in with an idea and for a price 100-1000 times cheaper than ever before, they can help you bring it to reality.

Makerbot is not just a toy. It is real. And dozens of such machines exist for commercial production.

"When the people lose the ability to set their own agendas..." BULLSHIT. When Sagan wrote this, your options were trade skills, middle man (like insurance agent), medicine, management or education. Ideally for a large, impersonal ccorporation with strict dress codes and binders outlining personal behavior. You traded your personality for the corporations. Now many companies let you bring your dog to work, encourage you to express yourself in workplace decorations, and you can often wear whatever you like. American companies today ask you to work hard, but they know young workers expect their individual needs to be accomodated.

Personal Web pages, podcasts, video streaming, people are sharing thoughts & skills and expertise with ease today. 30 years ago if something interested me. I'd have to go to a library...and if it was obscure, good luck. The environment where I would even know about that something was severely limited. Today, if I want to know how people used to make fire and catch food, I can look it up on Wikipedia and someone has a Youtube channel demonstrating it, with an ad for a school that teaches it as a camping vacation.

Now every day reddit and Digg exposes me to dozens of ideas, trends, skills, lessons. For a day's work per month the entire world is at my fingertips 24 hours a day.

IF you are not taking advantage of that , that's on you. The barriers for expression and creativity have fallen. Kids in one party China are kicking your ass with creativity and fewer access to capital. What's your excuse?

And comedy is comedy, Carl. Universe bless you, but I bet you loved the Marx Brothers. Beavus & Butthead often slyly commented on the MTV generation & it aired on the same network. We knew these idiots were to be laughed at.

Ignorance is still rife. But it's willful ignorance. Yes Fox News exists, but so does NPR and its coverage of ideas is even better than when i first started listening to it. If you're not listening to NPR, that's on you. If you think it is boring, that's on you. Life is work, learning is work, and people who stop working & learning are going to die sooner and be unhappier than those that do not.

Where I live is a small architecture company. The owners are in their late 50's and 60's and they drive really nice cars. Everyday 1 or 2 of them are always the first at work. Not 8 a.m. Not 6 a.m., but 4 or 5 or even 3 a.m. By 2 pm they are usually gone, free to enjoy their afternoons. They ain't planning on dying anytime soon. What are your plans?

And when are you going to make them come true?

Immigrant kids are kicking your ass with creativity and fewer access to capital. What's your excuse? Yup I agree. We've nurtured a generation of whiners, but they are in tune with today's youthful thoughts and trends so that at least gives them some value. So much focus on "What I don't have" versus "What I have the potential to earn".

There have always been whiners.

There have always been people who pick their particular political religious social perspective, and need to protect it it was right by saying the whiners are the fault of my opposites.

Oooo . . I'm following you. Sorta like "There are two kinds of racism, Mr. Escalante. Singling out a group who are members of a minority......and not singling out a group who are members of a minority." That Stand and Deliver quote resonated with me.

A great quote. I think my poorly expressed point, is that resonse used the ides to to defend an unrelated viewpoint, using the text rather than trying to understand the text.

"A celebration of ignorance" could have been Trumps campaign slogan.

How does this have 14k points and gold when all the top comments are dismissing it?

Self-selection. People who care more about the issue will inevitably come to the comments to talk about it.

The problem is the people who don't realize it started in the news media and entertainment, NOT with political figures.

You have people like Stephen Colbert always painting the other side as racist. Mitt Romney didn't have a racist bone in his body, but if you listened to Stephen Colbert during the election you would have gotten the opposite impression.

It happened so many times that now no one on the right will believe someone on the left when they call a figure racist.

Now think about that bias multiplied by issue after issue in the media and you can start to see how people on the right simply will not believe anything the media says about Trump.

This is an excellent book, which my daughter (mid-teens) will read this year.

How was this not also 1996?

Haven't read this book since Dubya was in office but I remember this passage hitting me hard then, now during the era of Trump and alternative facts it really hits the nail on the head. That's so absolutely depressing...

We never deserved Carl Sagan. Man was light years ahead of his time.

Super generalized. The only thing he predicted is that media aimed at the lowest common denominator is popular, aka Reddit.

The people commenting here show one flaw with Sagan's idea. We are changing back to the other direction. We are increasing manufacturing slowly but surely and due to our current president, interest in politics has surged. We are changing for the better at the moment. We are seeing the problems and starting to fix them. This will take years and we might never fully recover, but we are not going down without a fight. Thank you Reddit for seeing issues in today's society when many can not or refuse to see it.

Edit: Sagan not Satan

Ok, but Dumb and Dumber is fucking amazing.

It's almost like we saw this coming...Sagan was hardly alone in these views.

I loved those shows as they came out AND love learning. I wish all points didn't need a counter point, that there doesn't have to be a villan. I think part of what he wrote contributes to the problem, people feel the need to guide others to what they see as value. It should be the opposite. Take what a person loves and provide the tools ao they can take THAT to the next level and apply critical thinking in the arena of their choice.

Steve Jobs used to say the US should teach programming to build critical thinking skills and I agreed for a long time. But now I think we need to be more open, less judgemental and teach critical thinking on whatever a person chooses to apply their time to. Time is the great equalizer, it's really all the value life has. There is not enough time to learn everything, go everywhere and meet everyone. Instead of taking the mile wide but 1 inch deep approach society/fields advance from the people who sit in one spot and bore down as deep as they can.

I was with him until he started using "Dumb and Dumber" and "Beavis and Butthead" as evidence of our imminent decline. I don't think he understood the brilliant satire and commentary that were at the heart of those and other surreal comedies. Now, "Jackass"...that show was just stupid.

Uhhh fuck him for shitting on comedy as if it is a primary source of dumbing down the culture

yeah like google firing people for having a different opinion and youtube demonetizing "offensive" videos

"when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few"

Except 40 percent of the world has access to the internet. This statement just doesn't hold true.

I've never had respect for Carl Sagan but now I realize he's just an idiot after reading the part after the highlighted portion.

For reference, the average soundbite in today's news is 7 seconds long.

Awesome technological powers are in the hands of everyone. We just use it to browse dank memes.

I dont think he realized that beavis and butthead was satire.

So was dumb and dumber. It's fun to laugh at stupid people acting stupid.

