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

A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

bookforum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#21

Post by SuoDuanDao »

tremon wrote: post #18

And correct: the telos of the clickbait economy is fascist kitsch I'm not sure how to parse this. What does it mean for something to have kitsch as its ultimate aim, or for an economy to have an aim? I think I understand what the author is getting at, which is that exciting the lizard brain in humans is easy to do by creating artificial fears and enemies, and that it takes very little effort to construct this "art".…

I think 'kitsch' was used to imply that the products of the clickbait economy trend towards the trivial. Kitsch is not just product, it is cheaply produced product whose value quickly fades; I think it's a fair critique.

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#22

Post by enkid »

411111111111111 wrote: post #19
enkid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make a broad statement like that. In most places, for most times, people have been pretty passive. The mass of people being involved is the exception, not the rule, and even then, it normally was not a majority, but a local minority that acted at the right time that changed things.

I think both statements can be true. It's just when there are only two hundred people around, each voice has more influence then even an enthusiastic politician nowadays. So just by living like we do today with having opinions and voicing them you've already influenced your society back then. If you do the same today, nothing would've changed.

But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd.

I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and most people were constrained to a society of 200 people, unless they were purposefully insular.

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#24

Post by ses1984 »

Real_S wrote: post #5
082349872349872 wrote: post #4

> "online celebrity is only ever 240 characters away from online infamy" Horace, about 2'000 years ago, suggests a (long to modern eyes) embargo[1]: > "You will have it in your power to blot out what you have not made public: a word once sent abroad can never return." cautions against seeking internet points from astroturfers[2]: > "As those who mourn at funerals for pay, do and say more than those that are afflicted…

From [3] >I shall wonder if with his wealth he can distinguish a true friend from a false one The state of social media?! A thousand "followers" but none that can be called on in times of need.

Gofundme?

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#25

Post by 411111111111111 »

enkid wrote: post #22
411111111111111 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think both statements can be true. It's just when there are only two hundred people around, each voice has more influence then even an enthusiastic politician nowadays. So just by living like we do today with having opinions and voicing them you've already influenced your society back then. If you do the same today, nothing would've changed.

But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd. I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and…

while you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands.

the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#26

Post by Pirgo »

411111111111111 wrote: post #25
enkid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd. I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and…

while you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands. the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.

World population by early 19th century was already 1 billion, what are you talking about?

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#27

Post by 411111111111111 »

Pirgo wrote: post #26
411111111111111 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands. the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.

World population by early 19th century was already 1 billion, what are you talking about?

yes, it was.

the first industrialization started in the middle 18th century though, so not sure what your point is.

Re: A psychoanalytic reading of social media and the death drive

#28

Post by Pirgo »

411111111111111 wrote: post #25
enkid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd. I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and…

while you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands. the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.

By year 1500 world population was 500 million, so my point is that your claim how "before industrialization world population was in the lower hundreds of thousands" is completely incorrect. That's my point.
Post reply on HN