It is very painful to argue with an incredibly ignorant person. Not because they are stupid, but because the stupid are unbelievable arrogant and insulting. Their constant intention to manipulate a conversation in order to nullify their responsibility transforms any conversation into a game of theirs to bring another person down rather than using logic, and much less allow an agreement.

It is my rule never to take a side in any part in the quarrels of others, nor to inquire into them. I generally presume them to flow from the indulgence of too much passion on both sides, & always find that each party thinks all the wrong was in his adversary. These bickerings, which are always useless, embitter human life more than any other cause...

Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?

تنظر سيكولوجية الإعلام الجماهيرية إلى التليفزيون على الأخص بإعتبارخ وسيلة - ليس لإخضاع الجانب الواعي في الإنسان فحسب- بل الجوانب الغريزية والعاطفية، بحيث تخلق فيه الشعور بأن الآراء المفروضة عليه هي آراؤه الخاصة.

She was black, too, or rather, a delicious shade of café au lait, and this, we were constantly told, represented progression an industry concerned merely with surfaces. (I am dubious: could it not be that, this season, café au lait was the 'in' shade? Have we seen a sudden influx of black women into the industry in Landry's wake? Have our notions of female beauty been revolutionised by her success? Are black Barbies now out-selling white?)

Are the mass media on the side of the power in the manipulation of the masses, or are they on the side of the masses in the liquidation of meaning, in the violence perpetrated on meaning, and in fascination? Is it the media that induce fascination in the masses, or is it the masses who direct the media into the spectacle?