Yup that's my point, also that mike judge used dumb characters to convey deeper ideas.

"The dumbing of América" what a hard sentence.

Celebration of ignorance = 99% of all reality TV shows

Dumb & Dumber and Beavis & Butthead are both very intelligent films. Watching dumb people do dumb things does not equate to stupidity.

...unlike The Big Bang Theory

Not really, if anything people are much more aware of what's really going around the world and Americans on average are more educated then ever before.

"The plain lesson is that study and learning- not just of science, but of anything, - are avoidable, even undesirable."

funny how the highlight doesn't reach that far.

[removed]

Sagan wasn't a casual redditor though. He really was a genius.

Sad to say ..."nailed it"

Pshht shut up old man. I grew up sitting around the family table in the 70s with race riots and my grandparents talking about the end of the world. Negative attitudes about our society will continue, and I will continue to ignore them.

This is really long, can someone give me a TLDR; ?

Wow.

He hit the nail on the head. We live in a society where ignorance is celebrated.

Kids today do avoid study and learning. They do find it undesirable. Those lines alone scare me the most.

A big percentage of kids have always avoided study and learning when they could. This hasn't changed.

It's just the technology tools and education processes of today make it a lot easier to do.

Yes, it's gotten easier and easier yet engagement stays the same or drops, and becoming educated is less and less of an aspirational goal

People have been saying that for generations, it doesn't matter how smart you perceive the person saying it is. It's stupid to just assume something like that when more kids today go to college then ever before, and end up studying a hell of a lot more then their parents or grandparents before them.

I love studying, I always have. When I look at samples of "kids today" often I see some very intelligent ones and they are constantly drawing information from the internet.

I also recognize our modern academic institutions for being the corrupt gatekeepers that they are. The scientific method was thrown out a long time ago in favor of the dollar and the ego. Furthermore the very information and activities they consume a students time with (time being our most precious resource in this world) becomes increasingly irrelevant and useless. Why would you learn about how this country was colonized without learning how you are expected to manage your payment for it? They teach you the structure of government but absolutely no practical study on how to effect the government or create changes as a citizen. I don't know what the USA is like, but here in Canada no one told me about anything about modern voting when I was in highschool, despite being eligible to do so a few years later.

Quite frankly a few simple ideas like "what is your share/pay your share" and "is it fair, how can I change it?" being completely ignored is not coincidence. It is also arguably far more important than anything else every covered in the decade of mandatory time served. If you think younger generations questioning/abandoning this is an indication of their stupidity, you are mistaken.

Kids also aren't avoiding learning by avoiding academic institutions. A college does not have a monopoly on learning and knowledge despite their claim and profit incentive. You learn no matter what you do in life. Whether that is useful or not is another story, but I personally believe we are on the right track to reestablishing science and truth as a culture.

Our current accepted method of "science" lacks transparency, honesty, wisdom, and humility. Ultimately it is immature yet we've have these "high status" PhD's convicted of exactly the opposite while spiraling into depressed existential crisis'. This is the current foundation for an academic system you question is not more popular with the up and coming minds?

Long unorganized rant, I know, but news flash humans - you're fucking stupid just like me and haven't figured it out yet just like me - be humble and keep trying.

[deleted]

I civilly and respectfully ask that you go fuck yourself real hard.

[deleted]

Way to miss the point.

[deleted]

Whenever someone starts a sentence with "trust me", I never trust anything they say.

What about Trump? He says trust me all the time.... and point made.

What the hell, dude? Get your shit together.

Not even worth responding to, now back to my study of the stars! which would have done thrice married Carl some good. He projected his own ignorance and fears, clutching to his own perceived intellectual superiority. Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead as a logical arguments ? Sorry, no sale then or now.

He did seem to accurately portray the circumstances that led to our current thrice-married president.

[deleted]

Sounds like he's talking about CNN. Thank God for Trump.

Relevant username.

Holy Shit...you could still rent video cassettes from a movie store back them?!

Lol How old are you people? 14? I could rent vhs tapes from my local video store in 2006 and typically preferred to considering how scratched up and impossible to watch rented DVDs were.

According to Wiki, VCR tapes still out-rented DVD's until 2003 when the latter finally took over as the #1 US rental media. So, yeah.

Not really.

blame femminism

For all the problems America has you want to blame feminism?

[deleted]

I feel like that's part of the point he is making.

The apostle John, speaking with the authority of Jesus Christ, spoke prophetically about the RFID chips presently being implanted in people in some countries:

"He required everyone—small and great, rich and poor, free and slave—to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name." (Revelation 13:16‭-‬17 NLT)

You mean the SJW's that only spout what they're told and if you attempt to have a dialogue with them they'll call you a sexist racist Hitler? Cause to me that's using no brainpower to actually solve the issue.

using no brainpower to actually solve the issue

Well maybe instead of screeching about the "SJW"s you could try listening to the ones with level heads about it (Shocking, I know.)

What does lowest common denominator programming mean?

Lowest Common Denominator means appealing to as many people at once as possible.

It means reality TV. It means tv that appeals to the least educated. If you ever saw the movie Robocop, think of the TV show that's always on where the dirty old man is surrounded by big boobed women and he says, "I'd buy that for a dollar!", and all the uneducated masses laugh and find it hilarious. (And yes, it's ironic that I'm using a show within Robocop to describe what lowest common denominator programming is.)

It means reality TV. It means tv that appeals to the least educated

Oh I get what it means. Luckily I watch more intelligent shows like Rick & Morty.

You have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existential catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

lol someone browses r/iamverysmart/

Most people I know just laugh at the sci-fi movies references so everybody wins - no need for 'pity'.

George Orwell did too

Lighten up Sagan, Dumb and Dumber has some funny scenes and lines!

Cheese and crackers that man is 100% spot on about today.

Has there ever been in a time in recent history where people study for fun?

Celebration of ignorance, being unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true - I love what he's pointing out here.

Facts hurt and yet there are so many people who deny factual evidence over feeling morally superior.

See Google and related.

feels before reals

Carl Sagan predicts 1997 in 1996

Keep in mind that an "expert" is someone who knows more and more about less and less.

Had me until "Dumb and Dumber." That movie is a classic.

TL;DR

This is, without question, one of the greatest books ever written.

I'm pretty sure this gets posted every year. Great book.

Looks like he predicted 2012..

