# Tamsin bloody Omond



## danbreen (Jan 7, 2010)

Did anyone else read the article in the Evening standard? Who the fuck does this cambridge educated middle class twat think she is? And who made her the mouthpiece of the new 'mainstream' green movement. 

Apparently she was , by her own admission never interested in anything before a friend 'enlightened' her. But being the posh darling she is, doesn't like direct action or smelly crusties! Fuck off and die....


----------



## Greebo (Jan 7, 2010)

danbreen said:


> Did anyone else read the article in the Evening standard? Who the fuck does this cambridge educated middle class twat think she is? And who made her the mouthpiece of the new 'mainstream' green movement.



<hands danbreen soothing mug of hot tea>
No, never heard of her.  Can't be arsed to schlep downhill to pick up a substandard either.  More details please, if you can bear to give them.


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 7, 2010)

Link?


----------



## mark_substance (Jan 7, 2010)

Yeah I saw this last night. "there comes a crucial time in any revolution when the activities of the small group of radicals who started it become a bit irrelevant. And although that can be a terrifying moment for hardcore activists who define themselves outside the mainstream, the reality is that the mainstream have embrassed the green movement and it is important for us to grow up and embrace the mainstream"  she goes on to add later "if I can go on to play a lead role in that transformation, so much the better" 


but then again who am I to judge? I'm probably "unkempt, unwashed and up a tree"


----------



## Maggot (Jan 7, 2010)

How dare she!  No-one middle class should be allowed to be part of a protest movement. 


Am surprised she doesn't like crusties, cos they are largely middle class too.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 7, 2010)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23791603-the-green-activists-need-to-grow-up-and-embrace-the-mainstream.do


----------



## Thora (Jan 7, 2010)

I didn't read the Evening Standard, but she has always been very irritating in the past.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 7, 2010)

She did come across as

a) completely smug
b) either ignorant, naive, or actually encouraging the environmental movement to trust state and corporate interests.
c) actually really quite ignorant.  it's always nice when a model comes out in favour of green interests, but the idea that this is something more important to the movement than campaigning, direct action, or publishing research is a little stupid.
d) a liar.  

but that's the nature of the movement.  this has happened before and it will happen again.  student rebellion turns into personal branding for upper class mouthpiece.  and if it doesn't happen, if she'd not been co-opted or sold out she'd not be in the paper trying to encourage others to do the same.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2010)

mark_substance said:


> Yeah I saw this last night. "there comes a crucial time in any revolution when the activities of the small group of radicals who started it become a bit irrelevant. And although that can be a terrifying moment for hardcore activists who define themselves outside the mainstream, the reality is that the mainstream have embrassed the green movement and it is important for us to grow up and embrace the mainstream"  she goes on to add later "if I can go on to play a lead role in that transformation, so much the better"
> 
> 
> but then again who am I to judge? I'm probably "unkempt, unwashed and up a tree"



So she admits to being a vanguardist?
Fuck her, fuck the horse she rode in on, and fuck the people who spawned her!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2010)

Maggot said:


> How dare she!  No-one middle class should be allowed to be part of a protest movement.
> 
> 
> Am surprised she doesn't like crusties, cos they are largely middle class too.



Nah, you're thinking of trustafarians, who're only a minor subset of crusties, like ciderpunks.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So she admits to being a vanguardist?
> Fuck her, fuck the horse she rode in on, and fuck the people who spawned her!



Well, she hit the wall of teenage / student protesting, innit.

See, you reach a point where it stops being an exciting way of fighting for what you believe is right and starts being a drag.  Activist burn-out.  Now some people take a break.  Others decide to find ways of working in the field.  Some just get normal jobs and try and pretend they never wanted to save the world in the first place.

Some wish they had never been involved with the entire movement and spend the rest of their life sneering at the idealism they once displayed.

Very few are gifted with a media status based on their class background and photogenic looks, and when they decide they never really wanted to save the world and would rather be riding the gravy train with the winning team... well, who can blame them for saying, fuck the environment, there's money to be made here.  And that's why her parents paid so much for her education.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 7, 2010)

irritating twit.
 but has a point until the majority is pushing for low carbon and prepared to take the pain higher taxes less stuff or at least agree the green agenda is important it will still be a ignored


----------



## where to (Jan 7, 2010)

me me me


----------



## where to (Jan 7, 2010)

photoshoot


----------



## where to (Jan 7, 2010)

helena christianson


----------



## where to (Jan 7, 2010)

all in time for may


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2010)

Scum. sub-human scum. Can't say we didn't warn you years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2010)

Notice the way normal people are defined as those who grow up in Hampstead attending a £15,000-a-year public school, then Cambridge then become embedded in a network of powerful friends and so on - _these are the people that need to be reached - the vast mass of normal people._


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2010)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...need-to-grow-up-and-embrace-the-mainstream.do

Notice also, of all the things to attack her father for - like propping up somewhere like Westminster school - she chooses:



> I no longer eat meat and I don't fly, but it's easy for people like me, unlike, say, my father who frequently flies to visit his mother in Prague. _We argue about it_, but does that mean my dad can't be green?"


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2010)

The trajectory is there to see, meeting Boris Johnson at private parties:-

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...w-londons-business-is-done-as-people-party.do



> If London is a centre of influence, a melting pot of creative partnerships, deals, competition and unlikely alliances then last night the Evening Standard's party for London's top 1,000 influentials was a microcosm of that in action.
> ...
> The party was held in the chequered splendour of Burberry's new HQ in London....
> ...
> The Mayor was soon deep in conversation: first with Ken Livingstone, later with rock chick Jo Wood. Blonde eco-warrior Tamsin Omond was on the prowl, bending the ear of as many politicians as possible.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 8, 2010)

So let that be a warning: beware of toffs bearing personal agendas.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 8, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> So let that be a warning: beware of toffs



you can shorten that


----------



## Zaskar (Jan 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Scum. sub-human scum. Can't say we didn't warn you years ago.



I have said the same about you for years too.
The media make these novelty items and we all twitch like performing monkeys.


----------



## Raw SslaC (Jan 9, 2010)

I think she was spot on and honest. And she's attractive. 






"We are old skool!"





"Who would you prefer?"

Tasmin 1 Crusties 0


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2010)

what struck me was this:





> there comes a crucial time in any revolution when the activities of the small group of radicals who started it become a bit irrelevant


which seems to be somewhat modified by this:





> The revolution will not happen unless everyone is invited. And if I can play a lead role in that transformation" - she rubs her hands in glee - "so much the better."


that is, the 'revolution' has not yet happened but when it does she and her mates will become irrelevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2010)

Raw SslaC said:


> "Who would you prefer?"


neither tbh


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2010)

For balance a bit of devils advocacy:

All of this is true, and there was a semi-public spat between her and plane stupid that took place (she used to be in it), based mainly on her becoming too high profile, with delusions of leadership. This lead I gather to her breaking off and starting Climate Rush/Suffragette thing. Thing about the Climate Rush lot is they have done some good and high-visability actions - true of Plane Stupid too I guess (of whch there have already been some critical class-based threads on here).

 I know people in the peace/anti-military movement who regularly do equally risky actions, forever going in and out of court/jail, but the profile of their actions just isn't there.If you believe that nonviolent direct action is a worthwhile thing, even if it isnt done by a critical mass of people, but small crack-squad cores, then she at least deserves credit for doing this effectively. The suffragette movement for me is one of, if not _the_, golden moment in british 'activist' history, and before I knew anything about the people involved, I warmed to the picking up of their mantle - especially as from a distance it appeared to be an apparently inclusive all female, all ages group





None of which stopped me having the same reaction as posters have so far on this thread. Talking about it the other day with someone a bit older who has worked with her, she defended Tamsin by saying that she was young (I think she's about 24 now) and she just follows her heart and acts a bit naively, but is genuinely passionate. 

All in all I could give a shit but I just thought Id say a few words for balance.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 9, 2010)

ska invita said:


> The suffragette movement for me is one of, if not _the_, golden moment in british 'activist' history, and before I knew anything about the people involved, I warmed to the picking up of their mantle - especially as from a distance it appeared to be an apparently inclusive all female, all ages group



 i dont think i know where to start, ive never seen so much wrongness packed into one sentence


----------



## kavenism (Jan 9, 2010)

el-ahrairah said:


> Very few are gifted with a media status based on their class background and photogenic looks, and when they decide they never really wanted to save the world and would rather be riding the gravy train with the winning team... well, who can blame them for saying, fuck the environment, there's money to be made here.  And that's why her parents paid so much for her education.



Photogenic?


----------



## Random (Jan 9, 2010)

What an awful person this Tasmin seems to be. From the article it now seems as though she's being frozen out of the real radical green movement, which can only be a good think.


----------



## Mr Smin (Jan 9, 2010)

ska invita said:


> it appeared to be an apparently inclusive all female, all ages group



Nothing says 'inclusive' like 'all female'. It would look odd to have blokes portraying WSPU activists but I still don't think you can call it inclusive.


----------



## joemac (Jan 19, 2010)

While I guess its better than a male posh twat-gender equality and all that she is basically confirming peoples stereotypes of greens being very middle class. For me that is unforgivable as a green anarchist I think she is trying to sabotage the green movement as we have enough sellouts etc in our movement without any more coming along


----------



## kenny g (Jan 21, 2010)

Well, if most of the decent people in the movement reject notions of leadership the turds rise to the top.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 24, 2011)

She's now the 'spokesperson' for Save Englands Forest the group the media are clearly keen to have on in regards to privatisation of the forests.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh god. Please, everyone - do read this from the woman herself yesterday, moaning that she's not posh:



> And there's the reason for my appearance on the posh list. I am indeed the granddaughter of Sir Thomas Lees, a baronet, albeit one with no land or property. His wife, also not posh, persuaded him to give it all away to set up Holton Lee, a Dorset charity for disabled people that promotes a holistic way of life.
> 
> What little cash he kept will, along with the title, eventually go the way of these things  -  down the male line to my Uncle Chris.
> 
> ...



Spotted this in there as well  - god work chegs :



> I'm certainly too posh for some of my erstwhile colleagues in the green movement. I've been flamed on Twitter by a man who calls himself 'Che Grimandi' for being posh.



Then back onto the forests:



> I'll give you an example: I wanted to launch a campaign to save England's forests  -  the ones that the Government is planning to sell to the highest bidder. Instead of knocking on the door of every NGO begging them to help me, I got myself invited to a swanky cocktail party  -  the posh can do that sort of thing.
> 
> Among the guests was the editor of The Lady, Rachel Johnson: petite, stylish and taking charge of the room. As I introduced myself, she looked me up and down and said with a smile: 'Oh, you're that girl.'
> 
> There was recognition, the promise to meet for tea, and now she is president of the Save England's Forests campaign. Would that have happened if I had just walked up to her in the street? I guess not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2011)

So with one breath she's saying she's not posh, and with the next she's stating that as a posh person she can do things that we mere plebs can't.

_Oy vey!_ .


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2011)

I am actually sitting here with my jaw dropping to the floor. ye gods she defies parody.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 24, 2011)

that's quite amazing.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 24, 2011)

Erm... 

I think you will find it is *Tamsin *not Tasmin ..

