Pop Cultural Vapidity in the 90s & 2000s

[AnHero]

I don't exactly have a proper 'thesis' for this, since this is something I only think about sometimes when something reminds me, but have you ever looked at stuff from the 90 and 00s and marvelled at the lack of overbearing 'social awareness'? I'm not exactly saying that politics took a break at this time, or that everyone was gloriously 'politically incorrect'

Spoiler

(actually, if you're looking for a time when people cared the least about political correctness, without being outright bigots, that was probably the late 60s and 70s, people in the 90s were already feeling stifled and wishing that things could go back to how they were)

, however, I notice there was a certain irreverence of, or disinterest in dealing politics.

I first noticed this while I was watching a movie from '98 called Wild Things.
,

The movie's basic premise, at the start, is that a beloved high-school teacher is suddenly in very deep shit when a student whose advances he'd rejected falsely accuses him of rape. A man falsely accused of rape? Nowadays that's quite a politically charged topic. I figured that would be the storyline for the whole movie. Thus, it came as a shock when, halfway through, the case is solved, and everyone goes home. After that, the movie launches into loads of thriller movie hijinks and increasing double-crosses, with the false rape plot left far behind. I don't know, I found it very interesting that a movie would totally jettison the 'political' element like that. That would be basically blasphemy at this point. I mean, imagine if the movie came out last year, with all of that 'Amber vs Johnny' stuff, and it casually did away with a false accusation plot like that.

Another point. I like to consider myself as being an 'early adopter' of the 'y2k aesthetic'. As early as 2018 and 2019 I was digging up magazines from around the house, browsing dead forums, sorting by 'oldest' all over the place. Soon enough I ran into this article by Vanity Fair, originally published in 2003 called 'It's Raining Teens'.

It's Raining Teens

They're everywhere, and they're targeting a teen near you! Mark Seliger captures the girl-power goddesses and cute-boy wonders currently wowing Hollywood, while Krista Smith pops a quiz on their crushes and pet peeves.

www.vanityfair.com

Basically the idea is that they assembled quite a large number of kid stars who were big circa 2003; everyone from Raven Symone to the Harry Potter kids. I went into the article with this kind of lofty expectation that they would totally address everything about 'being alive in 2003'. More accurately, I figured things would get very topical and political. You know, Racism, Climate Change, The Iraq War, whatever. What I didn't expect that it would basically be short bios of the stars, featuring questions like 'What's your catchphrase?' and 'Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera?' The closest thing to a 'pertinent, topical' question you get in this article is 'What video-games do you play?', asked of the boys and 'How many Juicy Couture sweatpants do you own?', asked of the girls. Honestly, this kind of floored me, in a way, with it's simplicity. Seriously, God only knows what kind of questions they would be asking if this article came out 20 years later; 'How did you survive Covid?' 'How would you deal with climate crisis?' 'What would you do to stop police brutality?' 'What is the meaning of life?'

Another minor thing, I saw just today, which is what reminded me. A song by Lily Allen from 2009 called 'Fag Hag'. Very provocative, apparently a critique of girls who use gay guys as accesories; the 'Gay Best Friend' thing, you know. Coming out today a song like this would be ripe for analysis. Every reaction to it would be swimming in jargon. Video-essay after video-essay...However, look at the comments. People don't give a shit. The comments are all just having a laugh. The statement made by the song is seemingly totally ignored in a way that would be unthinkable now. There are actually a few more recent commenters who make note of this difference.

For example:
"How does no one in this comment section understand that this song is satire its taking the piss out of people like this who use gay men as accessorys and only see gay men for their sexuality and not as people the song is calling you out for being shallow naive and superficially nice"

and

This comment section is unintentionally an interesting peek into late 2000s sensibilities. You just know that if this song came out today there would be analysis up the ass about it's political significance, whether it's an effective message or a bad one, probably half of it taken up by whether she should be allowed to use the word at all... But all the comments here from way back when are very brief and unassuming.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqTVvKjhmkw

 

[LostintheCycle]

You've shown these older things and said what it'd be like today, but that's not really convincing... why not show us examples of today? Perhaps showing an article in a similar vein to what you talked about, instead of describing a pretend article where they ask your questions. I'm totally ignorant to media, so I don't actually know if that's what they do now or not.
I think that the vapidity which you mention never went away because media is sensationalist, immediate, greedy, and regardless of morality.
Their words now are as meaningless as then, just bound up with a moral/ethical flavour than it is a 2000's consumerist flavour.

