pop culture was essentially designed as a tool to subvert any kind of traditional morality.
I don't exactly agree, but I think it was inevitable in a way. If pop culture is made without respect to the dominant culture, it becomes a second culture. Two cultures can't really coexist within the same space; one must give ground to the other because cultural conflicts are inevitable without shared values.
So, I could accept that pop culture was made with good intentions, but that some naivete doomed it to the path it took. Of course, all things being organic, we would not have given nearly as much ground to the pop culture. I just don't think it's necessary for it to have been so ill-intentioned at the start.
I see. I don't think it's necessary. I've already recognized that it did not progress organically. I'll assert that maybe we'd all be happy if it were created with respect to the dominant culture, but then it'd be a plain old cultural product.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was ill intent involved in its creation, but it's simply too difficult to try to pick apart a product of multiple persons for the purpose of discerning motive. If every person involved had ill intent, that'd be one thing, but the presence of a single good intent demands an investigation of the weights of influence, which is exhausting. I find it far more efficient to use a different angle of approach.
Actually, I'll add on to my assertion: if pop culture were allowed to progress organically (without crutches or life support), then - even with a sinister initial state - it would eventually be forced to conform to the dominant culture, effectively defusing the majority of subversive elements. But also that this was impossible to occur because we have no system for preventing such subversive efforts, combined with the existence of even a single person willing to subvert it.
tl;dr: The initial state doesn't matter, because it suffered an inevitable subversion.
I don't exactly agree, but I think it was inevitable in a way. If pop culture is made without respect to the dominant culture, it becomes a second culture. Two cultures can't really coexist within the same space; one must give ground to the other because cultural conflicts are inevitable without shared values.
So, I could accept that pop culture was made with good intentions, but that some naivete doomed it to the path it took. Of course, all things being organic, we would not have given nearly as much ground to the pop culture. I just don't think it's necessary for it to have been so ill-intentioned at the start.
No. Why do you ask?
I see. I don't think it's necessary. I've already recognized that it did not progress organically. I'll assert that maybe we'd all be happy if it were created with respect to the dominant culture, but then it'd be a plain old cultural product.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was ill intent involved in its creation, but it's simply too difficult to try to pick apart a product of multiple persons for the purpose of discerning motive. If every person involved had ill intent, that'd be one thing, but the presence of a single good intent demands an investigation of the weights of influence, which is exhausting. I find it far more efficient to use a different angle of approach.
Actually, I'll add on to my assertion: if pop culture were allowed to progress organically (without crutches or life support), then - even with a sinister initial state - it would eventually be forced to conform to the dominant culture, effectively defusing the majority of subversive elements. But also that this was impossible to occur because we have no system for preventing such subversive efforts, combined with the existence of even a single person willing to subvert it.
tl;dr: The initial state doesn't matter, because it suffered an inevitable subversion.