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

Harrison Bergeron (1961)

archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#141

Post by tryptophan »

LambdaComplex wrote: post #122
egypturnash wrote: post #21

Captive to our smartphones, distracted constantly by an endless succession of oh-so-important notifications for trivial things. Who in modern life does not feel a little like Harrison Bergeron with his federally-mandated thought-train-interrupting earpiece? And who among us cannot sympathize with Albert Brock, The Murderer? https://www.readkong.com/page/the-murderer-by-ray-bradbury-8...

Complaints of this type go back over a century. Before smartphones, people complained that nobody was socializing because they were all busy reading newspapers. I think it's safe to call this argument tired at this point.

But...measures of socialization are at an all time low? It may not be due to smartphones, but it is a real phenomenon.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#142

Post by hombre_fatal »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #127
woodruffw wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vonnegut, to his credit, died long before he would have had to hear someone accuse him of writing a short story about “wokeism.” The story is about envy. Vonnegut said as much whenever he was asked about it: it’s directly inspired by his own feelings of creative inadequacy. Shoehorning it into some execrable 2022 political statement is embarrassing.

> The story is about envy. So is most 'wokeness.' Envy and power.

And, as Douglas Murray points out, resentment.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#143

Post by causality0 »

I can't say I really understand the intended meaning behind the story. The ending is obviously fantastical and the author was a socialist, but it also depicts an absurd and brutal form of social equity. Is the whole thing supposed to be sarcastic in the sense of "look what those silly capitalists/individualists think of us and themselves"?

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#144

Post by unwise-exe »

dublin wrote: post #115
tromp wrote: post #103

> like something the cat drug in TIL that drug is a valid alternative to dragged. In fact about as common according to #google hits.

Google hits reflect popular usage, not proper usage. In many cases (like this one, and the even weirder "snuck") there is a big difference between those two...

Today's popular usage often is tomorrow's proper usage.

Even if it is sometimes a bit unfortunate.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#145

Post by commandlinefan »

nsxwolf wrote: post #18
superb-owl wrote: post #8

This story is typically seen as a critique of socialism, but it's more likely that Vonnegut intended it as a critique of critiques of socialism [1]. Vonnegut himself was a socialist [2], and the absurdist tone of the story reinforces this idea. [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/197545/03882696bf... [2] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/04/kurt-vonneguts-socialism-fr...

I doubt it. He deals with this theme more subtly in "Breakfast of Champions". I don't see why being a garden variety socialist would mean you couldn't possibly critique the idea of forced equality of outcomes. People don't always fit in neat boxes. It's OK if your politically aligned literary heroes occasionally challenge you.

> you couldn't possibly critique the idea of forced equality of outcomes.

I suspect it's actually exactly the opposite - Vonnegut himself grew up in the 30's and 40's when socialism and communism were still untested ideas without the evidentiary baggage they carry today. The only people who are attracted to socialism in modern times are people who start with an equality of outcome mindset and can see from history that socialist societies inevitably devolve into what they (think they) want.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#146

Post by WFHRenaissance »

Bakary wrote: post #113
WFHRenaissance wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a first degree satire look like then?

It can't exist by definition. Or if it can I'm not equipped to visualize it.

>the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

This is first degree satire. Your third degree satire is actually satire in the second degree.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#147

Post by jobs_throwaway »

Vonnegut, whether you agree with his moral tilt or not, is an absolute master of writing dramatically, thematically simple stories that leave you thinking them over for days, and sometimes years.

I read this story in high school and it still comes to mind a handful of times a year.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#148

Post by jimbokun »

falcolas wrote: post #137
LambdaComplex wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complaints of this type go back over a century. Before smartphones, people complained that nobody was socializing because they were all busy reading newspapers. I think it's safe to call this argument tired at this point.

And Television. And radio. And books. And the ability to read in general. These same historical ills attributed to all of these activities are being recycled against today's social media, even here on HN.

It was true for all of those things.

It is an ever accelerating trend away from in person socialization and towards solitary entertainment and electronically mediated, soloed interactions.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#149

Post by MichaelCollins »

commandlinefan wrote: post #138
MichaelCollins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He knows. It's bait and you swallowed it. This is the part where you get a lecture about Central and South America.

My wife is Mexican. Us calling ourselves Americans drives her crazy (so I make a point, every time we visit her family in Mexico, of loudly declaring, "well, goodbye America!")

Latin Americans feeling perturbed by the 'American' demonym is certainly understandable.

Nevertheless, I feel that 'USian', despite being motivated by an understandable disgruntlement, is used/proposed in bad faith for these reasons: 1) 'American' is the demonym a consensus majority of Americans have have chosen for themselves. 2) 'USian' only works in textual conversation, in spoken conversation it is one small mumble or tongue fumble away from 'US Asian' aka Asian-American. 3) Combining an uppercase initialism with a lowercase suffix is unnatural, not idiomatic English. The clumsiness of this term seems deliberate. 4) It is rarely used except in the context of bitter remarks about Americans (such as above.)

These four factors combined lead me to conclude that the term exists and is primarily used for trolling Americans.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#150

Post by WorldMaker »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #4

This story had an amazing effect on me as a child and before it begins, yes I have a disability (though a so called invisible disability - I have type 1 diabetes and epilepsy). It isn't that we should turn a blind eye to the disabled, as many use it as a parable for. Many disabled do need extra help, but that help comes in the form of lifting up, not pushing down those who are able. The able should be encouraged, in…

I had a teacher that loved to use Harrison Bergeron as a useful discussion point on the complex difference between "Equality" and "Equity", and my understanding is that is also what Vonnegut intended. (The nihilistic modern Libertarian interpretation of "it's not even worth trying to accommodate differently abled people because Harrison Bergeron said so" seems quite contrary to a lot of Vonnegut's other works.)

I appreciate that today we have less likely to be confused with nihilism memes on "equality" versus "equity" such as this now classic: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/94/b9/cf/94b9cff6e57f8bff9db127a21...

I think it is a shame that we've almost lost some access to good humor/satire/farce such as Vonnegut's in what increasingly feels like a Post-Poe's Law Singularity world where the internet makes it painfully obvious how much "most" people associate any given satire with its most facile arguments and miss the forest for the trees, miss the punchline, or miss the general point.

Post reply on HN