DU is a discussion board. Things get discussed. Some discussers watch TV.

[Stinky The Clown]

Among things discussers discuss is TV.

Some discussers do not watch TV. Why do the non watchers feel the need to tell the TV watchers to turn off their TVs?

I bet not one single watcher's mind is changed by all the non-watcher comments.

I bet the majority of watchers find such comments tedious, at best, ire-inductive quite commonly.

How about a little live and let live on this, m'kay?

[Make7]

1. I can't believe what they just said on MTP. ( n/t )

[Stinky The Clown]

2. MTP or MTP Daily?

I assume the daily version because you said "they just said", implying immediacy and posting in their time slot.


:snicker:

[Tommy Carcetti]

14. Apparently the sun sets and rises on account of what outrageous thing Chuck Todd said or did not say

Personally I can’t think of anyone more irrelevant to everyday discourse than Chuck Todd, but there appears to be a regular cottage industry here about getting upset over things he said or alternately did not say.

Ditto for any one on The View.

[calimary]

66. The sun rises and sets on my fantasy of running NBC News and CANCELLING Chuck Todd. Permanently.

But he'd be second on my list. First to be fired would be Andrea "oh but her emails" Mitchell.

[Meadowoak]

70. Replace them with Keith Oberman and Ron Reagan.

[calimary]

73. That'd work!

Keith Olbermann evidently is hard to work with, so I've heard. But I think he's worth it. Nobody raises hell with the damned GOP like he does!

[BootinUp]

99. Ron is a pleasure to watch

When he is on. Keith too.

[Hortensis]

53. Lol. nt

[Tink41]

3. Ive never replied like that BUT.....

When I have mentioned I don't watch TV I've gotten eye rolls, and questioning my validity of a card carrying member of DU. The funny thing is this modern appliance? Is talked about in socioeconomic circles as something Proles do. Display enormous advertisement apparatus as the showpiece in their homes. So.... Being the educated lot we are??? I can def see how these negative comments happen.

[malaise]

4. I Love this OP

Yes I do

[2naSalit]

48. +1

[Chili]

142. +1

Don't get it. If you don't want to read it, take your own advise & skip it.

Ditto on the

[Mister Ed]

144. As a non-watcher, I do too.

Although I don't like to watch TV news, I know that the medium is important and influential. OP's about TV news are helpful to me, because they keep me updated about what's going on with TV news coverage, saving me from having to invest the time to watch the coverage myself.

Of course, the OP's that are most helpful are those that include a smidgen of context. OP's that only say, "I can't believe they're saying that!" (Huh? Who's saying what? Where?) or "Turn on Rachel right now!" (Oh. Umm, what topic is she covering?) are useless and annoying. Thankfully, those context-free OP's are rare.

[Hortensis]

5. Sure. Good manners to take to discussions elsewhere also.

Don't criticize Fox or OAN, and thus those who watch them. Maybe offer information they may not have been exposed to, but only if sure it won't offend.

And when DUers rant angrily about the content of cable networks they watch all day, of course just leave them to it. Stopping by to offer tips on breathing techniques that might help would be okay as long as it's done courteously and with empathy.

[ancianita]

65. LOL nt

[multireeds]

6. I have honestly

Wondered if the only reason du exists is to steer eyes to the cable news channels

[Sherman A1]

11. I have wondered the same thing

At times. Seems lots of folks enjoy the being outraged.

[PatSeg]

57. It seems to me

that in recent years, people on both the right and the left have become addicted to being outraged. People tend to scroll through posts looking for their daily dose(s) of outrage, like an adrenaline fix. I know I have done it unconsciously until I realized how stressed and exhausted I was.

Meanwhile, the media knows it is addictive and go out of their way to feed our addictions. For some people, they seem to never get enough and they are often the ones who seek out conspiracy theories on the Internet. They live in a perpetual state of anger and paranoia and seem to love every minute of it.

[ancianita]

71. Yep. It's literally chemical.

Then again there literally is perpetual harm and wrongdoing. Maybe somebody's aware that the adrenaline and cortisol are the only way they hold themselves together. Past traumas relived.
Then again, perception management who manufacture outrage are aware of ptsd, homelessness and suffering surrounding the petite bourgeoisie and can groom them toward civil war just in time to f up the 2022 election.

[PatSeg]

75. Yes, that's a scary thought

but we know it is true. So many people have been programmed and they will be used to benefit people and corporations who don't give a damn about them. We can always hope that some new reality TV show, a large pizza, and a case of beer will distract them. They are known to have relatively short attention spans. They can't be bothered with anything that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt.

