What is wrong with being an attention whore?

What is wrong with being an attention whore?

Like the Kardashians. And even one step farther. What is wrong with being a whore?

It's easy.

What is wrong with being literature?

But it's "easy" for Stephen Hawking or Einstein to be a genius. We don't ostracize them for that. Whores need to learn techniques too.

I am a whore for literature.

I don't think you can't be both. Slavoj Zizek comes to mind.

This user knows

Degeneration of culture

>Degeneration of culture

Depends on what the "standard" of degeneration is, no?

Is it immoral to question the nature of morals?

Reread Genesis.

And just like any other mindless entertainment, it is designed to keep us consuming and feeling satisfied so that we will not take interest in subjects that have several layers and actual meanings and effects.

But why are they obliged to stop consuming and feeling satisfied?

It is the kind of satisfaction that comes from fleeting pleasure, after which comes the cosmic emptiness. I don't think mass media has anything virtuous to it.

Instead of using force to strip free will away from people, they are being overloaded with sensory input.

I know I'm on a thin ice here. Good question.

Veeky Forums whore>whore>attention whore

this applies to both XX and XY and everything in between, really.

...

From what you say, I understand that Mass media is a way to sort of address the existential questions thrown at us by said "cosmic emptiness.".

Also; >Strip free will away.

Isn't it in their own will to 'choose' what they watch now? Especially with the advent of the internet.

And this all boils down to what you consider virtuous.

It's annoying
Also an attention whore tries to stay relevant by shocking his/her audience (this being twitter followers, friends, beta orbiters or tv audiencws). Since it's relatively easy to create inmediate and indiscriminate shock (an attention whore attempts to produce a sudden flash for someone else to see: that sole action doesn't relate to anything else but itself. It ain't but a flash and its communicative purpose or intention doesn't go beyond instantaneusly drag other's attention-), the shock usually comes in shapes and ways which depend on taboo/subversive attitudes or topics (humor, sex, edgyism, drugs, smug elitism, eccentric anger) which can sting you at the first times, but they end up getting stale and their nature of vacuous flashes gets evident and tiring. It also happens when the attention whoring isn't taboo or subversive tho. It gets tiring when someone emits many messages which don't really communicate shit.

this is what pseudo intellectuals say to make themselves appear like they know the secret of life

Cain pls.

>they can sting you at the first times, but end up getting stale.

I agree, but I think therein lies the virtue of mindless consumerist media.

Kanye West is communicating the ideology at a much more "efficient" level, than say Nietzsche.

I'm not saying he's revolutionary, or anything. I'm just saying, the market he's in, is in such a constant state of 'evolution' to find the next BEST thing.

It ends up sending big ideas in smaller chunks, in a faster way. Although; I don't really believe that those lessons or ideologies are "beneficial". But media-whoring seems like virtuous if you view it from the perspective of the perpetrator. (like anything else, really.)

We clearly do though.

I watch Keeping Up With The Kardashians because every member of my family has died, and though they may be quite stupid and vapid, they still have a nice family and their TV show is a great comfort to me.

I feel there is nothing wrong with the decisions they have made, it brought them to great success.

Einstein and Stephen Hawking?

Damn, that's pretty harsh. But, you sort of make my point. Kind of like a whore who pleasures the men, maybe on a small level, a little chunk of bliss, the Kardashians provide that in many ways.

I think, even us, now, mentioning them, would not have a more enriching conversation had we emitted them. Honestly, they fulfill a roll, so why diminish them, and consider them wrong?

Yes. And "geniuses" altogether.

Rest is fine, but great success? You're on the wrong board.

Nothing, the attention economy is real.

I think Austrocize is a harsh word for how we treat them. We put them on sort of a pedestal, and that's different from the denouncement a, say, prostitute would get. I'm not saying prostitutes should be respected the same as geniuses, but they shouldn't be denounced. At least, in my opinion.

Success, as in money, fame, healthy children and a good life. Sounds reasonable to me. What you on?

>But it's "easy" for Stephen Hawking or Einstein to be a genius.

It really isn't. You don't think Einstein just woke up one day with the theory of relativity in his head, do you?

We don't know the secret to life but we are always searching for it.

You don't produce a product or a service and are therefore irrelevant.

Nothing is wrong with it. Most answers to this question sound pretty spooky

Shut the fuck up you whore apologist

checked