
How a TV Sitcom Triggered the Downfall of Western Civilization - kostyk
https://medium.com/@thatdavidhopkins/how-a-tv-sitcom-triggered-the-downfall-of-western-civilization-336e8ccf7dd0#.rgmhc6hoq
======
CM30
Oh no, not another argument about the world is going downhill/being less
appreciative of intelligence/whatever because of some TV show. I mean, I'm
genuinely surprised it wasn't referring to either The Simpsons or Idiocracy,
but the point's always the same.

There was no 'golden age' where nerds were popular and intelligence was always
the most valued part of society. People aren't morons because they read about
celebrity gossip or buy a ton of stuff or interact on social media. There was
always a sizeable portion of the population who didn't care for intellectual
parts of life, even back in the days of newspapers and radio broadcasts. Go
back even further, and well, you were often deeply unpopular (at best) for
having views considered 'dangerous' to society.

At least nowadays, it's easier to get involved in subcultures and groups for
things you're interested in rather than being limited by geography. At least a
lot of things previously considered 'for geeks' are now mainstream in some
way. At least there's now a potential option for an intelligent outsider to
make their fortune without having to be born into wealth or popular in a large
company.

Anti intellectualism is not new, it's not increasing and it's certainly not
bringing the 'downfall' of western civilisation.

~~~
Grishnakh
>There was no 'golden age' where nerds were popular and intelligence was
always the most valued part of society.

Definitely not in America, there wasn't.

Other societies are different.

~~~
CM30
Can you name some of these societies?

Because there was anti intellectualism back in Victorian times, at least in
quite a few cultures. And every dictatorship/tyranny tends to have some rather
extreme anti intellectual policies (the USSR, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
and Nazi Germany were quite prone to murder them en masse). Religious
societies don't tend to deal with this sort of thing well either.

But I'll be interested in knowing what societies were more tolerant towards
'nerds' and intellectuals and outsiders compared to the US, Europe, etc.

~~~
true_religion
I'm also curious to find which societies celebrated intellectualism as a part
of general culture. The best I can see it is if the rich elite collect
intellectuals as part of a status play.

------
paulpauper
<i>he show ended in 2004. The same year that Facebook began, the year that
George W. Bush was re-elected to a second term, the year that reality
television became a dominant force in pop culture, with American Idol starting
an eight-year reign of terror as the No. 1 show in the U.S., the same year
that Paris Hilton started her own “lifestyle brand” and released an
autobiography. And Joey Tribbiani got a spin-off TV show. The year 2004 was
when we completely gave up and embraced stupidity as a value. Just ask Green
Day; their album American Idiot was released in 2004, and it won the Grammy
for Best Rock Album. You can’t get more timely. The rejection of Ross marked
the moment when much of America groaned, mid-sentence, at the voice of
reason.</i>

Looks like cherry picking by the author. Long ago, people thought Elvis and Ed
Sullivan were the 'end of Western civilization'.

However, the economic events of 2008, and recently accelerated in 2013, seem
to have puts the nerds at the top of the socioeconomic totem-pole as measured
by income, prestige, and wealth. As housing, energy, construction,
manufacturing and other 'blue collar' and 'low-skill' jobs and sectors have
faltered, 'nerd' jobs like IT and coding have been very resistant, seeing
strong growth and high wages compared to the proliferation of low-paying
service sector and 'gig' jobs, as well as the downsizing of middle management
and mediocre employees.

~~~
johan_larson
How far back can we trace brainy people as the butt of jokes? Before Friends
there the Cheers, with Dr. Frasier Crane as the punching-bag of the regulars,
and that ran '82-93. Anything earlier?

~~~
CM30
The picture on Wikipedia's anti intellectualism page is from 1875, if that
counts:

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nast-
intellect.png](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nast-intellect.png)

Obviously the nineteenth century was okay with using intelligent people as the
butt of jokes and in negative comparisons.

------
Mithaldu
As a foreigner looking in, i have to ask: How common is physical violence
perpetrated on "nerds" in the usa?

I ask because while i know it is a popular trope, i have never experienced or
seen it in my country, despite being the prototypical nerd and having grown up
in a poor area.

~~~
overdrivetg
In the USA, if you were a nerd that was _not_ the victim of bullies and
physical violence growing up in grade school, you would be in the slim, slim
minority. I'd actually be quite surprised if anyone escaped some kind of
violent altercation growing up as a nerd. Sad, but true.

~~~
citrin_ru
How physical violence is possible in US schools? \- As I know US has very
strict laws against physical violence \- Students in US schools can be
suspended not only for actual violence, but also for thread of violence and
even for gesture: [http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Montgomery-Co-
Studen...](http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Montgomery-Co-Student-
Suspended-For-Gun-Gesture-185374841.html)

~~~
earlz
Yep, physical violence is so frowned upon, that both people are typically
suspended/disciplined, and at least at my high school were typically sent to
"in school suspension" which was basically a tiny room separate from the
school where you had to sit. You can imagine how well it tended to work when
you took two people that got into a fight had to sit in a tiny room with each
other.