[onecaliberal]

94. I can't watch anymore. I am exhausted. IDGAF what any of them have to say.

[PatSeg]

98. Once Biden became president,

I cut way back on my TV news. Except when there is a major event, I tend to watch about an hour, sometimes less, in the evening just to catchup. Today I am watching because of Biden's address.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of online opportunities for outrage though. I'm learning to pace myself and be more selective about what I read - more facts and less opinion. Life is too short to be so stressed all the time.

[onecaliberal]

115. Could not agree more. I'm paying way less attention.

I trust the people in the White House now.

[PatSeg]

116. Oh, I do as well

Competence, experience, and integrity are back in the White House. I still like to keep track of what Biden and the Democrats are doing, but it is without the dread and panic of the Trump years. Now it is because I am proud of the people we've elected and I like observing their accomplishments. Also, I am a long time Biden supporter and I'd thought I would never get to see him as president. It is like a dream come true and much better than I'd expected.

[treestar]

89. That is true

Reader's Digest had a monthly "That's Outrageous" story. It makes people feel superior.

[aggiesal]

95. I believe that some people are not happy ...

unless they are miserable.

[JohnSJ]

16. No. It is a discussion board to discuss anything that people feel worthy of discussion. Some may

agree with some of the topics, and some may not

[GusBob]

17. Shit

Folks around here complain when Rachel Maddow takes a vacation and is not on the air

Always cracks me up, complaining about what’s not on TV

[Ace Rothstein]

26. There are a fair number of posters here with a cable news addiction.

[chowder66]

34. It beats soap operas.

[Crunchy Frog]

102. And then when she's there, they complain about her on air mannerisms.

[BannonsLiver]

141. Complain is a nice way of putting it

Some are either apoplectic or in a state of extreme despair.

[Stinky The Clown]

79. That's soooooo yesterday. These days its TikBook and Facetweet and such

[MenloParque]

7. Totes

I hecking hate CNN and MSNBC because they aren’t saying the things I want them to say and they are not talking about something that I want them to keep talking about!! But don’t you effing dare tell me not to watch because I love being outraged!!

[Harker]

8. I made a couple such suggestions.

I don't actively look for reasons to insert my opinion on the value of TV, but in the cases in which I did suggest leaving it, or at least taking a break, it was because the poster to whom I responded struck me as being needlessly distressed in an unhealthy way.

I'm all for living and letting!

[GusBob]

9. I'm just happy we don't have a TV president anymore

That guy, a former “reality TV” star, sat around watching the idiot box all night and all day

You could see the effects it had on his mentality, attention span, personality and physical being

[Sherman A1]

10. Want to watch TV? Knock yourself out

Do it all day and all night. Start posts about this screen personality or channel saying something you don’t like then expect comments suggesting you turn it off if it’s bothering you.

I find cable news to be little more than drivel, but if you enjoy it or anything else have at it.

[Dream Girl]

23. I think people know they can turn it off. Such comments are virtue signaling

[TreasonousBastard]

29. "Virtue signaling" yet another meme I have to commit to memory...

I'm sure we called it something else in my formative years

[robbob]

84. I think "virtue signaling"

Used to be called “trying to set a good example”, although I might not have all the nuances of VS down pat.

[Sherman A1]

31. Is that like someone's Facebook posts?

[Dream Girl]

54. Guilty.

[Sherman A1]

100. There is however a difference

When I respond to a complaint post regarding the latest outrage that just appeared on cable noise. I am responding with a simple fix to the problem that seems to be occurring. The poster is free to accept or reject my advice. I don't have any use for the Cable Infotainment Media and often make those views clear, but I don't accuse the poster of supporting some service that I consider evil and by association are thereby themselves evil. They want to go through the effort to make a post about the latest perceived outrage, so be it. If I respond (and I have added CNN & MSNBC to my Trashed Words tab) then they are likely to get little sympathy from me but no accusations.

[treestar]

90. +1

Yes, it is the person saying they are superior, because they don't watch pundits on TV and get themselves upset.

But then if we all did that, the right would have the airwaves to use and we would not even be aware.

Some people say we ignored hate radio too much.

[treestar]

87. The internet can get repetitive

Any kind of discussion board will have people saying the same things over and over.

On period drama discussion boards, it is "if you want accurate history, watch a documentary" as if there can be no such thing as a accurate drama

On any TV show or movie "if you don't like it, don't watch it." As if you can know before you watch it that you won't like it.

"Turn off the TV" as if no one is interested in these pundits and what they say, or concerned that they can affect the opinions of the electorate.