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=e...omond&gbv=1&aq=4&aqi=g7g-ms1&aql=&oq=tamsin+o


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 24, 2011)

Cheggers trolling.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jan 24, 2011)

The "terrace house" she talks about growing up in wasn't exactly a two-up-two-down back-to-back in Salford. It was in luvvyland West Hampstead.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jan 24, 2011)

As it happens, I also live in Kilburn. I haven't seen her in any of the "slightly dodgy pubs" she describes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2011)

and thank fuck for that


----------



## Nylock (Jan 24, 2011)

Hubris, thy name is Omond....


----------



## marty21 (Jan 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god. Please, everyone - do read this from the woman herself yesterday, moaning that she's not posh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
it wasn't chegs! she has been having a ding dong with him on Twitter, but it was someone else who said that to her - chegs is taking the credit though


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2011)

> There was recognition, the promise to meet for tea, and now she is president of the Save England's Forests campaign. Would that have happened if I had just walked up to her in the street? I guess not.


 Being posh gets posh people jobs, from posh people. Shocker.

 The fact that she manages to present this as her acomplishing social change just shows what a deluded self-centred world she lives in.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 24, 2011)

If we all concentrate on ignoring it, will it go away?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 24, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> If we all concentrate on ignoring it, will it go away?


 
As long as people keep on starting threads about it, I doubt it is going to go away!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2011)

weltweit said:


> As long as people keep on starting threads about it, I doubt it is going to go away!


 
You think that's the key thing?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You think that's the key thing?


 
absolutely 

perception is reality ... 



Anyhow I don't know what you lot have got against posh people. 

Posh people were born to lead  

Well if people will keep following them that is!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2011)

weltweit said:


> absolutely
> 
> perception is reality ...
> 
> ...


 Your reasonableness is really annoying - is it  planned?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 24, 2011)

So what if the girl is posh.. ?

I suspect people are more pissed that she seems to be doing quite a lot and she seems at least a little egotistical..


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2011)

I have a long ladder, climbing harness, tools, nails and wood... If I build a treehouse in a forest I wonder if I could get her up into it on the pretence of saving the forest then remove the ladder, go to the pub and forget she ever existed.

I'd reckon I'd probably get away with it if it wasn't for this post.


----------



## pk (Jan 25, 2011)

Oh leave off, you lot are mad. Put her in the Rovers and she'd be the sassiest and sexiest since Bet Lynch.

Don't hate her just because of Eastenders.


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So what if the girl is posh.. ?
> 
> I suspect people are more pissed that she seems to be doing quite a lot and she seems at least a little egotistical..


 
The problem is that politics is about more than what you think about the world - it's about your experience and interactions with the world. If you grew up in privilege, you cannot have the same perspective as someone (the vast majority) who did not. That doesn't mean posh people can't have sound politics - but it does mean that they have to work pretty bloody hard not to impose their own unthinking prejudices.

Unfortunately, the confidence and articulacy of middle-class activists often means that they end up taking over - and their hidden assumptions affect how the movement develops. Plane Stupid, for example -_ oh yes, let's have a go at people for taking cheap holidays, that's massively more important than any other target. Of all the things in this massively wasteful society of ours, lets pick something that is responsible for a tiny proportion of emissions and berate poor people for taking affordable holidays. That'll get people on our side!_ 

You can see it really clearly in this article by Monbiot. He's a lefty because he is moral. It's self-sacrifice. Let's be worse off for the sake of being nice. It doesn't occur to him that the vast majority of people are better off in a left-wing society. 



> So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/oct/11/left-values-progressive-self-interest



Middle-class lefties have to confront this issue - not dismiss it. Osmond is clueless - she can't even acknowledge that there is an issue to confront._ I'm not really posh, and anyway it helps the cause that I'm posh, and I can't be held responsible for the circumstances of my birth._ It all misses the point spectacularly.


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

OMG, she talks to the help!



> At parties I spend a lot of time by the canapes tray, trying to engage in conversation the young man who keeps filling up my glass. I'm filled with social anxiety when I have to sashay among the posh.



Some of her best friends are working-class, doncha know.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 25, 2011)

She sums up Greens.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> She sums up Greens.





To some extent this is true. The environment is an issue that will inevitably attract people like this. Hopefully it will keep them away from class politics.

Environmental issues are real enough, but on the larger scale are unfortunately insoluble and will probably see us all off in the end. To assume or claim that with the right leadership or democratic control by working people, or some such, the issues can be solved, is simply mad delusion.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2011)

she sounds like a total numpty.

others have better explained why.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Dan U said:


> she sounds like a total numpty.
> 
> others have better explained why.


 

In the great scheme of things it doesn't matter though. She isn't the first and she sure won't be the last.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 25, 2011)

ymu said:


> Unfortunately, the confidence and articulacy of middle-class activists often means that they end up taking over - and their hidden assumptions affect how the movement develops. Plane Stupid, for example -_ oh yes, let's have a go at people for taking cheap holidays, that's massively more important than any other target. Of all the things in this massively wasteful society of ours, lets pick something that is responsible for a tiny proportion of emissions and berate poor people for taking affordable holidays. That'll get people on our side!_



Agree with this. Perhaps the most prime example of this type thing ever was Eton educated Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's campaign to get people earning £12,000 a year to buy organic free range chicken.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In the great scheme of things it doesn't matter though. She isn't the first and she sure won't be the last.


 
In the great scheme of things you saying this on every thread about people you don't give a shit about about doesn't either. So crack on.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the great scheme of things you saying this on every thread about people you don't give a shit about about doesn't either. So crack on.


 
Why? After all, I'm not one of those who keep starting threads obsessing about minor characters, which, absurdly, often become the longest threads on the boards. As usual, I'm just providing an alternative viewpoint; a refreshing voice of reason if you like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Nope, you're the same as everyone else -the repetition of a few stock moves, the limited repertoire - you're the same as us. Or you wouldn't be saying this again, on this thread. Again. Would you?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Agree with this. Perhaps the most prime example of this type thing ever was Eton educated Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's campaign to get people earning £12,000 a year to buy organic free range chicken.




That people get themselves so wound up about the likes of Jasmin Omond, Huge Fearsomely Witless and Penny Laurie merely means that they are fulfilling their role.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Look at this whopper! 66 posts!


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, you're the same as everyone else -the repetition of a few stock moves, the limited repertoire - you're the same as us. Or you wouldn't be saying this again, on this thread. Again. Would you?





Perhaps-but it doesn't really matter.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Look at this whopper! 66 posts!





Only so low because there's already been a 900 page thread about the subject-and another one about Laurie Penny in which everybody said more or less the same things. 'Grr, annoying posho gets involved with something leftish'-as if this is a new phenomenon.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

> You can see it really clearly in this article by Monbiot. He's a lefty because he is moral. It's self-sacrifice. Let's be worse off for the sake of being nice. It doesn't occur to him that the vast majority of people are better off in a left-wing society



Grrr. Monbiot. Grrrr.

Much of Monbiot's hair-shirt reminds me of some of the comments on the 'Burnt Out Lefty' thread.

I did email him suggesting that he ride a horse to and from his local station in Wales (yes, London meejah type buying a home in Wales) instead of his Peugeot 106 diesel which he crowed about owning as some kind of sacrifice.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

refreshing as a mug of warm sick.


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Agree with this. Perhaps the most prime example of this type thing ever was Eton educated Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's campaign to get people earning £12,000 a year to buy organic free range chicken.


 
Fuck yes! Utterly fucking clueless. _Look, you can make a chicken go much further than you think with all these ingenious recipes. It needn't cost more than it does now_. Yeah, thanks Hugh - but how about we use those ideas with cheap chicken so we can have heating as well as food.


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Grrr. Monbiot. Grrrr.
> 
> Much of Monbiot's hair-shirt reminds me of some of the comments on the 'Burnt Out Lefty' thread.
> 
> I did email him suggesting that he ride a horse to and from his local station in Wales (yes, London meejah type buying a home in Wales) instead of his Peugeot 106 diesel which he crowed about owning as some kind of sacrifice.


 
I think that was just one poster on the burnt out lefty thread. Extolling the spiritual benefits of being poor as a reason to be left wing.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fuck yes! Utterly fucking clueless. _Look, you can make a chicken go much further than you think with all these ingenious recipes. It needn't cost more than it does now_. Yeah, thanks Hugh - but how about we use those ideas with cheap chicken so we can have heating as well as food.




You do realise, though, don't you, that the worthless babble of such people is just part of the irritating background noise that makes up an inevitable and growing backdrop to a society like this one? And you are helping them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fuck yes! Utterly fucking clueless. _Look, you can make a chicken go much further than you think with all these ingenious recipes. It needn't cost more than it does now_. Yeah, thanks Hugh - but how about we use those ideas with cheap chicken so we can have heating as well as food.



Famous labour movement story about a Lady  (i.e a titled) in the depression doing a talk on how to make chicken soup out of leftover bones to a group of unemployed people. Voice from the back - _'who ate the chicken?'_


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You do realise, though, don't you, that the worthless babble of such people is just part of the irritating background noise that makes up an inevitable and growing backdrop to a society like this one? And you are helping them.


 
I see no reason to silently acquiesce with their domination of the media.

And anyway, I'm a middle-class leftie. We need people to point these things out or we'll never fucking get it.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

ymu said:


> I see no reason to silently acquiesce with their domination of the media.
> 
> And anyway, I'm a middle-class leftie. We need people to point these things out or we'll never fucking get it.





Lots of people don't silently acquiesce-they grumble about being subjected to a constant barrage of crap just like we're doing. But it makes no difference, as everybody leaves the telly on while they're doing it. The media is more powerful than the grumblers and the grumbling actually reinforces its power and draws attention to the very people you claim not to approve of.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Lots of people don't silently acquiesce-they grumble about being subjected to a constant barrage of crap just like we're doing. But it makes no difference, as everybody leaves the telly on while they're doing it. The media is more powerful than the grumblers and the grumbling actually reinforces its power and draws attention to the very people you claim not to approve of.


 You keep on saying things like this, LLETSA, but what is the actual political or material effect of 'the TV being left on'?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> You keep on saying things like this, LLETSA, but what is the actual political or material effect of 'the TV being left on'?





I can't believe you don't know the answer to that one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Gives you cancer man.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Gives you cancer man.





Keeps us all in line actually. Ensures that a genuine, effective critique of the society and spirit of the times we live in can never come about-or at least that if it does, not enough people will ever listen.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I can't believe you don't know the answer to that one.


 Uses up fossil fuels, pumps out CO2 and leads to armageddon? Edit: how does it keep us all in line?


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2011)

keep going LLETSA you can make this 50 pages!


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Uses up fossil fuels, pumps out CO2 and leads to armageddon? Edit: how does it keep us all in line?




Again, I can't believe you don't know the answer to that one.

And this on a thread where people are wringing their hands about Hugh Fucking Fearnley Whittingham.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

So is it true, people with no TV are actually freer than the rest of us?

Edit: if it's so obvious than why can't you just say what it is? This is ridiculous.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> So is it true, people with no TV are actually freer than the rest of us?
> 
> Edit: if it's so obvious than why can't you just say what it is? This is ridiculous.


 



Of course they're not freer. What does that even mean?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

"Less kept in line".

