"Dreams, be definition, are supposed to be unique and imaginative. Yet the bulk of the population is dreaming the same dream. Its a dream of wealth, power, fame, plenty of sex and exciting recreational opportunities." -Kalle Lasn
“Face the absurdity of the human condition, not to master the chaos, but to create within it.” —Simone De Beauvoir
Weekly Statement #8
ReplyDeleteIn reading “Culture Jam”, I’d say that so far the information presented is overwhelming. The books we have read so far have been much quieter. Leopold’s “Sand County Almanac” contained quiet musings about our role in nature, and Diamond’s “Collapse” was a scholarly dissection of the failings across societies. “Culture Jam” by contrast, leaves the calm-cool-collected tone behind and is harsh, aggressive, and insistent. It makes the pages easy to get through, but I his forcefulness a little off putting. It’s hard to listen to an author that seems so contemptuous; I think that the people that might most need the wake-up call he proposes would become to defensive to continue reading.
That being said, I can understand where his frustration comes from. Some of the facts are staggering because they are so apparent. He calls to light things that are completely ingrained in the way we live, but don’t even think twice about. For example, in the chapter “The Cult You’re In” he presents a vignette of a typical Americans. At first I thought it was ridiculous and cheesy how many brand names he dropped, “You’ll fuel up with Ho Ho’s and Pez and Evian […] then you’ll bury the pedal under your Converse All-Stars—like the ones Kurt Cobain died in”. I was thinking it sounded really stupid, that no one actually thinks like that. After thinking about it, I realized that while we may not consciously think in brand-name stream of conscious, Lasn is just putting in writing what is simply there. In previous pages Lasn says that we’ll “believe a character who drinks Miller before we’ll believe a character who drinks ‘beer’”. This seems frighteningly true; brands are so prevalent that we don’t even think about them, they are so much woven into the fabric of our society that an object un-branded actually seems unnatural, less believable
It’s almost like I don’t want to believe what he’s saying (again, in part because of his tone), but I can’t really refute any of his information based on my experiences. The section where he discusses a person involved in online RPGs hit close to home. I know a lot of people who play these type of games, but I hadn’t really thought about how a simple game creates a weird sort of existence between fantasy and reality. I remember when my brother first bought a video game system, I remember thinking it was so stupid that games kept introducing upgrades and new additions at a rapid pace, while phasing out old games. It seemed like such a blantant way for the company to make more money. However, it’s been years since then and video game culture has become so normal that I didn’t even think about my initial reaction until reading this book.
It’s made me start evaluating my own life. I’ve been thinking about the things I use that weren’t around less than a decade ago. I was talking with a friend about how easy it is to use Facebook to invite people to parties, but was writing up invitations and sending them through the mail really all that hard, and isn’t it more personal to get a “real” invitation anyway? Is Mapqust really easier than taking out a map and looking at it, and if it is, does using Mapquest so much just mean that I am less familiar with how to get around town? Do I really think my glasses are flattering, or do I just like the vibe they give me? I don’t feel like my life is just a void of consumerism like the examples in Lasn’s book, but its disturbing to think that I might be closer to that than I’d like to be.
Weekly Statement #9
ReplyDeleteI wrote a post earlier in the year regarding the backlash I discovered to “The Story of Stuff” movie, and I’m finding parallels within “Culture Jam”. In “The Global Economic Pyramid Scheme”, Lasn discusses our current economic models and how they basically are based on the expansionist model that continued growth would solve our problems. This is paired with the idea that our definition of freedom in America is the ability to do whatever we want, that “any restriction on this unfettered freedom to consume just does not square with the American Dream”. Lasn illustrates this point with a story of a town in Newbraska where the residents were becoming increasingly sick from smoke from wood burning stoves, but when a law restricting wood burning to three days a week passed, the residents were outraged that their freedoms were being infringed upon. This seems to be similar to the responses to “The Story of Stuff”: “I made my money, I can buy as many things as I want and no commie can tell me otherwise”. This mind-set has always seemed very strange to me. I remember learning about the preamble to the constitution in middle school, and when we discussed the pursuit of happiness, it was defined as the freedom to do what you like, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the freedoms of another person. Working with that definition, it seems natural for a person to forgo certain individual freedoms so as to not limit another person’s freedom.