Yeah so didn't the bible...

Fuck Sagan, Dumb & Dumber is a classic film.

Meanwhile Carl Sagan is one of the chief deceivers of the world powers.

This is yet another example of how the court jesters slip in tiny bits of truth amidst their lies.

We are indeed in a "Demon-haunted world". And 99% of reddit are suckling from it.

I think there is alot of what Carl says e.g. media has a huge influence but on the other hand, the internet counters his argument squarely. Youtube, reddit,FB all social media allows folks to learn that otherwise never would have had a chance. The idea we are slipping into superstition and being dumber is not supported by any real evidence, its just a few good points made by a person who had information power. So, what is changing? What is needling everyone?

and now I am Sad.

dae carl sagan

Dumb and Dumber is a funny movie tho

Ok, but Dumb and Dumber and Beavis and Butthead are not the cause. They are both satirical reflections of our own blissful ignorance. Rather, it's the consumerification (see also: tnetennba) of news that is most to blame.

More like ~2005ish

Given that 1996 isn't even that long ago relative to 2017...it isn't that surprising. If it were 1906..that would be one hell of a prediction, entirely.

D ROSE D ROSE D ROSE D ROSE D ROSE D ROSE D ROSEEEEEEE
Just popped 4 Xans, got me feelin like a HEROOOOOOOO

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Dumb and Dumber is a very smart film Carl....

Terrifying

He's hating on Dumb and Dumber!?! Come on! That has nothing to do with it...

to be fair, every generation thinks they have a fresh take on this kind of future predicting. if you have ever seen Rebel Without a Cause, it addresses kids that are uninterested in the structure and responsibility of their parents world, their perceived futility of working for a living and judgement of their parents for being part of that world, and the overwhelming need to be social and even having a desensitization to violence around them. it was made in 1955.

this is written in 1996 (according to the title). it is the year Sagan died, is well after the start of outsourcing/offshoring, and is two years after NAFTA, which saw a lot of manufacturing base move to Mexico. he was in a prime position as an educator to see the impacts of these economic forces.

not to diminish his work, I remain very impressed with Sagan and even drove to Cornell as a high school senior to sit in on a lecture, but never got more than a passing view of him through the throngs of other people, who had the same idea, as he left his office

Where does it say 2017?

[deleted]

You're proving Carl's point.

[deleted]

And no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; When people have lost the ability to set their own agendas and knowledgeably question those in authority;

[deleted]

When people have lost the ability to set their own agendas

You, lefties, did see that right?

Oh please. Depends on what side your on

I blame Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, the majority of congress in those years, the lamestream media, people having too many kids, and most of all, horrendous parenting.

Diversity is pseudo science. No evidence supports that it is economically beneficial or good for productivity.

Found the time traveler!

bonus points for tongue-in-cheek predictions on SJWs

Lowest common denominator. Memes.

I love Carl Sagan, but both the movies he cites are fantastic concepts to understand modern concepts of stupidity. The stupidity i watched growing up gave me an understanding that living is something much bigger than what the characters in those shows ever had. It wasn't until Daria that i understood the meaningless of tv.

Whoa.

This was already evident in 1996 so it's not much of a prediction.

For me his entire point there is completely discredited because next paragraph he shits on Dumb and Dumber and Beevis and Butthead for being "Unintellectual" or some BS. He clearly has never seen B&B and is just judging it on the title because B&B makes fun of the EXACT same thing as Sagan was just talking about. Besides why is it so upsetting and terrible that at that time people loved D&D and B&B? They're both genuinely funny films and fuck me not everything has to be "intellectual" just because I don't spend every fucking minute of my life reading great science papers or conducting complicated scientific experiments doesn't me I hate science or celebrate ignorance.

tldr? dumming down of america? huh?

I agree and all. But why shit on Dumb and Dumber? Fucking classic right there.

Fuck

What's this book called ?

This is the cringiest thing I've seen in a long time.

Then he goes on to bash dumb and dumber and lose all credibility with me. Dumb and Dumber is hilarious and I love it!!

Ok great, but why is he coming after the greatest comedy of all time Dumb and Dumber in the very next line.

Hey harry, wanna hear the most annoying sound in the world?

What a hater. Beavis and Butthead do America was a classic. Doesn't Carl Sagan also think we are insignificant? By that logic then so is his opinion.

Yeah they'd have to be stupid to nominate hillary to run

I remember when A&E, Discovery, History networks used to have awesome shows about space, nature and history - the shows were so intellectual and informative. Now it's all just reality TV trash.

Great picture

credulous presentations on pseudoscience

I don't really think he predicted anything. If you look at each generation... This is always going on. In fact I think he is wrong... Mediocrity will always be main stream and therefore always seem to be the norm.... But the internet has certainly accelerated our horizons in a way that Sagan could never have predicted. On average we are much more informed than we were in Sagan's time... And this will only become more true as time goes on . Your children will understand the world and our universe in much more detail than you ever did... This excites me.

TLDR

i'm going to need a tl;dr

Holy shit call the cops. Shots fired!

I'm so glad we have cameras now. How else would we ever be able to see text on a page without them?

Bless this wonderful sub and its interesting pictures.

Please repost as a Gif

Eh, people have been predicting this sort of thing for centuries. See relevant xkcd

As I sit in a massive (and expanding) automotive manufacturing plant in the United States I have to say this isn't completely true

Of course not, it just overwhelmingly accurate.

Dumb and Dumber was a work of art.

well.... it's like 25% true?

this post is fucking euphoric, and if you think it's any kind of spooky prescient commentary from a genious obsever of society, you're fucking euphoric

"Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.” - Baudrillard

Hey don't hate on Dumb and Dumber though..

So he was wrong.

Gnosticism's High Priests of yesterday got a lot of things wrong.

Geez, is he describing /r/science, /r/futurology, /r/politics and the rest of reddit?

Where you have a select group of people who are pushing an agenda?

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6se104/teen_birth_rates_spiked_in_texas_after_funding/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/6s0e83/an_alliance_upholding_the_paris_agreement_now/

Where you can't distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" from "politics"?

Where a group of political operatives spam reddit 24/7?

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6sfdff/trump_gets_a_folder_full_of_positive_news_about/

https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/6shoh1/trump_gets_a_folder_full_of_positive_news_about/

As soon as the politics thread got booted from the frontpage of /r/all, the idiots pumped the /r/nottheonion crap to the frontpage.