 

[AnHero]

You've shown these older things and said what it'd be like today, but that's not really convincing... why not show us examples of today? Perhaps showing an article in a similar vein to what you talked about, instead of describing a pretend article where they ask your questions. I'm totally ignorant to media, so I don't actually know if that's what they do now or not.

Lol, I wish I could do this in detail, but I'm actually in the same boat as you. I totally ignore most journalism going on today. Like I said, I was checking some of this stuff out in like 2018, when I still followed up, so even my picture of 'recent news' is kind of a memory.

Although, I think that last bit I mentioned, about the song 'Fag Hag' is a bit of an indication of the 'modern' direction. Like I said, read some of the older comments, and then contrast them to the newer ones I quoted. It seems rather like, (and the new commenters actually acknowledge this), people were kind of 'blissfully ignorant' of a blatant political message.

 

[nakadashi]

I don't exactly have a proper 'thesis' for this, since this is something I only think about sometimes when something reminds me, but have you ever looked at stuff from the 90 and 00s and marvelled at the lack of overbearing 'social awareness'? I'm not exactly saying that politics took a break at this time, or that everyone was gloriously 'politically incorrect'

Spoiler

(actually, if you're looking for a time when people cared the least about political correctness, without being outright bigots, that was probably the late 60s and 70s, people in the 90s were already feeling stifled and wishing that things could go back to how they were)

, however, I notice there was a certain irreverence of, or disinterest in dealing politics.

I first noticed this while I was watching a movie from '98 called Wild Things.
,View attachment 66867

The movie's basic premise, at the start, is that a beloved high-school teacher is suddenly in very deep shit when a student whose advances he'd rejected falsely accuses him of rape. A man falsely accused of rape? Nowadays that's quite a politically charged topic. I figured that would be the storyline for the whole movie. Thus, it came as a shock when, halfway through, the case is solved, and everyone goes home. After that, the movie launches into loads of thriller movie hijinks and increasing double-crosses, with the false rape plot left far behind. I don't know, I found it very interesting that a movie would totally jettison the 'political' element like that. That would be basically blasphemy at this point. I mean, imagine if the movie came out last year, with all of that 'Amber vs Johnny' stuff, and it casually did away with a false accusation plot like that.

Another point. I like to consider myself as being an 'early adopter' of the 'y2k aesthetic'. As early as 2018 and 2019 I was digging up magazines from around the house, browsing dead forums, sorting by 'oldest' all over the place. Soon enough I ran into this article by Vanity Fair, originally published in 2003 called 'It's Raining Teens'.

It's Raining Teens

They're everywhere, and they're targeting a teen near you! Mark Seliger captures the girl-power goddesses and cute-boy wonders currently wowing Hollywood, while Krista Smith pops a quiz on their crushes and pet peeves.

www.vanityfair.com

View attachment 66869Basically the idea is that they assembled quite a large number of kid stars who were big circa 2003; everyone from Raven Symone to the Harry Potter kids. I went into the article with this kind of lofty expectation that they would totally address everything about 'being alive in 2003'. More accurately, I figured things would get very topical and political. You know, Racism, Climate Change, The Iraq War, whatever. What I didn't expect that it would basically be short bios of the stars, featuring questions like 'What's your catchphrase?' and 'Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera?' The closest thing to a 'pertinent, topical' question you get in this article is 'What video-games do you play?', asked of the boys and 'How many Juicy Couture sweatpants do you own?', asked of the girls. Honestly, this kind of floored me, in a way, with it's simplicity. Seriously, God only knows what kind of questions they would be asking if this article came out 20 years later; 'How did you survive Covid?' 'How would you deal with climate crisis?' 'What would you do to stop police brutality?' 'What is the meaning of life?'