The thing that I found really interesting, was that the typical view of American economics isn’t something put forth by our forefathers. It wasn’t until the case Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886 that corporations were given the same rights and freedoms as citizens. Before that time, businesses were chartered by states, and limits were placed on how powerful they could become. They couldn’t participate in the political process, and were penalized for inappropriate actions. This seems a far cry from our culture today, where you can’t even run a campaign for higher office without corporate sponsors. I was completely unaware that corporations were granted the same rights as individuals, that is ludicrous. I feel like the ruling of Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific should be overturned, but considering how tangled our government is with powerful businesses, the pessimist in me wonder if it would even be possible. However, I feel that if more people knew this story, there would be enough public support to make it happen. Unless we are already so entrenched in the system that hearing that news would cause a similar reaction of anger and disbelief that I saw with the “Story of Stuff”.
On a completely separate note, a section in the chapter “Your Corporate Connection” interested me. Here, Lasn talks about our deep connections that we have with our cars, highlighted by the story of a friend who admitted to feeling “in love” with her car. Lasn makes the case here that this is yet another example of the grip consumer culture has on our lives. I could see this being the case if you get a new car every couple of years, but I don’t think cars can fit neatly into this category. I felt strongly connected to my first car, but not in the same sense as the woman “in love” with her new wheels. My first car had been in my family for the majority of my life; it took us on trips all over the country and was what I learned to drive in. We only got rid of the car when it literally couldn’t be fixed. My attachment had nothing to do with the brand and everything to do with memories. In this sense, I feel like a car is more in line with a house, or anything else that you keep for years and actually holds some significance. While I agree that our culture is predominantly driven by consumer goods and branding, I think that there is a realm where objects that are permanent can hold importance, and I don’t believe this has to be a negative thing.
Emerson Schreiner
ReplyDeleteResponse #6
The quote “Face the absurdity of the human condition, not to master the chaos, but to create within it” struck me, because it is obviously what Lasn is trying to do with his writing. Or perhaps if the word “society” replaced the word “condition”, it would even more accurately describe it.
In fact, to me, Lasn’s writing style seems to embody all that he professes is harming us in our media-frenzied world. It is fast-paced, in your face, and full of what he refers to (not in reference to his own writing, but to the television world, generally) as “jolts”.
It occurs to me, of course, that Lasn is perfectly aware of this, and that he’s writing in this way in the hopes that people would actually be able to read what he’s writing and not die of boredom. (Something which, I’m sad to admit, I did several times during both A Sand County Almanac and Collapse.) In short, he understands that the methods of mass-entertainment and mass media work in grabbing viewers’ attention, so he may as well use them to try to prove a point.
Is this hypocritical? After all, he’s using the practices of those that he’s condemning. Maybe it is, but it’s also really effective. It would probably be even more effective if it were a movie. Or a graphic novel. Or a poster with a catchy phrase. Or a 15 second television spot narrated by Peter Griffin from Family Guy.
This raises the question: Can writers expect to hold their reader’s attention if their writing is not flashy and entertaining? Can the merits of their research and arguments be enough to pull a reader through an entire book?
Increasingly, the answer seems to be, no. And for all of the reasons Lasn has brought up in his book. If we are not “jolted” into paying attention, we simply won’t do it, not when there are so many other distractions begging to be noticed.
Laura Gillmore
ReplyDeleteFor this week’s Weekly Statement I want to discuss things that I found annoying in Kalle Lasn’s “Culture Jam”. To sum it up, I thought that Lasn over generalized several times in the book. There are so many other books I have read (and not read) that are so much more successful in discussing the American consumerist culture. I understand Lasn’s point that America has lost authentic culture because it has become commercially branded. And I understand his point on how American advertising is almost censorship in that people in positions of power choose what they want to be put out to the public instead of the public choosing what they want. But I strongly disliked many of the examples Lasn used because I thought they were immature, showed lack of research, and were overall very judgmental. I don’t like when authors (or people in general) critique others so much as if they live life and contribute to society in a perfect way. For example, on page three and four of “Culture Jam”, Lasn describes a postmodern family going through the wilderness and having physical withdrawal from the things at home such as television and video games. He describes this scenario as a true fact for all families. He continues to state that all “our” children are going through states of denial, anger, depression, and bargaining, which mimic the stages of grief and loss. I think that Lasn is extremely cynical and maybe this reflects a real-life situation with his own children. To be honest, I would probably be an annoyed child without the television if I was in the wilderness but at the same time I would just deal with it. I would not be this depressed little terrorist of a child. In this example, I think Lasn should be a little more careful of his word choices because he is generalizing things as fact and not looking at different sides or perspectives.