Trump supporters ruined reddit. They spammed, botted and brigaded for what seemed like forever and now that the other side is doing it and beating them at pushing their agenda they whine it's unfair.

Trump supporters ruined reddit.

They ruined reddit until we got filters. Add the_donald to your filter and you don't see trump crap anymore.

The people who ruined reddit are the anti-trump cockroaches. They spawned a billion subreddits and they export their trash to other defaults. I guess it's convenient when the mods of politics are mods of worldnews, nottheonion, politicalhumor and a bunch of other subs.

It's hard to keep up with and they still seem to sneak it in somehow. It just doesn't go away. I'll give Trump supporters that, they at least made it fairly easy to filter out. They definitely started this shit show though.

This shit show started with Ron Paul and Obama many years ago. If you were around during the glory days. The trump fanatics certainly didn't start the shit show.

I was with him until he bad mouthed Dumb and Dumber... All credibility for anything he has ever said... lost.

Stop it, that hurts :(

"when the United States is a service and information economy..."

If Sagan wrote this in 1996, he must have been keeping his eyeballs on the heavens and oblivious to what had been going on for the previous 30-40 years.

Nice name btw

Touching on his point about ignorance, which may be correct, I must point out that the first prediction - that manufacturing would slip away from the US - is false, but widely believed.

I agree with his criticism of Beavis and Butthead

whatever, thats called predictive programming you dolts. sagan is enemy of truth. wake up! just kidding dont, you're too asleep, go back to sleep until called.

edit changed stupid to asleep for sjw's

It seems the highlighted section is simply wrong, the US is still one of the biggest industrial manufacturers in the world.

And people have always been ignorant of study and learning, if anything it's gotten better in the last century than ever before.

[deleted]

People used to say that about farming too. Yet we seem to have no problem feeding everyone.

[deleted]

Ah, you're talking about employment rather than output. Output is near record highs right now.

Employment in industry has also been impacted significantly by technology, not just outsourcing. The bottom line is that if you want to remain employed you can't stop learning and adapting. If you're doing the same thing at age 45 that you were at 25 then you're in trouble.

[deleted]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

Seems to be doing fine.

[deleted]

Then why don't you explain? This graph clearly shows manufacturing output is doing splendidly.

[deleted]

All other things being equal perhaps. But that isn't the case here, the manufacturing base is doing great.

It's fine to have a smaller percentage manufacturing sector if the absolute amount is still doing great.

[deleted]

Country A: $0.9 billion manufacturing, $10 billion service. Country B: $1 billion manufacturing, $5 billion service.

Pretty sure Country A is in better shape here.

I'll also note that a good bit of the "stability" provided by manufacturing isn't necessarily a good thing because it's actually rigidity. When you have lots of investment in capital goods it's hard to shift to new products if market demands suddenly change.

Nailed it.

I downloaded an audio book version of this, and the author is british and it is kind of annoying... good book though.

Shooof. Damn. Shout out to Beavis and Butthead though. Art is one of the greatest weapons against ignorance.

Dumb and Dumber was pretty darn hilarious though. Watched that shit over and over back in the day!

Oh... but then he disses Beavis and Butthead which is actually deep social commentary with a lot of intelligence between the lines.

Carl must never have seen Dumb and Dumber...

He's good at Mario as well!

Can someone do this same thing for london in 30 years.

AHHHHHHH AEEE OOOOEEEE AAAHHHHEEE AHHHHHHH

confirmation bias is a funny thing.

I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries;

Definitely a more service and information based economy, but we still have lots of key manufacturing.

when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues;

lol no, virtually everyone has a computer and a smart phone and can get more information about issues than ever.

when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;

This is a good one as far as agendas go. But we've questioned people in authority more in the last 9 years than we did in the previous 20 combined.

when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

We are less superstitious than ever.

The rest is pretty good, although people often sit down to watch 5 hour marathons of extremely complex storylines, and this may be worse than his prediction. And again he gets into superstition when we are rapidly accelerating from it.

I give his prediction a 2/7.

And the fun part is the Left will say it's the rights fault and the right will say it's the lefts fault.

that's a h*cking long run on sentence

Wat book is a problem.

I thought the same thing when I read this a couple of years ago. Sad.

Not so clever that he wasn't aware that Beavis & Butthead was savage satire of the highest order

Dude... I liked Beavis and Butthead.

God forbid people enjoy Beavis and Butthead.

I can't believe he roped Dumb and Dumber into this. He definitely never watched it!

Well damn.

Dumb and Dumber was a good movie.

I'm offended...Dumb and Dumber is a classic.

The current zeitgeist reminds me of Ray Bradbury's short story "The Smile". At a "Science Fair" the crowds take sledgehammers to technology. At the "Art Exhibit" they spit on masterpieces and then destroy them. Creepily prescient of our current EPA (remove rules that protect the environment, dismiss massive evidence of global warming), Secretary of Education (dismantle public school system), HUD (providing housing to the homeless only encourages homelessness.) WTF?

http://www.byanyothernerd.com/2014/04/short-story-90-smile-by-ray-bradbury.html

Well, he did not predict the regressive leftists pushing more and more for segregation, division and censorship in an insane attempt to make everyone agree with their worldview.

Funny, this coming from the guy who thought the public couldn't handle the knowledge of extraterrestrial life existing. Maybe it's this condescension towards people that has helped get us to this point.

Fuck mainstream media and the establishment Democratic Party and the GOP!!!!! This country is ruled by the corporations and rothchilds!!!!!

Sagan: winner of the Arrogant Blowhard of the Year '96 award. His whole view is based on an arrogant faulty assumption that he's the standard for progress. Who the fuck are you, Sagan, to say what the standard of intellectual progress is when you're the clear outlier? You're the minority, you don't dictate the trend.

It's not that humanity is getting dumber, Sagan. It's that humanity is naturally pretty stupid and somehow you've got the gall to arbitrarily give yourself the title of "Judge of human progress" because you're an upper outlier from the group.

It's like Bill Gates saying that the world's getting poorer because the whole world doesn't make sound financial investments like Bill Gates does.

