Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Culture
Culture general
The Boomer Question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paracelsus" data-source="post: 1267325" data-attributes="member: 8098"><p>Precautionary Rule One:</p><p></p><p><em>The Atlantic</em> and <em>Time</em> are almost identical. They both cater to a certain demographic maintaining its own identity, whether or not what's said in them has anything to do with the truth. The only difference is that <em>Time</em> accomplishes this appeal principally in pictures on its front cover (comedically, in the case of Trump's "Meltdown" and "Total Meltdown" covers; disturbingly, in the case of "You" being named Person Of The Year) while <em>The Atlantic</em> chooses mediocre writers and 10,000 words. Consider the medium accordingly. And the largest problem with both is not what they say, it's how they make you see yourself. It's that they teach you how to want.</p><p></p><p>Precautionary Rule Two:</p><p></p><p>The principal marketing demographic is and always has been the 18-44 range.</p><p></p><p><img src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F90%2Fda%2F64%2F90da64896763decd7539c4377d4c18ab--generation-gap-the-s.jpg&f=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p><img src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4c%2Fbd%2Fb3%2F4cbdb3fbe7ad9b776607412281ef4372--generation-gap-masters.jpg&f=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p><img src="https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpbmo.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fmad-widens-the-generation-gap.jpg&f=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><em>I had this one at home. RIP Mort Drucker and possibly Don Martin</em></p><p></p><p>The difference between these images and <em>The Atlantic</em>'s take on the problem is that back in the 60s it was the elders who had the disposable income to buy these magazines and the kids were being marketed as the threat.</p><p></p><p>If you think the majority of the Baby Boomers are going to be retiring on an income higher than that enjoyed by Wai Ling Chen the Mandarian toilet scrubber working the men's room in Beijing, I have a portfolio of public pension assets I'd like to sell you. The Boomers are entering their seventies. The period in which they could have bought anything contained in an advertisement that runs in <em>The Atlantic</em> has passed. For this crowd it's adult diapers, Warferin, copper bracelets for arthritis, and waiting on that fiftysomething hedge fund owner to swoop in and buy the 40-year-old half-ruin of a house they've been clinging to as their retirement fund. This has rather wider implications in something called hyperinflation, but I'm trying not to go gestalt here so I'll leave that to one side.</p><p></p><p>(Hey, don't take it from me about The Atlan. <a href="https://advertising.theatlantic.com/case-studies" target="_blank">It proudly advertises how it worked with advertisers on making "relevant" stories.</a></p><p></p><p>)</p><p></p><p>Which is a roundabout way of saying you are being manipulated to find someone to hate. More importantly, though, what the System - and I am not talking about the triple brackets, or anybody specific - wants is that you do nothing about all this. They just want your rage, and they want your attention, and then they want you to go away and buy something ... which you will, because the advertisers and journalists are not fools, their rags would not have lasted this long without them instinctively getting the truth of the triune brain. The same imperative that caused you to go reading <em>The Atlantic</em> is the same imperative that will get you taking your weekly pay check and telling yourself you're unplugged.</p><p></p><p>That's the point of reporting on it in <em>The Atlantic,</em> if you want riots, lynchings, uprisings, Occupations and other assorted uninformed crowds you call Twitter and George Soros.</p><p></p><p>So bear all of that in mind when you read these articles. They have a certain purpose in revealing the set of mind of a certain demographic and the priorities of a certain class of advertiser, but if you're looking for some sort of Platonic ideal or truth in here, you might as well read the Victoria's Secret catalogues. At least you can sometimes spot the airbrushing. Read the article again and you'll see all the standard liberal markers: down on the GI Bill, down on racism, down on most issues that the average Google employee thinks makes a difference in the world. They give the audience a glimpse of hope without -- and note this carefully -- setting out what the solutions are, because they're unpalatable politically (and journalistically).</p><p></p><p>The only thread I am inclined to draw out of this article is that, taken at its face, it verifies Nassim Taleb's ideas: the more you regulate, the more fragility you install within the system. The more you make it vulnerable to a large shock. Paradoxically, the more you try and make a system safe, the more vulnerable you make it to outside shocks and unforeseen circumstances, because unintended consequences multiply on one another. This concept has limits, and that's the key: what works at a local level will not work at a national level, hence why, to paraphrase someone, you are a libertarian Federally, a Republican at the state level, a Democrat at the local government level, and a socialist amongst your family and friends.