There doesn't seem to be anything new and exciting going on these days.
No fads taking everyone by storm. No new technology everyone is discussing (AI is pretty meh at the moment, especially with the censorship). No new entertainment everyone has to see.
Maybe I'm out of the loop but I don't feel I am. Anyone else kinda feel this way?
Are you arguing that before the internet there was actual competition or are you suggesting that the internet created competition briefly? Because I'd argue adoption of the internet correlated with lower quality.
Political events relate to change in policy(hard power) and the theatrics surrounding it presented as real, cultural events are widely consumed products and pushes to mold the thought of the populace(traditional soft power) sold as works of entertainment.
just because there has been a decline in the effectiveness of traditional soft power does not mean that hard power is not effective, nor does it mean that the modern soft power of a curated experience isn't more effective than the traditional methods ever were.
I'll believe it when I see it. The age of mass entertainment is dead.
Pushed via forced and basically nothing of lasting note came out at that time in the media sphere pretty shitty example.
Absolute insanity. There has never been so much as a setback in even one aspect of anything in centuries? What I'm bringing up here isn't even so much a failure as it is just a shift in technology and what can be achieved.
Not like I have anything else to do
The whole point of this thread is that there really isn't any new goyslop thing that is widely popular for people to discuss as we sitback and watch our genocide. I
They are though, what do you even think I'm claiming? Because really all I've said is that individual pieces of media aren't getting the numbers and having the effect they used to. Not much is memorable, not much is referenced positively in retrospect at anywhere near the frequency that used to happen. The only effects I'm claiming are minor things that are made irrelevant by both hard power and the modern forms of soft power.
The latter, certainly. The golden age of the Internet was a time when anyone could make a website about anything, and it was almost effortless to get and keep it hosted. The centralization of the Internet caused the total censorship of all ideological thought.
Across the spectrum, or merely with respect to the more prominently weighted/seen uses of the medium? Can you expound? I’m curious.
Ah, okay, perfect; I understand what you mean now. Total agreement, then.
How does the line go… ah, yes.
“If a man were permitted to make all the ballads he need not care who should make the laws of a nation, and we find that most of the ancient legislators thought that they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyric, and sometimes of a dramatic poet.” ~ Andrew Fletcher, Scottish parliamentarian; letter to the Marquiss of Montrose, the Earls of Rothes, Roxburg & Haddington; December 1, 1703
If you can show an instance of decentralization in the last 200 years, I’d love to see it.
But—and this is the important part—absolutely nothing is happening irrespective of this. Everyone’s still totally fine with the goyest of slop; they’re just consuming it from other sources and/or for free (at the price of the theft/sale of their personal data). There has been no cultural change whatsoever away from the consumption of visual media. The source of the media has changed; the nature of the media has not.
I get that angle but the reality went counter to what you suggest. Most of the big touchstone media products were made back when computer networking was in it's infancy and gradually have decreased in frequency since the popularization of the internet.
There was a brief period with more room for communication but that had no relevance to the mass media landscape over all and the effects of the internet wouldn't be realized in the media industry until well after things had become centralized and cultural disinterest had started to set in.
With regards to mass market film specifically and "quality" in this instance was mostly in reference to being exceptional at the time of release and memorable going forwards. Popularity, and memorability are the defining aspect of a cultural touchstone.
The correlation towards less exceptional media and the rise of the internet I would say is largely just the result of the way things worked out with regards to increasing processing power and lower price points. Ways to impress audiences with visual effects were running out at the same time personal computers were becoming an unavoidable fact of life. Increase personal computer uptake also had the effect of breeding a new form of media in social media which was able to undercut the cost of consumption making it a much harder sell to spend two hours to see something that fails to impress.
I can name a few, none that impactful or lasting which is why they are setbacks and not losses. It also wasn't just centralization being mentioned but all jewish and antiwhite agendas(which actually have a notably fewer setbacks in the last 200 years).
Regardless I'll just answer early internet as an example of brief decentralization since you brought it up at the start of this post. Honestly though I think this is going to be another case of differing definitions you seem to think a setback of the enemy means at least a small victory for us whereas I'm using it to refer to a part of the system performing below expected level as it continues to slowly but surely kill us all.
The nature of the media isn't really what's in question in this thread but rather the effect that it has on consumer culture. It used to be we had a few new goyslop flavors per year and that would lead to the ability to discuss with the general public what they thought of the latest goyslop and there's a good chance they'd not only have heard of it but had even consumed it themselves, but now there isn't much of that same sort of connection because there isn't even a fake and gay monoculture like we used to have.