[kirby]

12. You know...

I gave up my Internet years ago!!!

[Harker]

13. That was probably a good idea.

Hey... wait a minute...

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Beauty!!! (nt)

[JohnSJ]

15. I suspect the reason is because of the frustration expressed by some of the OPs regarding the

coverage against Biden with the situation in Afghanistan

This has nothing to do with "live and let live"

Anyone at DU is free to ignore or not read anything that they don't want to

[USALiberal]

18. Great post, I'm sick of every day somebody whines about somebody on the news.

[LanternWaste]

119. "If it upsets you so much, just don't watch! N/t" Ring a bell?

[USALiberal]

131. Do you know that your tagline on your posts is stolen from another author? Nt

[mopinko]

138. since it's in quotes, i'm guessing yes.

[Dream Girl]

20. A kind of virtual signaling. Better than thee posture. I have a friend who worked into very convo

How she doesn’t watch tv.

[Hortensis]

59. Both MSNBC and CNN systematically propagandize against the Democratic Party

to help elect business-friendly Republicans, though. That's fact.

It's NOT just virtue signaling to suggest that people who were deceived into believing they "can't trust" Hillary and now think the Democrats are hopelessly divided (instead of strongly united) and that Justice Democrats represent a "wing" of the Democratic Party really need to expand what they're exposed to.

Not everyone is brain-fucked by trusted media into deciding not to bother voting for Democrats, or even that it'd be wrong!, but any are too many when elections are lost by razor-thin margins.

[treestar]

91. I agree though right wingers

say the exact thing the opposite - the "Clinton News Network." So they are managing to piss off everyone. Which is no doubt their goal!

[Hortensis]

105. :) Sure, but the RWers are deluded and/or lying. Their

goal with them is mostly to keep their hair on fire, "pissed off" all right.

Most of the big media conglomerates, including Fox, tell Republicans that Democrats are socialists.

They tell Democrats we're incompetent, unprincipled liars, and should be run out of office should anyone care enough to bother.

And they reassure the far left that Democrats are controlled by corrupt corporatists who betray everyone.

MSNBC's mostly LW audience is gathered not just to sell viewers to their advertisers but to discourage as many as possible from supporting Democratic programs and voting for Democrats. Some anchors are popular and powerful enough to resist, but others, especially daytime, do what their job requires.

[ShazzieB]

109. Do you actually watch MSNBC?

It's the only cable news network I watch on a regular basis, and I watch it a lot. I have absolute never seen anyne on that network "propandize against the Democratic Party," systematically or otherwise, or do anything to help elect Republicans. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

It really annoys when people come on here and trash the "msm" like it's all one monolithic thing, because it really isn't. Each cable news channel has its own flavor and its own slant. Even shows that are on the same channel are not all exactly alike. That's why I regularly watch MCNBC but rarely watch CNN, and it's also why I watch Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell but not Morning Joe. Because they're markedly different and some shows appeal to me more than others.

I will happiy join in on trashing Fox News and other ultra-conservative outlets, but when people, start lumping CNN and MSNBC together like it's all the same, I am going to take exception, because I just don't think it's truel.

[Hortensis]

129. ...wow? ShazzieB, researchers study the coverage of all the major media.

It's what they do. Various organizations and scholars, in this nation and others (U.S. elections affect the world), have compiled proof of MSNBC's and CNN's systematic bias. They count and tabulate it, analyze and compare it with all the other media they do the same for. Most of them turn all the slimy machinations into numbers and charts, but oh well. Some are published on line and available to anyone who wants to check them out.

But no one who is informed and pays attention should need that to make them realize it happens. All it would take would be to check a few of the negative themes that'll be pushed by daytime MSNBC shows every day against well regarded nonpartisan sources to find out if they're balanced and factually accurate.

For very simple, clear examples, though, how about the hours of free air time CNN gave tRump almost every day, "balanced" not by having Hillary on but by hitting the phony email "scandal" on every daytime show every day? Those were counted. Or the way tRump was invited on Sunday shows like Chuck Todd's Meet the Press every weekend, while the Democratic candidate seldom was? Those were counted. Some voters get their only national news from those shows and those are counted also, as well as the themes they were fed.

There are dozens of far more interesting, historically, blatantly corrupt examples from that election, which worked. They helped Republicans overcome huge, impossible early leads by Democrats to gain control of not just the White House and congress, but state and local governments across the nation.

The networks have had to be more careful and subtle since, and unable to give tRump's GOP the kind of support they'd wish, but their big goals remain the same: to elect Republicans, presumably preferably without tRump, but, as we saw, with if that's the only way to do it.

