Why doesn't Marshall McLuhan ever get discussed anywhere...

I feel you OP. McLuhan is fucking appalling, how did he do it brehs? You can literally use his analytic framework to predict the future of culture.

I also gave my annotated copy of Understanding Media to my ex before I broke up with her. I really want it back and I kinda miss her but asking for it seems like a bad move.

The High Priest of Pop-Culture.

Attached: file.png (647x389, 390K)

>why doesn't McLuhan ever get discussed anywhere?
Is this a joke?

Where the fuck has McLuhan been a part of any mainstream discourse in the past 40 years

wasn't he a reactionary tradcath? I'd get why that would turn off lots of people. I associate him with 90s sillicon valley libertarian ideologues and other altogether unpleasant people.

Debord for Anglos

He personally held conservative beliefs and was a Catholic, but he does an incredible job at remaining neutral in everything he writes. Even though the future scared him, he was so good at talking neutrally about it that a lot of silicon valley libertarians interpreted his works as praising the future he saw, which he wasn't looking forward to. Even then, Libertaerianism doesn't make a lot of sense with McLuhan because his prediction of the future was essentially a pre-civilization collectivist village community on a global scale sustained by technology. Not very individualist at all.

"I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing."

Attached: McLuhan-Annie-Hall.png (600x358, 364K)

What's interesting is that life really is like this now. You can take out your phone and fact check virtually anything (within reason) in the middle of an argument.

All we need now is a way to train AI to emulate the speech/thought patterns of famous people to have them answer queries.

McLuhan himself, the spectacle's first apologist, who had seemed to be the most convinced imbecile of the century, changed his mind when he finally discovered in 1976 that "the pressure of the mass media leads to irrationality," and that it was becoming urgent to modify their usage. The thinker of Toronto had formerly spent several decades marveling at the numerous freedoms created by a 'global village' instantly and effortlessly accessible to all. Villages, unlike towns, have always been dominated by conformism, isolation, petty surveillance, boredom and repetitive malicious gossip about the same families. And this also presents the vulgarity of this spectacular planet, where it is no longer possible to distinguish the Grimaldi-Monaco or Bourbon-Franco dynasties from those who succeeded the Stuarts. However, McLuhan's ungrateful disciples are now trying to make people forget him, so as to rejuvenate his early works and, in their turn, develop a career in mediatic eulogy for all these new freedoms to 'choose' at random from ephemera. And probably they will retract their claims even faster than the man who inspired them.

See

Mundus Vult Decipi, Ergo Decipiatur

>spent several decades marveling at the numerous freedoms created by a 'global village'

Did he? Already in 1969 he was saying:

[T]he global village makes maximum disagreement and creative dialog inevitable. Uniformity and tranquillity are not hallmarks of the global village; far more likely are conflict and discord as well as love and harmony – the customary life mode of any tribal people.

...

We can see in our own time how, as we begin to react in depth to the challenges of the global village, we all become reactionaries.

…

PB: Will [democracy] survive the transition to your global village?

McL: No, it will not. The day of political democracy as we know it today is finished.

nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/

good secondary lit that gives the run down on his predictions?

just read the fucking book

Literally the entire discipline of Media studies is a footnote to McLuhan.

youtu.be/a3IbIPQcmy8

Ipse daden product of the extremes given quotients to your pretend, we shine the or in our face and say I cannot see a thing. Deblorb for four nerz

If I can only read one (1) book by McLuhan, what should it be?

Attached: maki2.jpg (650x650, 55K)

I would say pic related

Attached: collid=books_covers_0&isbn=9780262631594&type=.jpg (321x475, 52K)

Woody Got Wood

lmao@this post
it's hilarious how naive reddit bugmen are about the nature of "factchecking" and "training AI" to emulate minds

people like you are going to become currency in the post-apocalypse for 60IQ knuckledraggers and cult leaders

>far more likely are conflict and discord as well as love and harmony.

"things will be like p and not p"

WHAT A PROPHETIC GENIUS

What is curious is that the impetus or perhaps the onus, has shifted to the domain of the receiver such that the surreal experience is "always-already" co-dependently co-arising, look at any online news comments section. Post-meaning, the medium is and the only message. The trajectory of sense becomes tied to what you want to hear, not what I want to say: language screaming through us from the future, using the human body and our digital creations as vehicles. The world falls back to ur-tribalism, mysticism and sacrificing goats: the luxury flat of the future middle class becomes a bunker.

Always been a bit more of a Lewis Mumford fan myself.

Attached: 0nv5u4hjxwr01.jpg (650x435, 73K)

Well then why the fuck does every communications major I've ever met have barely a clue who he is, no matter where they went?

>The day of political democracy as we know it today is finished.

based