I’m sure you must have noticed that people seem to be getting dumber, less curious and can’t bother to put the effort into finding out anything. Many sit back and, if they have a question, rather than look it up with the world’s knowledge at their fingertips, ask someone else for the answer. Someone who they likely met on the same internet that has the answer they want to find.
Part of this dumbing down, is attributing human characteristics and emotions to non-humans. People seem to think this is reasonable, logical and do it themselves. This post is about things I find stupid – or that fit into dumbing down. On the surface it seems ok, but on closer look it really is bizarre. But since so few want to look deep, it slides on by.
As more examples of this are added to this post, they will be at the top.
Often I see an ad or headline on reality or a talk show where they give the impression of getting into deep issues. This particular reality show referred to a man tearing up at discussing a painful experience, as “being emotional”. The MC never actually named the emotion, or really went into it, just asking “why are you so emotional” where the answer seemed obvious.
On tabloids, its the same phrase over and over. “Stars” always “open up” about their personal issues, traumas, illness. But it’s not really opening up about anything, not exposing anything personal – not usually their diagnosis, treatment, emotions, how it affects their family, etc. Just surface level answers that appear to say something. Although lately, several celebrities are talking about fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and connective tissue disorders. They are getting real.
We often refer to the style of home with few walls and everything in view as an “open concept.” By its very definition, a concept is an idea of something. So if its in front of you, built or usable, it’s not a concept. It’s a thing.
This season, more than ever before (I think) women’s ankle boots are called booties. That’s the same word to describe the soft knitted boots worn by babies. So once again, women are equated with children.
On the health forums, when having a difficult time and trying various meds or tests to get an answer, people say they and their doctor are working on….(achieving some result), we will do…, we want to…
Ok, so you say you and the doctor are working together. Equally? The doctor is prescribing the drugs, tests and analyzing the results. What are YOU, the patient, doing to help yourself? Taking a pill? Maybe, maybe monitoring changes, effects and side effects. But since many docs don’t believe in side effects, that doesn’t necessarily count. There is no we, unless you research also for newer, different or other ways of seeing the problem. The doctor is doing something, you are cooperating.
An whole entire person is referred to by one particular trait or hobby. He is a “bowler” a “golfer”, a “patient”, a “dentist”, a ” liar” because they lied once in an ify situation. Their entire life means nothing except for the one moment they did something not so good. The larger issue is if it is the trait that defines the person, not the person themselves, then how many groups can one belong to at any given time? What if they belong to too many groups? And if it is the traits, then what exactly is a person? Calling some by that one trait, denotes that trait is a primary one for the person, yet if someone lies just once, they are a liar. Can that trait/definition ever be revoked?
During the Summer Olympics, one TV station showed the clip of the Women’s Skating Championships, and immediately referred to this particular station as “home of inspiration” It implied that the other stations broadcasting the same show at the same time (live) don’t have winners or if they did, they weren’t the home of inspiration.
Inspiration came from somewhere else. Only those playing or watching that particular station are winners.
Which kind of leads to thinking in multiple dimensions. If, say channel 6 is winners, but channel 4 is not, what differentiates the two? A movie long ago, “Sliding Doors” shows how each decision we make flips us into an alternate reality where the new decision plays out and we see the difference from other decisions that were possible. In this movie, dimensions merge and shift into each other, altering reality as they move.
So watching one channel makes us a winner, but watching the exact same live show on another channel makes us losers? They are promoting the channel, not the event, or outcome or even being a winner. Just using our fear of not being good enough to get us to watch them.
Other media and ads call things “the home of” – imagination, power, life, etc. There is no way a store, a chain of stores, a newspaper or such can be “the home” of a concept. What does it mean to be the home of? Is it just one store or all of the chain. When someone interviews for a job “at the home of” or “where we believe” must they believe whatever the logo says? Does every employee truly believe that?
Does that mean no other place or person on the Planet can have this trait, or do they have to go to the store to get it from its home. and if you take a fraction of this concept, does it deplete the “home” or amplify it? Does it bring more of it into the world? So if we buy from the store that is the “home of happiness” wouldn’t that just be amazing! Imagine if it did. We could change the world!
This is the same as when they say “insert concept” “LIVES” here.
And my favorite bad phrasing is “creating memories”.
This ad began during Christmas sales rush several years ago, to sell a particular camera. Now you regularly hear people talking about making memories all the time. It means to create something memorable. Whatever that means.
How do you create a memory? A memory is hard to define, but is something neurological, made by changes in the firing of synapses of the brain so that event becomes encoded in one’s neurological energetic emotional system.
To make a memory, means we have to ensure we will remember something. I often can’t remember what I had for breakfast, let alone a summer party decades before.
So clearly, making a memory is not about the ability to remember something, but about having something a way, often physical, to jolt the memory of the original event. So you are not making a memory, you are making an image to possibly remember by.
And other ads talk about a big kids party, certain toys or playthings, family gathering together to create the memory. In this case, there is nothing physical left after the fact to jolt the memory.