As the next election comes closer, they'll hit the deceits harder all day, but they're already building the foundation of the influence narrative they'll hope to defeat Democrats with this time. You know, repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it? But hide the deceit under some "fair and balanced flavored" frosting so viewers not paying attention or already fallen to them will miss it.

[Mr.Bill]

63. Is she a vegetarian, too?

[Ms. Toad]

21. If you are talking about people not glued to their TV sets asking for context, you are off base.

That is not telling you to turn off your TV. It is telling you that when you bring something you saw on TV to a discusson board, you need to provide context for the disussion. Don't act like we're also all glued to the TV.

Yesterday there were between 6 and 12 threads trashing Richard Engle, with virtually no context. I opened as many as I could find, and none of them, not a single one gave me even the foggiest idea of what the discussion was about.

I went to search for an example and - probably not too surprising - yours was the first I stumbled on:

Am I alone in thinking Richard Engle's sell by date is in the past?

He needs a good, long time out.

Who is Richard Engle - I had no clue yesterday. Still dont. Since none of the 6-12 people who thought it was important enough for the entire DU community bothered to explain who he was.

What did he do that triggered such a strong reaction that there are 6-12 contextless threads trashing him? I had no clue yesterday - I still have no clue today.

If you come to a discussion board to discuss, you need to provide the context so that others who are not glued to whatever particular thing you are watching or listening to can participate in the discussion.

It's like if I just popped into DU and started a thread, "Did you see what that cardinal just did to that blue jay?" and expecting people to have been sitting in my living room looking out my window seeing the same two birds I am seeing, at the same time I'm seeing them.

[stopdiggin]

113. +1

I'm pretty good about glossing over the "this' and the "right now' threads. But what if there's something that I should know - should be up to date on? And then - zip.

clue: Richard Engle, and whatever pearls of wisdom, is not one of these things.

[smirkymonkey]

122. Yes! Thank you!

It's when the poster just assumes that we are all sitting around watching the same televised program that they are and doesn't explain anything. Posts like:

"OMG, I can't believe Rachel said that!"

"Can you believe what Chuck Todd just said about Biden?"

"Chris Hayes was really out of line just now."

OP's like that with no context and no further explanation. It's really annoying.

[betsuni]

124. +1

[Treefrog]

145. Lol. This is so spot on.

[PortTack]

22. I am one of the ones your comment is directed at. No, I don't take it personally

When ppl come here and post about how much they hate this program or that program and say what a disservice they are doing to our country, our President and the Dems in general doesn’t that make you wonder why do they watch? It certainly does me, and I know I’m not alone. I would love to return to watching some cable news, but as long as they are on this kind of tirade NO.

The fact remains that boycotts do work, we could actually change the narrative. Why is anyone against that?

[NewHendoLib]

25. this...

[USALiberal]

32. You really think that DU Could change the ratings?

[PortTack]

40. One never knows where a viral grass roots movement starts. DU alone, no but members here

Have family, friends they may discuss things with.

The boycott that comes to mind is when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a whore. It cost him advertisers and money big time.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/rush-limbaugh-contract-sandra-fluke/315587/

[Hortensis]

69. Yes. I believe we can force change. Not an abandonment by

current owners/managers of sabotaging Democratic candidates, it's too important a part of their purpose, but we can and should hurt them for doing it.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. LOL!

I agree. Just check out any Bill Maher thread and it is replete with "Well, I (sanctimoniously) don't watch him!", often times by the same people who constantly have to reassert their valiant ways in multiple threads. Well, if you don't watch, then DON'T comment! This is no different than people trashing articles because they read the headline, and in some cases, that is all they read, they didn't even bother to read the excerpt provided.

The only beef I have are those who "discuss" a program without really giving much information other than they are "thrilled with" or "horrified by" the behavior, topic, or what-not and provided no other salient details. Not really a discussion, but I generally don't respond to those threads anyway, but I am sometimes lured in by their click-bait title.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Years ago there was a Friday night dinner in the Village that was usually fun...

one guy would wait every night until someone would order a fish dish, or just mention fish, and that would be his cue-- "I don't eat fish" ever so solemnly. As if it mattered.

We chalked it up to another amusement and joked about a pool to see how long it would take for the announcement.

[betsuni]

127. I dread the Maher threads because I know I'm going to read them and I know

many people are going to let us know, again, how much they hate him and how horrible the show is even though they never watch it and nobody else should either. And if there's a conservative guest or someone they don't like, that's evidence Bill hates Democrats. As if a talk show host only invites their best friends on the show like it's a dinner party. I think it's odd to comment on something you haven't watched or read. What's the point?