Come on, if it's so obvious why are you finding it so hard to put it into words. People are going to start thinking you don't know what you've been talking about, or something.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm going offline for a while now, but I'll just add that it seems incredible that politicised people don't seem able to any longer grasp the effect of having the cultural values of the system their purport to oppose beamed directly into people's living rooms day and night. 

Perhaps it's why most alternatives on offer don't seem to most people worth sacrificing anything for. In other words opposition to capitalism has become infested with those very same values


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Personally I am a bit surprised by the class hatred which seems a major part of the "why I don't like Tamsin!" 

Though I admit her writings seem a bit contradictory.

We can't chose the class of our birth. 

What we do in our lives is more important than how we were born.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> We can't chose the class of our birth.
> 
> What we do in our lives is more important than how we were born.


 Yes, and what she's chosen to do is to exploit her class background for personal and political gain.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

> In other words opposition to capitalism has become infested with those very same values



It hasn't 'become' infested, it's inherent that some elements of the controlling ideology will also inhabit it's opposition. Down this road lies idealised ideological purity.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm going offline for a while now, but I'll just add that it seems incredible that politicised people don't seem able to any longer grasp the effect of having the cultural values of the system their purport to oppose beamed directly into people's living rooms day and night.


 You don't have to go off in a huff, I was just asking you to explain the rather major claims you were making for the 'power' of the media. It's a shame that despite trotting out this line about the power of TV you don't seem to actualyl have any real thought-out critique of how it works, just that it's bad. Because it's bad, and capitalist, and bad.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Does anyone really buy into this antediluvian model of culture any more. Ideas being zapped straight into peoples heads. 'Ideas' not being transformed in the process of reception based on personal or collective experience? It's all very 1950s.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2011)

i hate this idea that anyone who watches TV or engages with mainstream culture or whatever somehow by default is lacking the critical faculties to also see where things are wrong in society, culture or even the TV show we are watching.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Personally I am a bit surprised by the class hatred which seems a major part of the "why I don't like Tamsin!"
> 
> Though I admit her writings seem a bit contradictory.
> 
> ...



As Random has said, it's not that she's posh, it's the _way_ she's cloaking her careerism in the flag of progressive/whatever politics. She's using her inbuilt privilege to hitch a lift on someone else's political wagon for her own ends. At least a posh kid who goes into the City or law using their background (to an extent) is only manipulating their own class position within their class.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Does anyone really buy into this antediluvian model of culture any more. Ideas being zapped straight into peoples heads. 'Ideas' not being transformed in the process of reception based on personal or collective experience? It's all very 1950s.


 
'The hypodermic syringe model' it's called in sociology iirc.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

Dan U said:


> i hate this idea that anyone who watches TV or engages with mainstream culture or whatever somehow by default is lacking the critical faculties to also see where things are wrong in society, culture or even the TV show we are watching.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> As Random has said, it's not that she's posh, it's the _way_ she's cloaking her careerism in the flag of progressive/whatever politics. She's using her inbuilt privilege to hitch a lift on someone else's political wagon for her own ends. At least a posh kid who goes into the City or law using their background (to an extent) is only manipulating their own class position within their class.


 
hmm.. It seems you are suggesting people of a class should only mix or work within their born class. 

I can't think of much that would be more likely to continue and strengthen the class system.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> hmm.. It seems you are suggesting people of a class should only mix or work within their born class.
> 
> I can't think of much that would be more likely to continue and strengthen the class system.


What the fuck are you talking about you prat?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

NB I am, of course heavily critical of the media, and of the companies that control it, and am fully aware of the way they try to set the terms of the debate, and control what our culture is. But culture is also created at the everyday level, plus popular culture is often part of opposition.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> 'The hypodermic syringe model' it's called in sociology iirc.


 
It's a model that Stuart Hall and others destroyed in the 70s - and it's one based primarily on the idea of w/c passivity. It's almost leninist in its crudity.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 25, 2011)

The meedja is an all powerful tool of social control. Especially when people criticise it, further proving just how brainwashed by it they really are.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What the fuck are you talking about you prat?


 
I think he's confused by kyser's 'at least' in the end sentence. There's no lesser about it imo, just another avenue of class power.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

To my mind kyser suggested that middle class people using their connections to get ahead is alright if they do it in the law or the city, amongst their own class, but if they tried to do it in a more left wing working class mileau then it was bad form of some kind. 

That seems to me to be a recipie for the continuation of privilidge and the class system.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> hmm.. It seems you are suggesting people of a class should only mix or work within their born class.
> 
> I can't think of much that would be more likely to continue and strengthen the class system.


 
No, I'm saying that she, in particluar, as an individual, is using her pre-existing class status to enhance her own, personal life and career, by hitching herself onto a social group that she doesn't share class interests with. 

My second point was saying that, is that her behaviour is worse than someone who only uses their class privilege within their own class, and that this is why she attracts such opprobrium from many here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> To my mind kyser suggested that middle class people using their connections to get ahead is alright if they do it in the law or the city, amongst their own class, but if they tried to do it in a more left wing working class mileau then it was bad form of some kind.
> 
> That seems to me to be a recipie for the continuation of privilidge and the class system.


 
Do you really think the class system can be overcome by _class-mixing_ rather than removing its material basis?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

> using their connections to get ahead is alright if they do it in the law or the city, amongst their own class, but if they tried to do it in a more left wing working class mileau then it was bad form of some kind



I'm not saying 'it's alright' to either example, altho I think her behaviour shows a level of knowing cynicism that isn't present in the other example.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> No, I'm saying that she, in particluar, as an individual, is using her pre-existing class status to enhance her own, personal life and career, by hitching herself onto a social group that she doesn't share class interests with.



So because she does not share class interests she should not hitch herself to that group?



kyser_soze said:


> My second point was saying that, is that her behaviour is worse than someone who only uses their class privilege within their own class, and that this is why she attracts such opprobrium from many here.


 
Yes, it is clear to me what you are saying. I just don't agree with it


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> No, I'm saying that she, in particluar, as an individual, is using her pre-existing class status to enhance her own, personal life and career, by hitching herself onto a social group that she doesn't share class interests with.
> 
> My second point was saying that, is that her behaviour is worse than someone who only uses their class privilege within their own class, and that this is why she attracts such opprobrium from many here.


 I think it's a bit of a far stretch to claim that the green movement is a working class social movement. Middle and upper class greenism has existed as long as the modern movement has.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Do you really think the class system can be overcome by _class-mixing_ rather than removing its material basis?


 
Not only by that no, but it would be a step in the right direction. 

And I don't mean just middle class people mixing with working class people, but also working class people mixing with middle class people .. iyswim


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

> So because she does not share class interests she should not hitch herself to that group?



Not if she's using it as a vehicle for her career, no.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Not if she's using it as a vehicle for her career, no.


 
So do you think it equally wrong that an Essex lad might enter the city of London and prosper in the financial markets which had been traditionally a middle class occupation? 

I think social mobility is a positive thing, in all directions. (well pehaps not all


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So do you think it equally wrong that an Essex lad might enter the city of London and prosper in the financial markets which had been traditionally a middle class occupation?
> 
> I think social mobility is a positive thing, in all directions. (well pehaps not all


 
Not even remotely the same thing. This isn't about social mobility.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Not only by that no, but it would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> And I don't mean just middle class people mixing with working class people, but also working class people mixing with middle class people .. iyswim


 
'Background' and class aren't just about being born somewhere or in a particular group, they're about the structures of power that control who has access to wealth.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> You don't have to go off in a huff, I was just asking you to explain the rather major claims you were making for the 'power' of the media. It's a shame that despite trotting out this line about the power of TV you don't seem to actualyl have any real thought-out critique of how it works, just that it's bad. Because it's bad, and capitalist, and bad.




I didn't go off in a huff-I'm working.

It's obvious how it works, isn't it? As already hinted at, if the values of the capitalist system are beamed into everybody's home nearly all the time, it's inconceivable that they won't dominate most people's way of looking at the world.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> It hasn't 'become' infested, it's inherent that some elements of the controlling ideology will also inhabit it's opposition. Down this road lies idealised ideological purity.





I'm not calling for ideological purity. I'm just pointing out that we've never before had  a situation in which so many people are addressed so directly by the cultural values of capitalism.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Does anyone really buy into this antediluvian model of culture any more. Ideas being zapped straight into peoples heads. 'Ideas' not being transformed in the process of reception based on personal or collective experience? It's all very 1950s.





I'm not saying that people don't process the ideas and try to work out their own viewpoint, just that they inevitably have a major effect. Hence the failure of opposition to capitalism to offer convincing alternatives-why sacrifice your current situation only to achieve something that sounds pretty much like what went before?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I didn't go off in a huff-I'm working.
> 
> It's obvious how it works, isn't it? As already hinted at, if the values of the capitalist system are beamed into everybody's home nearly all the time, it's inconceivable that they won't dominate most people's way of looking at the world.


 
But what if people are too busy working in capitalist jobs and buying capitalist products and services to pay attention to the box and the rags. Presumably they are the most free of capitalist values...


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Dan U said:


> i hate this idea that anyone who watches TV or engages with mainstream culture or whatever somehow by default is lacking the critical faculties to also see where things are wrong in society, culture or even the TV show we are watching.


 
Everybody sees what's wrong, but the diversity and, often, plain daftness of much of what's offered as an alternative only proves my point. 

Keep 'em confused. Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> NB I am, of course heavily critical of the media, and of the companies that control it, and am fully aware of the way they try to set the terms of the debate, and control what our culture is. But culture is also created at the everyday level, plus popular culture is often part of opposition.




Never before have we had so much in the way of TV, literature, drama and film that criticises the way the world is, often pointing the finger in the direction it needs to be pointed. And never before has opposition to capitalism been so weak and a workable alternative more remote.

Capitalism can afford any number of talented celebrity critics.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's a model that Stuart Hall and others destroyed in the 70s - and it's one based primarily on the idea of w/c passivity. It's almost leninist in its crudity.





Sadly, contemporary capitalism can afford any number of Stuart Halls.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The meedja is an all powerful tool of social control. Especially when people criticise it, further proving just how brainwashed by it they really are.


 
Nobody has mentioned brainwashing.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Never before have we had so much in the way of TV, literature, drama and film that criticises the way the world is, often pointing the finger in the direction it needs to be pointed. And never before has opposition to capitalism been so weak and a workable alternative more remote.
> 
> Capitalism can afford any number of talented celebrity critics.


 You're arguing against your earlier point, here. If people are getting criticism of capitalism 'beamed' into their homes, then why isn't it dominating their way of looking at the world?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> But what if people are too busy working in capitalist jobs and buying capitalist products and services to pay attention to the box and the rags. Presumably they are the most free of capitalist values...


 
Why do you think people don't pay attention? It isn't even necessary to pay that much attention to absorb the values anyway. As for buying products, much of this product is responsible for the phenomenon of using new technology to tailor your entertainment interests to your inevitably narrow concerns. Which worsens the situation.


----------



## revlon (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Sadly, contemporary capitalism can afford any number of Stuart Halls.


 
bring back it's a knockout


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> You're arguing against your earlier point, here. If people are getting criticism of capitalism 'beamed' into their homes, then why isn't it dominating their way of looking at the world?



