3 ms·

Jesus, that is really not funny. 45 years of communism can seriously fuck up your sense of humor.

cess11 4y ago
It was a student prank and not people that had lived for 45 years or more, and national chauvinism was arguably a much stronger factor in the bulgarian sense of humour at the time. So how did you come to your conclusion?
- noduerme 4y ago
  "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. Now, many years later, a place which had experienced free media and stuff like, oh, open reporting of the Chernobyl disaster for the intervening 4 decades would be more prepared to deal with absurdist jokes on national broadcast, but would have a broader immunity to bullshit by that point. Even so we are extremely susceptible to disbelieving journalism. My view is that it's just cruel to do that, to create mass panic as a joke, especially the moment that state media is finally being liberated to report actual facts for the first time - it simply undermines truth with nihilism. So if you find it funny I would say it's a very warped sense of humor. Probably one that stems from the sense of helplessness and nihilism created by living under a communist dictatorship. That's where I got my opinion.
  - CommitSyn 4y ago
    > "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346/75-years-ago-war-of-the-worlds-started-a-panic-or-did-it https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346... > "Far fewer people heard the broadcast — and fewer still panicked — than most people believe today. How do we know? The night the program aired, the C.E. Hooper ratings service telephoned 5,000 households for its national ratings survey. 'To what program are you listening?' the service asked respondents. Only 2 percent answered a radio 'play' or 'the Orson Welles program,' or something similar indicating CBS. None said a 'news broadcast,' according to a summary published in Broadcasting. In other words, 98 percent of those surveyed were listening to something else, or nothing at all, on Oct. 30, 1938. This miniscule rating is not surprising. Welles' program was scheduled against one of the most popular national programs at the time — ventriloquist Edgar Bergen's Chase and Sanborn Hour, a comedy-variety show."
    - noduerme 4y ago
      Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? How many people watched the Senate hearing on yellowcake sourcing in Nigeria and metal tubes being sent to Iraq being a clear sign of Saddam Hussein's intent to build WMDs? Think anywhere close to 2%? It sent the country to war. What % of people do you need to panic to generate a pretty bad outcome? And by the way, why are you defending the idea of scaring the fuck out of the population with made-up lies on mass media?
      - Jedd 4y ago
        > Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? I suspect parent's point is that the story is a myth, and is demonstrably wrong. The suggestion, and this [0] Slate article repeats it, that it was a ploy by newspapers of the day to discredit radio as a source of reliable information. I also recall it coming up on QI (BBC) a few years back. The rest of your invective doesn't invite a response. [0] https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-hysteria.html https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-wo...
        noduerme 4y ago
        "War of the Worlds" is the classic example, like shouting fire in a crowded theater - which also is, I know, not the true delineation of free speech considered by the Supreme Court. Take these as cultural touchstones or even fables which many of us in America still refer to in service of illustrating a moral (in the Aesopean sense), and so take the reference in the spirit in which it was meant. Maybe I should have implicated the Pied Piper or the Boy Who Cried Wolf. My original point stands, and debating about WotW doesn't change it. It is: To whose benefit is it to commit arson in the sphere of public information, to cause panic and to obliterate trust in journalism? Invective implies that this question is driven from some personal anger; it isn't. It's driven by a moral belief in the virtue of telling the truth, and not spreading rumors or lies.
        CommitSyn 4y ago
  - technothrasher 4y ago
    > "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. It was mostly a panic in the newspapers. There wasn't actually any real mass panic over the broadcast. It mostly just isolated people calling police stations to confirm whether it was real, and most of those were people who only heard a very small part and thought it might be a military invasion not space aliens.
vletal 4y ago
In Czechia we have group called 'ztohoven' (can be roughly translated to both 'getoutofit' or '100shits') who replaced a webcam facing mountains with their own live stream of fake nuclear explosion. I remember seeing that aired live on the national TV. Fun times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/arts/design/24abroad.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/arts/design/24abroad.html
4gotunameagain 4y ago
While a lifetime of capitalist propaganda maintains an open and critical mind ?
- noduerme 4y ago
  What? A lifetime in a free country gives you 20-25 years to enjoy living as a communist before you have to make money. Don't believe my experience, it sounds like you're already living it yourself. When you get to the other end, you'll be able to joke about both sides of the conversation. [edit] I think it's a healthy thing to not want your mass media to come from one source, whether capitalist or communist, and especially not to be fucked with in terms of basic facts and cause mass panic as a result of capitalists or communists trying to prove a childish point. I'm no slave to either side's propaganda, I just recognize nasty people and nasty power plays disguised as politics when I see them. Also, if you look at my posts for more than a passing moment, I think it's pretty unfair to say I don't maintain an open or critical mind toward every fucking thing. So snappy, thoughtless (and frankly uncritical) one liners like yours don't deserve the attention I'm giving it. You're welcome.
  - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
    I was just making the opposite claim to prove a point. I dislike communism as much as capitalism, but what I dislike the most is the brainwashed americans who blame everything on the communist boogieman. > 20-25 years to enjoy living as a communist before you have to make money. Don't believe my experience, it sounds like you're already living it yourself. haha, really now ?
    - noduerme 4y ago
      >> brainwashed americans I'm actually not this, but it is quite specific and telling that you have this American boogieman in your mind. I don't even know any Americans like this... most of them I think died by the early 2000s. I do have a somewhat clear understanding of living under single-party rule and blanketed by state-controlled media in Vietnam, and can compare and contrast that to the liberal free market of information which you are free to label "capitalist propaganda" in the West. The difference of course is that it's not actually propaganda when it's chaotic and not organized by a state organ - in the capitalist case, it's just advertising. The difference is measured in menace and the threat of personal violence.