[Chautauquas]

27. My brother doesn't own a tv

He takes great pride in that. He's told me at least 1,000 times that he doesn't own a tv. I think I'll buy him one for xmas and see if he watches it.

[Oppaloopa]

33. I don't have a cell phone and am happy about it.

[Chautauquas]

120. I don't know how you do it

Like a lot of people I use my cell phone many many times during the course of a day. Everything from checking weather and texts to playing games and occasionally even talking to people in real time. Are you ever tempted to get a cell phone?

[Oppaloopa]

139. No I use my real phone to Talk to people and my computer for everything else.

[soldierant]

81. You don't need to own a TV to watch cable news

So much of it is streamed. You may not be watching at the same time as everyone else ... but it is the same stuff. Not to mention that many cable news people also have podcasts and blogs. Rachel Maddow comes to mind here.

It's not difficult to "fact cjeck" for context of if {Person A actually made statement B. It's not like trying to fact check the truth or falsehood of Statement B itself.

It is IMO a good thing to know one's enemy, and i am personally grateful to people who watch TV so that I don't have to.

[womanofthehills]

134. I haven't had a tv for over 10 years

I spend too much time on the internet and if I had a tv I would get nothing done. I listen to Rachel’s show & others on Podcast while I’m busy doing chores. Get most of my news off Twitter.

[NightWatcher]

28. Now do one about sharing "news" via tweets.

So that we can get a baker's dozen saying that we shouldn't do tweets because some don't like tweets.

[pwb]

30. I am guilty of that but

I try to advise not to watch cable news to all more than to individuals. If the poster sounds upset I may recommend Netflix. I will try not to say Turn It Off anymore, if I did. Almost three weeks those people on cable have not influenced me and I feel pretty good. So there's that.

[CurtEastPoint]

36. Akin but not quite: "TURN ON CNN RIGHT NOW!" And no context...

[AkFemDem]

39. Haha yes this! Not only do I not watch CNN...

I do not have cable so do not watch cable news, period.

“OMG! Turn on Rachel!” (Or any other TV personality) has the same effect.

Dunno what you guys are seeing, not able to be outraged or awed by it. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[hunter]

37. Why the fuck would I subscribe to television news or twitter when I can read all about it here?

[Politicub]

38. I was tired of reading the same comments about the same hosts, so I added their names

to my Trash Thread list. I use it pretty liberally.

I don't need to read about Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell and a host of other blowhards every day. My DU experience has improved with liberal use of the filtering tools that we have access to.

[PortTack]

42. Kudos to you!

[Politicub]

43. It's funny. I had been on DU for more than ten years before I discovered it.

Maybe it wasn't there before. I don't know, but using it makes a much better experience.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. Reminds me of a comedian once. He said don't you just hate it when people

Say they NEVER watch TV?. "I feel like asking them what are you doing instead? are you in your garage trying to find a solution to acid rain?"

[Kaleva]

49. The internet is probably a much better source for finding what to do about acid rain.

For news, I come here to DU as there is usually many sources provided for any topic of importance. LBN and GD is my one stop shopping for news.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

137. ? It's was a joke

[Kaleva]

45. Why do some who willingly watch tv complain about how sick they are of what they see?

It's like someone smashing themselves in the face with a hammer and they post about how much it hurts but they get offended if anyone suggests they stop smashing themselves in the face with a hammer.

[PortTack]

52. Yup

[NewHendoLib]

67. yes, the old Billy Crystal Christopher Guest SNL skit

"I hate when that happens"

[A HERETIC I AM]

86. Talk About Pain!

[NewHendoLib]

93. that always comes to mind when I see the TV media bemoaning

comments!

[littlemissmartypants]

46. I am thankful for the video posters who post videos

For those of us who blew up our televisions years ago.

[JI7]

47. There is a difference between discussing what is being shown

and just constantly complaining about it when one can easily shut it off.

[Kaleva]

51. +1000

[FoxNewsSucks]

50. It's not just TV that brings out the sanctimony

There seems to be a group or a few which CAN'T STAND to have a post which disagrees with the way they think things should be. They have an almost-republicon attitude that theirs is the only opinion that matters.

If there's a post about TV, or anything else, that I don't necessarily want to read about, it's not hard to click "back" and just read something else. I don't know why so many complain about that.

With that said, it should be required that a post, particularly one starting a thread, should include context.

I appreciate those who post video, but without context, how would I know I want to sit through a 10 minute video to find out what the point was?

[Kaleva]

60. And people who complain about what they see on tv can simply turn it off.

As this is a discussion board, if one posts about something, they ought to expect feedback. Some positive and some negative.

