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

‘Luddite’ Teens

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 297 posts

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#71

Post by HDThoreaun »

aaroninsf wrote: post #68
sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

Hottake: the author is effectively oblivious to the impact of the aesthetic scene and unable to filter its impact on contemporary youth culture.

Considering this is a piece in the style section I find that almost impossible to believe. Seems much more likely that they're just being a bit dishonest about why these kids are "luddites" because it makes for a better story.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#72

Post by LarryMullins »

sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

I think there's a selection bias here; the ones who are performative are more likely to cross paths with a NYTimes journalist than the ones who aren't. People who keep it low key don't often rise to the notice of others.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#73

Post by ravenstine »

dieselgate wrote: post #45
sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

Does one always risk a bit of "pretentiousness" if they act/live contrary to the "main stream"? Just by having a flip phone, for example, someone will be called a "hipster" or whatever name. It's like a group social phenomena or something - just by being vegetarian (or being more "pretentious" by being vegan) people experience this sort of stuff

Basically, yes, because a lot of people don't really know what being pretentious or a hipster actually means. The passage of time has lead to both terms being misunderstood and simultaneously conflated.

In order for someone to actually be pretentious, there has to be a pretense. Being purposefully non-mainstream doesn't make someone pretentious as much as a more normal individual would like to believe. Hipsters aren't necessarily pretentious, even when they have a pattern of rejecting the mainstream. A hipster might be pretentious if their image is disingenuous (ex. wearing some article they don't actually identify with, pooh-poohing something publicly while appreciating it secretly), but that doesn't have to describe all or most hipsters.

I get called a hipster because I often reject or have no interest in many things that most people consider good on that basis alone. When something becomes mainstream, I like it less because I believe something going from unknown to mainstream is usually a bad sign, and that instinct is almost always right. Breaking Bad was way better until everyone started slobbering over it and chanted "get back to cooking meth bruh", and look how it ended. Such a long way for a ham sandwich. haha

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#74

Post by actusual »

the-printer wrote: post #51
sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

Carhartt often moonlights as a streetwear brand.

They actually have a dedicated streetwear/hipper line called WIP (https://us.carhartt-wip.com/)

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#75

Post by rootusrootus »

LucyEverylove wrote: post #10

I've been experimenting with a "no phone" protocol for a few months now. It has been amazing. Only occasionally problematic/inconvenient, mostly miss the GPS and music. Most things I used to do on phone I simply do on a laptop. But not constantly grabbing for a phone and staring at a screen... priceless.

The next step after this epiphany is to realize you can do this without actually giving up the phone. Just because it's in your pocket doesn't mean you need to pull it out constantly and look at it. It's just a tool, relegate it to that position in your life and don't use it like a pacifier.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#76

Post by LarryMullins »

verdenti wrote: post #43
Archipelagia wrote: post #40

It reminded me of one of pg's old essays – http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html . Highly recommended. On a personal note, it's also something that worries me for the day when I'll finally have my own children. I wouldn't want them exposed to modern cyber-addictions from young age, but at the same time, I'm not sure how to protect them, when I can expect that all their peers will be on whatever social app's gonna be p…

You protect them by not giving them a smart phone. My daughter is 2 and she hasn’t seen a screen yet.

You're doing the right thing.

w.r.t. "what will you do when they get older and jealous?", learning to deal with jealousy is a good lesson to teach kids. Giving a kid everything they envy and demand is how you raise an entitled brat.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#77

Post by wara23arish »

LarryMullins wrote: post #65
wara23arish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think beatniks particularly wore the equivalent $150+ Doc Martens. Tangent, I really enjoyed reading On the Road

What did they wear? Sandals or something? I tried birkenstock sandals before but they only lasted about a year before they became too gross to wear. $150 doc martens seem like good value to me. They last about 5-8 years at the rate I wear through them, or about $20-30 per year. Certainly more efficient than any sneakers.

Maybe Im missing out but Ive never felt the need to spend so much on shoes.

There’s countless of alternatives to boots/shows that aren’t name-brand Doc Martens with that aesthetic.

Personally, I just shop at the clearance sections or sales (ive never seen doc martens there ime)

I always feel like a fool if i drop money on something expensive.

From reading On The Road, I just remember that they were always broke, drunk, drugs and chasing experiences and not aesthetics. at least thats what I took out from the book

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#78

Post by wara23arish »

freemanofthewan wrote: post #70
wara23arish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think beatniks particularly wore the equivalent $150+ Doc Martens. Tangent, I really enjoyed reading On the Road

Some pay $150+, some go to the thrift store. True beat-fashion or not, I would never malign someone for choosing quality footwear.

Didn’t mean it as malignment, just felt that the characterization with beatniks didn’t seem right.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#79

Post by rootusrootus »

082349872349872 wrote: post #8
floren wrote: post #4

I admire the hell out of these kids. If I had a little more strength in my own convictions, a little more willpower, I would probably go flip-phone only too. Yes, they're kind of posturing and pretentious, but in ways that remind me of myself in high school; I feel like I get them. Your average high school kid is a lot more confusing to me these days. I did have to laugh at this: > "I talked to my adviser, though, an…

Try flip an hour a day and work up. We used to only have landlines and phortress phones, and yet somehow still survived. I always liked how 1984's Goldstein said that in principle Inner Party children did not automatically become Inner themselves.

> We used to only have landlines and phortress phones

A few weeks ago I was at our local train station and there was an honest-to-god payphone. Walked up to it, picked up the receiver, and got dial tone. I had figured they were all gone now but apparently not quite yet.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#80

Post by qup »

wara23arish wrote: post #77
LarryMullins wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did they wear? Sandals or something? I tried birkenstock sandals before but they only lasted about a year before they became too gross to wear. $150 doc martens seem like good value to me. They last about 5-8 years at the rate I wear through them, or about $20-30 per year. Certainly more efficient than any sneakers.

Maybe Im missing out but Ive never felt the need to spend so much on shoes. There’s countless of alternatives to boots/shows that aren’t name-brand Doc Martens with that aesthetic. Personally, I just shop at the clearance sections or sales (ive never seen doc martens there ime) I always feel like a fool if i drop money on something expensive. From reading On The Road, I just remember that they were always broke, drun…

Boots are a good thing to look for in thrift stores.

I got a $220 pair of redwings in good shape for $12.

Post reply on HN