Another thing that I found Lasn over generalized is seen on page seven. As he continues to describe the postmodern family he states, “No one feels any sense of purpose. The spaced-out daughter is alive when she’s in front of the TV, and the mopey son is alive when he’s surfing the Net, and Mom and Dad are alive when they are at work”. This in my mind is rude and outrageous. Especially since this book was written in 1999 when I would be this so-called “spaced-out daughter”. Once again, he over simplifies people. I don’t think I should have to defend others or myself yet I will: I know that I felt most alive when I was on school field trips, in art class, and with friends. My parents spent quality time with me and I can say for a fact that they did not feel most alive when they were at work. I can say this for me and almost every other family I know. I know he is creating this scenario for a concept in the book but Lasn really shouldn’t be so negative and cynical.
Lastly, on page eleven Lasn over generalizes the way’s humans relax. He states that when we come home from work we immediately turn on the television and “sit there passively hour after hour barely moving except to eat”. He goes on to explain that we watch shows about nature or sex and don’t actually experience it or take part in it. Maybe we turn on the television because we want to watch a thing called the news. And maybe some of us are in love with our partner and actually do make love. That being said, this maybe the lifestyle he has taken on himself. Overall, I think there are parts when this authors shows that he is a bitter middle-age man when he really should be using a neutral tone of voice. This weakens his actual valid points and research.
For discussion this week, I was looking through some Adbusters archives and articles, and one that specifically caught my eye was the Digital Detox initiative. I connected with this on a few different levels.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am a very technologically connected person. I walk around with giant headphones, which are connected to my iPhone, which is receiving a text from my friend, who saw the pictures I uploaded to facebook. In this day and age, we rely on technology extensively for entertainment, as well as for information. If I have nothing to do, I’ll just open my laptop and check my e-mail, checking almost compulsively. I’ll check facebook, or see if there are any new funny videos on my favorite websites. I’ll look to see if there are new entries on MyLifeIsAverage or Texts From Last Night. On this frontier, I can connect with the digital detox because I myself am overdosing on technology every single day.
The second reason I connect with the initiative, however, is because though I may be a whore for gadgets and technology, at the same time I am a huge proponent of social interaction and human contact. If I don’t have any, I feel uncomfortable, and I love to have conversations with anyone who will listen to me. Meeting new people and socializing with people I may not know that well is something that I really enjoy.
Related to that, I feel that human interaction has gone hugely downhill and it’s a tragedy. Though many people argue that technology improves our socialization, it’s a double-edged sword. Though you may be able to text your friends in class, you could be talking to your neighbor in the seat next to you. And if you’re listening to your iPod on the bus, you’ve removed yourself from all possibility of socialization. The days of conversations started waiting for the bus or while riding on it have died, simply because no one can be bothered to do that when they could just as easily listen to their music, or play Tetris on their iPhone.
I think the idea of a digital detox is a pretty great idea, and I think it will help people realize not only how dominated their life is by unnecessary technology but also encourage them to go out, show a little courage, and talk to a stranger. Who knows, they could be your new best friend.
So, ultimately Adbusters is a magazine that is dedicated to engendering awareness about the relationship between humans and their physical and mental environment, more specifically just in the United States. Their message is quite apparent in all their ads and is not easy to miss; we are a society obsessed with material items. It’s the truth and its perpetually intoxicating our mental state.
ReplyDeleteAs depicted in the image above, our generation is relentlessly being fed with brand names and logos, and we’re narrow mindedly accepting it all without question…until now.
Adbusters has enabled us all to take a step back and look at everything from a new perspective. Why do we buy so much? And why do we feel we need to?
The fact of the matter is that we don’t. But it has become so ingrained into our brains that its okay, a creeping normalcy if you will.
When Adbusters attempted to purchase airtime for “Buy Nothing Day”, all the networks systematically and repeatedly rejected them, including big networks like CBS, NBC and ABC. These commercials did not offend any of the networks, and they were effective and professional, but the question still remains, why wouldn’t the networks give it to them?
It just solidifies the terrible state our minds and wallets are in.