[Hortensis]

74. But it's also not hard to click "back" when there's no context.

Just cruise on by that also without complaining and sanctimonious reminders of duty to others.

Clicking "back" is especially easy when it means the cruisers can have no idea when deceit and subversion are being introduced, so no compulsion to stop and issue sanctimonious warnings.

[ShazamIam]

55. I haven't watched tv for more than 10 years, but have been told by a DUer that I need to watch

Rachel Maddow, never mind it is possible to spend a few mins reading her text offerings instead of an hour for the show.

[Kaleva]

61. And you can read OPs here about what her show was about.

[TygrBright]

56. Also social media. please.

I agree it is minimum courtesy, if you are referring to a news clip, tweet, newspaper article, etc., to name the source and provide a link.

Bonus points for providing text.

But discussers who use devices that don't have the capability to follow all links, render all video clips, social media posts, etc., and want single post referring to such, to fully import every possible aspect of whatever it is to make it fully view-able within their version of the DU interface, are asking a bit much for a rather casual discussion board like this.

Discussers who start whole new threads to complain about same...

::sigh::

It takes all kinds.

Carry on, my friends.

philosophically,
Bright

[greenjar_01]

58. Very Meta

[Orrex]

62. DU has been like that at least as long as I've been here

“My PC has a problem” leads to “get a Mac”

“My McDonalds French fries were cold” ==> “ugh, how can anyone eat that garbage?’

“The product I bought at Walmart was defective” ==> “shame on you for entering that vile cesspit”

“I don’t care for a certain program” ==> “Who’s forcing you to watch it?”

And on and on. Such “helpful” feedback seems to be part of the human condition. It’s certainly a long-standing tradition here @ DU.

Edited to add the following (for those who seem to have trouble connecting the dots):

A certain type of person on DU is seldom content to let others use or enjoy a thing if they themselves do not use or enjoy that thing. Even fairly neutral comments about ones experience with the thing will often result in gratuitous editorializing from the person who just can’t wait to tell you how you should make the choice that they recommend instead of the choice you’ve made.

[Kaleva]

68. That's not what the OP said in his original post

to paraphrase what you said to make it more accurate:

"“Being on a PC makes me sick to my stomach” leads to “stay away from PCs”

“ Eating McDonalds French fries make me sick to my stomach ” ==> “Stop eating McDonalds french fries"

“The products I buy at Walmart make me sick to my stomach” ==> “stop buying products from Walmart”

“Watching tv news programs make me sick to my stomach” ==> "Stop watching tv news”

And on and on. Such “helpful” feedback seems to be part of the human condition. It’s certainly a long-standing tradition here @ DU.

[Orrex]

72. That is one fucked-up and inaccurate paraphrase

And that, too, has a long history at DU.

[Kaleva]

78. Wouldn't you agree that my words more accurately describe what is going on?

[Make7]

92. I believe Olive Garden is the preferred example for eateries. ( n/t )

[cinematicdiversions]

136. The one in times Square is the best

Finally bringing authentic Italian food to New York.

The even have a family bathroom where you can breast feed your pitbull with all the judgemental stares.

[SidDithers]

108. I remember when people used to complain about signature lines...

Sid

[Orrex]

123. Who would do such a thing?!?

[hunter]

125. Have I watched "America's Top Model?"

Have I eaten a Big Mac?

Yes, I have.

[caraher]

64. The main ones I have trouble with...

are posts that just assume everyone is glued to MSNBC or C-SPAN or whatever their watching and write posts that are literally incomprehensible without context. It would help a non-viewer like me figure out whether/how to engage in a thread if some posts were a bit clearer about any needed context.

Then there are posts that just say things like "Turn on Maddow right now!" which might be read by people hours later. At least those are much more clearly useless if you don't have access to the TV and the post is more than 10 minutes old...

[relayerbob]

76. I watch TV, but find the constant complaining about the news tedious at best

And frequently, the complaints either aren't accurate or focus only on one aspect that the poster doesn't like and ignores other aspects that don't fit their frame of reference. This only reduces their (the posters) credibility, IMO. And makes them no better than the other side.

[Raine]

77. Exactly. 👍 nt

[IronLionZion]

80. You can post some details on what you were watching

as in what show or channel, who was on it, when it aired, etc. Until our 5G tracking chips enable mind reading capabilities, I can't pick up your thoughts through the air.

It's useful for anyone who wants to search for the clip on Youtube later.

