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

241–250 of 275 posts

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#241

Post by TMWNN »

StrictDabbler wrote: post #31
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...

It is baffling that Bradbury was able to write The Murderer in 1953. The transistor was invented in 1947 and the first fully transistorized radio wasn't available until a year after Bradbury published this, but he got all the way through predicting ringtones, smartwatches, housing automation, GPS digital dispatch/gig economy jobs, and smarmy digital assistants in the span of a single story. I am not aware of a more p…

>It is baffling that Bradbury was able to write The Murderer in 1953.

I thought I had a decent grasp of science fiction classics of that era. After reading the story, I too am baffled, both by my having missed this story, and in the same way you are.

>I am not aware of a more prescient bit of science fiction. Bradbury knew how people worked and what we'd try to make.

While not a start-to-finish prophecy like "The Murderer", from Wikipedia's article on Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet:

>The novel contains an early description of a mobile phone:

>>Matt dug a candy bar out of his pouch, split it and gave half to Jarman, who accepted it gratefully. "You're a pal, Matt, I've been living on my own fat ever since breakfast -- and that's risky. Say, your telephone is sounding. "Oh!" Matt fumbled in his pouch and got out his phone. "Hello?"

>The phone "was limited by its short range to the neighborhood of an earth-side [i.e. terrestrial] relay office".

I especially find this part insightful:

>A cadet avoids having to talk to his family while traveling by packing his phone in luggage.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#242

Post by sooheon »

Parmenidea wrote: post #17

My hot take is that this story is highly overrated. It’s boring, poorly written, and lacks nuance. The reason people remember it fondly is (1) everyone loves Vonnegut because he’s funny, so they don’t want to criticize it and (2) everyone read this story in middle school and are blinded by nostalgia.

Vonnegut is probably my favorite author, and this is maybe the thing he's written that I like the least.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#243

Post by mediumiqsad »

WalterBright wrote: post #189
e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the big difference here is that it doesn't really matter if someone isn't athletic. A school can have 10 kids for an amazing basketball team and 990 that are terrible at basketball and it doesn't affect anything, but if you have 10 geniuses and 990 kids that can't read then it's a huge negative for society

> it doesn't really matter if someone isn't athletic Tell that to people who faked athletic credentials to get into the college of their choice. Or who get in with full academic scholarships because they're good at football. I'm not advocating ignoring 990 kids that can't read, not at all. What I am suggesting is ignoring the 10 geniuses and not taking advantage of them is both unfair and bad for society. Consider th…

Most of those people would not be considered geniuses to Caltech educated elites like you.

I personally think ignoring the top 10 students is perfectly fine because they can clearly already manage. The rest of us can’t, but are still considered subhuman by your Bell Curve reading ilk.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#244

Post by rahimnathwani »

mcguire wrote: post #194
josephcsible wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been school districts lately that have been getting rid of advanced math classes in the name of equality.

The cynical among us might suspect the real reason to be budget.

It's not due to lack of budget. For example, in San Francisco, the school district spends $22k per student per year. That figure doesn't include capex.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#245

Post by squeaky-clean »

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...

I'd consider Vonnegut a more legitimate measure of proper usage of English than a dictionary or grammar textbook.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#246

Post by aasasd »

Bakary wrote: post #240
aasasd wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, so I'm guessing when people have to give up personal freedom for collective values, it's called ‘leftist’, right? Like, freedom of personal expression and freedom over one's own body—so men are forbidden from growing out long hair and decorating themselves with trinkets, women have to look ‘womanly’ and to assume traditional matronly roles, homosexuality is outlaw, recreational drugs are criminal as damaging…

I understand this criticism but I am not sure what you are posting it in response to or what arguments you are assigning to the discussion. My point is simply that the story focuses on an aspect of life of some emotional and philosophical significance and does what it sets out to do fairly well. It's not attempting to critique social norms as they precisely are but just the general concept of celebrating hierarchy vs…

That's what I was getting at. As I see it, the story postulates a hardcore version of the ‘equality of outcome’ approach, particularly in the social aspect. I don't think anyone who's not completely marginalized subscribes to full-blown equality of outcome even just in the economic sense, much less in the social perspective.

The US left do advocate for something resembling weak ‘equality of outcome’ in that poor and ill aren't thrown under the bus. However, while the left can be seen as reducing personal economic freedom, the oppression of social freedoms is a purview of conservatives. So ‘Harrison Bergeron’ is closer to a parody of a right-wing dreamland. Perhaps incels would in fact welcome an ‘equal outcome’ social world, where they are on the same level as Chads.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#248

Post by DubiousPusher »

greenie_beans wrote: post #88
DubiousPusher wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of the socialistically leaning world was hopeful that the USSR might still be, to some degree, working out as hoped. I have to wonder what you mean by "most". Because as early as 1921 the Bolsheviks were supressing anarcho-communists in Ukraine, purging former Mensheviks, putting the SRs on trial and seizing food from starving peasants. All of which was highly contentious and written about combatively in anarc…

you got any books to recommend learning about all that?

"The Bolshevik Myth: An Anarchist’s Eyewitness Account of the Betrayal and Failure of the Russian Communist Revolution"

I also recommend, "The Struggle Against the State". It is a series of articles written by Nestor Makhno who was a Ukrainian anarchist who led a movement against German occupation, collaborationists and then the first red army before being exiled.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#249

Post by LtWorf »

lliamander wrote: post #221
LtWorf wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, why should I waste time arguing with you? To show good faith… you succeeded at showing you didn't have that.

If you want good faith then don't open with an insult.

Can you point me exactly where I insulted you? I don't see any insult.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#250

Post by DubiousPusher »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #90
DubiousPusher wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of the socialistically leaning world was hopeful that the USSR might still be, to some degree, working out as hoped. I have to wonder what you mean by "most". Because as early as 1921 the Bolsheviks were supressing anarcho-communists in Ukraine, purging former Mensheviks, putting the SRs on trial and seizing food from starving peasants. All of which was highly contentious and written about combatively in anarc…

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. As hard as it may be to comprehend, there are still some people who think the various atrocities perpetrated by the USSR were justified by the greater good, or were merely western exaggerations. I don't think they're intrinsically bad people for this, despite the monstrous nature of the USSR. A few of my friends believe as I say. In most regards they have a sensible attitude toward…

I certainly believe there were socialists who believed in the Soviet Union. And I believe there are still people today who do so. And I am not here to say the Soviet Union is everything conservatives say it is either.

My only contension is the idea that

> most of the socialistically leaning world was hopeful that the USSR might still be, to some degree, working out as hoped.

The Bolshevik one party system and its offspring, the USSR, were controversial among socialists from the October revolutiom on. It doesn't get a lot of focus today because pop history is so absorbed with the cold war and the "new left" movement in the U.S.

It's not a great analogy but it's kind of like how some Americans refer to Evangelical Christianity, simply as Christianity and therefore write-off for many purposes the Catholics and Orthodox Christians living all over the world.

Post reply on HN