There Can Only Be One

I started listening to this during a discussion of awards shows on one of the podcasts I was listening to. I reject that. There can be many places where there‚Äôs no ultimate winner. Obligatory UDict. (My mother used to watch that all the time….wasn’t my thing)

But more of it was listening to a discussion among these folks. Bryan and Thad were talking about things that happened in the South during the Jim Crow era, where people would just do things to provide for/sell to each other in spite of whatever ways an authoritarian government, or other racist denizens wanted.

No. They just did their own thing. Because of that, they were attacked either by the thugs with badges, or hoods.

Is there really that big a difference?

So there was a big push to be number one in the approved economy. That led to the awards shows, and the like. Bubuhbut Oscars So White!!1! That problem’s been solved, and the audiences continues to shrink.

The Intertubes have given people a way to narrowcast, and people aren’t consuming things the same way they used to. So your product ends up as “number one,” but does that really matter when your cumulative audience is smaller than the number ones from the past when there were less people around to consume?

There is an older segment of the population who really still care about that stuff; it was the thing not terribly long ago.

The people worried about those things are the ones driving the news cycle. They’ll continue crowing about it until their audience shrinks to the point when there isn’t anybody left watching/listening.

I can’t bring myself to be upset about this…and that’s part of why I’m a bad person.

But the same thing applies to the political parties. Narrow down options, hope that people are okay with just one choice to make.


People will stop paying attention.

That they’ve got the guns might dissuade people, but I’m wondering, really, if it does. Even under the threat of death, I’d probably just choose to not participate. Oh well.