|
So yeah, I watched Black Mirror, and I strongly disliked it.
The show is well done over all. It's a bit over the top, but that's on purpose, in order to make the points go across. I don't have issues with the quality of what I saw, I thought it was pretty good. My problem is the points it's trying to make.
Black Mirror's main character is technology. It it the only recurring character, as the human characters are always different, and the future (or present) they live in is also always different. The characters in Black Mirror are confronted to new technologies in extreme ways (for example, someone who lost her fiance to a car accident buys an app that recreates her fiance's online personality from what he wrote on facebook&co, and then proceeds to "chat" with it), and you're supposed to draw conclusions from it. If I were to summarize the message of the show, it would go something like "We're having a ton of progress, but humans are flawed, so there are issues with it."
Wtf kind of logic is this? That's not how you debate. You're showing anecdotal evidence where things went badly for someone, and this is supposed to make me think twice about the big picture? You're basically raising issues with technology because in some situations mistakes will be made. A more accurate account would be that the problem is on the side of the people making the mistakes.
Let me use that line of thinking for things we have today. Cars. Cars are very bad! People died in car accident, so we should have a discussion about the negative effects of cars... That makes no sense at all. We blame reckless driving, not cars.
Also, I have a general issue with the sentence "This is why we can't have nice things". For a few years, it's been fashion, especially in TV shows, to criticize humankind. We are flawed, we are imperfect, we make mistakes, we are human. We don't want a perfect hero like Ned Stark anymore, because they're too good, we'd rather see grey, imperfect people. That leads to a negative message about humanity, because you know, when you're not good people, you can't have nice things.
But that's actually not true. Yup, humans are flawed, humans are clearly not the perfect little beings that some portrayals would have them be. And that's okay. We can have nice things anyway, and we do. All the time. I wish more shows would realize that.
 
|
Well that's the whole Darwin Awards, giving out medals for people that are too dumb to handle technology. Basically it's exactly as you said, there's not much to think about. Yes the person who electrocuted himself would have lived if he existed in a more primitive time, but he's still dumb.
Hang in there, the world is a dangerous place 
|
United States10791 Posts
There is no anecdotal evidence to critique. Black Mirror is a work of fiction. The episodes depict satirical alternate realities.
Black Mirror is also not Neo-Luddite. It's a commentary on how people use technology, not on technology itself. When it comes to the moral spectrum technology is neutral.
|
“On July 08 2014 11:09 CosmicSpiral wrote:
It's a commentary on how people use technology, not on technology itself. When it comes to the moral spectrum technology is neutral.
The point that technology is neutral when it comes to the moral spectrum, would be the point I was trying to make. I don't see how you get that from the show, though. When you connect a bunch of negative and pessimistic views to technology through how people live with it, you're not being neutral, you're giving a viewpoint.
If we take season 1 episode 3, and we assume there's no negative comment about technology in it, only about how people use technology, then the message has to become something like "people with obsessive behavior will use technology to feed into their obsession". First of all, that is not a very groundbreaking message, and second, I have the same counter to it. The problem isn't that he is using technology in an obsessive manner, the problem is that he's being obsessive in the first place.
|
United States10791 Posts
On July 08 2014 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:
The point that technology is neutral when it comes to the moral spectrum, would be the point I was trying to make. I don't see how you get that from the show, though. When you connect a bunch of negative and pessimistic views to technology through how people live with it, you're not being neutral, you're giving a viewpoint.
There's a problem with using that as a significant theme in a work of fiction: it is neither insightful nor particularly intelligent. It's like saying "Guns aren't bad by themselves, they're just objects".
A program rooted in dark humor having a negative view on its subject is...normal? Satire doesn't bend both ways when it comes to viewpoint. That would defeat the purpose.
On July 08 2014 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:If we take season 1 episode 3, and we assume there's no negative comment about technology in it, only about how people use technology, then the message has to become something like "people with obsessive behavior will use technology to feed into their obsession". First of all, that is not a very groundbreaking message, and second, I have the same counter to it. The problem isn't that he is using technology in an obsessive manner, the problem is that he's being obsessive in the first place.
We're not assuming there's no negative comment on technology. Brooker is critiquing technology but he is not critiquing technology as it is now; he's critiquing what it could become. Hence why all his invented scenarios are fictional, extreme versions of things that already exist. Brooker assumes that the audience understands technology is value-neutral. If it wasn't, the series would retain its themes but have no practical point.
Your counter assumes that the usage of technology only reflects the habits of the users. This is not true. It shapes them through usage and opportunity.
|
On July 08 2014 12:15 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:
The point that technology is neutral when it comes to the moral spectrum, would be the point I was trying to make. I don't see how you get that from the show, though. When you connect a bunch of negative and pessimistic views to technology through how people live with it, you're not being neutral, you're giving a viewpoint. There's a problem with using that as a significant theme in a work of fiction: it is neither insightful nor particularly intelligent. It's like saying "Guns aren't bad by themselves, they're just objects". A program rooted in dark humor having a negative view on its subject is...normal? Satire doesn't bend both ways when it comes to viewpoint. That would defeat the purpose. Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:If we take season 1 episode 3, and we assume there's no negative comment about technology in it, only about how people use technology, then the message has to become something like "people with obsessive behavior will use technology to feed into their obsession". First of all, that is not a very groundbreaking message, and second, I have the same counter to it. The problem isn't that he is using technology in an obsessive manner, the problem is that he's being obsessive in the first place. We're not assuming there's no negative comment on technology. Brooker is critiquing technology but he is not critiquing technology as it is now; he's critiquing what it could become. Hence why all his invented scenarios are fictional, extreme versions of things that already exist. Your counter assumes that the usage of technology only reflects the habits of the users. This is not true. It shapes them through usage and opportunity.
