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

The Internet of Beefs

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 342 posts

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#311

Post by jcadam »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #191
pixl97 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our social connections have been replaced with commercial ones. Where at one point we socialized to relieve boredom and need, now we have never ending entertainment and those that would capitalize on selling it to us over everything else.

And, yet, here you are talking with other people all over the world for free. Someone older than me, of the hippie generation, once said to me "There were like three TV channels and they went off the air at 10pm. If you were still awake after that, there was nothing to do but sex and drugs." I strongly suspect the 24/7 availability of free entertainment, live online discussion, etc is a large contributing factor to t…

Since I can find groups of people who share the same beliefs, values, hobbies, and interests as I do online, I don't have to mix with icky people from different backgrounds in real life just because they're all that's available to me in my local area to hang out with.

I can stay in my bubble now. Thanks Internet!

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#312

Post by rbrtl »

excalibur wrote: post #307
lowdose wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs so successive generations have to do something. We have become over domesticated chimps that have been conditioned to think having sex with a lot of people is a bad thing and anything other than alcohol is a no no. Good a more open minded sentiment is starting to develop but let's not blame technology when cultural heritage is sufficient to explain trends. If everybo…

> But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs Say what now

I believe they are pointing out that a number of the participants in the Summer of Love, went on to drive political agenda that proscribed similar exploration by their children.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#313

Post by rowathray »

lowdose wrote: post #305
DoreenMichele wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, yet, here you are talking with other people all over the world for free. Someone older than me, of the hippie generation, once said to me "There were like three TV channels and they went off the air at 10pm. If you were still awake after that, there was nothing to do but sex and drugs." I strongly suspect the 24/7 availability of free entertainment, live online discussion, etc is a large contributing factor to t…

But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs so successive generations have to do something. We have become over domesticated chimps that have been conditioned to think having sex with a lot of people is a bad thing and anything other than alcohol is a no no. Good a more open minded sentiment is starting to develop but let's not blame technology when cultural heritage is sufficient to explain trends. If everybo…

>I welcome a world where women are not slut shamed and it is normal for a 20 year old girl to brag at the office that she had an amazing fuck Yesterday from a random hit-and-run.

No, you don't. I work with a (trans) woman who has absolutely no sense of "slut shame" and listening to her recount tales of her sexual exploits every day makes me dread a job I used to find fun and rewarding.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#314

Post by ergl »

kick wrote: post #49
rngAcc56 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the sad truth about fast and rapidly changing social norms. this lack of identity and community.

What rapid changes have we seen lately? The change in that person's comment has been in the making for over a hundred years. The first thing I personally can think of (in the context of America, as one of the last Western countries to accept GLBT people, not in the context of the wider world, which has been accepting for much longer than America) is American GLBT communes in the 1780s. Given where we are in GLBT acce…

The word "rapid" is doing a lot of work in both yours and GP post. The fact is that a hundred years is a very short amount of time if you really think about it. My grandfather was born in 1913, and if Thoreau had lived a long life–and had been connected to my family–he could have looked at my grandfather's eyes as he held him in his arms.

You're mentioning a specific example, but really think about it. In the span of three, maybe four generations, society has changed abruptly. The invention of trains and cars, the remaking of cities and countries, the internet. Before the industrial revolution, generations of families could live and die in the same place, following the same customs and traditions.

Nowadays, we, influenced by the internet in part, can barely imagine a future because the situation looks so unstable. We don't have the comfort of knowing what even the next decade is going to look like.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#315

Post by raxxorrax »

lowdose wrote: post #305
DoreenMichele wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, yet, here you are talking with other people all over the world for free. Someone older than me, of the hippie generation, once said to me "There were like three TV channels and they went off the air at 10pm. If you were still awake after that, there was nothing to do but sex and drugs." I strongly suspect the 24/7 availability of free entertainment, live online discussion, etc is a large contributing factor to t…

But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs so successive generations have to do something. We have become over domesticated chimps that have been conditioned to think having sex with a lot of people is a bad thing and anything other than alcohol is a no no. Good a more open minded sentiment is starting to develop but let's not blame technology when cultural heritage is sufficient to explain trends. If everybo…

I don't think so. The hippie movement was a reaction to extremely stiff social norms that are not at all applicable today. We have a lot to thank them for their disobedience to that.

Today, outside of your family and maybe some friends nobody really cares about your drug use or sex life. There are some prohibitions by law, but I doubt these are too relevant.

I often ask myself from which cult people have escaped or how old they are if they indict current society of being restrictive or even suppressing in some way. Frankly, I don't see that at all. Maybe it is a wish, since that would mean that society cares at least somehow.