You might have the entire world convinced that because you were so intelligent and that because you were a famous scientist you're somehow qualified to arbitrarily make yourself judge and jury of the human condition but so far as I'm concerned it's the same as a Pope or cultist declaring that the world isn't faithful enough. In fact it's not far off.

Sagan: "The world isn't scientific enough, we must spread the faith"

Jim Jones: "The world isn't faithful enough, we must spread the faith"

...yet, here you are, writing a response on Reddit to a person who has been dead for over two decades as if they could hear you, while proudly announcing how easy it is for you personally to get marijuana at a cheap price like it is a badge of honor.

Yeah and I can buy a bag that size anywhere for a couple bucks without restriction.

On the Apollo 12 mission, 6 pictures on a small ceramic chip were sent to the moon by the world's top scientists, each designed by top artists, using science's best ceramic etching technology. One of them was a penis pic. How fucking head-up-your-ass arrogant do you need to be to call science the standard of human progress when science isn't above dick pics on the moon?

Deflection attempt number one?

No. Counterpoint to the idea that science=nonstupidity.

Cherry-picking fail, perhaps that bag you bought was cheap for a reason...

Look at you: so completely unable to approach the subject that you have to attack me rather than my points. That's hilarious I'll take that as a win here.

You say that as if you have a choice in order to maintain how you see the world...

...also, how is describing one of your bags as bad an 'attack?'

Yeah you've got absolutely nothing useful to say. Loser.

I don't blame you for giving up.

too long. did not read.

Sadly the sentence after the highlighted part makes it turn into grampa grognard on his porch, shaking his stick at children who pass on by. The first half of that paragraph is mega-solid, though.

TLDR

And down with science and good riddance. It has brought the destruction of people and the planet. It's just another form of religion.

Sagan was right. Thanks Obama.

yeah fuck that edgelord. CULTURE IS SCIENCE. Also giggled at the bamboozled part. Philosophers have been labeling this same phenomena for awhile; simulacra, the spectacle, etc

I have to say the part that says people don't have their own agendas and we aren't questioning authority can't be farther from the truth. Part of the country is trying to push for communism and anti white social justice(the agenda) and are acting like donald trump and the police are racist etc.(questioning authority)

A lot of people have said thats what 1996 was like and things haven't changed....doesn't that just prove him right. I mean does it matter that this shit has been going on for a while does it change the fact that people wont look up until it's too late....hell WW2 was a great example...ahh hell just let him have it he will have his new toys and places to park them, but he wont come any further our way right?

Had me until Dumb and Dumber. Lost me at Beavis and Butt head.

https://xkcd.com/1227/

This is one of the best books I've ever read. Period.

I don't entirely agree with everything written here, but he does have a nice overall point. The question is if we're in that period, and how we can recover from it. We have a generation of young Americans who've come up in a world where pride is increasingly checked by acknowledging uncomfortable realities of our daily lives. A generation perhaps to willing to make mistakes, but very willing to learn from them.

I like Sagan but this trend was well underway in 1996 and not that much different. The only difference now is we have Snapchat discover dumbing it down for a new generation.

"sliding back into superstition" "celebration of ignorance"

Oh gawd. It's too real >_<

TL;DR

I liked dumb and dumber..

Dumb and Dumber is a popular movie, it must mean people are dumb.

Star Wars was popular because people back then were smart and into space.

Logic.

Thank you so much for having the book's title in this photo. I want to start tracking this down immediately. Sounds awesome, and fits in with my current investigation of the '90s.

I predict 2030 in 2017.

Shit will be the same as today, but worse. People from one side will fight people from the other side while the ones in power laugh at our stupidity. Maybe AI will slowly take power away from humanity if it gains sentincence. Maybe they will just keep us alive and thiking we are in control because it finds us amusing.

This book is my bible.

tl;dr Reddit posts and comments are at their IQ peak when it's after midnight in the US. ;)

Currently reading this book. It's so good. Cosmos is up next. Sad thing is, this is accurate as all hell.

Highlighted part is true....but I also think he's wrong about Dumb & Dumber.

F U C K

If this was written in 1956, then I would be impressed.

Was listening to a podcast recently where they have asked themselves a question why is it that the most successful podcasts these days are 60-90 minutes long (I won't even mention Dan Carlin's history podcast here as it's an absolute gem), and they came to a conclusion that it must be down to the fact that people are so tired from biased reporting, polarising interviews and 30 second sound bites that there is a genuine hunger for delving into deeper analysis where an issue is explored in detail. Podcasts are actually keeping my sanity in check these days...

Sounds like he would be a huge Trump supporter!

If you say the manufacturing part now, you are an idiot racist.

So, leftism and SJW culture?

There is a lack of respect for science and reason, but while the right felt they had no choice but to elect a demagogue, the left has descended into absolute parody.

Pointing out, while being egalitarian and idealistic, that men and women aren't identical in every conceivable way gets you heavily rebuked and fired at Google. Any conservative speaker at a university is now a target for potentially violent resistance to such speech--and this is accepted by the left as a righteous reaction. With 15 million illegal immigrants in the country and a reluctance to either deport or imprison criminal illegal immigrants, we're told that the only problem is that we need to build bridges. I'm sorry, did I say illegal immigrants? I meant 'undocumented' immigrants--we have to be Orwellian and put the onus on the United States and its people.

And as bad as the right has been with Christianity, the left has become.. in just about every respect, worse with Islam. They are embracing the least liberal cultures on the planet simply because they contrast their political opponents.

I didn't even get to mention the growing hostility between the left and biology, especially evolutionary biology. Pointing out factual differences in genetics is tantamount to bigotry these days according to these people. At least Christians are stuck on comparatively narrow issues--if this keeps up the PC left is an actual threat to academia.

This is why we Elected Trump.

Trump was our last hope, we elected him in-spite of the fake news sound bites the MSM shoved down our throat.

While a good portion of liberal arts major / gimmidats voted for a fucking socialist and globalist.

There was still enough of us to see where the country was going and wasn't going to slip into the darkness without a fight.

I pray Trump succeeds. If he doesn't do it in these next 8 years. It's going to get really ugly

It needs to be ugly because Trump is just a parasite like the rest of them.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/exclusive-bannon-kushner-want-to-outsource-afghanistan-to-mercenaries/

If he wants to remove what little morality and ethics are left in these corporate wars by replacing a national army with mercenaries... like, it doesn't get much worse than this.