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paracelsus, post: 1267325, member: 8098"] Precautionary Rule One: [i]The Atlantic[/i] and [i]Time[/i] are almost identical. They both cater to a certain demographic maintaining its own identity, whether or not what's said in them has anything to do with the truth. The only difference is that [i]Time[/i] accomplishes this appeal principally in pictures on its front cover (comedically, in the case of Trump's "Meltdown" and "Total Meltdown" covers; disturbingly, in the case of "You" being named Person Of The Year) while [i]The Atlantic[/i] chooses mediocre writers and 10,000 words. Consider the medium accordingly. And the largest problem with both is not what they say, it's how they make you see yourself. It's that they teach you how to want. Precautionary Rule Two: The principal marketing demographic is and always has been the 18-44 range. [img]https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F90%2Fda%2F64%2F90da64896763decd7539c4377d4c18ab--generation-gap-the-s.jpg&f=1[/img] [img]https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4c%2Fbd%2Fb3%2F4cbdb3fbe7ad9b776607412281ef4372--generation-gap-masters.jpg&f=1[/img] [img]https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpbmo.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fmad-widens-the-generation-gap.jpg&f=1[/img] [i]I had this one at home. RIP Mort Drucker and possibly Don Martin[/i] The difference between these images and [i]The Atlantic[/i]'s take on the problem is that back in the 60s it was the elders who had the disposable income to buy these magazines and the kids were being marketed as the threat. If you think the majority of the Baby Boomers are going to be retiring on an income higher than that enjoyed by Wai Ling Chen the Mandarian toilet scrubber working the men's room in Beijing, I have a portfolio of public pension assets I'd like to sell you. The Boomers are entering their seventies. The period in which they could have bought anything contained in an advertisement that runs in [i]The Atlantic[/i] has passed. For this crowd it's adult diapers, Warferin, copper bracelets for arthritis, and waiting on that fiftysomething hedge fund owner to swoop in and buy the 40-year-old half-ruin of a house they've been clinging to as their retirement fund. This has rather wider implications in something called hyperinflation, but I'm trying not to go gestalt here so I'll leave that to one side. (Hey, don't take it from me about The Atlan. [url=https://advertising.theatlantic.com/case-studies]It proudly advertises how it worked with advertisers on making "relevant" stories.[/url] ) Which is a roundabout way of saying you are being manipulated to find someone to hate. More importantly, though, what the System - and I am not talking about the triple brackets, or anybody specific - wants is that you do nothing about all this. They just want your rage, and they want your attention, and then they want you to go away and buy something ... which you will, because the advertisers and journalists are not fools, their rags would not have lasted this long without them instinctively getting the truth of the triune brain. The same imperative that caused you to go reading [i]The Atlantic[/i] is the same imperative that will get you taking your weekly pay check and telling yourself you're unplugged. That's the point of reporting on it in [i]The Atlantic,[/i] if you want riots, lynchings, uprisings, Occupations and other assorted uninformed crowds you call Twitter and George Soros. So bear all of that in mind when you read these articles. They have a certain purpose in revealing the set of mind of a certain demographic and the priorities of a certain class of advertiser, but if you're looking for some sort of Platonic ideal or truth in here, you might as well read the Victoria's Secret catalogues. At least you can sometimes spot the airbrushing. Read the article again and you'll see all the standard liberal markers: down on the GI Bill, down on racism, down on most issues that the average Google employee thinks makes a difference in the world. They give the audience a glimpse of hope without -- and note this carefully -- setting out what the solutions are, because they're unpalatable politically (and journalistically). The only thread I am inclined to draw out of this article is that, taken at its face, it verifies Nassim Taleb's ideas: the more you regulate, the more fragility you install within the system. The more you make it vulnerable to a large shock. Paradoxically, the more you try and make a system safe, the more vulnerable you make it to outside shocks and unforeseen circumstances, because unintended consequences multiply on one another. This concept has limits, and that's the key: what works at a local level will not work at a national level, hence why, to paraphrase someone, you are a libertarian Federally, a Republican at the state level, a Democrat at the local government level, and a socialist amongst your family and friends. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Culture
Culture general
The Boomer Question
Top