Maybe I am lucky, but I don't really see restrictive norms anywhere. You see a lot of people not caring though. The internet is no reference here. You can save a puppy from its inevitable demise and certainly someone will be deeply offended by your actions.

> If everybody had sex today tomorrow would be awesome [...]

Always a better tomorrow... but I highly doubt that. Some might crave sex and some might crave intimacy. Anyone bragging in the office about hook ups would be suspected to seeking confirmation. The same is true for males since quite some time. Cultural suppression? I don't think so. Because if you would do that, I think the repercussions would be almost negligible. Some will judge you, but that will happen if you wear the same pants twice. Maybe not a bad choice of fetish, but certainly no fight for more freedom.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#316

Post by aglavine »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #2

This is an excellent analysis of the state of the modern internet, though I don't entirely agree with his diagnosis of the cause; I think it's more down to two main things: 1. We are all, at heart, covetous xenophobic apes, and we've been doing the same basic thing (arbitrarily define an in-group and an out-group and proceed to wage total war on the out-group) since before we were even human. This is just the latest…

I don't agree. I think the problem with 'engagement' isn't conflict. It is that engagement in Internet remains virtual, and that's a source of discontent. We need to translate that engagement back to reality

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#317

Post by watwut »

Lammy wrote: post #130
watwut wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like you who did not created ties to a group like that are quite better and less scary then people who have strong loyal unquestioning ties to groups - whether nationalist, traditionalist or radical Christians (some of Catholics in my country lately tie themselves to extremists). Membership and trust in these apparently feels great. That feeling is dangerous. That trust is not build on truths being told, it is…

I've experienced plenty of that dangerous unquestioning extremist fervor from progressive/LGBT circles too.

Right now I am talking about aligning oneself with party that openly threaten violence and celebrates it and openly talks about abusing power if they win (as if that would be cool thing). And whose leadership is very friendly with dudes who have swastica tatoos. And which have very similar ideological arguments.

"Unquestioning fervor" is not there yet.

They are scary, because their appeal and promis is "I am gon na be tough and violent and anything else is weakness".

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#318

Post by Pete_D »

mrspeaker wrote: post #86
humanrebar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all Because pleasantness isn't a virtue in every context? Some unpleasant things need to be done and said sometimes. In fact, saying no in certain contexts is good , though it can often be unpleasant. That being said, some people find it pleasant to be unpleasant. Certainly self-censor if you sense that urge arising. Getting drunk on anger or righteousness isn'…

Unpleasant things very rarely need to be done or said, but people (me included) are addicted to doing and saying them. We all feel the need to desperately type the first thing that pops into our head (like the sentence I just typed, and I'd argue the reply you gave). If I wasn't allowed to reply to your response for, say, 24 hours - then I might write something useful and interesting. But the internet of beefs doesn'…

Here's a strategy that might help. I mostly read HN logged-out on my lunch break. If I see something I want to comment on, I email it to myself for when I get home. Usually, by then, the urge has passed or I've realised that whatever comment I was going to make was actually dumb.

If that won't help because you can't resist the temptation to log in, I guess you could try "banning" yourself using the noprocrast setting in the HN profile?

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#319

Post by scottishcow »

claudiawerner wrote: post #301
scottishcow wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it perplexing? People put more trust in fields where researchers follow (or are expected to follow, at least) the scientific method. I work in what may be called a "soft" science field, I don't complain when people don't view our output as authoritative as that of hard science. I'm proud of my work, but I don't claim to have any monopoly on truth (or even a better grasp of truth, for that matter) just because…

You don't have to put trust in a field to do an overview of the existing literature and show how and where it is wrong. Neither philosophy or mathematics, for example, don't follow the "scientific method" (let's assume the Anglophone conception as opposed to Wissenschaft for the sake of arument), yet I would hope that people would rightly call out a post on utilitarianism that doesn't take into account arguments from…

The public doesn’t owe anything to academics; whether or not they decide to pay attention to literature of a certain field, it is their choice. I was merely stating my observation that while many seem to consider it worthwhile to pay some level of respect to physics or mathematics, fewer appear to do so with regards to sociology or media studies. Are such attitudes justified? Perhaps so, perhaps not - but either way I find nothing perplexing that the public does not respect all fields of inquiry equally.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#320

Post by adamrezich »

kazagistar wrote: post #294
adamrezich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but does it have to be?

What force will stop it? Things are how they are because of the systems that exist. Changing how things are requires changing one or more things about those systems.

Sure but that doesn't mean entire existing systems need to be thrown out and replaced wholesale by completely different ideology-based systems
Post reply on HN