+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Klotsch (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-22.html)
+--- Thread: Ann Patchett and cutting the cord even more (/thread-7764.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Ann Patchett and cutting the cord even more - XenoMorph - 09-19-2016
(09-17-2016, 10:49 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: As far as i know, you have to have HBO in order to watch HBO Go.
Has that changed?
no but you can pay for it directly 15$ a month thru hbo instead of going thru a cable provider
I use my TV for video games.... the wife watches tv. While most tv is mind numbling stupid... I would spend to much money without it.
RE: Ann Patchett and cutting the cord even more - Au165 - 09-22-2016
The idea that "screens are bad" is kind of funny. Is reading bad? Is reading a book bad? So then why is reading an internet site bad?
Then the time argument I always find funny as well. No one every criticizes the person who lays around for hours on end reading a book, but laying around watching a TV series is somehow looked down on.
The whole "screen free" thing seems like an attempt to prove superiority as being somehow more enlightened or something. People spend their leisure time doing all sort of things. If you enjoy how your spending nit, do it. If not, then do something else.
RE: Ann Patchett and cutting the cord even more - xxlt - 09-23-2016
(09-22-2016, 12:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: The idea that "screens are bad" is kind of funny. Is reading bad? Is reading a book bad? So then why is reading an internet site bad?
Then the time argument I always find funny as well. No one every criticizes the person who lays around for hours on end reading a book, but laying around watching a TV series is somehow looked down on.
The whole "screen free" thing seems like an attempt to prove superiority as being somehow more enlightened or something. People spend their leisure time doing all sort of things. If you enjoy how your spending nit, do it. If not, then do something else.
This is an excellent analysis. Thank you.
It reminds me of the time a friend said, "I don't want to use drugs because I don't want them altering my mind." I had thought similar things before. Then another friend calmly said to the first friend, "Well, when you read a book it alters your mind. When you exercise or look at a flower it alters your mind." This was so obvious, yet something I had not fully grasped before.
I am not sure if for all the people who don't like TV or screens it is about feeling superior. Some people are proud they never read, some are proud they always read, and some in both camps can claim to feel superior as result. It is the same with watching or not watching TV. But not everyone claims to feel superior based on their habits. And there are some differences in media. Live theater, for example, feels different than TV or film. A book feels different than a debate, though both may engage the same issues.
So, I think part of it is whether the nature of some media appeal to some people more than others. For some it may be a familiarity thing and for others it may just be they process and engage better with one form over another based on how they process information. Another consideration is with books or drugs or theaters or live performances you have to seek them out and engage them. Screens seem a little more invasive, for lack of a better term. The television that is always on, the phone that is always being checked, etc. So, I can understand how some people feel tv and cell phone are intrusive and can become more of a time vampire than books or movie theaters, which are typically not as omnipresent.
I hope that makes sense. And, thanks again, for your interesting perspective on the matter!