Another minor thing, I saw just today, which is what reminded me. A song by Lily Allen from 2009 called 'Fag Hag'. Very provocative, apparently a critique of girls who use gay guys as accesories; the 'Gay Best Friend' thing, you know. Coming out today a song like this would be ripe for analysis. Every reaction to it would be swimming in jargon. Video-essay after video-essay...However, look at the comments. People don't give a shit. The comments are all just having a laugh. The statement made by the song is seemingly totally ignored in a way that would be unthinkable now. There are actually a few more recent commenters who make note of this difference.

For example:
"How does no one in this comment section understand that this song is satire its taking the piss out of people like this who use gay men as accessorys and only see gay men for their sexuality and not as people the song is calling you out for being shallow naive and superficially nice"

and

This comment section is unintentionally an interesting peek into late 2000s sensibilities. You just know that if this song came out today there would be analysis up the ass about it's political significance, whether it's an effective message or a bad one, probably half of it taken up by whether she should be allowed to use the word at all... But all the comments here from way back when are very brief and unassuming.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqTVvKjhmkw

I don't think apolitical media are exclusive to the 90s an 00s, but in general to the pre-Internet era of mass produced media. Politics are no good when selling garbage because they alienate your audience, so if you want you show to have advertisements you better keep politics aside.
Still, even in the 90s there were some bits of politics when your show was a juggernaut able to handle it, see the Simpson and how, while not being pro-democrats, they are constantly making fun of republicans.
I believe the current hyper-politicalness of media is a consequence of everyone being a politician now. What I mean is that man is a political animal, and in previous generations our interactions with media were one way, while now they have both input and output, so we can interviene on everything that affects us on the media we consume.

 

[Some_porcupine]

The smug style in American liberalism

How liberals came to look down on the people they once tried to help.

www.vox.com

ideas?

 

[Some_porcupine]

I don't exactly have a proper 'thesis' for this, since this is something I only think about sometimes when something reminds me, but have you ever looked at stuff from the 90 and 00s and marvelled at the lack of overbearing 'social awareness'? I'm not exactly saying that politics took a break at this time, or that everyone was gloriously 'politically incorrect'

Spoiler

(actually, if you're looking for a time when people cared the least about political correctness, without being outright bigots, that was probably the late 60s and 70s, people in the 90s were already feeling stifled and wishing that things could go back to how they were)

, however, I notice there was a certain irreverence of, or disinterest in dealing politics.

I first noticed this while I was watching a movie from '98 called Wild Things.
,View attachment 66867

The movie's basic premise, at the start, is that a beloved high-school teacher is suddenly in very deep shit when a student whose advances he'd rejected falsely accuses him of rape. A man falsely accused of rape? Nowadays that's quite a politically charged topic. I figured that would be the storyline for the whole movie. Thus, it came as a shock when, halfway through, the case is solved, and everyone goes home. After that, the movie launches into loads of thriller movie hijinks and increasing double-crosses, with the false rape plot left far behind. I don't know, I found it very interesting that a movie would totally jettison the 'political' element like that. That would be basically blasphemy at this point. I mean, imagine if the movie came out last year, with all of that 'Amber vs Johnny' stuff, and it casually did away with a false accusation plot like that.

Another point. I like to consider myself as being an 'early adopter' of the 'y2k aesthetic'. As early as 2018 and 2019 I was digging up magazines from around the house, browsing dead forums, sorting by 'oldest' all over the place. Soon enough I ran into this article by Vanity Fair, originally published in 2003 called 'It's Raining Teens'.

