I'm surprised so many commenters are describing this as "sanctimonious" or "bragging" when all it is, is a slightly amusing way to present an idea. Take it or leave it.

I don't watch TV and the upside is: more time, more reading, more creativity. The downside is: when a friend asks "did you see ..?" and I have to explain why I didn't, then listen to his description of what it was I should have seen, then why it was incredibly funny, then pretend to get the joke when I have no idea WTF he's talking about. What I really mean is that not engaging in TV is culturally isolating sometimes, but I can live with that.

The essay struck me as being more condescending than helpful (and I despise TV).

If you were a regular TV watcher who had no intention of quitting, would that essay do anything other than encourage you to watch more out of spite?

Maybe I could ask you a question here. I'm in a demographic which is probably less than 2% of the UK population. Not watching TV is not something I brag about because (generally speaking) people here seem to think it's a bit weird and different not to watch it, rather than a particular virtue.

But some of the comments in the article seem to suggest there's a section of American society which would see it as brag-worthy, and they clearly get on people's nerves.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

So, when you suggest the article might encourage you "to watch more out of spite", I wonder if there's a cultural thing going on here, so maybe you could confirm or deny that (assuming you're in the US). Just curious is all...

I'm in Canada (and have lived for a spell in the U.S.) and not watching television in both nations does strike many people as 'odd'.

For the idea of doing more of something "out of spite" in reaction to a preacher's recommendation that you avoid an activity to be 'better' in their eyes, check out this commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhS65wyWnA8

It's apparently running in the U.S. and seems to do little to deter smokers from continuing in their habit (the YouTube comments seem to bear that out). As the commercials are funded by U.S. tobacco companies as part of a legal settlement, that may have been the intended result.

In a similar fashion, I doubt the linked essay will do anything to positively change the behaviour of those who watch television shows to excess.

'For the idea of doing more of something "out of spite" in reaction to a preacher's recommendation'

I mostly get that bit, I was just curious about why the linked article was being interpreted as "preachy" when I personally didn't see it as such. (You're right about the ad you linked: truly awful. I clicked away.)

I live in a country where the government has banned smoking in public, wants to tax "unhealthy" food, and is subservient to an EU which is making noises about banning alcohol as well, so we're well versed in ignoring moral messages from on high.

I ditched my TV but I still have a projector. That way I can watch things I really like, but it's enough of a hassle that I have to really want to.

It works well for me, anyway.

Yeah, I went through a sanctimonious "Oh, I wouldn't know. You see, I don't have a television!" phase too.

I suspect I was about as annoying as those ex-smokers who can't shut up about how awesome life is without cigarettes.

And the people who install adblock and think it's great to reply to a topic about advertising with "Ads? What ads? I see no adverts ;)"

Having a TV doesn't actually mean you have to sit there comatose only watching it and doing nothing else.

I like a good comedy or music tv on in the background whilst working personally.

It's true that NoTVs seem particularly popular with white people, and that they like to brag about owning them, but I don't think the main reason for the former is the latter. Few people have enough discipline to miss something they love just so they can brag about missing it.

he probably watches 12 hours a day of torrents

PS this is not hacker news