 It's anti-capitalism as mass entertainement, and makes capitalism's opponents and critics feel better for a bit.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

So you're saying that the cultural values carried by the mass media are, on the one hand totally powerful, and on the other hand, have no impact whatsoever. How can you hold these two opposing beliefs?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> So you're saying that the cultural values carried by the mass media are, on the one hand totally powerful, and on the other hand, have no impact whatsoever. How can you hold these two opposing beliefs?




Can you not see how the overall cultural values pushed by the media neutralise the very critiques of capitalism that the very same media occasionally broadcasts? In the end it's all reduced to mere babble designed to confuse.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 25, 2011)

@ Random - dialectics comrade etc.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> So you're saying that the cultural values carried by the mass media are, on the one hand totally powerful, and on the other hand, have no impact whatsoever. How can you hold these two opposing beliefs?


 
Doublethink, caused by watching too much TV 

This thread looks more interesting in light of the book I'm reading that BA posted a link to on the thread about the 'Social Media Backlash' - Lletsa's point about the splintering of the messages especially. However, I don't think his point rings true - TV, like radio is a unifying broadcast medium, unlike the internet. It's truly 'mass' media. Admittedly, the 'mass' part of that (water cooler TV and similar analogies) are generally watching X-Factor and not something 'improving', but it's still a medium that brings people together collectively and provides a common narrative, unlike the individualist splurge of the internet.


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Doublethink, caused by watching too much TV


 
Not really no. It's about permissible dissent, innit. Straight up new speak propaganda doesn't work.

Andrew Marr's interview with Chomsky springs to mind ...

[video=google;-4827358238697503]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4827358238697503#[/video]


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Can you not see how the overall cultural values pushed by the media neutralise the very critiques of capitalism that the very same media occasionally broadcasts? In the end it's all reduced to mere babble designed to confuse.


 
As I've said many times before I think you've got things the wrong way round. The media is not a major cause of people's lack of ability to change the world, but it does reflect it.

Edit: you're still being confused here, on the one hand you say that TV 'beams' a cultural message on teh other hand you say it's all just a babble. And I'd agree with the second part - the media content is not significant, the social context is what's important.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Sadly, contemporary capitalism can afford any number of Stuart Halls.



Can it?



> 11 Apr 1991
> 
> TV personality Stuart Hall changed his story when police questioned him over the theft of a jar of coffee and packet of sausages from a supermarket, Knutsford Crown Court was told yesterday. The 61-year-old former presenter of BBC's It's A Knockout first claimed ''it's all a dreadful mistake'', but is then alleged to have said ''Yes I knew I was taking them'', according to Mr David Hale, prosecuting. Hall denies stealing food worth #3.94 from a Safeway store near his home in Wilmslow, Cheshire, on October 4 last year. The trial continues


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

It both reflects _and_ is a contributory factor toward it. A thought fox on this tho - were the media to start broadcasting a consistent workers rights, anti-cap message, would it's consumers end up with a political variation of compassion fatigue?


----------



## Dan U (Jan 25, 2011)

bloody hell, Stuart Hall is well old to still be doing footie commentary on a Saturday, good effort.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> It both reflects _and_ is a contributory factor toward it. A thought fox on this tho - were the media to start broadcasting a consistent workers rights, anti-cap message, would it's consumers end up with a political variation of compassion fatigue?


 
Depends whether it was relevant to people's lives.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Well, as for Tamsin Omond, it seems she is not afraid of a bit of publicity, is proactive and energetic and must have a fairly thick skin if the reaction to her in this thread is anything to go by. 

Almost a perfect set of qualities for a career in politics. 

Good luck to her !!


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well, as for Tamsin Omond, it seems she is not afraid of a bit of publicity, is proactive and energetic and must have a fairly thick skin if the reaction to her in this thread is anything to go by.
> 
> Almost a perfect set of qualities for a career in politics.
> 
> Good luck to her !!


 Why good luck to her?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Why good luck to her?


 
Why not?

And guaging the reaction to her on here, she may need a bit of luck


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Why not?
> 
> And guaging the reaction to her on here, she may need a bit of luck


 
Just a bit puzzled as to why you wish budding politicians good luck. Do you like politicians? And I don't think she'll be much affected by criticism from the likes of us. In fact it might just add to yet another newspaper article.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Just a bit puzzled as to why you wish budding politicians good luck. Do you like politicians?



Why not wish her luck, she seems to be making waves, good luck to her... 
But no I don't particularly like politicians.



Random said:


> And I don't think she'll be much affected by criticism from the likes of us. In fact it might just add to yet another newspaper article.


 
She seems to be actually doing things, taking some kind of action, good on her, action is energising, action is good (usually)...


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)

We need more people who set up their own organisations instead of supporting existing ones. Solidarity is so out-dated. Narcissism is where it's at.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Why not wish her luck, she seems to be making waves, good luck to her...


 She seems to have got a cushy job, albeit a green-tinged one, via some kind of privilaged network, I don't see what kind of waves that makes.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> As I've said many times before I think you've got things the wrong way round. The media is not a major cause of people's lack of ability to change the world, but it does reflect it.
> 
> Edit: you're still being confused here, on the one hand you say that TV 'beams' a cultural message on teh other hand you say it's all just a babble. And I'd agree with the second part - the media content is not significant, the social context is what's important.


 
I haven't said that the media is the cause of people's inability to change the world-nor that the world can't be changed. The world, after all, changes constantly in many ways. 

Why does the media's babble preclude a cultural message? How could it be anything other than an increasing babble as it endlessly proliferates?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> It both reflects _and_ is a contributory factor toward it. A thought fox on this tho - were the media to start broadcasting a consistent workers rights, anti-cap message, would it's consumers end up with a political variation of compassion fatigue?


 
In the formerly Communist-ruled societies, the end result of precisely this message was that even those who supported the social system believed hardly anything of what the media told them. Under capitalism the message is more subtle, as well as increasingly inescapable.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Why does the media's babble preclude a cultural message? How could it be anything other than an increasing babble as it endlessly proliferates?


 You're delivering vague babble yourself now. First you say that it 'beams' cultural values, then you say it's content-free, just a babble.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Depends whether it was relevant to people's lives.




Only is you believe all people are consistently rational and reasonable. One of the major failings of ideologies is that their adherents believe that everybody basically thinks like they do.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> You're delivering vague babble yourself now. First you say that it 'beams' cultural values, then you say it's content-free, just a babble.




Where have I said anything is content-free?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Only is you believe all people are consistently rational and reasonable. One of the major failings of ideologies is that their adherents believe that everybody basically thinks like they do.


 Why does relevance have to involve rationality?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Where have I said anything is content-free?


 'mere babble designed to confuse'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

What is the point in arguing with a circle?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Why does relevance have to involve rationality?



Surely it's a rational act to see relevance in something? Or perhaps it's more rational to accept the world as basically senseless and to sometimes find meaning in going against what you know deep down is best for yourself? And I don't mean that facetiously.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What is the point in arguing with a circle?




Shouldn't you be publicising some future media starlet or other of 'the left'?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> 'mere babble designed to confuse'.





In what way is babble content-free?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

Not sure i need to.

Who posted:

LLETSA 
Posts: 24 

Random 
Posts: 15 

butchersapron 
Posts: 13 

weltweit 
Posts: 10


----------



## ymu (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Surely it's a rational act to see relevance in something? Or perhaps it's more rational to accept the world as basically senseless and to sometimes find meaning in going against what you know deep down is best for yourself? And I don't mean that facetiously.


 
TV currently has an audience because people find something in it to interest them, and this changes all the time. I watch Midsommar murders nowadays since I'm vaguely nostalgic for England, wheras it would have disgusted me when I was actually living in southern England. So it's become relevant to me, in a fairly sub-rational way.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In what way is babble content-free?


 In what way is mere babble mere babble, you mean?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure i need to.
> 
> Who posted:
> 
> ...





Only a couple of posts of mine have addressed the subject of Jasmin Ormond. And then only to point out her basic irrelevance to the wider picture. Most others, when it comes to her and little Laurie, seem to prefer a good wank.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

24 posts and good few hours to tell people that something irrelevant is irrelevant. May the circle never be unbroken.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> She seems to have got a cushy job, albeit a green-tinged one, via some kind of privilaged network, I don't see what kind of waves that makes.


 
Everyone can network. You can I can, she can.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> In what way is mere babble mere babble, you mean?





Mere babble still has content, doesn't it?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Everyone can network. You can I can, she can.





I can't.


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Mere babble still has content, doesn't it?


 No, that's why it's called 'mere babble.' Maybe you meant something else?


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Everyone can network. You can I can, she can.


 The whole point - that Osmond herself makes in teh article - is that she networks with the rich and the powerful, because of her class privilage.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 24 posts and good few hours to tell people that something irrelevant is irrelevant. May the circle never be unbroken.





It's taken only a few minutes of those hours to say that though. And, as I said, few of my posts have addressed the subject of Jasmin Penny.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's taken only a few minutes of those hours to say that though. And, as I said, few of my posts have addressed the subject of Jasmin Penny.


 
Whilst others have clearly pent hours and days on this irrelevance. The fools.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> No, that's why it's called 'mere babble.' Maybe you meant something else?




Turn the telly on, if you're at home, and then go upstairs and turn the one up there on, on a different channel. You'll hear babble, but you'll find it contains some sort of content.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

You have two TVs?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Whilst others have clearly pent hours and days on this irrelevance. The fools.




I refer you to the mentioned 900 page thread on Jasmin Laurie last time around, as well as the 700 page one on Penny Ormond.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> The whole point - that Osmond herself makes in teh article - is that she networks with the rich and the powerful, because of her class privilage.


 
I think her writing is quite misleading and, as shown already, quite contradictory. 

She networks with people because she puts herself out there to meet people, actively. 

There are plenty of people from priviliged backgrounds who don't or can't do that, just as there are plenty of folks from less middle class backgounds who don't or can't.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

killer b said:


> You have two TVs?





Three if you count the one we never use.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I refer you to the mentioned 900 page thread on Jasmin Laurie last time around, as well as the 700 page one on Penny Ormond.


 
No you don't.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No you don't.





About 650 of those pages were your own work, weren't they?


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Three if you count the one we never use.


 
And yet you remain so enlightened. What's the secret?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2011)

Random said:


> 'The hypodermic syringe model' it's called in sociology iirc.


 
AKA "inoculation theory".


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> She networks with people because she puts herself out there to meet people, actively.



They probably thinks she's a bit of a knob, but her background allows her to be tolerated as a knob among those sort of people.  We'd just be plain knobs to them.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

killer b said:


> And yet you remain so enlightened. What's the secret?





I never said I was enlightened. I did, however, express a certain amount of incredulity at claims from politicised people that the mass media has no effect on society.


----------



## Sue (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> She networks with people because she puts herself out there to meet people, actively.



So, if I put myself out there to meet people actively, I'd be moving in such circles? You seriously believe it's merely a case of going out and meeting people?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> AKA "inoculation theory".




There will always be a minority of people who are largely immune to the basic messages put across in the media.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

We call it the party.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 25, 2011)

Sue said:


> So, if I put myself out there to meet people actively, I'd be moving in such circles? You seriously believe it's merely a case of going out and meeting people?



Yeah, the rich, connected and powerful in business and politics.  With titles.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We call it the party.