It's Raining Teens

They're everywhere, and they're targeting a teen near you! Mark Seliger captures the girl-power goddesses and cute-boy wonders currently wowing Hollywood, while Krista Smith pops a quiz on their crushes and pet peeves.

www.vanityfair.com

View attachment 66869Basically the idea is that they assembled quite a large number of kid stars who were big circa 2003; everyone from Raven Symone to the Harry Potter kids. I went into the article with this kind of lofty expectation that they would totally address everything about 'being alive in 2003'. More accurately, I figured things would get very topical and political. You know, Racism, Climate Change, The Iraq War, whatever. What I didn't expect that it would basically be short bios of the stars, featuring questions like 'What's your catchphrase?' and 'Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera?' The closest thing to a 'pertinent, topical' question you get in this article is 'What video-games do you play?', asked of the boys and 'How many Juicy Couture sweatpants do you own?', asked of the girls. Honestly, this kind of floored me, in a way, with it's simplicity. Seriously, God only knows what kind of questions they would be asking if this article came out 20 years later; 'How did you survive Covid?' 'How would you deal with climate crisis?' 'What would you do to stop police brutality?' 'What is the meaning of life?'

Another minor thing, I saw just today, which is what reminded me. A song by Lily Allen from 2009 called 'Fag Hag'. Very provocative, apparently a critique of girls who use gay guys as accesories; the 'Gay Best Friend' thing, you know. Coming out today a song like this would be ripe for analysis. Every reaction to it would be swimming in jargon. Video-essay after video-essay...However, look at the comments. People don't give a shit. The comments are all just having a laugh. The statement made by the song is seemingly totally ignored in a way that would be unthinkable now. There are actually a few more recent commenters who make note of this difference.

For example:
"How does no one in this comment section understand that this song is satire its taking the piss out of people like this who use gay men as accessorys and only see gay men for their sexuality and not as people the song is calling you out for being shallow naive and superficially nice"

and

This comment section is unintentionally an interesting peek into late 2000s sensibilities. You just know that if this song came out today there would be analysis up the ass about it's political significance, whether it's an effective message or a bad one, probably half of it taken up by whether she should be allowed to use the word at all... But all the comments here from way back when are very brief and unassuming.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqTVvKjhmkw

Guardian article on how women were mistreated in 90s-y2k-2000s, you need to look it up, but is basically the Header of this thread
here

'I was worried Lindsay, Paris or Britney would die': why the 00s were so toxic for women

Body shaming, media harassment, relentless cruelty – it's time to reassess the decade that feminism forgot

www.theguardian.com

 

[nsequeira119]

I really don't think the 90s were a particularly vapid decade, in fact I'd argue it was the last modern consumerist decade where people defined themselves according to what they bought and there was a clearly defined mainstream vs. counterculture prior to the onset of postmodernism. However, I can see where you're coming from about the 2000s being extremely vapid, and unable to analyze themselves critically with even the slightest hint of self-awareness. It seems that as the 2010s came in, postmodernism became a more stable cultural framework, and people began to recover a little bit of reflection, but the 2000s were largely a fluffy bubblegum decade.

The two main reasons I'd argue for this are that Bush actively endorsed stupidity and conformity, and a lack of critical thought about world affairs or how to approach paradigm shifts. Even presidents like Trump or Clinton didn't enforce henemonic groupthink to such a degree, and this is why some of the only good media from the 2000s (Mike Judge's Idiocracy, Green Day's American Idiot) is all about how stupid and complacent everyone seems. This is good news for us in the 2020s- we are comparatively more conscious of the systems that govern us and the ways in which they operate.

The other factor is just the onset of a new millennium, nobody being quite sure how to internalize it or develop something beyond what there already was. Humans are pattern-noticing creatures, and we assign random significance to random years just because they happen to be round numbers. The 2000s feel weird in part because there are 3 zeros in them, and that's not going to happen again for a long, long, long time. Such an event would sort of make one realize how long and arduous history is as a process, and that can be hard to reckon with for some people.

 

[Some_porcupine]

The other factor is just the onset of a new millennium, nobody being quite sure how to internalize it or develop something beyond what there already was. Humans are pattern-noticing creatures, and we assign random significance to random years just because they happen to be round numbers. The 2000s feel weird in part because there are 3 zeros in them, and that's not going to happen again for a long, long, long time. Such an event would sort of make one realize how long and arduous history is as a process, and that can be hard to reckon with for some people.

i miss 1950s-70s visions of 2000-20/30s