Guns are designed to shoot at stuff. Technology isn't designed to create the situations the show displays.
I agree with all the rest, except I don't see how that's not a critique of technology in your eyes. What technology could become is a result of what technology is, there's still a cautionary tale element to it. And the non-passive way to say "the usage of technology shapes the habits of the users" is "technology can act as an enabler".
|
United States10791 Posts
On July 08 2014 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:
Guns are designed to shoot at stuff. Technology isn't designed to create the situations the show displays.
A gun is designed to shoot stuff. It serves much more than that in real life. It has a whole host of connotations and symbolic significance, and its practical usage ranged from self-defense to oppressing entire communities. Oftentimes it doesn't need to be fired at all.
Technology is being created to address these situations everyday. The 'grains' in Episode 3 are the commercialized version of what the U.S. government has been working on over the last decade. The situation in Episode 1 is standard procedure in terrorist philosophy, except combined with how the media treats it as a form of entertainment.
On July 08 2014 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I agree with all the rest, except I don't see how that's not a critique of technology in your eyes.
It's a critique of technology. This doesn't mean Brooker rejects the obvious benefits of technology. After all, he couldn't make the series without it. They are merely not his concern.
[B]On July 08 2014 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:[
/B]And the non-passive way to say "the usage of technology shapes the habits of the users" is "technology can act as an enabler".
"Technology can act as an enabler" implies technology is a catalyst that accelerates self-destructive issues already present. That is passive. While technology is value-neutral in the sense that it can be used for good or evil purposes, it is value-laden in its functionality.
|
I meant passive in the linguistic sense, active/passive. And I would be one to argue that technology acts as a catalyst to things that are already present, yeah. But whichever the case, the root is still human flaws.
You make a fair point that I should have worded my summary of the show differently, since there's no rejection of the benefits, so I can't just say "progress isn't a good thing" like I did. I've done some editing accordingly. My overall critique remains the same.
|
On July 08 2014 01:47 Nebuchad wrote:
Let me use that line of thinking for things we have today. Cars. Cars are very bad! People died in car accident, so we should have a discussion about the negative effects of cars... That makes no sense at all. We blame reckless driving, not cars.
It´s a matter of novelty, isn´t it? The show - which I haven´t seen - seems to be about possible implications of new technologies, which most people haven´t thought of yet. I don´t see anything wrong with imagining negative effects of new technology that hasn´t been exhaustively explored in that regard.
Cars on the other hand are well established and everybody is aware of their dangers. Hence, there would be no point in highlighting this. But it has to become common knowledge first.
Also, I have a general issue with the sentence "This is why we can't have nice things". For a few years, it's been fashion, especially in TV shows, to criticize humankind. We are flawed, we are imperfect, we make mistakes, we are human. We don't want a perfect hero like Ned Stark anymore, because they're too good, we'd rather see grey, imperfect people. That leads to a negative message about humanity, because you know, when you're not good people, you can't have nice things.
But that's actually not true. Yup, humans are flawed, humans are clearly not the perfect little beings that some portrayals would have them be. And that's okay. We can have nice things anyway, and we do. All the time. I wish more shows would realize that.
Maybe I watch too few shows, but I don´t get this vibe at all. Why is it bad to show ambiguous people, selfish motives, etc.? It doesn´t take away from anything, does it?
|
United States10791 Posts
On July 08 2014 13:39 Nebuchad wrote:
I meant passive in the linguistic sense, active/passive. And I would be one to argue that technology acts as a catalyst to things that are already present, yeah. But whichever the case, the root is still human flaws.
I would argue that technology does both. It enables flaws and encourages them as a way of integrating them into everyday life.
On July 08 2014 13:39 Nebuchad wrote:You make a fair point that I should have worded my summary of the show differently, since there's no rejection of the benefits, so I can't just say "progress isn't a good thing" like I did. I've done some editing accordingly. My overall critique remains the same.
There is nothing wrong with your critique in principle. But it is a meta-critique instead of a direct one, and I would encourage you to critique the show on whether it achieves its intended purpose.
On July 08 2014 17:02 Daswollvieh wrote:
Maybe I watch too few shows, but I don´t get this vibe at all. Why is it bad to show ambiguous people, selfish motives, etc.? It doesn´t take away from anything, does it?
I'd agree with him on that, but for different reasons.
|
On July 09 2014 10:13 CosmicSpiral wrote:
There is nothing wrong with your critique in principle. But it is a meta-critique instead of a direct one, and I would encourage you to critique the show on whether it achieves its intended purpose.
It does and doesn't. This is a quality show and that's the first thing I said. It does a good job of portraying human flaws, and how they interact with technology. It doesn't do a good job of convincing me that technology is to be critiqued for it, though.
On July 08 2014 17:02 Daswollvieh wrote:
Cars on the other hand are well established and everybody is aware of their dangers. Hence, there would be no point in highlighting this. But it has to become common knowledge first.
The reason we aren't scared of cars isn't that we know of their dangers. The reason is that we can distinguish between the car and the car accident. Nobody is blaming the concept of cars, and nobody should.
On July 08 2014 17:02 Daswollvieh wrote:
Maybe I watch too few shows, but I don´t get this vibe at all. Why is it bad to show ambiguous people, selfish motives, etc.? It doesn´t take away from anything, does it?
That's not what I said. I just mean that because your characters are flawed and imperfect, doesn't mean you have to get all negative and pessimistic about it. Shameless is a show that doesn't do it, btw, one of the reasons why it was VERY enjoyable to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