 
Do you? As far as I can see it amounts to a mountain of confusion.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Sue said:


> So, if I put myself out there to meet people actively, I'd be moving in such circles? You seriously believe it's merely a case of going out and meeting people?


 
I think Sue, if you got into networking positively you might be very surprised with what is possible. 

On the contrary of course if you think you can't then you would also be right!  

Also, people want to meet movers and shakers, if you become such a person, people will actually want to meet you!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## Sue (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think Sue, if you got into networking positively you might be very surprised with what is possible.
> 
> On the contrary of course if you think you can't then you would also be right!
> 
> Also, people want to meet movers and shakers, if you become such a person, people will actually want to meet you!



Oh dear.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think Sue, if you got into networking positively you might be very surprised with what is possible.
> 
> On the contrary of course if you think you can't then you would also be right!
> 
> Also, people want to meet movers and shakers, if you become such a person, people will actually want to meet you!





Surely a wind-up.

Although there might be some truth in the statement that lots of people do want to meet 'movers and shakers.' This, however, is part of what's wrong with the world.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I never said I was enlightened. I did, however, express a certain amount of incredulity at claims from politicised people that the mass media has no effect on society.


 
Who said that?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Although there might be truth when you say that lots of people do want to meet 'movers and shakers.' This, however, is part of what's wrong with the world.


 
Some people are "people people" and find it easy to move in various social circles, I am not one of them sadly, but I know a few who are like that. They know a lot of people, they arguably have a "social network" and it can sometimes (often even) help them in their lives. 

But there are some that think this is some kind of preserve of the middle or upper classes. I don't believe that to be true. I believe it is more the preserve of the "social person".


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

killer b said:


> Who said that?





Read the thread, have you?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Some people are "people people" and find it easy to move in various social circles, I am not one of them sadly, but I know a few who are like that. They know a lot of people, they arguably have a "social network" and it can sometimes (often even) help them in their lives.
> 
> But there are some that think this is some kind of preserve of the middle or upper classes. I don't believe that to be true. I believe it is more the preserve of the "social person".





There are social circles and social circles though.

Didn't networking used to be called social climbing? Or was it brown-nosing?


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Read the thread, have you?


 
Yep. Who said it?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

killer b said:


> Yep. Who said it?





Several people, even if not in so many words. 

Read it again, perhaps, with more care this time.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

I did. Who said it? A quote will do.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> There are social circles and social circles though.



Possibly. But people who already think "this is not for me" or perhaps "they are not for me" are at least a bit doomed to fail!  I just don't think networking is the preserve of the upper classes. 

Facebook, Linkedin etc are social networking platforms.. quite popular these days. 

There may be something in it  



LLETSA said:


> Didn't networking used to be called social climbing? Or was it brown-nosing?


 
Dunno, perhaps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What is the point in arguing with a circle?


 
To find out who the jerks are?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When the upper classes network, they look at people who are not their own kind and think, 'This is not for you.'





Corrected for you.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

killer b said:


> I did. Who said it? A quote will do.




Eff off and find you own quotes. Or make a point, you tiresome pipsqueak.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Corrected for you.


 
Who needs the upper classes anyhow


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

47 now.  1/4 of the posts on the thread.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

most of which seem to be arguing against a position no-one has taken. bizarre.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

For the benefit of the killer, here's a quote then: 




			
				Secretary of the Tamsin Omond and Laurie Penny Fan Club said:
			
		

> The power of the mass media doesn't matter because A.N. Academic said in 1973 that piece of socio-political jargon, piece of socio-political jargon. This is the final word on the subject because an academic said it. And he writes books.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

Wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> For the benefit of the killer, here's a quote then:


 You want a cup of tea love?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Some people are "people people" and find it easy to move in various social circles, I am not one of them sadly, but I know a few who are like that. They know a lot of people, they arguably have a "social network" and it can sometimes (often even) help them in their lives.
> 
> But there are some that think this is some kind of preserve of the middle or upper classes. I don't believe that to be true. I believe it is more the preserve of the "social person".


 
You need to read some Bordieu to address this. While there are 'social persons' who can mix in any company, the cultural gap between the middle and upper class is smaller than that of the working class and m/c & u/c. Even something as simple as shopping for clothes can be socially intimidating for people from even affluent w/c backgrounds, because the attitude shown by the assistants, the unspoken social rules. Same goes for things like dining, eating out etc etc. Similarly it applies to networking - social confidence comes from a sense of privilege in some sense or other, or a real sense of bloody-minded determination to succeed (Katie Price taking up polo, and being accepted into at least some parts of that social 

You say you're not a social person, then you're aware of the feeling that people are staring and judging you when you go out? That's what it _can_ feel like being w/c and in a social 'function'. How you react to that is another matter, but for some - possily many - there's a feeling of being adrift in a sea in which you have no idea what the currents or winds are.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

The Unpaid Max Clifford for Naive and Nubile Young Careerists said:
			
		

> Do you mind; this thread is reserved for comment on my dear Jamsin?




Sorry.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Thanks for the thoughtful post. 



kyser_soze said:


> You need to read some Bordieu to address this. While there are 'social persons' who can mix in any company, the cultural gap between the middle and upper class is smaller than that of the working class and m/c & u/c.



I can believe that. 



kyser_soze said:


> Even something as simple as shopping for clothes can be socially intimidating for people from even affluent w/c backgrounds, because the attitude shown by the assistants, the unspoken social rules.



Oh, interesting. I had not realised shopping could be a problem. 



kyser_soze said:


> Same goes for things like dining, eating out etc etc. Similarly it applies to networking - social confidence comes from a sense of privilege in some sense or other, or a real sense of bloody-minded determination to succeed (Katie Price taking up polo, and being accepted into at least some parts of that social



Well there is an accepted MC way of using cutlery which is a dead giveaway if you don't know it. I recently someone who sees himself as above people (very unpleasant) but did not know how MC people hold a knife and a fork. I found myself sniggering inwardly thinking .. he thinks he knows it all (he was a know-it-all) but he does not! 

I would argue that school should equip pupils with the ammunition to converse with anyone and the confidence and ettiquette to eat with anyone.  There was an interesting quote by a posh bloke on TV who said good manners is making sure no one is embarrased. I like that, I try to ensure no one is embarrassed for any reason. 

I think social situations require a confidence in your own knowledge and the conversation skills to be able to hold your own in conversation. But I think such skills can be learnt.



kyser_soze said:


> You say you're not a social person, then you're aware of the feeling that people are staring and judging you when you go out?



Well I say I am not social, these things are on a sliding scale, I work with people day in day out so I am used to dealing with people, but I am not as social as some that I know and consequently have fewer people in my social circle. 



kyser_soze said:


> That's what it _can_ feel like being w/c and in a social 'function'. How you react to that is another matter, but for some - possily many - there's a feeling of being adrift in a sea in which you have no idea what the currents or winds are.


 
I understand that. I think people should be prepared for it, I think social skills - at least the basics - can be learnt. If our upbringing does not teach us then I do think school should.


----------



## Sue (Jan 25, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well there is an accepted MC way of using cutlery which is a dead giveaway if you don't know it. I recently someone who sees himself as above people (very unpleasant) but did not know how MC people hold a knife and a fork. I found myself sniggering inwardly thinking .. he thinks he knows it all (he was a know-it-all) but he does not!



Weltweit, re-read your quote above. Can you see why this might make people think you are a complete tosser?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2011)

Sue said:


> Weltweit, re-read your quote above. Can you see why this might make people think you are a complete tosser?


 
Well it obviously was not intended to make me look a complete tosser  though ok perhaps it might ..


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Sorry.


 
jesus christ. are you for real?

i think i preferred it when you were being a relentlessly miserable twat if this is your version of humour.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 25, 2011)

killer b said:


> jesus christ. are you for real?
> 
> i think i preferred it when you were being a relentlessly miserable twat if this is your version of humour.


 
What you do or don't prefer is of no interest to me.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2011)

I appear to mostly agree with Lletsa on this thread.

other than this bit of course.


LLETSA said:


> Environmental issues are real enough, but on the larger scale are unfortunately insoluble and will probably see us all off in the end. To assume or claim that with the right leadership or democratic control by working people, or some such, the issues can be solved, is simply mad delusion.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

free spirit said:


> I appear to mostly agree with Lletsa on this thread.


 Unsurprising, since LLETSA is arguing like a moralistic hippy here


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> For the benefit of the killer, here's a quote then:


 
Experts, what do they know?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

> Well there is an accepted MC way of using cutlery which is a dead giveaway if you don't know it. I recently someone who sees himself as above people (very unpleasant) but did not know how MC people hold a knife and a fork. I found myself sniggering inwardly thinking .. he thinks he knows it all (he was a know-it-all) but he does not!



Your behaviour here encapsulates part of the spectrum of responses that might happen in that given social situation - the others being a kind of pity that is a kind of 'nice' patronisation, through to in/visible mocking. How would you feel if you felt _everyone_ round the table was thinking this? The subject here sounds like the person at the 'bloody minded determination' end of the spectrum, but again, since one is unable to see into their mind, their bluster could just as easily be a social mask for feelings of deep insecurity. Regardless of this, do you now see how the social gap between the likes of Tamsin and others exists? You say that 'schools should teach children table manners' as a kind of leveller...well yes, that's a laudable aim, but then the kids just come home and find a deep divide between what they are learning in theory at school and the experience of dining in practice at home, which in turn leads to more insecurity - both for children _and_ parents who can feel threatened that their children are learning something denied to them.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> You say that 'schools should teach children table manners' as a kind of leveller...well yes, that's a laudable aim


 No it's not, it's bollocks. It's like saying that school should teach everyone to speak with a middle class accent to help social levelling.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

OK, teaching some kids to eat with a knife and fork would be a laudable aim.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> OK, teaching some kids to eat with a knife and fork would be a laudable aim.


 And teaching them to brush their teeth and wipe their arse as well? Who doesn't know how to eat with a knife and fork? I mean, badly enough that it's a problem? Aha, you mean indian people who eat withtheir fingers, and chinese people who eat with chopsticks. It's worse than I thought


----------



## ymu (Jan 26, 2011)

Is there a middle-class way of holding a knife and fork?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> And teaching them to brush their teeth and wipe their arse as well? Who doesn't know how to eat with a knife and fork? I mean, badly enough that it's a problem? Aha, you mean indian people who eat withtheir fingers, and chinese people who eat with chopsticks. It's worse than I thought


 
Whatever.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

ymu said:


> Is there a middle-class way of holding a knife and fork?


 Pleb


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

ymu said:


> Is there a middle-class way of holding a knife and fork?


 
I think weltweit was referring to dinner etiquette, such as cutlery selection and use.

Random - I can only relate my mum's experience as an infant school TA a few years ago when there were kids coming in at 4 (from white families) who had to be taught to use a knife, fork and spoon. But clearly her experience of this doesn't accord with yours. The accusation of implied racism was nice too.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I think weltweit was referring to dinner etiquette, such as cutlery selection and use.
> 
> Random - I can only relate my mum's experience as an infant school TA a few years ago when there were kids coming in at 4 (from white families) who had to be taught to use a knife, fork and spoon. But clearly her experience of this doesn't accord with yours. The accusation of implied racism was nice too.