Every Christmas, our TVs are full of consumption messages as our culture endures another season of buying binges. The networks simply won’t do it because they want to keep their sponsors happy, “We don’t want to take and advertising that’s inimical to our legitimate business interests.” They’re just looking out for number one, not for the good of the whole country and world. What will it take for people to understand that in order to progress and revolutionize our way of life something has to change?
On page 125 in Culture Jam, Lasn discusses the one and only social activist victory against the advertising community. What I’m talking about is the tobacco war. It began in the 1960s and ended at the turn of the millennium with the activists as the victors. This monumental battle marked the first time anti-ads beat product ads in open combat.
ReplyDeleteThis multibillion-dollar industry lost against the ads run by anti-smoking lobbyists. At this time, smoking ads were still legal, an idea I can barely fathom in our society today. The only ads about smoking I witness today are the anti-ads run by the “truth” campaign. For as long as I can remember, I’ve always been taught to look past cigarettes. Today, our society has been so ingrained with the concept that cigarettes equal death, that many of us, including me, don’t even understand how the industry is still able to produce its deadly products.
I am so disgusted every time I venture out into the public and witness multiple people smoke their cigarette as they walk down the street and simply flick it into the street when they finish without giving it another thought, or when people are driving in the car and flick their butt out the window. It irks me!
How can people get away with this? If someone were to do the same thing with their empty cup or wrapper, people would have a completely different reaction. That sort of action is not acceptable. But a cigarette is no different! What we need is for the ads is to start addressing the bad effects that cigarettes have on our environment, as well as the bad effects to our body. This would completely revolutionize the anti-smoking campaign and establish an argument with no opposition.
Week 6
ReplyDeleteIt was ironic/funny how just before I read a sentence in Kalle Lasn’s Culture Jam, “We come home from work, exhausted, and we turn on the TV – a reflex,” I had turned on the TV in the TV room as background noise. This book literally was telling me exactly what I do in a given day, and pointing out how most of the country is now fully detached form the natural world. We always need people and background noise around us: “Quiet feels foreign now.” This is completely true because even when I am trying to read or wrap my head around something, I cannot be in an environment that is completely sealed off and quiet. My thoughts start to consume me and I end up more distracted by the silence than a television.
Of these “mental pollutants” are advertisements, which take up a huge part of our lives/culture. It is true that wherever I go, there is always some message/brand trying to be sold to me. Not just in television and radio are advertisements being shown, but now also in places I would have never thought of. When I go to the girl’s bathroom after class in Angell Hall, there is always some organization telling me to go to a meeting or buy a ticket to a certain concert in the form of a taped paper on the back of the stall.
Another idea that I agreed with was the America’s Funniest Home Videos example: “you laughed because all the cues told you to… the laugh track and the audience reaction shot double-teamed you.” I always find myself smiling or almost laughing when I hear laughter or see it. I also start crying when I hear or see crying. This “double-team” that Kalle Lasn mentions results in me laughing at something that may or may not even be funny.
Connie In
Responding to Kalle Lasn’s quote about dreaming the same dream, I find it very depressing that our generation has lost the drive to follow our actual heart’s desires and instead drop everything for the pursuit of money, fame, or societal standards. It is the reason for the sharp drop in anyone in our generation wanting to remain a farmer and the sharp increase towards gravitation towards the cities. It is also the saddest thing to hear when someone in college doesn’t pursue their dream job or education due to their field not making enough money. I especially decided to come to the art school because I knew since middle school that I wanted to be a graphic designer, that I would be most happy doing this for the rest of my life. The thrill I get when I complete a project remains each time around. It makes me happy that I am able to pursue my dream and direction. I wish upon everyone that same happiness that I have found. To pursue their real heart’s desires. Unfortunately not everyone’s parents are allowing for that or encouraging. Many want their sons and daughters to be monetarily successful so that they do not need to support them anymore. That is not to say they do not want their children’s happiness, but the parents wish them to find it within their successful high paying jobs and nice homes.