[Woodwizard]

82. It is a discussion board.

Not one discussion board I have been on runs perfectly. You have some that will comment on everything regardless of knowledge. Some will intentionally troll just to argue for 15 back and forth posts. It is on every board from my automotive one to CNC operation. It is not going away.

Best to just blow past what is not relevant.

[Fla Dem]

83. Yes, ocassionally there is someone that feels it's necessary to tell people what to do and disparage

other DU'er's choices.

I'm sure it's done with the best of intentions, but while it's certainly fine to share opinions, it's a bit beyond the pale to TELL others what they should do.

[multigraincracker]

85. Just me, but I have always said, moderation, moderation, moderation, moderation, but

don't over do it.

[wryter2000]

88. My sister is one of those "We don't own a TV" people

But she watches TV shows and movies on her computer. I just keep my mouth shut.

[BootinUp]

101. Lol.

[GoneOffShore]

96. There's not enough popcorn on the innertubes for this thread!

[Crunchy Frog]

97. I'm often amazed at how many people on this political discussion board

get really upset whenever anyone tries to use the board to engage in political discussion.

It's become one of the amusing little quirks of the place.

[SidDithers]

103. A classic from The Onion. Holy shit - more than 20 years ago...

Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television


Sid

[George II]

104. Kind of like the old saying, "You don't make the rules if you don't play the game."

[liberaltrucker]

106. Buzzy is hosting the Tournament of Champions on Jeopardy!

[IcyPeas]

107. I love watching Television

oh, and have I mentioned I'm a vegetarian?

v

[Spider Jerusalem]

111. Too many people who watch TV watch it all day long and post running commentary

some of these people need to get out of the house once in a while.

[h2ebits]

112. LOL. . . .I appreciate having DU for all of its quirks

I have not ever had a subscription to cable. (If you are old enough, do you remember its inception when it was touted as "ad free" TV?) So what I get, I get using an antenna, with programming that is more and more abysmal as the years have passed. I do have a ROKU stick attached to my TV with my subscriptions to Netflix, Acorn TV, and RMPBS along with a number of other free things to watch.

By and large, I get most of my news in print/online form and have spent the last few years posting copious numbers of articles on Facebook to try and counterbalance some of the sludge that is out there. DU is a great source of news and members regularly post news from various reputable newspapers around the country and world.

Other than the snippets of MSNBC and other sites found here on DU, I will admit that I don't watch the "news" anymore. I hated what I was seeing. I hated the diatribes and lies that I was hearing. I couldn't stand watching the expressions on peoples' faces and listening to their voices laced with the hate of their own rhetoric. And I needed to stop feeling the rage and anguish that poured through me in a constant stream from the barrage of noise. These days I have a much better perspective on how all the pieces fit together and I am in a much healthier frame of mind.

Yes, I have also recommended to two people at this point that they stop watching the news and start reading it. My sister in NYC shrieking her anger at me over one piece of crap or another spewing from Trump's anus mouth and the other a friend living in Jacksonville, FL who went on and on in horror at the way Biden was treating people and packing them into "camps" at the southern border. Her version, of course, was Ted Cruz's version with reality twisted for his political gain.

I agree with you on the live and let live. . . .just breathe. . . .

[Emrys]

114. I feel the same about Twitter.

I'm in the UK, so apart from timezone differences, we don't get the same spread of cable channels, which makes thread titles like "ZOMG!!! Turn on [channel] now!!!" useless to me, but presumably others get the benefit, judging by the clicks and recs.

It's a big forum, different strokes and all that.

It's similar with Twitter. I view it a lot, as do some others on DU. It certainly has its limits, which you need to understand, but can break stories the MSM either doesn't at all or doesn't till quite a few hours later. How many tedious and occasionally vehement "Twits are bad, m'kay, and don't go dragging that shit into MY space, especially when I can't even see it unless I click through dammit" yadayada posts does DU need in any given month?

[Ohio Joe]

117. I like bananas...

You start with some bananas. Peel, and mush them in a bowl. Add one egg per 2 bananas and also one pinch of salt and pepper per 2 bananas. Just a tiny touch of vanilla extract and a tablespoon of honey. Mush, mix until... Well mixed. Have plenty of coating... Crushed cornflakes works or even bread crumbs but I prefer panko. Drop a dollop of the mixture into the coating and spoon some on top to make sure it is well coated. In a pan (I use cast iron for this) heat some oil so it is real hot but not boiling or even smoking but you want it see bubbles when you put it in. Fry on one side till golden brown, flip and do the same... Out and onto some paper towels to get rid of the excess oil, then onto a plate with a side of apple sauce.