 
How many smilies do I have to use to indicate that I'm not being seriousl, you dope?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> And teaching them to brush their teeth and wipe their arse as well? *Who doesn't know how to eat with a knife and fork? I mean, badly enough that it's a problem? *Aha, you mean indian people who eat withtheir fingers, and chinese people who eat with chopsticks. It's worse than I thought


 
White kids at the primary school where my other half teaches (these are not reception age children); they very rarely use cutlery at home.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

Sorry, mad smiley sarcasm detector offline :facepalm@@self.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

IMO four years old is too young to go to school, you'll have kids at that age who can't wipe their own arese either. But this is a  long way from some kind of social class levelling nonsense.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Unsurprising, since LLETSA is arguing like a moralistic hippy here




The only thing that's surprising is that you are being uncharacteristically moronic.

For example, I haven't said anything even remotely moralistic.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Experts, what do they know?





Which experts are these then?


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Which experts are these then?


 I'm guessing that you're rubbishing Stuart Hall et all. The people who've spent years discussing the models of how media influences people. A discussion that apparently you don't want to have because it's all so 'obvious' and you'd rather claim that people like me think that the mass media has no effect, despite my stated view to the contrary. Has too much MTV rotted your brain?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

Dreamworld and Catastrophe

This is one of the books referenced in a book BA linked to on the thread about the FB backlash that addresses the issues raised by Lletsa...


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> I'm guessing that you're rubbishing Stuart Hall et all. The people who've spent years discussing the models of how media influences people. A discussion that apparently you don't want to have because it's all so 'obvious' and you'd rather claim that people like me think that the mass media has no effect, despite my stated view to the contrary. Has too much MTV rotted your brain?





I haven't rubbished Stuart Hall. I've suggested that he may not necessarily be right. After all, the study referred to was a long time ago when the media was less pervasive. 

You and others might not have said the media has no effect on peoples' behaviour, but you certainly come close. 

You still haven't said how I'm being moralistic.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You and others might not have said the media has no effect on peoples' behaviour, but you certainly come close.


 Nonsense, all I've done is ask you to actually explain how you think the media affects people, and all you've said is that it's 'obvious' and that it 'must' have an overwhelming effect. If it really is one of the defining social forces of our time then I'd hope you could say a bit more than that. And you then call _me_ moronic.



LLETSA said:


> You still haven't said how I'm being moralistic.


 I said you're arguing 'like' a moralistic hippy, and your criticism of the TV does seem to be just as shallow as that of any hippy.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> I said you're arguing 'like' a moralistic hippy, and your criticism of the TV does seem to be just as shallow as that of any hippy.





Yes-but that's where you're wrong in that, as I keep having to say, I've said nothing remotely moralistic.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

What do Hall et al say about the impact the media does have? I watch the way TV etc here are saturated with this new urban middle class consumerist lifestyle, and even amongst a population who are no mugs and used to reading between the lines of the overt messages of the media, the endless bombardment is changing values (not alone obviously, but  part of it).


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Nonsense, all I've done is ask you to actually explain how you think the media affects people, and all you've said is that it's 'obvious' and that it 'must' have an overwhelming effect. If it really is one of the defining social forces of our time then I'd hope you could say a bit more than that. And you then call _me_ moronic.





It is, in actual fact, politically moronic to suggest that the media is not one of the defining forces of our time. After all, not very long ago it was a staple complaint of most people with left-wing inclinations that the constant barrage of propaganda for consumer capitalism, both crude and highly subtle, had a demobilising effect on people, and this in a time when the media was much smaller and limited in scope. 

I can't believe that you really need it explaining to you how it all works.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> What do Hall et al say about the impact the media does have? I watch the way TV etc here are saturated with this new urban middle class consumerist lifestyle, and even amongst a population who are no mugs and used to reading between the lines of the overt messages of the media, the endless bombardment is changing values (not alone obviously, but  part of it).





At last-somebody with a grasp of reality.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It is, in actual fact, politically moronic to suggest that the media is not one of the defining forces of our time. After all, not very long ago it was a staple complaint of most people with left-wing inclinations that the constant barrage of propaganda for consumer capitalism, both crude and highly subtle, had a demobilising effect on people, and this in a time when the media was much smaller and limited in scope.


 So that's a no, then? You don't actually have ananalysis beyond what you're saying about capitalism being 'beamed' into people.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> At last-somebody with a grasp of reality.


 Rather, someone with some actual political analysis with content, rather than referring to lefties of the past or common sense truisms.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> What do Hall et al say about the impact the media does have? I watch the way TV etc here are saturated with this new urban middle class consumerist lifestyle, and even amongst a population who are no mugs and used to reading between the lines of the overt messages of the media, the endless bombardment is changing values (not alone obviously, but  part of it).


 I think Hall's theory is about how the cultural meaning of the media is not just what the media producers want, but it's also influenced by how it's received and interpreted.

In China who's pushing the urban middle class lifestyle? Is it seen as something that all Chinese should aspire to? We're talking still about mostly state-run media here, aren't we? Although I suppose the old CCP values have already been influenced by decades of capitalist roaders and now outright entrepreneurs in the leadership.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

Straight into the bunfight  
It's similar to the problem I have with the argument about violent video games. I get that it's clearly not a straight case of swallowing the surface 'message', that exactly how it's done counts for a lot and that people read it various ways, but to say that at some level ideas aren't propagated seems to deny culture. With the consumer thing here, it's the normalisation of a lifestyle that's in fact available to a tiny percentage of the population. Everyone knows that, but somehow even while we all laugh at the crappy moralistic plots of the TV dramas etc, the underlying portrayal of 'how modern people live' seeps through.
On preview - hope that answers your question to some extent.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

I can't even believe we're having this discussion TBH.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> So that's a no, then? You don't actually have ananalysis beyond what you're saying about capitalism being 'beamed' into people.





As I said-are you really unable to see how twenty-four hour images of unattainable wealth, status and glamour, as well as both overt and subtle political proapganda for the existing order, affect the outlook and mood of the millions who daily absorb the messages, whether willingly or not? I think that, in actual fact, rather than demanding explanations of the obvious from others, it's up to you to explain how they dont.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

On who's doing it - it's a poison mix of the state tightly controlling the meta-narrative in the cack-handed way of the old-style censors (knew someone who sat in on classes at the film academy where they talked about the right and wrong way to portray 'common folk') with unbridled commercial interests left to have their way in all those bits not seen to directly challenge state power - product placement, the normalisation of bourgeois lifestyles, a focus on image (used to regularly see people popping up the shops in the pyjamas, now you can't leave the house without gelling your hair like a K-pop star) etc.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Rather, someone with some actual political analysis with content, rather than referring to lefties of the past or common sense truisms.





You what?  He's mentioned in a different context what I've been banging on about since yesterday, that's all.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> I think Hall's theory is about how the cultural meaning of the media is not just what the media producers want, but it's also influenced by how it's received and interpreted.
> 
> In China who's pushing the urban middle class lifestyle? Is it seen as something that all Chinese should aspire to? We're talking still about mostly state-run media here, aren't we? Although I suppose the old CCP values have already been influenced by decades of capitalist roaders and now outright entrepreneurs in the leadership.




How it's received and interpreted is surely reflected in the political and lifestyle choices of the majority?


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As I said-are you really unable to see how twenty-four hour images of unattainable wealth, status and glamour, as well as both overt and subtle political proapganda for the existing order, affect the outlook and mood of the millions who daily absorb the messages, whether willingly or not? I think that, in actual fact, rather than demanding explanations of the obvious from others, it's up to you to explain how they dont.


 As you've said earlier, there's also a lot of anti-capitalist culture in the mass media. But apparently this doesn't have the same 'obvious' effect.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> On who's doing it - it's a poison mix of the state tightly controlling the meta-narrative in the cack-handed way of the old-style censors (knew someone who sat in on classes at the film academy where they talked about the right and wrong way to portray 'common folk') with unbridled commercial interests left to have their way in all those bits not seen to directly challenge state power - product placement, the normalisation of bourgeois lifestyles, a focus on image (used to regularly see people popping up the shops in the pyjamas, now you can't leave the house without gelling your hair like a K-pop star) etc.


 
Is the nationalist narrative more prevelant in print media, or as pervasive as the lifestyle stuff on TV? From your description, Chinese telly sounds a bit like US TV in the 1950s - normalisation of the nuclear famliy and so on.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> How it's received and interpreted is surely reflected in the political and lifestyle choices of the majority?


 Just because two things appear next to each other doesn't mean it's 'obvious' that one is causing the other.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> On who's doing it - it's a poison mix of the state tightly controlling the meta-narrative in the cack-handed way of the old-style censors (knew someone who sat in on classes at the film academy where they talked about the right and wrong way to portray 'common folk') with unbridled commercial interests left to have their way in all those bits not seen to directly challenge state power - product placement, the normalisation of bourgeois lifestyles, a focus on image (used to regularly see people popping up the shops in the pyjamas, now you can't leave the house without gelling your hair like a K-pop star) etc.


 Surely there's still only a few people who have a place where they can buy hair gel? This is an idealised urban lifestyle for those who are already urban?


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You what?  He's mentioned in a different context what I've been banging on about since yesterday, that's all.


 Based on your idea about the overwhelming power of the media, we could expect that people in China would be apathetic and demobilised, but that's not the case, is it?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> As you've said earlier, there's also a lot of anti-capitalist culture in the mass media. But apparently this doesn't have the same 'obvious' effect.





It does actually. Although it may affect people in different ways, the overall effect is to dilute the message by making it just another interesting piece of minority viewing.

As I said, there are more celebrity critics of capitalism than ever before, yet capitalism has never been more politically dominant for over a century.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Just because two things appear next to each other doesn't mean it's 'obvious' that one is causing the other.


 
Seems to be evidence of a claer correlation though.

What does it mean then?


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Is the nationalist narrative more prevelant in print media, or as pervasive as the lifestyle stuff on TV? From your description, Chinese telly sounds a bit like US TV in the 1950s - normalisation of the nuclear famliy and so on.


 That's an interesting parallel. I suppose China is going through the same major industrialising boom as the US did during and after the war, only China's actually allowed to do it during peacetime, and with a stronger central state.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Based on your idea about the overwhelming power of the media, we could expect that people in China would be apathetic and demobilised, but that's not the case, is it?




Better ask Jim. But if you think capitalism in China is seriously being challenged think again.

In any case, I haven't said that everybody is affected in the same way. Even here not everybody is politically apathetic and demobilised. But, as with China, just because people are politically active, it doesn't necessarily mean that they reject the values of the system. As I said somewhere above, the same consumerist values have heavily permeated left politics too.

Just because people behave in a diversity of ways, it doesn't mean that the messages aren't being absorbed.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Surely there's still only a few people who have a place where they can buy hair gel? This is an idealised urban lifestyle for those who are already urban?





Surely you can see that it's being pushed as something to aspire to? It doesn't matter whether something is actually attainable as long as enough people go along with it.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Seems to be evidence of a claer correlation though.
> 
> What does it mean then?


 It could just as 'obviously' mean that the lifestyle choices of people in the UK is creating the nature of the modern media. As it happens I think either version is too simplistic.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Is the nationalist narrative more prevelant in print media, or as pervasive as the lifestyle stuff on TV? From your description, Chinese telly sounds a bit like US TV in the 1950s - normalisation of the nuclear famliy and so on.