ReplyDeleteIt is so unfortunate that college kids are struck with the decision of a major or career choice at so early an age with so definite a verdict. You have no chance to explore other options or what being in a certain field even entails. A lot of students merely choose a field only cause of the monetary gain they will have afterwards regardless whether or not they will hate their day to day lives in doing that job. Mentioned in discussion, it was once respectable to take on the job of a fireman or policeman, but now our youth tries to avoid it as much as possible, striving for those high paying jobs such as CEOs of major companies or the likes. It is really sad that everyone’s dream has become the same: the high paying job, the white picket fence, the nice house, and the nice material possessions that show your prosperity. It is so sad that kids these days drop their actual dreams due to circumstance and societal expectations. Perhaps if it weren’t so, our society would look completely different.
Maybe students need more education that the societal expectation of dreams is not necessarily the right one – that there are other options and possibilities and different hard working standards to rise to. We have become a generation afraid of work because we do so much of it already starting in our education that we are somewhat burnt out by the time we reach the workforce. Because of that we want to reap the benefits as quickly as possible and “get rich quick” due to the amount of work we have already put in during our educative years. I think its time to lighten the work load so there is more time for play and imagination and exploring new possibilities in life and finding a job one enjoys instead of just for the money.
It does seem that a majority of people nowadays are dreaming the same dream. The same American Dream of making it big in terms of wealth, fame, and power. Certainly, it seems more prevalent while at a University because everyone is studying to get a better education, which, hopefully, will lead to a sustainable job. In this day and age, it seems college has become the norm. After high school, the only logical path seems to be college, and if we don’t go, we’re “not doing anything” with our lives. Unfortunately, I haven’t really gotten much out of art school at the University of Michigan, I feel as if I’m just here to get a degree so I can tell future job interviewers that I have a degree, that it justifies my abilities. I would certainly not approve of myself relying or living under my parent’s roof for the rest of my life. I imagine there are many other students across the world imaging the same set of goals for themselves. What I find overwhelming about this book is how negatively it portrays advertising, seeing as I’m pretty hardest on going into advertising. It’s hard trying to read through this book without feeling slightly angered, if not hurt, by the numerous over generalizations he makes. There are a lot of designer items that are produced in the European countries. A lot of high fashion, or high-end designer cars are designed and produced in Europe, yet he praises them and denounces the Americans. I think there is a good amount of Americans that aren’t influenced by mass media marketing and thoughts. Personally, I can say that I don’t really think either way when I see a commercial, rather I think about the quality of the campaign in terms of design. Certainly, not everyone views commercials the same way. Consumerism is definitely still a problem in the United States; the constant need to buy a new and better product is kind of ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWeekly Statement 7
Daisy
Oops, that was supposed to be number 8, not 7
ReplyDeleteShaili Das
ReplyDeleteWeekly Response #9
"Dreams, be definition, are supposed to be unique and imaginative. Yet the bulk of the population is dreaming the same dream. Its a dream of wealth, power, fame, plenty of sex and exciting recreational opportunities." -Kalle Lasn
This quote struck me. As I read Lasn’s book, Culture Jam, I found it very interesting yet very one sided. I feel like alot of the claims he makes are true yet the approach he takes/the way he writes seems to be as an extremist. For example, I agree with the quote written above. We as a society have perhaps lost our vision to imagine and are all striving for the same things however, there are always two sides to a story. Although we as a society have started dreaming the “ same dream” as Lasn said it might not be a bad thing. What is the harm of wanting to be successful and advance in society using technology and other means? Throughout Culture Jam Lasn continued to bash the use overuse of technology in today’s society; however, I feel like he is only looking at the situation from one side of view. Yes, perhaps we rely too much on technology and that has caused us to loose our social skills but the same technology also has brought us many benefits. For example, the popularity of the cell phone. I agree with Lansn when he says that people no longer sit next to someone and just talk to them because they are always on their phone texting/bbming/or calling someone else. But, on the other hand the creation of the cell phone has allowed people to be connected all over the world. Specifically, I have friends in London and India that I wouldn’t be able to communicate with half as much if it wasn’t for bbming.
I guess what we need to consider is somehow joining Lansn’s views and toning it down to something that is possible in reality. Perhaps we should try seeing if we could even function without all our little gadgets and see if we would even interact with other people, say on the bus, like he thinks we would. This is just an interesting idea, personally I think it'd just be entertaining to watch and see if I could survive without certain things for a couple of days.
