When radio programs started in the early 20th century, lots of people were convinced it was the end of civilization.
Same with moving pictures. And talkies? Land’s sake!
How about the near-riot at the premiere of The Rite of Spring?
Of course, an avart-garde piece that couldn’t precipitate a riot in those days had to be pretty dull stuff. Parisians thought riots were better entertainment than anything on stage.
Today we have Miley Cyrus instead of Stravinski, but the ancient art form of outrage! is as popular as ever.
Louisa May Alcott criticized Horatio Alger novels as being unrealistic, and other novels for children for using slang.
Good.
ETA: I mean, good point.
Still do.
My wife’s former boss once remarked that she wouldn’t allow Dr. Seuss books in her house since it would teach nonsense to her children. Not in the same class as the above, but it struck me at the time. As a teen I was heavily criticized for reading science fiction (“escapist literature” as if there were literature that wasn’t). I still read it 63 years later. I guess I must be pretty degenerate by now.
My parents would occasionally get after me for reading too much and tell me to go play outside. 1970s.
If I may Godwin-ise this thread, the Nazis were very vocal in their criticisms of media they disliked. The Stalin-era Soviets were also unsurprisingly conservative in their view of popular media.
In the 1880s, Reverends condemned picnicking .
Or so Mark Twain reports.
I know it’s not the point of the thread, but since there have already been so many good answers, I’d like to point out that 1) almost every adult I know under 60 likes video games and 2) parents have done such a good job using Facebook that youths don’t even like it anymore. It seems to me adults are much quicker at adopting youth interests than our ancestors were.
I realize the reason we all like video games is because we’ve played them our entire lives. But social media sites like Facebook are new, generationally speaking, and I’ve heard way more about loving it than hating that kids are using it.
More to the point though, than whether new technologies or art forms that are now well entrenched were once complained about (they were) is whether any of those complaints were justified. It seems to me that they probably sometimes were. We would probably all be better off, on balance, without television, for instance. I watch television, just like everybody else, and even play some video games, but it does not follow that I cannot recognize that these things may be bad for me.
The OP seems to have an agenda, and wants to imply that all such complains (usually by the old about things the young enjoy) are silly. Sometimes they may be, but sometimes they may not.
How do you figure we’d be better of without television, and are the reasons you give the same as the reasons given by the grousers who complained when it got its start?
Can’t find a cite but I’ve seen somewhere around here quoted comments about telephone communication back when telephones were first getting started. People were bothered about how a person talking on the phone isn’t paying attention to the people around him or her…
Mine too!
I think you are smart enough to figure out the reasons someone today might think we would be better off, on balance, without without television. I haven’t recently researched what people said about TV back then, but memory and common sense suggest that it is likely that there would be a large overlap between the reasons given then and the reasons you or I might come up with now.
Surely no-one seriously believes that all innovations, or even all innovations that catch on, are ipso facto harmless to humanity? How about recreational heroin use, foot binding, female circumcision, slavery? (All must have been innovations once.)
People used to literally sit and watch their radio. People today sit and watch their computers and tablets and phones. Sitting and watching can describe concerts, lectures, vaudeville, dance, and a million other forms of entertainment.
Is it the sitting and watching that’s bad? Is it entertainment itself that’s bad? If you’re trying to make the claim that television is uniquely bad, you’re welcome to try but historically the ones who have come across as silly jeremiads. If you need to expand that claim into non-participatory entertainment that’s bad, you have an even more difficult task.
Obviously, people can make cases against anything - that’s what this thread is about. It’s equally true that getting others to accept those cases normally fails, and the common denominator to those failures is that the good outweighs the bad. There is an easy case to be made that nothing should be done to excess; it is an impossible leap to the extreme that the thing itself should be eliminated.
I can make up a literally infinite number of arguments. I was asking about your argument.
This does not seem obvious to me. Plausible, but not obvious–especially since I don’t know what your argument is.
Holy straw man strawman!
I bet when they invented language there was an older caveman thinking “Ug want kids stop yapping all the time. And get off Ug’s lawn”. But of course, he could only seethe in silence.
Also Ook complained that Eek’s cave painting would lead to moral decay.