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

201–210 of 297 posts

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#201

Post by subsubzero »

ancientworldnow wrote: post #132
LarryMullins wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look up their parents. It's not a coincidence they crossed path with NY Times reporters looking to profile them. Nepotism teens doesn't have the same ring though.

yeah I was wondering how a small group of say 5-8 teens made it to NYtimes. The paper tries to fool you to think these are just organic encounters that are part of a massive movement(anti-tech) when its really just hand picked people close to a friend of someone that works at the paper. Remember it was discovered this year the editorial desk of the NYtimes has a mandate that all stories must paint tech in a negative light.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#202

Post by wil421 »

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…

We recently deleted my 3 years old YouTube Kids app and the change made me contemplate my own live decisions. She likes Disney and a few other toddler style games. Seeing the difference in her behavior has made me look hard at my own YouTube watching.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#204

Post by tryauuum »

legohead wrote: post #56
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…

It's very difficult. I was lucky to have access to the internet in the late 80s and have watched it grow, mature, evolve. I know how quickly things can change, and I don't want my kids to miss out or be left behind. But at the same time, the dangers that exist today didn't exist even in the 90s. My biggest fear then was receiving an email virus. Now, Social Media alone is enough to make a parent take a step back and…

I don't have kids so you can throw away my advice instantly

But if I were doing it, I'd do the same, but allowed couple of days per month of unrestricted internet usage. Just so they would experience how unproductive these days are compared to normal days

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#205

Post by trgn »

spritefs wrote: post #156

IMO the real problem here isn't the technology itself, but cultivating an unhealthy relationship with it and not using it maturely The most interesting thing in this article to me is the classist accusation. I wonder if this luddite trend is just some sort of counter signaling, where if rich kids decide to not use smartphones it's provocative (and they get flip phones from parents on a whim), but if poor kids don't i…

> the real problem isn't the technology itself

I very much disagree with this.

We like to think that technology is value neutral, and we, as Olympian gods, are just applying it in good or bad judgment. Technology (the actual material thing) shapes the world around itself, it creates the conditions of its use _in absence_ of our judgement. The very existence of a bleepy bloopy thing that fits in a pocket, which constantly grabs your attention with gossipy, antagonizing content. That _thing_ in itself creates the nurturing conditions for phenomena like cyberbullying, meme-addiction, declining attention spans, political polarization...

Another example; the very existence of power tools created the aesthetic sensibilities where we aspire to large expanses of perfectly trimmed bushes and leafless virginal lawns. Our aesthetic desires did not proceed the technology. It is the technology that engendered it.

Let's run down more: easy-to-obtain guns, heavy and fast-accelerating cars, cheap mass-produced food, disposable furniture and living arrangements ... They all shape the world (and our minds, our relations to others) in _their image_.

We can be equal slave to the machine as well as master to the machine. Modernism is the submission to this slavery. Humanism is the celebration of our mastery. Now answer the question; do we live in modernist dystopia, or humanist utopia? A leading question to be sure, but I reckon the contrast is instructive.

Technology sometimes _is_ the problem itself. Fixing the problem, in many cases, will mean forceful rejection of this technology, rather than just finding the correct application of it.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#206

Post by ghaff »

echelon wrote: post #125
LarryMullins wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're absolutely correct. The show was campy, and in time, would have become grating and fallen apart. Star Wars, once lauded, has been milked dry. There are a few good works, but by and large they're beating a dead horse. The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked out after Endgame. Game of Thrones was so near to perfection. It had an unusually large cast of a hundred characters and an expansive…

Yeah, some of the sometimes literal Wild West in space was fun given appealing characters. Even Serenity worked pretty well. I'm not sure how it would have played out longer term. I certainly probably appreciate it better as a brief fan fave than something that maybe wore out its welcome sooner rather than later.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#207

Post by [deleted] »

LarryMullins wrote: post #148
HWR_14 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Teaching your kid to stand up for themselves But they aren't standing up for themselves. They're standing up for decisions forced on them by their parents. > make friends that don't care about blue chat bubbles or fashionable clothes is necessary It has nothing to do with being cool (and I've never heard of anyone referencing blue chat bubbles that wasn't using it derogatorily like you are). It's about not being un…

> But they aren't standing up for themselves. They're standing up for decisions forced on them by their parents. They're learning how to deal with adversity created by circumstances beyond their control.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#208

Post by operatingthetan »

pessimizer wrote: post #98
rootusrootus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah, you just need to break the addictions to that apps that cause that.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#209

Post by ghaff »

LarryMullins wrote: post #140
rdlw wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, most people react poorly to "The reason you love the thing you love is not because it is good, but for "

No, I'm saying that Firefly is and was good. It never got a chance to become bad.

And even if not become bad... For myself I have something called the 5 season rule. Not literal (quite) but somewhere around 5 seasons I just get bored--even if the show if still on a good trajectory, which it often isn't.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#210

Post by Wowfunhappy »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #175
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I don't know, to me it all seemed exceedingly genuine. If they're spending lots of time outside in parks—"rain or shine, even snow"—their clothing choices make sense. They like reading, and their reading material has made an impression (as good books are wont to do, especially for impre…

It’s genuine insofar as we have gone too far one way as a society and now people, even young people who have no concept of the old days, are exploring the opposite again. I guess it seems a bit pretentious since those of us who were around as young adults when mobiles and the internet took off, and then worked in the industries that made the current situation happen, realise there is a happy midpoint. “The only thing…

> “The only thing better than a flip phone is no phone?” I can’t roll my eyes enough.

Yeah, but kids often say groan-worthy things, or have opinions that lack perspective. I still think she was being perfectly earnest.

Post reply on HN