10 thoughts on “The Popular Podcast #23 – The Secret to Weightloss

  1. The secret to weight loss is getting off the internet occasionally. After exploring this site and considering your hideous “mission statement” me & my buddies at Berkley have decided that you symbolize all that is wrong with “web 2.0”, meaning the transformation of the internet into a junk-food wasteland where things are not chiefly created to communicate meaning, but are simply made in order to be made and feed into a pointless immersion that inevitably increases the repulsively voyeuristic nature of post-modern society and strips art of its value by drowning it in a labyrinth of pointless bs from which it can rarely be found. The ideal of quantity over quality is being ingrained into youth despite the fact that it is a hollow and ultimately destructive method of capitalism at its worst. Your mission statement and website suggest you’ve adopted this reckless philosophy, which is why you are receiving this message. We are posting similar messages all over the internet; you are far from our only recipients. Good luck on realizing your way out this black hole.

  2. If M. Krieger and his Berkley are concerned about the state of Postmodern society, I suggest they stop attempting to place value and significance on arbitrarily determined symbols of higher cultural worth. If art and information are meant to enhance and reflect shared culture and experience, the greater crime is to pretend that pre-millennial notions of cultural significance – grounded firmly in capitalism’s system of market success and visibility and dependent on access to exclusive channels of distribution – are still relevant. Nice try, though, and way to pioneer an era of Academic Trolling!

  3. I guess I don’t follow why established criteria of cultural/artistic value are necessarily arbitrary. Just because levels of artistic value can never be discretely objective and are difficult to quantify doesn’t mean they don’t exist or have worth and relevance. I understand pre-info age’s methodology of cultural promotion is inexorably dying, but that doesn’t mean in this new age that it’s healthy to discard all its merits and forge along at the whimsy of mass impulsiveness/passivity/voyeurism without aim. We simply and generally think that things should be created with a purpose other than profit or proliferation and there is way too much out there in the info age is that is devoid of meaning. If it were INTENTIONALLY devoid of meaning, then it would at least be interesting in a neo-dadaist way and in this sense gain meaning. As it remains, the proliferation of meaningless material is stripping passion out of media/art & making quality art more difficult to find. It’s a form of cultural pollution in a sense. We wouldn’t bring it up in any forums if it weren’t becoming such a trend that people are actually making careers out of it. Although it is possible such proliferation isn’t making things less special or preventing good art from surfacing (it’s quite hard to quantify such things), but it’s still not a healthy ideology for the people involved. It’s more akin to an addiction whose only reward is deeper immersion. Perhaps it seems petty to speak on this particular forum about such things, but these girls brought it on with their “message” of proliferation for proliferation’s sake and believe me, we are in MANY forums.

  4. Well, it is definitely reassuring that there are people at Berkley still deciding what is wrong with web 2.0.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us have already started in on 3.14.

    web 2.0 was so great because people began to be able to form conversations or communities around the media they consumed. the very type of conversation we are having in this comment thread. there are a lot of people who claim that you are what defines the filth of the internet: the troll who doesn’t attempt to create conversation, but conflict.

    i would love to hear your thoughts on why you see our ideas as “a hollow and ultimately destructive method of capitalism at its worst,” but you haven’t told me anything to back up that statement. we have made about $1 on adsense; is that what you are referring to?

    i feel something that would be much interesting as far as creating a conversation would be if you began to discuss superiour production methods to ours, or talk about another methodology that you see as more beneficial to society.

    while we are spending our time making content, you are spending yours trolling ‘forums’.

  5. Our desire isn’t to hurt people’s feelings or get into some compulsive ego war, just to bring up an idea; a critique on the information age and those whose works somewhat epitomize its current faults as we perceive them. I’ve already expressed the issue that spurred the original post: lack of intention; creating chiefly for the sake of developing a web presence. I understand the borders between creation with or without intent and the difference between “good and “bad” art are fuzzy, but I think the chief motivation, which your site seems to have expressed (proliferation for the sake of proliferation and profit as expressed in your mission statement and some of your videos),is all too common and doesn’t seem to have a point.

    This being said, why would I want to help you with your production methods if you retain your apparent current ideology? The question was rhetorical as I won’t continue to post any more comments.

  6. …about the importance of message, recall Marshall McLuhan. On finding a point, I suggest The Point!, a fable created by musician Harry Nilsson. I find it amusing that Krieger and his buddies at Berkley have banded together to cruise the internet as new media ecology police. He seems like a smart enough guy. I have confidence he will eventually pull his head out of his ass.

  7. Jason, if your goal is to bring up a critique of the information age, then do so. You have definitely been clear about the faults as you see them, mainly that there is too much banal or irrelevant information and that mass of, as you see it, useless information is devaluing everything else. I guess what i’m wondering is how you suggest we, and not specifically jessica and myself, but society as a whole, deal with said information overload?

    I feel you have made a lot of statements, but not offered any solutions, thus creating a megaphone for yourself instead of a platform for discussion from which we can all argue our beliefs. Yes, we do have a specific and apparently controversial ideology. If you are so against it, I think it would be more beneficial for all involved if you offer a logical alternative.

    Your withdrawal from the conversation once again reflects your apparent misunderstanding of the purpose of commenting in the first place. I wonder, Jason, where is your blog? Where is your podcast?

    @Roger, I too have that same confidence :D

Comments are closed.