Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Blindness of Social Wealth

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#71

Post by Noos »

remir wrote: post #62
seem_2211 wrote: post #38

In modern Western culture we've killed God and I think we're learning what the consequences of that mean.

People left the church because it was stuck in a obsolete understanding of the world and did not offer people satisfactory answers to their questions. Past a certain point, if a religion wants to survive, it must renew itself, otherwise it risks becoming irrelevant. I bet there would be more people in church if the pastor said: hey, forget about the Bible, forget about the angry, prideful and violent "man in the sky"…

This is like going to a chess club and suggesting they get rid of all the rules about chess, all of the history of the game, all of the books advising people how to play it, and that annoying ranking thing, and giving them the board and pieces. Then you tell them to make up their own game and sit back and watch the social connections form.

It generally doesn't work, because you can be present in the moment playing golf or sleeping in much more easily. if you try and make a chess club essentially without chess, why bother?

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#72

Post by remir »

Noos wrote: post #71
remir wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People left the church because it was stuck in a obsolete understanding of the world and did not offer people satisfactory answers to their questions. Past a certain point, if a religion wants to survive, it must renew itself, otherwise it risks becoming irrelevant. I bet there would be more people in church if the pastor said: hey, forget about the Bible, forget about the angry, prideful and violent "man in the sky"…

This is like going to a chess club and suggesting they get rid of all the rules about chess, all of the history of the game, all of the books advising people how to play it, and that annoying ranking thing, and giving them the board and pieces. Then you tell them to make up their own game and sit back and watch the social connections form. It generally doesn't work, because you can be present in the moment playing go…

If chess clubs are dying around the country because people lost interest in chess, that doesn't mean they aren't looking for something else to play.

When Jesus spoke about churches (ekklesia), he wasn't referring to a building, an organization or leadership structure or rules. He did not speak about "sunday school", singing songs, or any or that.

He was talking about a spontaneous gathering of people who felt "called out of the world to follow him and serve God". It's not like he told his disciples to go ahead and start this "Christian" religion and build the buildings that people would go to every Sunday like clock work.

We are the product of culture and memories. A lot of people have a negative association with religion for a lot of different reasons, but that doesn't mean these people are not spiritual and would not appreciate meeting other like-minded individuals in a non-judgmental environment.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#73

Post by mc32 »

Lionsion wrote: post #45
jotux wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really new, right? Laugh tracks and live audiences have been used in radio/tv since the 50s for the same purpose.

The point of a laugh track is to make the show itself appear funnier; the laugh track is in the background, invisible. I think what he's describing is different, more like focusing on the laugh track itself and ignoring the show.

Laugh tracks are there to do the laughing for you. That is you can just sit back and not even have to put in the energy to laugh. It does it for you.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#74

Post by KozmoNau7 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #58
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Cities are not much better for me, as most of places there are to go and things to do tend to cater towards the lowest common denominator." What do you mean by this? Are there not museums, art galleries, chess clubs and a variety of other venues that are adequate for your high standards?

Most museums and galleries here are pretty awful. There are a handful of good ones, but there's only so often I can go to those. Chess. I used to be really in to that, but have spent so much of my life playing chess, that I've weaned myself off of it and in to other pursuits. Theaters tend to have the most trite, lowbrow plays imaginable. Most movie theaters are the same, and for the handful that aren't, they play so…

I agree with the other commenter, it really seems like the issue is more with you than with your city.

Any city over a certain size (250K+ or so) really should have something for everyone. You just have to look for it.

You may have depression, seriously.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#75

Post by vlehto »

remir wrote: post #72
Noos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like going to a chess club and suggesting they get rid of all the rules about chess, all of the history of the game, all of the books advising people how to play it, and that annoying ranking thing, and giving them the board and pieces. Then you tell them to make up their own game and sit back and watch the social connections form. It generally doesn't work, because you can be present in the moment playing go…

If chess clubs are dying around the country because people lost interest in chess, that doesn't mean they aren't looking for something else to play. When Jesus spoke about churches (ekklesia), he wasn't referring to a building, an organization or leadership structure or rules. He did not speak about "sunday school", singing songs, or any or that. He was talking about a spontaneous gathering of people who felt "called…

I think it's deeper than that. Lots of religious people don't go to church. Many who go, do it just because of habit or some personal principle of "I'm church going Christian".

