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

91–100 of 297 posts

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#91

Post by HardlyCurious »

ravenstine wrote: post #73
dieselgate wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Rejection of the mainstream / establishment properties is the pretense.

It isn't that you like something, it's that you don't want to be associated to some other things. And you don't want to be associated to those other things because of some pretense about what associating to those things means.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#92

Post by threads2 »

adingus wrote: post #66
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…

I don't get the 'classist' argument at all. You don't need to be rich to want to stop doomscrolling, or to put your phone down for an hour. It sounds more like the kids who call it 'classist' understand phone addiction but don't want to face the fact its actually bad for them... like when an overweight person says 'Id rather enjoy life than eat that salad, I bet that in-shape person is a bore to be around!"

I think everyone's just getting sick of rich kids

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#94

Post by hahamrfunnyguy »

sedeki wrote: post #22

I want to start doing this too. I bought a flip-phone some time ago, but it never stuck. My usage is pretty much: listen to music, use (Google) calendar, texting, FaceTime. Any surfing is plain doom scrolling and not productive. Recommendations for me? Analog/simpler substitutes? For ppl that has gone down this path - how do you feel now?

All I do is put the phone on vibrate and put it in my pocket. Other than taking out the phone to capture a photo, I never really feel the urge to pull it out and waste time on it unless I am actively waiting and there is nothing else to do. I like to be 100% engaged in what I am doing whether that's socializing with friends, enjoying a hobby or walking somewhere. Maybe that's my secret? The desire to feel fully engaged and present?

All that being said, I work on a computer all day long. I am in front of the computer all day and do a fair bit of "time wasting" there.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#95

Post by LarryMullins »

ravenstine wrote: post #73
dieselgate wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I've got a theory that the TV show Firefly is appreciated today because it got cancelled before it was popular; they quit when they were ahead and before popularity ruined it. But most Firefly fans seem to hate my theory.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#96

Post by adingus »

threads2 wrote: post #92
adingus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the 'classist' argument at all. You don't need to be rich to want to stop doomscrolling, or to put your phone down for an hour. It sounds more like the kids who call it 'classist' understand phone addiction but don't want to face the fact its actually bad for them... like when an overweight person says 'Id rather enjoy life than eat that salad, I bet that in-shape person is a bore to be around!"

I think everyone's just getting sick of rich kids

They're kids. They're nearly innocent. It's their parents people should be sick of.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#97

Post by okwubodu »

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.

"Streetwear" itself has a snobbish connotation as of late.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#98

Post by pessimizer »

rootusrootus wrote: post #75
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.

That's not realistic. The phone is calling out, begging you to pay attention to it, and makes itself more difficult to use the less you want to be entangled.

You just have to put it away. If it's a tool, treat it like a tool. You don't carry a hammer in your pocket all day.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#99

Post by quickthrowman »

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…

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

It’s something you can’t understand unless you actually buy and wear a pair of well-made boots or shoes.

A mall store pair of leather boots might weigh 1-1.5 lbs because it’s made of bad leather, EVA foam, and adhesives. A pair of well made boots, one boot will weigh almost 2 lbs because they use good leather uppers, real rubber or leather soles, a steel shank, and cork footbed.

A $300 pair of boots with last 5x longer than a $100 pair of boots if you take care of them and don’t wear them daily.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#100

Post by belfalas »

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…

In many ways the article feels like it's documenting kids with the freedom to have an opinion. Looking at the pictures in the article, it feels like a pretty uniform demographic. And in New York City, no less.

Also, they idolize Chris McCandless - he was also a child of privilege who wanted to reject society. Chris didn't have to die but he did because he went up to Alaska woefully unprepared. That doesn't make his death any less tragic, of course.

I guess my point is that this phenomenon is not anything new, if anything we've just gotten for enough into the 21st century that the 1970s ethic is making a comeback.

Post reply on HN