I feel like McLuhan is so thoroughly accepted as gospel now that it’s refreshing to see someone casually dismiss the idea out of hand like OC. I would love to see a serious exploration of the argument against McLuhan in 2025, just for fun.

▲

raddan 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You mean aside from the fact that his quasi-mystical, self-important proclamations have no factual basis? I personally dislike how his ideas cast a cynical veneer over truly transformative changes without actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.

Who takes this stuff as gospel? Academics who study critical theory?

	▲	thundergolfer 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		McLuhan is anything but a cynic. It sounds like you haven’t read him.

▲

JSR_FDED 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I suspect he got right more than he got wrong.

Who is OC?

▲

wffurr 7 hours ago | parent [-]

"Original Commenter"

I have not seen that particular jargon before but it rhymes with OP (Original Poster) that I was able to figure it out from context.

	▲	7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]