Churches are not drawing people in, not even their prime focus group. Despite indoctrinating kids from the crib.

The few mega churches that actually work, are obvious scams. Jordan Peterson doesn't go to church because he doesn't feel like the preacher actually believes in jesus.

There is something deeply fucked up within Christianity that makes it difficult to sell. I can't put my finger to it.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#76

Post by nitrogen »

pmoriarty wrote: post #58
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Cities are not much better for me, as most of places there are to go and things to do tend to cater towards the lowest common denominator." What do you mean by this? Are there not museums, art galleries, chess clubs and a variety of other venues that are adequate for your high standards?

Most museums and galleries here are pretty awful. There are a handful of good ones, but there's only so often I can go to those. Chess. I used to be really in to that, but have spent so much of my life playing chess, that I've weaned myself off of it and in to other pursuits. Theaters tend to have the most trite, lowbrow plays imaginable. Most movie theaters are the same, and for the handful that aren't, they play so…

Don't let the other two replies get you down; city life just isn't the right thing for some people. It can be difficult to find the right niche of activities (I sure haven't), and people who blame you for not liking what they like don't exactly help. Anyway, keep at it, whatever "it" is.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#77

Post by vlehto »

pmoriarty wrote: post #58
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Cities are not much better for me, as most of places there are to go and things to do tend to cater towards the lowest common denominator." What do you mean by this? Are there not museums, art galleries, chess clubs and a variety of other venues that are adequate for your high standards?

Most museums and galleries here are pretty awful. There are a handful of good ones, but there's only so often I can go to those. Chess. I used to be really in to that, but have spent so much of my life playing chess, that I've weaned myself off of it and in to other pursuits. Theaters tend to have the most trite, lowbrow plays imaginable. Most movie theaters are the same, and for the handful that aren't, they play so…

I think part of the problem is the event nature of those things. Currently social people seem to be incredibly event oriented.

For me the places that form friendships are places where people go out of habit. The living room of my student corridor, weekly boyscout meetings and this "club house" at university where people just went to sit on a sofa, drink coffee and talk about mechanical engineering.

It matters lot less then if you're little bit shy. And any given occasion doesn't feel as much like wasted effort even if it's fruitless. But for some reason people are not into stuff like this if you suggest it. While same people might cling to their weekly pointless meetups once it's established.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#78

Post by Lionsion »

mc32 wrote: post #73
Lionsion wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of a laugh track is to make the show itself appear funnier; the laugh track is in the background, invisible. I think what he's describing is different, more like focusing on the laugh track itself and ignoring the show.

Laugh tracks are there to do the laughing for you. That is you can just sit back and not even have to put in the energy to laugh. It does it for you.

I thought they were there to prime a laughing response, because people are more likely to laugh with others than alone.

Re: The Blindness of Social Wealth

#79

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #57
bitwize wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to live in some of the burbiest burbs imaginable. I lived a bit out of the way but many of my schoolmates were right in the thick of it: tract homes, manicured lawns, the whole bit. Back then -- I don't know about today -- going to the store may have been a chore that required a car, but visiting your neighbors was easy. You were bound to see some of them as you went out to get the paper or water the lawn. Car…

That was my experience as well. In the suburbs you generally knew your neighbors, at least more so than in the city. I live in a city now, and I run into my neighbors and chat with them, but that's about it. Also, the suburbs tended to have more kids and generally be safer (not as much traffic). As a result, I spent most of my youth just hanging out with neighborhood kids. And my parents hung out with neighbors.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN