Goddamn it, that’s what I’ve been doing wrong! And I turned in my Smug Card for nothing. kicks TV stand over and subscribes to Hulu Plus.
Request to backtrack: Denied.
I don’t see why people are confused when I say “I don’t watch movies.” It should be obvious that I specifically mean “I don’t go to movies at the cinema.” Of COURSE I… ah, observe films… on DVD, on Blu-Ray, on television, on streaming video, on planes, and so forth. That’s totally different, because there’s no ticket stub and no expensive popcorn. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
You got him to spend like three paragraphs trying to define “television.” I’m impressed and entertained.
Because “I don’t go to the movies/the theater” and “I don’t watch movies” usually mean different things?
Would you be confused if I said “I haven’t been able to go to the movies since my two year old was born” and yet had seen Iron Man 3?
I would. But then I haven’t been able to watch a movie since my four-year-old was born.
Actually, this frames it pretty well, VT. It really boils down to a semantic issue championed by those who are butthurt because they think they’re being dumped on.
“I don’t watch movies” is a specific statement: it means you don’t watch the entertainment genre of long-form film/video entertainment. At all. “Movies” is not a catch-all term; it’s an art/entertainment form as specific as “books” “sitcoms” “cop shows” “Broadway musicals” or “live strippers.”
“I don’t go to movie theaters” is an entirely different statement - it means you don’t go to movie theaters. It has nothing do do with whether you watch movies.
“Television” is the opposite: it IS used as a catch-all phrase for whatever pours off a video screen, expanded in recent years from the original meaning of ‘whatever poured off general broadcast video screens.’ That’s not what the term means to me and I don’t think it should mean that to anyone in this highly complex entertainment world we now have. Using “television” to mean “all video entertainment” has been out of date since the first home video options, about 40 years ago, and it’s now as absurd as calling people who sit and do calculations “computers.” (As they once were.)
“I don’t watch television” does not mean you never look at moving images on a video screen; it means you don’t sit in front of a video screen watching what any particular channel or service cares to deliver to you on its own terms. It does not mean you don’t watch [del]movies[/del] television programs.
The only gloss I’m putting on anything here is that I maintain that no matter how or where you watch it, if advertising delivery and timing are still under the control of the delivering party, it’s “television.” If you have the option of watching the program and nothing but the program, under your own time and schedule control… it might be a television program you’re watching, or a movie, or a documentary, or a recording of pole dancers… but it’s not “television” in the sweeping sense of “going to a movie theater.”
So you can either accept this sorting out of a discussion, and the definitions above, and make an attempt to understand my position (whether you agree or not), or you can stay over in the ranks of the butthurt and insist that “television” is “watching anything at all on a video screen” and arguing the intellectual superiority of who watches what.
Other than specific comments about specific shows, which I’m as entitled to as anyone, I’ve never said that people who watch one program or another are superior/inferior.
I have said, in more than one way and multiple times, that people who watch television, as I’ve defined it above - the outpouring of ad-wrapped content under someone else’s control intended primarily to deliver the ads to eyeballs - can and should do better.
Others have turned it into an intellectual superiority game over “watching TV” and “not watching TV.” I haven’t. I’ve said what I’ve summarized above - and I know I did because this is all part of a much larger context and I don’t pull these posts out of my ass.
Your smugness comes from the fact that you can’t be bothered to watch commercials.
Not watching commercials is fine, but the fact that you need to preach that to everyone, comes off as smug.
FTR, most of what I watch is ad free, but I still just call it “Watching TV”.
Interesting verb. “Can’t be bothered.”
So you think watching TV commercials is some kind of cultural asset? Or that we’re obligated to, on some level? Or that pointing out they can be avoided is “smug”?
[zero snark here] Truly fascinating. I run into a lot of responses, but rarely one that defends commercial viewing. Are you in the media/marketing/ad field?
I’m trying real hard to understand how you extrapolated from my previous post. I have no idea what you’re on about.
In certain contexts, yes. If I tell you I had Chili’s for lunch today and your response was “Oh I don’t eat at chain restaurants, the M&P joints are where it’s at.”
While your point would be valid, it still comes off as smug.
What I find very sad is the way both “sides” have completely missed/avoided/ignored the opportunity to have a genuine exchange about something vitally important by focusing on this silly blather about the terms for watching television. What’s really being talked about is something so much bigger, perhaps the only way many people CANtalk about it is by approaching it from such a remove, and it is how each of us is spending the most precious thing we have or will ever have: our time. That is the actual topic, and if approached face forward, directly, it could be an extremely satisfying and even helpful discussion for everyone.
Sigh…
Your sorting is stupid, your definitions are stupid, and you started this whole thread because you are butthurt about Netflix.
I’m honestly surprised that someone who gets as butthurt about ads as you do watches TV even on netflix because you still get advertised to in the form of product placements.
100% Sincere desire to have a better understanding: does smugness bother you, and if so, why?
Are you trying to bait me? Because I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to know why smugness is off putting. That’s something like 99% of the people on this planet knows.
Exactly. It isn’t a “semantic issue championed by those who are butthurt because they think they’re being dumped on.”. Instead its a semantic issue championed by AB for no particular reason other than to be semantic. Other people read through the lines and realize the only reason for someone to be this ridiculously stupidly semantic is because that person doesn’t want to be associated with watching “television” and therefore has redefined “television” so they can disassociate themselves from it - therefore the people who think you are dumping on them are probably more correct about the matter than you are.
Actually, I think it is truer to say that most people know that smugness is off-putting, but I strongly disagree that people really ever examine or otherwise come to understand why. I think they should, because I think most people, if they allow themselves to ponder it with an open mind, they will eventually come to understandings that will allow them to be free of any irritation in the face of another’s smugness.
None of which should be taken as anything like baiting.
You missed “Suits,” the best thing on tv right now.
I’m totally putting that on my resume - “Internetter.”
I think you nailed it - excellent parody of a parody.
Hey guys, can we all just ignore Stoid?
So here are some quotes from our friend here.
[QUOTE=This Fucking Guy]
I won’t say I’m better than you for not watching TV, but I will say I’ve had a hell of a lot of time to do other things that I think are more productive, more “enhancing” and sometimes even more restful that zoning out in front of the box.
[/QUOTE]
But that was only the beginning. This post was only halfway stupid. It gets better!
When asked why would he say something so fucktarded:
[QUOTE=Hurr Durr]
Because the derived value from TV is so low that a good nap probably beats it in the worthwhile category. And because it’s not a sometime thing for most people, like drinking or playing solitaire or other activities of questionable value; the majority of people watch hours of TV every day. It’s not a trivial use of individual time.
If that’s how you choose to spend your time, it’s your choice - but I can’t see ANY argument that it’s a virtuous or positive one except in the vaguely libertarian “I can do any goddamned thing I want to” sense.
[/QUOTE]
When told there’s good stuff to watch on TV:
“Don’t watch TV! Read instead.” Because anyone who does both is wasting their time. And he has no idea why anyone says he sounds like a giant hypocritical asshole for shitting all over TV and TV-watchers, then throwing a tizzy because he wants to watch TV RIGHT GODDAMN NOW, GODDAMN IT! But, like, on the internet.
When countless people said, “Dude, whatever, I watch a lot of good shows on TV and you’re just being an asshole,” his response:
[QUOTE=This Fuckin’ Retard]
I dunno. When the participants on this board aggressively defend not just the right to watch TV, but the right to call anyone who doesn’t a snob, I can only weep for the species.
Oh, look, your show’s back on.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, HBO is basically your best no-advertisements model for for-profit content, and you’re complaining that it’s too expensive. Ad-supported TV is a pretty damn good deal in my view.
Is this like one of those “Looking the mirror” moments? As in, if I really analyze smugness, I’ll come to the logical conclusion that I find it off putting because of my own shortcomings?
Nah, it’s nowhere near that deep.