Literally the only way things could be worse is with some skynet AI we have to fight too. But right now the president is talking about killing and destroying other human families in another country for an unabashed exchange of money where no morality will be considered.

It's fucking ugly right now. America is largely responsible. Stop playing with your multigendered genitals and your bipartisan disorders and wake the fuck up and take control.

This corrupt corporate blond haired puppet clearly will not do that for you.

it's been 200 days bro. The swamp is deep and is on both sides.

Hold judgement for now.

[deleted]

What a stupid response. You try to de-legitimize the point that Carl Sagan (not even OP) made, by pointing out that it was also posted on another sub that lacks credibility.

You're part of the problem that Carl Sagan predicted.

I posted something that a page I don't subscribe to posted

Coincidences do happen!!!!

Not around carl sagan

We elected Trump, we still control our own destiny.

I'm slightly surprised that this amount of regressive lefties upvoted this without seeing the irony. Lol, no I'm not, they're retarded.

dammit, i didnt come here for real talk, i came here for lulz!

great find btw

Maybe that's where Mike Judge got his inspiration for Idiocracy.

[deleted]

I do think there is some ground to stand on for his assault. While there can be artistic and philosophical appreciation for both titles that transcend the content, a great many people will still consume it strictly for the entertainment or even celebration of the content. The same could be said for a title like Battle Royale, Airplane!, 50 Shades of Gray, Adventure Time, and countless others.

Bottom line, the ratio of higher thinking appreciation to face value appreciation for these titles will almost always be remarkably low. So the popularity of titles such as Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead is in many ways an indictment of the population's general proclivity to indulge in their face value content: idiocy.

[deleted]

I do not mean anything of the sort. The comedy can be (is) smart, the watchers can be discerning, and its enjoyment does not inherently infer a lack or loss of critical thinking. All I am pointing out is demographics.

When you take things to the point of being highly popular to a general population you must consider the traits of that general audience as well. Smart, discerning, and critical thinkers are not words generally used to describe the general population. Certainly there are portions of the population that fit these criteria, but a majority? No. If there are smart comedies highly popular to the general population then there are traits of it other than it's smartness that still appeal to a non-discerning, non-critical thinking audience.

In contrast, a show like Cosmos which was certainly popular within the realm of educational programming, simply never carried the ratings numbers to sit aside the likes of a Beavis and Butthead in terms of popularity let alone a modern reality TV show like the Bachelor.

The erroneous logical leap would be to say that a supremely smart show like Rick and Morty is so popular that the general population must therefore be getting smarter. This simply flies in the face of recent demographic studies that show despite an increasing population with higher learning degrees under their belt, critical thinking skills in general seem to be on the decline.

Part of this is a criticism of Trump, but part of this agrees with one of Trump's campaign themes -- Manufacturing slipping away to other countries. I was alive in 1996 and I felt that we should have addressed that problem then, but we didn't.

addressed that problem then

The way I recall, it wasn't perceived as a problem. It was presented as "America has advanced from the industrial age into the information age. We are sending industrial age work to developing nations in order to jumpstart their economy while we transition to an economy based on intellectual property with jobs on the information superhighway."

First off, Americans are smarter now than at any time in our history.

Second, there are about 10 American companies making self driving cars, as an example, right now. There were three big auto makers in Sagan's time. There are so many tech companies now it is hard to keep up. Information is not in the hands of the few, it is in the hands of the many.

Third, the idea that we are slipping back into superstition and darkness is just nonsense. Just above 10% of Americans believe in horoscopes lower than previous studies.

Fourth, Dumb and Dumber is a damn funny movie and I would watch it anytime it is on and I have a Masters degree (not saying I am smart, just educated)

Sagan is being a pretentious cynical ass with this. The fact remains that the world is consistently getting better and better. Do not believe this claptrap.

It's just a throwaway paragraph that OP found interesting.

Read the book. It's incredible.

More people equals more overall "stupid". Simple math right? They do studies and say the worlds overall IQ is falling, at least in the west i know, while you can say thats a testing fail it's just more like a natural thing. The bigger the hive/nest/community the dumber the average "worker" can be and still have all the "hives" goals met. You got a family living in the middle of nowhere well ma and pa had to know how to do a lot of different things, that is real knowledge, the kind you use. Folks in cities need less knowledge in order to survive. Their children need less because cry as some folks might it's never been easier to survive than right now for the majority.

As times change we will get "smarter" or "dumber" as population and "struggle" dictate.

Simple math.

And quit justifying dumb and dumber and beavis... that shit is/was dumb. Doesn't make you dumb for watching it, but it does make you look dumb when you pretend the shit is/was not dumb. Damn it jim!

Beevis and Butthead. LOL.

Mhmm idk I feel like this is just one of those generic things (like horoscopes) that can apply to any generation or point in time into the future.

"Unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true". Fucking A.

Why tf would someone downvote this? Seems some people are, somewhere deep inside, aware that they're probably going along with falsehoods because they feel good.

MAGA!

C'mon people, let's go!

In 1996, I too predicted 2017. I recall saying, "21 years from now , it will be 2017". Sure there were skeptics, but in the end I was proven right. Where are the doubters and naysayers now?

You want a serious discussion? He didn't predict anything. 1996 you could already see that society was heading to a information and service economy. We learned that in school about our country (Switzerland) and for the US it shouldn't be something new.

Technological powers aren't in the hands of very few. We all can use Google and a lot of technological achievements to make money or enhance our knowledge (Google Scholar).

People still set their own agendas in life and question those in authority basically daily (anti Trump posts, Trump is president = authority). Hell, they even question powerful media companies daily.

America isn't dumbing down. At least I don't know how to "measure" that and if it was measured by some scientists. I don't see many more presentations of pseudoscience or celebration of ignorance. Oh wait. This post actually is frontpage, so we can actually count this one as celebration of ignorance.

Fuck...that was frighteningly accurate.

Trump bringing back manufacturing

You've been "Trumpified".

To be fair, I am of at least average or slightly above average intelligence am and politically and scientifically aware, and think Dumb and Dumber is one of the best, most quotable comedies ever . . .

Fake news.

I wander if he would consider someone saying they are "gender fluid" as pseudoscience

Yeah, but you can't really trust what he was writing because he was on the marijuanas.