Laura Gillmore
ReplyDeleteFor this week’s weekly statement I want to discuss the ADBUSTERS’s photograph of the tattooed baby along with the following quote: "Dreams, be definition, are supposed to be unique and imaginative. Yet the bulk of the population is dreaming the same dream. Its a dream of wealth, power, fame, plenty of sex and exciting recreational opportunities." -Kalle Lasn. I think this quote illustrates this photograph perfectly. First off, to describe the photograph: the baby is completely covered in tattoos of corporate logos whether they are fashion labels, television networks or car companies. A mother, whose face is completely eliminated from the composition, is breast-feeding the child. She has only 1 tattoo. After looking at every single tattoo on the baby, I realized that these are not any corporate logos; these are logos of major trends that I would most likely associate with the youth. We have logos of MTV, Miss Sixty, Mercedez Benz, Ralph Lauren, Coca-Cola, Nike, Versace, Sony, Motorola and more. In my mind these logos basically say, “if you have something by me then you will be in, rich, and successful”. The way I see this ad is that our future generations (including my generation) will be completely fed by the trends of pop culture. It’s hard to perfectly decipher the meaning of the ad but I would also say that we are letting these corporations nurture us. At young age, basically infancy, we are being “branded” with advertisements. So is it our fault that we are so easily swayed by this culture that it’s almost inherent? I personally don’t think so. But we should definitely interpret and examine what’s in our surroundings.
I think the idea in this ad goes well with the quote because the quote describes how our dreams have become all about wealth, power, fame, plenty of sex and exciting recreational opportunities. Those seem to be the key formula in making an effective advertisement – which the logos branded on the baby very much represent. But why do our dreams have to be THAT? What is so compelling about wealth, power, fame, sex etc? Do those have to be the specific factors in creating happiness? But more importantly, why are we so persuaded by these false dreams created by advertisements? I think the best line of the quote by Lasn is his stating of the true definition of the word “dream”. I like the idea of having dreams being unique and imaginative. Something “unique and imaginative” reminds me of something unattainable and one-of-a-kind. Maybe this wealth, power, fame, and sex thing is all unattainable but it is definitely not one-of-a-kind. I guess I don’t know what my true point is for this week’s Weekly Statement, but this ADBUSTERS ad and quote causes me to wonder why I wanted to go into a field of advertising or commercials.
Response #9
ReplyDeleteConnie Huang
As I was reading the chapter “Post Human” in Culture Jam I felt frustrated and depressed at the same time. The story of the lady obsessed with chartrooms really got to me. Especially when her definition of “going out” was visiting another site. The author then went on to explain that her verbal skills had suffered because she spent so much on the Internet. I see this trend in our generation today. I don’t know if anyone has noticed but much of our generation is socially awkward. Even our humor is awkward. For example, the show The Office, the commentary and the way they interact is very awkward if you take a step back and analyze the humor. I’ve also noticed this awkwardness at college parties. Those weird silences and pauses in conversation. Are those a result of our generation’s lack of social skills from constantly having this false sense of interaction on the Internet? And what is with this constant need of connection? Did most people join facebook because everyone else was or because its in the media every where we go? Or did they really want to “connect” with friends? I think facebook has actually spawned this new type of person who relies so much on facebook for their social interactions that they actually go around “friending” everyone, then get offended when you don’t friend them. In my opinion you have a serious problem if you’re mad that I’m not your virtual friend.
At the end of the chapter the author talks about the results of a study that net heads were lonelier and more depressed than the average population. I was very surprised to hear that it wasn’t because they’re more drawn to the internet than a happier person. It is because it caused a decline in their psychological well-being. I think its because their isn’t really any substance behind the feelings and emotions they receive from strangers. There is no true feeling of accomplishment or using one’s ability to the fullest. It’s just a temporary feeling to fill in a large void of interaction.
On a side note I was watching my roommate play this game called Second Life for her digital media studies class. It was a game people could play online and you could be anything you wanted to be. You could choose characters anywhere from iron man to a virtual look-a-like of yourself; you could even be naked if you wanted to. Players could so talk or chat with each other in a virtual world. You could also fly around or transport to a new location. Basically it is a virtual free for all. I was amazed at how many people were in this world. They’re sitting at home on their computer logged on to this world chatting with people. Um…can’t you just walk out your door and go to a bar to do that? Granted you cant be iron man when you do that but is this seriously what people do with their time!?! There are even one point where a guy was rambling on about every complaint and frustration he had using profanity with every other word. Second life is a perfect example of what the chapter “Post Human” in Culture Jam is talking about.