 
They do big spectactulars with their cock-eyed take on history (film called Founding of a Nation not so long back and various civil/revolutionary war dramas spring to mind). Again, my sense is everyone knows that the party is warping history (just a bit!) but as the technical skills and budget have improved they're watchable for the acting and explosions. That would be a message I doubt goes through straight though - bit more independent films like Devils on the Doorstep even manage to make not all Japanese cardboard baddies. Watched some of the Cultural Revolution era ones, and with a far more upfront propaganda purpose, a lot of them are better because they more honest and made by people who believed what they were preaching, not the cynical starlet-shaggers and coke fiends making this lot, who probably laugh all they way to the bank at the toss they churn out.
I can't really prove me thesis tbh, but what you say about the US in '50s sounds about right - not so much the story or whatever values are evident in the script, but the whole context is what's pervasive and does get to people, comparing your life to these fictional ones.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Your behaviour here encapsulates part of the spectrum of responses that might happen in that given social situation - the others being a kind of pity that is a kind of 'nice' patronisation, through to in/visible mocking. How would you feel if you felt _everyone_ round the table was thinking this? The subject here sounds like the person at the 'bloody minded determination' end of the spectrum, but again, since one is unable to see into their mind, their bluster could just as easily be a social mask for feelings of deep insecurity.



I am not going to defend that last paragraph because I can now see that it is badly written, i.e. not what I intended.

But I recall another situation, I took a young engineer to visit some German customers. During the day we had lunch with the customer in their canteen. At a point during the lunch I noticed all the customers (about 4 or 5 of them) were looking at my young engineer with quizical expressions on their faces. I also looked and noticed that he was holding his knife and fork like daggers and was appearing to struggle with actually eating any food. The Germans did not say anything and I don't think my engineer had realised that everyone had been looking at him, but I felt very embarrassed for him. 



kyser_soze said:


> Regardless of this, do you now see how the social gap between the likes of Tamsin and others exists? You say that 'schools should teach children table manners' as a kind of leveller...well yes, that's a laudable aim, but then the kids just come home and find a deep divide between what they are learning in theory at school and the experience of dining in practice at home, which in turn leads to more insecurity - both for children _and_ parents who can feel threatened that their children are learning something denied to them.


 
Is there a social divide between Tamsin and others, well iirc she was born to upper middle class parents and has been to Oxbridge so yes, there is likely a possible divide. Should it prevent her from taking up various causes that she seems to be interested in?

As to table manners, I would like that a standard table manners be taught at school. Kids can revert to whatever is expected at home but they would learn at school a knowledge that might stand them in good stead if they are eating out or eating in a social situation.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> It could just as 'obviously' mean that the lifestyle choices of people in the UK is creating the nature of the modern media. As it happens I think either version is too simplistic.





You seem to be taking the attitude of the media baron here: 'We're simply giving the masses what they want.'


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Surely there's still only a few people who have a place where they can buy hair gel? This is an idealised urban lifestyle for those who are already urban?


 
Yeah, I'm obviously over-doing it a bit for rhetorical effect and I don't get out to the countryside as much as I did, but last few times I did you could see the young people there doing cheap knock-off versions (and hairdressing is the national religion even in the smallest one horse town, so the gel may well have made it).


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You seem to be taking the attitude of the media baron here: 'We're simply giving the masses what they want.'


 For someone who throws around the term 'moronic' you don't seem to have perfected the art of reading both sentences of a post before commenting.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW: I can't claim ownership on that comparator - the book I linked to earlier (Dreamworld & Catastrophe) compares & contrasts the cinema & TV of the USA & USSR from the 20s onwards and looks at how they were both critical elements in the development of what the author calls 'blueprrint or utopian societies', and from what you'd written it seemed an apposite comparison with China too.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> Yeah, I'm obviously over-doing it a bit for rhetorical effect and I don't get out to the countryside as much as I did, but last few times I did you could see the young people there doing cheap knock-off versions (and hairdressing is the national religion even in the smallest one horse town, so the gel may well have made it).



How do the emerging Chinese 'middle class' view those who produce their stuff, like hair gel? Guilt, fear and hatred?


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> How do the emerging Chinese 'middle class' view those who produce their stuff, like hair gel? Guilt, fear and hatred?


 
There's definitely a horrible prejudice against migrant workers, though I try to avoid the middle classes where possible so can't say I've done a broad survey of views.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> How do the emerging Chinese 'middle class' view those who produce their stuff, like hair gel? Guilt, fear and hatred?


 
I suppose one aim of this kind of 'aspirational' national culture is to see everyone as the same, every street vendor a potential supermarket owner, so that the rich are just seen as successful.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> There's definitely a horrible prejudice against migrant workers, though I try to avoid the middle classes where possible so can't say I've done a broad survey of views.



Just thinking about the proles revolting over the last few years (probably just seen as plain revolting to a lot of pretensions aspirants) but even the more aware among them must make a connection between their relative comfort and the squalor of millions.  Any examples of Beanery in a Chinese context?


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> For someone who throws around the term 'moronic' you don't seem to have perfected the art of reading both sentences of a post before commenting.





You might have said either version is too simplistic, but your line of argument in this thread does tend towards the 'giving the people what they want' kind of justification.


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

There was an excellent set of hand-wringing articles in the liberal press about 'hatred for the rich' which was worryingly prevalent - just had a quick Google and there's even local-version wiki articles about it. So obviously it's not a one-way process


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I am not going to defend that last paragraph because I can now see that it is badly written, i.e. not what I intended.
> 
> But I recall another situation, I took a young engineer to visit some German customers. During the day we had lunch with the customer in their canteen. At a point during the lunch I noticed all the customers (about 4 or 5 of them) were looking at my young engineer with quizical expressions on their faces. I also looked and noticed that he was holding his knife and fork like daggers and was appearing to struggle with actually eating any food. The Germans did not say anything and I don't think my engineer had realised that everyone had been looking at him, but I felt very embarrassed for him.



I've had similar experiences - once out at a client lunch with a manager, we'd finished eating and she just sat her cutlery at right angles, not together, and while no one said anything the two client representatives exchanged 'looks'.



> As to table manners, I would like that a standard table manners be taught at school. Kids can revert to whatever is expected at home but they would learn at school a knowledge that might stand them in good stead if they are eating out or eating in a social situation.


 
Which can then cause the kids problems at home if their parents don't have the same skillsets. This situation is more readily recognisable in 'first child at university' experiences. Tony Harrison's poem V, and much of his ealier work sums it up better than any worthy treatise on the matter:



> What is it that these crude words are revealing?
> What is it that this aggro act implies?
> Giving the dead their xenophobic feeling
> or  just a cri-de-coeur because man dies?
> ...


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You might have said either version is too simplistic, but your line of argument in this thread does tend towards the 'giving the people what they want' kind of justification.


 Oh stop being such a moron.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Oh stop being such a moron.





What else are you saying then?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> There was an excellent set of hand-wringing articles in the liberal press about *'hatred for the rich'* which was worryingly prevalent - just had a quick Google and there's even local-version wiki articles about it. So obviously it's not a one-way process



Read as fear of the poor.

What are the Chinese words for "concerns" and "clasped chins"?


----------



## JimW (Jan 26, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Just thinking about the proles revolting over the last few years (probably just seen as plain revolting to a lot of pretensions aspirants) but even the more aware among them must make a connection between their relative comfort and the squalor of millions.  Any examples of Beanery in a Chinese context?



There's been a Chinese version of 'orientalism' with loads of affectless urbanite sheading off to Tibet to find themselves, or playing dress-up and singing 'spiritual' songs (in Chinese) in a Tibetan style. Grim. The green movement draws a similar sort to back home, but not quite so bad and more sensible people too (as it's blindingly obvious here how fucked the environemnt is)


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> There was an excellent set of hand-wringing articles in the liberal press about 'hatred for the rich' which was worryingly prevalent - just had a quick Google and there's even local-version wiki articles about it. So obviously it's not a one-way process


 My goodness things in China are moving fast, they've already developed their version of the Guardian. Mind you I suppose the liberal were wringing their hands here already by the 1850s.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What else are you saying then?


 Mostly I've just been asking you questions, haven't I?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

JimW said:


> There's been a Chinese version of 'orientalism' with loads of affectless urbanite sheading off to Tibet to find themselves, or playing dress-up and singing 'spiritual' songs (in Chinese) in a Tibetan style. Grim. The green movement draws a similar sort to back home, but not quite so bad and more sensible people too (as it's blindingly obvious here how fucked the environemnt is)



Yeah, I read something (can't remember what exactly and where), but it was in the wake of the Han/Uyghur rioting in that city, Urumqi, in 2009.  It was about the Chinese middle class going all faddish and Bean over minority foods and clothing.  Or people in other countries, like Mongolians and Kyrgyz.  Hats, bags and grilled animals.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

Fuck me, gap year kids come to China.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Mostly I've just been asking you questions, haven't I?




Not without some heavy hints of a view of the media as reflecting the choices people have already made. That comes pretty close to suggesting that we live in a 'peoples' capitalism' to me.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

What about Russia, Capt Hurrah? Isn't there a similar mainstream media message of consumerism, but most people are actually very poor and unlikely to meet the aspirations?


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Not without some heavy hints of a view of the media as reflecting the choices people have already made. That comes pretty close to suggesting that we live in a 'peoples' capitalism' to me.


 You've been reading something into my questions that doesn't exist. Here's let me spell it out - I don't think that what is produced in the media really reflects what people want to see in the media. The process of creating the mass media is, on the whole, very undemocratic and driven by a small clique and reflects their prejudices.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> What about Russia, Capt Hurrah? Isn't there a similar mainstream media message of consumerism, but most people are actually very poor and unlikely to meet the aspirations?


 
As said, though, it doesn't matter if the aspirations can't be met as long as the message is absorbed and accepted by the majority. That applies here, where political organisation is still relatively free. It certainly applies in Russia, where organising against the system could conceivably get you killed.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> ... Which can then cause the kids problems at home if their parents don't have the same skillsets. This situation is more readily recognisable in 'first child at university' experiences. Tony Harrison's poem V, and much of his ealier work sums it up better than any worthy treatise on the matter:


 
But it would only cause problems with one generation, after that everyone would have standard table manners and the problem could be fixed  

Ok perhaps that is simplistic. 

But I like the idea that people can trancend their born class, I hate the very term class, we are all just humans, but we seem to erect subtle barriers to entry of our silly little social groups. It stinks, but it is true. 

I like the idea that working class people can network as well as a Tamsin, because some individuals can, but I accept that it is not the case for the majority. 

But equally, a lot of the animosity against Omond in the earlier part of this thread seems to focus on the fact that she is upper middle class. I dislike that as much as any other class based discrimination. She can do whatever she can do and good luck to her, and everyone else.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> You've been reading something into my questions that doesn't exist. Here's let me spell it out - I don't think that what is produced in the media really reflects what people want to see in the media. The process of creating the mass media is, on the whole, very undemocratic and driven by a small clique and reflects their prejudices.


 
If you'd said that in the first place it could have saved us both a bit of typing.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> What about Russia, Capt Hurrah? Isn't there a similar mainstream media message of consumerism, but most people are actually very poor and unlikely to meet the aspirations?