It was a student prank and not people that had lived for 45 years or more, and national chauvinism was arguably a much stronger factor in the bulgarian sense of humour at the time. So how did you come to your conclusion?

noduerme 4y ago
"War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. Now, many years later, a place which had experienced free media and stuff like, oh, open reporting of the Chernobyl disaster for the intervening 4 decades would be more prepared to deal with absurdist jokes on national broadcast, but would have a broader immunity to bullshit by that point. Even so we are extremely susceptible to disbelieving journalism. My view is that it's just cruel to do that, to create mass panic as a joke, especially the moment that state media is finally being liberated to report actual facts for the first time - it simply undermines truth with nihilism. So if you find it funny I would say it's a very warped sense of humor. Probably one that stems from the sense of helplessness and nihilism created by living under a communist dictatorship. That's where I got my opinion.
- CommitSyn 4y ago
  > "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346/75-years-ago-war-of-the-worlds-started-a-panic-or-did-it https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346... > "Far fewer people heard the broadcast — and fewer still panicked — than most people believe today. How do we know? The night the program aired, the C.E. Hooper ratings service telephoned 5,000 households for its national ratings survey. 'To what program are you listening?' the service asked respondents. Only 2 percent answered a radio 'play' or 'the Orson Welles program,' or something similar indicating CBS. None said a 'news broadcast,' according to a summary published in Broadcasting. In other words, 98 percent of those surveyed were listening to something else, or nothing at all, on Oct. 30, 1938. This miniscule rating is not surprising. Welles' program was scheduled against one of the most popular national programs at the time — ventriloquist Edgar Bergen's Chase and Sanborn Hour, a comedy-variety show."
  - noduerme 4y ago
    Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? How many people watched the Senate hearing on yellowcake sourcing in Nigeria and metal tubes being sent to Iraq being a clear sign of Saddam Hussein's intent to build WMDs? Think anywhere close to 2%? It sent the country to war. What % of people do you need to panic to generate a pretty bad outcome? And by the way, why are you defending the idea of scaring the fuck out of the population with made-up lies on mass media?
    - Jedd 4y ago
      > Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? I suspect parent's point is that the story is a myth, and is demonstrably wrong. The suggestion, and this [0] Slate article repeats it, that it was a ploy by newspapers of the day to discredit radio as a source of reliable information. I also recall it coming up on QI (BBC) a few years back. The rest of your invective doesn't invite a response. [0] https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-hysteria.html https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-wo...
      - noduerme 4y ago
        "War of the Worlds" is the classic example, like shouting fire in a crowded theater - which also is, I know, not the true delineation of free speech considered by the Supreme Court. Take these as cultural touchstones or even fables which many of us in America still refer to in service of illustrating a moral (in the Aesopean sense), and so take the reference in the spirit in which it was meant. Maybe I should have implicated the Pied Piper or the Boy Who Cried Wolf. My original point stands, and debating about WotW doesn't change it. It is: To whose benefit is it to commit arson in the sphere of public information, to cause panic and to obliterate trust in journalism? Invective implies that this question is driven from some personal anger; it isn't. It's driven by a moral belief in the virtue of telling the truth, and not spreading rumors or lies.
        CommitSyn 4y ago
- technothrasher 4y ago
  > "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. It was mostly a panic in the newspapers. There wasn't actually any real mass panic over the broadcast. It mostly just isolated people calling police stations to confirm whether it was real, and most of those were people who only heard a very small part and thought it might be a military invasion not space aliens.

vletal 4y ago

In Czechia we have group called 'ztohoven' (can be roughly translated to both 'getoutofit' or '100shits') who replaced a webcam facing mountains with their own live stream of fake nuclear explosion. I remember seeing that aired live on the national TV. Fun times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/arts/design/24abroad.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/arts/design/24abroad.html

4gotunameagain 4y ago

While a lifetime of capitalist propaganda maintains an open and critical mind ?

noduerme 4y ago
What? A lifetime in a free country gives you 20-25 years to enjoy living as a communist before you have to make money. Don't believe my experience, it sounds like you're already living it yourself. When you get to the other end, you'll be able to joke about both sides of the conversation. [edit] I think it's a healthy thing to not want your mass media to come from one source, whether capitalist or communist, and especially not to be fucked with in terms of basic facts and cause mass panic as a result of capitalists or communists trying to prove a childish point. I'm no slave to either side's propaganda, I just recognize nasty people and nasty power plays disguised as politics when I see them. Also, if you look at my posts for more than a passing moment, I think it's pretty unfair to say I don't maintain an open or critical mind toward every fucking thing. So snappy, thoughtless (and frankly uncritical) one liners like yours don't deserve the attention I'm giving it. You're welcome.
- 4gotunameagain 4y ago
  I was just making the opposite claim to prove a point. I dislike communism as much as capitalism, but what I dislike the most is the brainwashed americans who blame everything on the communist boogieman. > 20-25 years to enjoy living as a communist before you have to make money. Don't believe my experience, it sounds like you're already living it yourself. haha, really now ?
  - noduerme 4y ago
    >> brainwashed americans I'm actually not this, but it is quite specific and telling that you have this American boogieman in your mind. I don't even know any Americans like this... most of them I think died by the early 2000s. I do have a somewhat clear understanding of living under single-party rule and blanketed by state-controlled media in Vietnam, and can compare and contrast that to the liberal free market of information which you are free to label "capitalist propaganda" in the West. The difference of course is that it's not actually propaganda when it's chaotic and not organized by a state organ - in the capitalist case, it's just advertising. The difference is measured in menace and the threat of personal violence.