Also, no, it didn't matter who started the fight. If you were involved then
you were equal and disciplined the same. It's ridiculously backwards

------
joe_momma
Nice story, but Western Civilization started to fall when the gold standard
was left behind for some massive credit scheme that created money from thin
air.

Couple that with the rise of China and India along with the rest of the
developing world and you have a recipe for no jobs, bad politics, and poor
education.

Ross' problem wasn't bad friends, it was entitlement. He always felt that he
deserved Rachel when in reality he didn't do anything that impressive or have
the self confidence for her to consider otherwise. This was the writers fault,
not the actor...

~~~
JauntTrooper
> Nice story, but Western Civilization started to fall when the gold standard
> was left behind for some massive credit scheme that created money from thin
> air.

I can't tell if you're joking... you think the _fall_ of Western Civilization
started in the 1930s?

------
emodendroket
I imagine this guy is not being entirely serious but anti-intellectualism
neither started nor ended with this particular show, nor do I think this
character was the first character mocked for being a poindexter. I mean, why
not Urkel? Why not something older?

------
ape4
If I binge watched Friends I'd be a bit angry too.

------
lokeshk
Another title-bait.

As per the title, the writer should have shown a "causal" link between the TV
sitcom, and the perceived downfall of the Western civilization. Proving
causality is hard, but I would have been happy even if the author had shown
some level of correlation. Unfortunately, none were to be found.

The Western civilization is not same as United States. It presence is from the
Western Europe to far reaching islands of New Zealand.

This is also something of a problem with HN, where such shallow articles
sometimes get pushed up to the front page just because the author decides to
write a challenging, and overreaching title.

~~~
rossdavidh
It is a problem with HN, I agree, but it's also a symptom of a larger problem
with Western Civilization, generally. I blame "The Simpsons". Or maybe
"Seinfeld".

------
johan_larson
You know, I don't agree that America is a particularly anti-intellectual
place. Certainly there are some anti-intellectual strains in the culture. But
if the culture as a whole were truly anti-intellectual I would expect college
as a right of passage, particularly to elite positions, to be a far more minor
phenomenon.

In America, whether you go to college, and particularly whether you went to
the couple of dozen top colleges, is hugely important. For example, virtually
all members of Congress have college degrees. As do all military officers. And
good luck finding a major business leader who never went to college.

There are some jobs which require very specific training that is available
only in college; no getting around that. But it goes much further. In America,
some jobs that _don't_ require mastery of any specific body of knowledge still
require a college degree, any college degree, just as a test of basic
competence. And a society that looks askance at intellectual activities just
would not do things that way. It would use other criteria for judging general
character and competence: achievements in sports, the arts, the military,
something like the Scouts, or maybe leadership in organized religion.

If America were truly anti-intellectual, it would not trust a sector as
intrinsically intellectual as colleges to do its social sorting. And with much
less ability to confer social status on those they admitted, colleges would
matter far less.

------
dave2000
It didn't trigger it, any more than Idiocracy did; it's just reflecting it.
Friends being popular is just like any content free art (for want of a better
word) being popular.

~~~
rejschaap
The difference is that Idiocracy is deliberately criticizing the phenomenon,
whereas Friends was unintentionally promoting it.

------
daxfohl
Funny that "Read a book" and "Learn something" are the lead suggestions from a
person binge watching friends. (Even the third, "buy less shit", from a person
with apparently a TV and netflix subscription).

~~~
cowardlydragon
Can you believe these environmentalists that own cars and fly in planes?

Can you believe these white social integration liberals that don't live as
minorities in minority neighborhoods?

Can you believe this health and fitness advocate that once ate a Snickers?

Can you believe this yoga instructor that bought lululemon?

~~~
daxfohl
Sure, but this is more like an _armchair_ environmentalist shouting "Hey
people ride the effing train!" while sitting in a traffic jam.

------
pramodliv1
Making the transition from pop culture to nerd culture was one of the best
things that happened to me. Instead of "protect the nerds", "become a nerd" is
probably better advice.

------
elorant
Same story submitted three times. Isn't there a mechanism to prevent something
like that from happening?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11354581](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11354581)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11351826](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11351826)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11351665](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11351665)

~~~
jameslk
Some of us haven't seen the story yet. I'm guessing those who upvote the story
are part of that group. Maybe a better mechanism would be a feature that
doesn't show you stories (grouped by URL) that you've already interacted with?