Indeed.  But unlike here in the UK, worse poverty on the material side of things is much more widespread.  The intelligentsia (which has specific meaning in a Russian context) has not always been rich, and in most cases in Soviet times had living standards the same or not too dissimilar to skilled workers.  Their sense of being a cut above is less to do with the accumilation of lots of stuff, but more based on education (formal and high*) and cultural tastes, although the two are connected.  The very rich are vulgar.  Mind you, they are anywhere.

*Which is partly why I once had a silly cow in Moscow transposing her own prejudices and treating me less than courteously when she discovered I don't live in London and have never been to a university.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

> The intelligentsia (which has specific meaning in a Russian context) has not always been rich, and in most cases in Soviet times had living standards the same or not too dissimilar to skilled workers. Their sense of being a cut above is less to do with the accumilation of lots of stuff, but more based on education (formal and high) and cultural tastes, although the two are connected.



So basically the same as intelligensia elsewhere then - compensate for not earning the big bucks by congratulating themselves on having impeccable taste, better modes of 'thinking' etc.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> So basically the same as intelligensia elsewhere then - compensate for not earning the big bucks by congratulating themselves on having impeccable taste, better modes of 'thinking' etc.



In one way.  But with a big broad sweeping brush, intelligentsia used to identify people of a particular class formation, originating way back when in the _dvorianstvo_ (House Servants to the Tsars), between the peasant serfs, _meschanin_ artisans and the much higher up nobles, and who emerged out of the changed social landscape when Ivan Grozny's (and those of his class for whom such changed favoured) earlier dog and broom strategy lay the groundwork for the destruction of the old Boyars, not just physically, but further changed the state and the rules of land ownership.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

Would you say there's an equivalent Western European grouping, or is it uniquely Russian?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

The lower down nobles had the means and leisure time to indulge themselves with education.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 26, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Indeed.  But unlike here in the UK, worse poverty on the material side of things is much more widespread.  The intelligentsia (which has specific meaning in a Russian context) has not always been rich, and in most cases in Soviet times had living standards the same or not too dissimilar to skilled workers.  Their sense of being a cut above is less to do with the accumilation of lots of stuff, but more based on education (formal and high*) and cultural tastes, although the two are connected.  The very rich are vulgar.  Mind you, they are anywhere.
> 
> *Which is partly why I once had a silly cow in Moscow transposing her own prejudices and treating me less than courteously when she discovered I don't live in London and have never been to a university.





In my experience, no contempt can ever match that shown by members of the old Soviet intelligentsia (the majority who lost out when the Soviet system fell) for the vulgarity of the so-called New Russian rich. It isn't anything to do with the failure of communism-the majority of the Soviet intelligentsia had no belief in the Communist-ruled system in its later decades. It's something that stretches far back into Russian history. Russians generally seem to set far more store by education and what they see as good taste than they do by material wealth. It is in this sense that theorists who say that Russia has an essential antipathetical stance towards capitalism are correct. It helps explain the hostility shown by the vast majority towards the oligarchs (although anti-semitism also plays a major role.)


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

The same mind-set (minus the education bit in most cases) applies to the remants of the old European families that have 'heritage'. Hell, the very term '_nouveau riche_' was coined as an insult, as are the comments reserved for the excessively visible spending of the rich w/c - altho I guess that tends to manifest more now from the middle & upper middle classes. Which I realise directly contradicts my first sentence.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> The lower down nobles had the means and leisure time to indulge themselves with education.


 
Presumably it also wasn't seen as something that ill-behoved a nobleman to do as well? I know there are some strands of old r/c culture that viewed education as something other people did.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In my experience, no contempt can ever match that shown by members of the old Soviet intelligentsia (the majority who lost out when the Soviet system fell) for the vulgarity of the so-called New Russian rich. It isn't anything to do with the failure of communism-the majority of the Soviet intelligentsia had no belief in the Communist-ruled system in its later decades. It's something that stretches far back into Russian history. Russians generally seem to set far more store by education and what they see as good taste than they do by material wealth. It is in this sense that theorists who say that Russia has an essentially antithetical stance towards capitalism are correct. It helps explain the hostility shown by the vast majority towards the oligarchs (although anti-semitism also plays a major role.)



I have witnessed contempt for both rich and working class.  Both seen as vulgar, and I'm sure you're aware of the derogatory epithet "province."

Things that have been imported from the west have been absorbed and reconfigured in a different way, particularly the idea of democracy.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Presumably it also wasn't seen as something that ill-behoved a nobleman to do as well? I know there are some strands of old r/c culture that viewed education as something other people did.



The _dvorinastvo_ were nobility.  But not all nobles, even the rich and powerful ones with large estates and serfs from which they supported their lifestyles, regarded education, or a western education, as being important.  A fair few were illiterate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> You need to read some Bordieu...



You're getting downright evangelical, mate.


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

"Have you heard of a man called Pierre?"


----------



## Dan U (Jan 26, 2011)

20 pages surely


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2011)

Dan U said:


> 20 pages surely





Why is how long a thread becomes a problem as long as the discussion remains relevant? I'd still like to know, for instance why it's supposed to be moralistic to make the obvious point that the behaviour, perceptions and opinions of millions are affected by what the mass media churns out.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Why is how long a thread becomes a problem as long as the discussion remains relevant? I'd still like to know, for instance why it's supposed to be moralistic to make the obvious point that the behaviour, perceptions and opinions of millions are affected by what the mass media churns out.


 
Opinion formers like the media are obviously important

But they are changing with newspapers I think being bought less in the net age. 

Where people get their information and opinion from now, I am not sure. 

What has this to do with Tamsin Omond?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

@ Lletsa: I suspect that there's a reading of the subtext to your words that you are making a moralistic point about TV and other forms of mass media as being bad for people, implying there are variants of morally approvable media that act as improvers rather than bread & circus distractions and reinforcers of the dominant ideology.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Opinion formers like the media are obviously important
> 
> But they are changing with newspapers I think being bought less in the net age.
> 
> ...





Read the thread if you want to know whatit has to do with her.

But of an odd, self-contradictory post as well.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Read the thread if you want to know whatit has to do with her.
> 
> But of an odd, self-contradictory post as well.


 
I have read the thread. I was posting in a lot of it in case you hadn't noticed. But there were two subjects going on the same thread!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

> Where people get their information and opinion from now, I am not sure.



Their next door neighbour, work colleagues, TV, radio, the printed press and that thing you're using to communicate with us on this board at the moment.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I suspect that there's a reading of the subtext to your words that you are making a moralistic point about TV and other forms of mass media as being bad for people, implying there are variants of morally approvable media that act as improvers rather than bread & circus distractions and reinforcers of the dominant ideology.


 
There's a tendency on here to imagine that if you criticise certain aspects of widespread behaviour, you're somehow being elitist or moralistic. It's strange, this rush to defend major aspects of popular culture on the part of people who claim to want to revolutionise society. It gives the impression either that some people just want to get rid of the bits they don't like and keep the ones they do, or that it will be so like the present after the revolution that it's not worth the sacrifice, bloodshed and heartache. 

The reality is that I wasn't even excluding myself from what I was saying. How could I not be affected to some extent by an all-pervasive media? I mean, I'm probably affected less than most people I know, but that's because I'm ace.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have read the thread. I was posting in a lot of it in case you hadn't noticed. But there were two subjects going on the same thread!





You should have noticed that one developed out of the other then.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> There's a tendency on here to imagine that if you criticise certain aspects of widespread behaviour, you're somehow being elitist or moralistic. It's strange, this rush to defend major aspects of popular culture on the part of people who claim to want to revolutionise society. It gives the impression either that some people just want to get rid of the bits they don't like and keep the ones they do, or that it will be so like the present after the revolution that it's not worth the sacrifice, bloodshed and heartache.
> 
> The reality is that I wasn't even excluding myself from what I was saying. How could I not be affected to some extent by an all-pervasive media? I mean, I'm probably affected less than most people I know, but that's because I'm ace.


 
I think one of the things, certainly that I think of, is that there is a certain moralising tendency in some left wingers about popular culture in general - not just that it's a transmission vector for idelogy etc etc, but that they hark back to some imagined golden age (or future, yes hark back to the future. I went there. I said it.) where all w/c people listen to complex but improving classical music, fabulously complex and worthy writing and so on and eschew the evil works of Cowell, and that even a 'correct/worthy/improving' popular culture would in some way be culturally degenerate.



> I mean, I'm probably affected less than most people I know, but that's because I'm ace



 Me too. For sure. I definitely eschew Cowell.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I think one of the things, certainly that I think of, is that there is a certain moralising tendency in some left wingers about popular culture in general - not just that it's a transmission vector for idelogy etc etc, but that they hark back to some imagined golden age (or future, yes hark back to the future. I went there. I said it.) where all w/c people listen to complex but improving classical music, fabulously complex and worthy writing and so on and eschew the evil works of Cowell, and that even a 'correct/worthy/improving' popular culture would in some way be culturally degenerate.





Is this true, though, or a myth? It couldn't,I don't think, be said of any socialist I've met that they imagine any such golden age ever existed. 

While there is plenty of disdain-and rightly so for the X-Factor/Big Brother/Strictly culture, it cuts right across the political spectrum


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

Well Russia was full of them. Soviet cultural expression was incredibly deeply rooted in the classical tradition of Europe - whether you choose to call it _leitkultur_ or something else, it's tied into what Capt Hurrah said (on this thread? another similar one?) about the emphasis placed on education.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Well Russia was full of them. Soviet cultural expression was incredibly deeply rooted in the classical tradition of Europe - whether you choose to call it _leitkultur_ or something else, it's tied into what Capt Hurrah said (on this thread? another similar one?) about the emphasis placed on education.


 
Although there's a lot of truth in that, there was still plenty of highly popular low quality and peurile mass entertainment in the USSR. And I doubt very much that there are many of those who still consider themselves Communists in the former Soviet Union, let alone leftists in the West, who'd regard the Soviet period as a golden age.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

I think I should have edited the phrase 'harking back(or forward)...' out of my post really, and just stuck to the point instead of the rhetorical flourish.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 21, 2011)

Tamsin Omond and Laurie Penny were chosen to be on a Olympics-related trip to the Arctic, discussing utopic island-states and climate change.

http://nowhereisland.org/journey/expedition-team/

"In September 2011, Alex returns to the Arctic to retrieve the island territory, which will be sailed into international waters and declared a new nation before being transported to England. In July 2012, Nowhereisland will arrive in Weymouth for the opening of the sailing events of the London 2012 Olympic Games before voyaging around the south west coast accompanied by its land-based Embassy. Six weeks later Nowhereisland will arrive in Bristol for finale of the Cultural Olympiad."

A psychologist mentions climate change here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14946171

Apparently they left Britain on 10 September according to Laurie Penny

http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2011/09/news-from-nowhere.html#comments


----------



## smokedout (Sep 21, 2011)

perhaps they'll drown, got to look on the bright side after all


----------



## sihhi (Oct 4, 2012)

smokedout said:


> perhaps they'll drown, got to look on the bright side after all


 
Tamsin Omond was at a champagne party with Christine Hamilton over the summer.












She was also in a photoshoot for Tatler magazine:



(think I've finally got the hang of embedding)


----------