Yummy

[brooklynite]

118. TV isn't the specific target...

“I hate X and so should you” has been a standard topic for years.

[betsuni]

121. Like a food discussion board where people boast of never watching the Food Network.

They haven't watched food TV in years, wouldn't watch it if you paid them cash money, wouldn't watch it if a madman put a gun to their head and demand they watch Guy Fieri for ten minutes or else. The network is owned by the corporate media conglomeration and Big Food! What kind of person wastes their time on that drivel? Turn it off!

They're compelled to tell us how much they hate this or that show or host. A TV host said something they didn't like in 2005 and ever since they love to tell us again and again every time the show is mentioned how much they hate them. They'll assure us that they haven't seen the show in many years, but they know all about how horrible it is and why nobody should watch. Hosts are also judged harshly on guests. Have a guest they don't like, that damns the host to the hate file.

I don't find these sorts of comments interesting. Also, nobody's heard of hate-watching? How can you make fun of someone unless you watch/listen/read what they say?

[Kaleva]

128. Like a food discussion board where people complain how angry the are at Food Network but still watch

Even though they are so sick of no nothing Food Network hosts and guests telling them how to cook.

Your comment:

"Also, nobody's heard of hate-watching? How can you make fun of someone unless you watch/listen/read what they say?"

Or they may not be as angry as they claim to be. OP wasn't making fun of the people he watched. He was saying how sick they made him.

[Caliman73]

126. Some people are likely responding to the vitriol and outrage.

"Goddammit, Chuck Todd just said the stupidest thing EVAAA!! My blood pressure is through the roof!!!!!!!!!!"

Hmm... well that seems to happen frequently when you watch Chuck Todd, cause you post a similar response like, 3 days a week. Maybe you shouldn't watch Chuck Todd...?

"DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO WATCH AND WHAT NOT TO WATCH!!!"

While it is also true that people can simply scroll by the outrage posts on "what stupid Chuck Todd said", it is a similar mechanism that keeps the rager watching Chuck Todd daily despite knowing in all likelihood they will be pissed off, and that makes commenters post, "Shut the TV off" comments.

Just saying, "live and let live" is not so easy sometimes, just like not watching shows that you know will piss you off.


I also find that a good chunk of what goes on in a "Discussion" board is not discussion, but people posting past each other. I personally like to ask questions about people's motives for posting, their choice of words, what they think about particular information or observations, etc... I have actually had some unpleasant interactions when I try to have a conversation with people beyond agreeing with their points.

I would add that some people are just grumps and they just want to tell people to "turn off". Other people see the constant turmoil and are genuinely advising folks to step away, for their own sanity and health.

[iemanja]

130. Guilty

and I'll take your thread as a caution.

I will say I have two problems with the threads complaining about cable TV coverage.

1) It bothers me that people expect the news to tell them what they want to hear. That's a problem that cuts across the political spectrum.

2) If you're dissatisfied with the coverage on a particular show, why do you want to give them ratings?

[Stinky The Clown]

132. You know . . . . . . the funny thing is I rarely complain about TV shows

I would not say I never do, but it tends not to be a big thing for me. What I get cranky about is the sanctimony that always crops up in such threads.

[ForgedCrank]

133. I think it's a matter of those wanting to share their experience.

For example, I cut off my cable once about 10 years ago, and had no TV for almost 2 straight years. I went through withdrawal for a while (I say that jokingly) because it was a big interruption in my routines. But once I got used tot he idea that it was gone, the positive effects far outweighed the negatives. Stress was greatly reduced, I got a lot more done at work and around the house, my social life improved, and I had an overall better attitude toward life in general.
The I got married and the wife insisted on TV, and the rest is history. Now I'm a TV junkie again even though I know better.
So I suppose it's just some folks wish to share and want others to experience the same benefits. I don't think it's malicious or anything.
But it is pretty ridiculous if you think about it for a minute. Pay 2 grand a year to supply a never-ending stream of garbage for the sole purpose of making sure you don't have to think for a while every day. That's now I see it at least.

[GulfCoast66]

135. Like an OP stating 'Rachel nailed it' is discussion?

I don’t watch really, any tv. Because of the wife we have all the good stuff, I guess. I will occasionally watch a movie on Netflix or a show on Disney Plus.

I just skip over posts about news shows. They are inane to me and are not in my mind valuable discussions. But other obviously disagree.

I think all media outlets have figured out that outrage is the key to ratings. I don’t want any of that.

[BannonsLiver]

140. I'm continually amazed by people who spend their entire weekend watching cable news

Seems rather dreary, tbh.

[Stinky The Clown]

143. We only do that when the power is off