/s

#MAGA

Fuck you, Sagan, both of those movies are great.

Obligatory "Stay woke, fam" post.

Don't diss dumb and dumber and Beavis and butthead!

W0kE

Dumb and dumber is quite clever!

I was with him right until he started ripping on Beavis and Butthead.

Same, but Dumb and Dumber. It's odd because he equates their popularity to society wanting to mirror the characters in those shows.

Idk about you, but I don't want to be like Lloyd and Harry in Dumb and Dumber. I don't strive to live that life. I just enjoy laughing at other people who do. It's a comedy, for Pete's sake..

About 35 percent accuracy. No crystals or mass superstition. Orwell did it better from longer ago.

[deleted]

And that's a major segment of the population?

bone chilling

Was pretty obvious how things where moving even then.

He is wrong, the US does more manufacturing than ever. The difference is that there are fewer manufacturing jobs. This is because automation has drastically reduced the need for manufacturing workers.

*2008

Fuck Carl Sagan. Dumb and Dumber is genius and C-dawg just not smart enough to pick up on it. Whoa, Big gulps, huh? Alright!

[deleted]

Wasn't it more a "celebration" of it?

[deleted]

who are the heroes that save the day and get the girl? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

What is the message?

Oh wow, The Prince of the Enlightened, Lord of all that is Neckbeardly, makes a general as fuck prediction that was actually already true as he wrote it, blasts "bad TV" as the cause of this intellectual shortcoming at the end and of course Reddit breaks it's collective neck sucking him off because "DAE 1984 when illegal immigrants r deported n rich people have more money n things than me!? :((("

Meanwhile we have kids aged 8-9 building robots and programming better than people 4x their age. We have a fucking robot on Mars, and we talk to it every day. Daily improvements in human life even compared to 1996.

Fucks sake.

Say hello to diversity.

Holy shit this is awesome

Little did he know, the spirit of the late Catholic Church would clothe itself under science and begin to enforce itself as an inarguable ideology.

"Transgendered people aren't mentally ill, it's settled science. If you disagree you are a bigot and science denier"

Obama really set us up great to fulfill this prophecy.

If you honestly evaluate where the country is right now, you'll see that most of the things he says don't apply to today.

Let the downvotes commence

This is literally what the right has been saying the WHOLE time about the left, it's 10000% true about modern liberals.

Why do you think trump is trying to stop overseas manufacturing, he's focusing on american coal power because it's not controlled globally and under inflation issues (coal isn't the worst powersource, check your propaganda again), he's stopping the foced orchestrated third world migration paths and human trafficking to the states, he ran his campaign about bringing power back to the laymen and removing mass regulations from corporations which stopped future competition, of course the corporations, criminals and MSM crooks are going to try their hardest with propaganda to lie to Americans and try to convince them otherwise for the vote.

Net neutrally bill was NOT proposed or brought into congress from the conservatives, it's a liberal bill which only purpose is to stop future ISP competition from arising, while simultaneously allowing the government in the front door of the internet for the west.

We already have net neutrality . Fuck off, take your Netflix internet throttling propaganda somewhere else.

This should be on r/news

[deleted]

Manufacturing leaving is inevitable and fine.

There's nothing wrong with it leaving. The problem is is you need to retrain and take care of the people that get dumped. That's where the Democrats went completely wrong.

Don't fall for the lump of labor fallacy

Don't fall for the tenured professor b* either

So professional economists know less than you about economics? Lol

Let me ask you this why do you think Trump got elected. If you say Russia then I'm going to have to put my tin foil cap on first before I listen to you.

Don't change the subject. Lol

Answer why the lump of labor fallacy is incorrect lol or stfu

I'm not. They are directly related . You claim there is no correlation with loss of rust belt manufacturing jobs overseas and the trumps victory. That is all hot air if I read you right. I say they are directly related and why he was elected. This is why control the dems control nothing atm.

That's the thing I said nothing of the sort. I said the lump of labor fallacy. That's it. Manufacturing is leaving and for good reason.

You completely overlooked why they are leaving and who signed the deals enabling it.

The biggest thing wrong with shipping manufacturing jobs offshore and turning off dirty fuels is if you don't retrain or take steps to offset BEFORE you flip the switch

This is 100% correct. We've thrown people to the wolves. Rather than bring back coal, retrain those to work in renewable energy sources or provide training in a growth industry.

The blue collar workers many liberals seem to loathe

Oh, fuck off with that shit. That doesn't help anything. Nobody hates the blue collar workers and no political party is actively trying to destroy blue collar America.

All of the problems are symptoms of how capitalism works. The Luddites smashed machines and cottage industries died, but we're still chugging along.

Jobs change and transform and it will be painful and it will suck and it is NOT the fault of any political party, but the fault of how capitalism works, regardless of it is right or wrong.

who performed their jobs, went to church, raised families, and paid their taxes end up on the street, kids get shit educations and they elect a president on a platform simply reminiscing of better times.

Everybody hates the world today. You have to work 50 hours a week, you don't get time off, you are "downsized" on a regular basis. It's a mess.

However, the old ways are not coming back. Trying to go back to those times is impossible. You've heard the phrase, you can't go home again, right? That applies here.

What is further baffling is that many of these same liberals are squealing for protection of illegal immigrants when they are the same people that should understand the implications of automation/robotics and the impact to jobs in less than 20 years.

It's far too expensive and the economic ramification of rounding up all illegals is massive. The idea is quixotic at best and down right dangerous at worst.

As to technology, you completely refuted your point above. We will continue to automate jobs, in all sectors, and this will mean a far more complex world that we will have to deal with. White collar and blue collar jobs will be automated out of existence in the next 100 years.

What kind of education do you think illegal immigrants are getting? For every 3 "America strong" stories on ABC, there are 10s of thousands that are no better off than the laid off blue collar workers...or worse.

I honestly don't understand your point here. Can you clarify.

This is why the Democrats can't get elected. Their platform is all rainbows, unicorns and save the environment.

Well, no, it isn't that. It's like saying the GOPs platform is God and guns. It's an over simplification and it is too Carl Sagan's point.

This doesn't help the mom or dad with 2 kids on food, stamps desperately looking for a Good job. Sorry McDonald's jobs don't count..

How do we fix it? You explained automation is killing jobs and will continue to do so; so what do we do?

