Does the "Lowest Common Denominator" exist?

[KDude]

I wonder if anyone who uses the word "sheep" here also said they don't dehumanize people in that other thread.

Also, I don't think it's particularly snooty to do so. It's more akin to being like one of those busybodying grandmas at a hair salon...who just can't help themselves from talking about and thinking about everyone else's issues.

 

[Spartacuss]

I would have said no until recently. But you assume the "real Homer Simpson" would self-recognize as the lowest common denominator.

 

[entropie]

If not for my son and DVD movies, my TV would be used on average for around 4 hours a month. Too much garbage to sift through to bother most of the time. I watch documentaries, some sports, some news and some political satires.

TV is numbing.

minus sports I am all-in (tho son has to be substituted with girlfriend for me )

 

[jcloudz]

We hear about it all the time. "This news program" or "that reality show" was marketed toward the Lowest Common Denominator. The low-attention-span, mindless, self-narcotizing, gullible, gratification-seeking citizens that absorb their info-tainment like sponges, oblivious or apathetic about how uneducated they are. *swirls wineglass*

But... Do they really exist? Is there really a huge mass of frivolous apes - or whatever snarky moniker you might want to apply to them - that drives TV executives or movie studios to lower their standards and avoid controversy and subversion of expectations? Or is it an image present only on the minds of higher-ups who underestimate the intelligence of their viewership? Brazilian newscaster William Bonner compared the average viewer of his news program with Homer Simpson (no joke!).

Are there thousands of Homers among us? Who are they? Where are they? Are they truly objectively inferior in intelligence - or even inferior, period? How do you know when you are one? And, in that case, do you have the duty - or even the capacity - to become educated?

Will the real Homer Simpson stand up?

(This thread brought to you by Viridian Feels Confused About Academia Inc.)

[MENTION=12223]Viridian[/MENTION]
your angry about how people allowed things to get out of control because they were caught in the everyday details of their life, while politicians whom were elected by the majority were secretly sporting an unhealthier version of ayn rand`s already unhealthy philosophy with the tax payers money and they were suppose to be trusted? warnings were sounded that the warnings fell on deaf ears and such and so it perpetuated added to the doo doo we are in and now soon going to be in an even more unhappy place?

 

[Fluffywolf]

Proper politics.

You would be amazed how many people, and even people of fair intelligence, that will hear and absorb whatever they are seeing on TV about something, just because they aren't interested enough to bother looking at the bigger picture. The "Lowest Common Denominator" is within most of us. It just depends on the time, place and mindset.

How many of you here voted for some party without browsing through their plans and ideas, reading whatever material you can find, and try to educate yourself as best you can. But instead you voted on them because you saw a debate or something on TV and you fell for the charisma of one of the speakers instead? If you did, you were LCD'd, my friend. And that's just one example.

Shoes, buy one pair, get another pair for free! Do you need two pairs of shoes? Not really... But you quite like the one pair. Does it matter to you that in a shop in the next town the same pair of shoes is probably half the price for one pair? No, you'll buy both pairs! A pair you didn't even need in the first place. But you feel happy about it all, because you just went out to buy some socks, and now you are walking on a free pair of shoes. Life is good... LCD'd!

 

[Viridian]

Viridian
your angry about how people allowed things to get out of control because they were caught in the everyday details of their life, while politicians whom were elected by the majority were secretly sporting an unhealthier version of ayn rand`s already unhealthy philosophy with the tax payers money and they were suppose to be trusted? warnings were sounded that the warnings fell on deaf ears and such and so it perpetuated added to the doo doo we are in and now soon going to be in an even more unhappy place?

Er, I'm not angry... Like I said in the OP, I'm conflicted about the image of the average "member of the public"/"audience member" presented to me in university and whether or not it's based on reality.

For what it's worth, I'm not American, that's why I mentioned Bonner - the Homer Simpson example has been brought up several times in my courses.

Although I do admit I find corruption and bipatisanship quite loathsome.

 

[Nicodemus]

What you're saying, then, is that "There's nothing better to watch currently, so they/we make do with what's there" - is that correct?

What Coriolis said.

I wonder if anyone who uses the word "sheep" here also said they don't dehumanize people in that other thread.

Also, I don't think it's particularly snooty to do so. It's more akin to being like one of those busybodying grandmas at a hair salon...who just can't help themselves from talking about and thinking about everyone else's issues.

It is an old christian topos: the parish as the herd and the priest as the shepherd.

 

[Coriolis]

I wonder if anyone who uses the word "sheep" here also said they don't dehumanize people in that other thread.

If you extend the definition of dehumanization to include metaphorical constructs involving animals, we probably all do it, just as we anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

 

[Antimony]

Isn't the LCD subjective?

 

[KDude]

If you extend the definition of dehumanization to include metaphorical constructs involving animals, we probably all do it, just as we anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

My only point is that people are complicated (imo, at least). So it's a little dehumanizing when we reduce them into mindless/subservient drones (or whatever sheep is supposed to connotate). One could do it if they wish, but from my perspective, that's exactly what that dehumanization thread was about. Maybe everyone else was interpreting dehumanization in terms of violence, but I viewed it existentially... I guess.

 

[Coriolis]

My only point is that people are complicated (imo, at least). So it's a little dehumanizing when we reduce them into mindless/subservient drones (or whatever sheep is supposed to connotate). One could do it if they wish, but from my perspective, that's exactly what that dehumanization thread was about. Maybe everyone else was interpreting dehumanization in terms of violence, but I viewed it existentially... I guess.

Your definition of dehumanizing seems more like ignoring our individuality. We don't need to compare people to animals to do that. Any form of prejudice or us/them mindset has the same effect, since it assumes everyone in the group is the same. This kind of generalizing is unavoidable, however, and at times quite useful. The problem lies in extending it too far.