------
GFK_of_xmaspast
What you have to ask yourself before writing these kinds of things is, "When
has it ever not been thus?". I didn't see any evidence of that in the article.

------
drpgq
I always wondered why the fact Ross had a PhD was relatively underplayed on
the show. It comes up in some episodes, however Ross' job wasn't focused on
that much. Probably would not have made for funny television I guess.

------
usrusr
Now I can't wait for that episode where a greyed Ross Gellar has a guest
appearance on The Big Bang Theory. Sure, there is a lot of making fun of nerds
in that show, but it's so nuanced compared to the old Ross-mocking that one
might actually enjoy living in the 21st century. Not mentioning TBBT in a 2016
text about nerd bullying in Friends? Might be tolerable in a tweet, but not in
a text that long.

(entirely unrelated tangent: R.E.M. ITEOTWAWKI(aiff) as a preliminary Friends
theme song? Now that puts the whole show in an entirely new perspective)

------
Oli7
I can't help but agree, though I think the fall started much before Friends
with Baywatch, Howard Stern and MTV.

All of which (including Friends) I enjoyed. But I always have this uneasy
feeling, that this "let's give them what they want" culture, which has spread
into everything from politics to tech, has all kinds of costs and
consequences. Or maybe I am just getting old.

------
aresant
Required reading for HN crowd as an accompaniment:

\- Why Nerds are Unpopular -
[http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

\- re: Why Nerds are Unpopular -
[http://www.paulgraham.com/renerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/renerds.html)

------
hellofunk
See also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11351665](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11351665)

------
hariis
Art imitates Life

------
bcook
The author needs to lighten up and pay more attention to the avenues of
learning he prefers, rather than what he hates. I have never seen Kardashian's
ass in a respected scientific journal.

Related: [https://xkcd.com/603/](https://xkcd.com/603/)

~~~
emodendroket
Of course intellectually stimulating media still exists, but if it's the
minority of what people consume then it doesn't make sense to say the culture
is A-OK. Also, what does a scientific journal have to tell us about current
events and politics?

~~~
jerf
"but if it's the minority of what people consume then it doesn't make sense to
say the culture is A-OK."

Then culture has never in the entire history of man been "A-OK".

Which is perhaps true. But since it would basically be true by definition,
it's not very useful, either practically or academically.

~~~
emodendroket
I'm not going to venture into whether things were better now or before but our
media is toothless and more interested in acting as a stenographer for
powerful people and institutions than challenging them.

~~~
CM30
I've always wondered whether that's an issue with the media now (specifically)
or whether it's actually been an issue for its entire history, with the
difference being that with the internet, we can finally look up claims made by
'authorities' much more easily.

That wasn't really the case in the olden days, where gatekeepers controlled
access to the media and a large audience. If your local/national newspaper was
lying, you'd only know if you were deeply involved in the subject or went to
serious lengths to research it. At which point, so what? You'd have no way to
easily publish your findings and get a large portion of society hearing them
and realising the current media were lying to people or pushing a distorted
narrative.

The internet has merely made it easier to fact check people's claims and
expose the mistakes made (and lies told) by the 'establishment'.

Note: Of course, the media could indeed be worse for various reasons (like
say, the internet making decent journalism too expensive to be viable and
culling the herd down to 'those best at attracting attention to themselves'),
but you have to question whether things really were ever 'good' here, or
whether the barriers to entry just made them appear to be 'good'.

~~~
emodendroket
OK, even though I just said I'd avoid getting into this, I think the Vietnam
War really created a sort of golden age where reporters were more willing to
challenge the narrative and institutional power than any time before or since.
Vietnam (and to a lesser extent Korea) really disillusioned a lot of young
journalists who did amazing work -- the Neil Sheehans and Seymour Hershes of
the world, basically. It's telling how many scoops still come from reporters
who cut their teeth in those years like, say, Hersh, or Bob Woodward.

I think before Vietnam journalists largely imagined themselves on the same
side. I think after Vietnam, government propaganda got a lot more
sophisticated. Besides that, the business model collapsed, making newspapers
into supplicants and leading to cutback in resources devoted to investigative
journalism. The latest trend of advertorial has newsrooms basically renting
themselves out to businesses to write ad copy; how can you really cast
yourself as an objective investigator after doing that?

Of course, journalists who imagine themselves as part of the circle of power
are a problem but were around in the past too.