I should have stopped reading at "oh fuck off" ..but at least we can agree on the fact that the political party that allowed the shipping of jobs offshore should have retrained and read the tea leaves before signing deals.

I didn't say anything about rounding up any illegals. I made a point on dumbing down. If blue collar can't afford good education for themselves or their kids, how do you expect illegals that can't speak English or do not have h.s. or college education to do any better in a bot world? Seriously, every time someone moderately conservative even suggests "It is time to do something about illegals", libs go completely apeshit. This isn't 1869. There is no requirement for low educated immigration. And, before you bring up stats on jobs that no one will do like field work. Yeah I fully understand that. But, it is just a matter of time before that only requires a mechanic and technician.

The sooner you realize this and start dealing with it, the better prepared we will be for the future.

I find this acurate and scary... too bad we won't do shit. night.

You can thanks the leftists for this dumbing-down of America. Safe-spaces, PC culture, sheesh, Lord only knows what's next.

Wait, we are against a celebration of ignorance? So, we're all going to acknowledge that men and women have innate biological differences and that transgenderism makes zero sense whatsoever?

No, expressing that kind of wrongthink will get you fired? Then don't talk to me about how against celebrating ignorance you are when you ignore basic biology and common sense.

[deleted]

I guess you missed the line about "celebration of ignorance".

Pretty much sums up the trump supporter base.

Then maybe he should have been a Marxist, because what he was describing has been the trajectory of western liberal capitalism since the 50s. I realise Sagan was kind of a socialist, but scientists should be getting more politically radical instead of pretending that they are functionally neutral or 'apolitical'. No, we all have commitments to the political ideologies we reproduce, even the scientists who try to remain non-partisan for the sake of their careers and desire for some scientific integrity, the only scientific integrity is a politically engaged scientific activity, but not politically-focused.

The best thing about Trump is that everyone that has been sleeping since 1996 is finally getting their shit together and realizing the consequences of blindly supporting a candidate on their intentions, rather than the effects of their actions.

Meh, I think that passage is vague as fuck. It's not profound at all

Why are fucking pictures of text even allowed in this subreddit?

Literally Reddit liberals.

And they stand their, looking in the mirror, thinking "lol that's the trumpkins"

Yeah, the guys trying to save you from yourself....

Oh no! Not everyone is a scientist, the sky is falling!

[deleted]

This is so fucking retarded. Great material for r/im14andthisisdeep tho

Jesus Christ you people over react to everything.

Move, leave the U.S. nobody is making you live here and if it's as bad as you clearly think it is I don't know why you're staying.

Go somewhere where criticizing the government and nation is more accepted like Russia.

Brought to you by liberalism and democrats around the country.

This explains why so many of you fell for global warming.

Yet Anti-Trump folks will fail to realize they are in the very category he is describing. Meanwhile decrying those who voted for Trump. Not realizing that we voted for him for the very reasons Sagan is talking about.

Don't worry though. We will Make America Great Again.

Yet Trump folks will fail to realize they are in the very category he is describing. Meanwhile decrying those who dislike Trump. Not realizing that we voted against him for the very reasons Sagan is talking about.

Don't worry though. We will hopefully elect someone else soon that doesn't rely on Twitter, almost the exact platform described by Sagan, to send BS hot takes out to their blind followers.

We are not the one's that believe 30 second media clips. We see the man in person at rallies.

You speak for all Trump supporters then? It's safe to assume that not a single Trump supporter has drawn conclusions from a very short piece of information? Also, the 30 second clips tell me you should see the man in person at golf courses, not rallies.

At least I don't believe in a man who doesn't believe in exercise because he thinks humans are batteries.

That is literally insane. Trump got to where he is with misinformation, conspiracy theories and feeding off of the fears of lowest common denominator citizens. Birthers, deep state nuts, pizzagate creeps. That whole lot bought 30 second sound bytes by Alex Jones and fucking ran with it because they needed a team to root for because their normal lives are trash.

Don't be an idiot. You're being an idiot.

That is incorrect. In fact it was the other way around. hillary only got to where she was due to misinformation by the media. If not for that and if she had received fair and equal coverage she would have lost the election by an even larger majority than she did.

neckbeard alert

This will grow worse if we continue to allow government's role in our lives to increase. We need to halt the nanny-state in its tracks, and start reducing government influence until it is no more than 10% of GDP.

NAFTA. Thanks Bill!

He always did come off a bit of a condescending, sanctimonious cunt with his head up his ass but picking on Dumb and Dumber as if it being the number one most rented movie at the time is somehow indicative of the declining "IQ" during his lifetime. He just comes off as /r/lewronggeneration.

He's talking about you, new-age liberals.

tips fedora

Great find! Explains why Sagan was a conservative as well.

Explains why Sagan was a conservative as well.

If you actually think that's true, you should probably watch him answer this question...

"I believe that the government has a responsibility to care for the people."

Interestingly, I know it's true. His wife told me he was a closet Republican, but scared to come out due to the extreme bullying and harassment that the liberal media would do to him. Also, he didn't want to risk his tv series. It's sad. I thought the alt left was bad now, but it was bad back then too.

While I'd love to believe some random guy's hearsay on the internet, all of the political actions Sagan took belie your story:

  • Speaking out against Reagan and his SDI program
  • Repeatedly getting arrested for protesting at the Nevada Test Site
  • Testifying to Congress about funding education
  • Writing Jimmy Carter's farewell address
  • Testifying to Congress about the horrors of nuclear winter

These are not the actions of even a closet Republican.

I don't know man. I was told from a close source that all of the public facing politics was a rouse.

Sounds to me like he's talking about millennials.

Cult of google sjws firing an intelligent man for speaking out againt their hive mind

I sit here eating my non-gluten, non-GMO, organic coffee and can't help but think; this guy has no idea what's he is talking about.

Your joking right?

It is his right to joke. Free country and everything.

So you mean food how it was 60 plus years ago...

Sorry you need the sarcasm mark thing, otherwise it looks like you're patting yourself on the back for eating food the way every human on earth did for 100,000 years or whatever...

Anyways point is you "drink" coffee... you don't eat it.

"I hate Trump".....Why?....."Idk because the media told me to"

Stick strawman, mister anus.

Sounds like hes referring to liberals and sjws