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

221–230 of 297 posts

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#221

Post by seanw444 »

weregiraffe wrote: post #189
seanw444 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boredom is crucial. Boredom creates will. Your body hates boredom, because traditionally, it meant you weren't doing anything to better your life. Today, we won't die if we're not filling our boredom with farming/hunting our meals by hand. It's too easy to live nowadays. Now, we plug that hole with social media and entertainment. Rather than adapting that caveman survival instinct to something else: improving knowled…

You are mistaken. Hunter-gatherers, and even medieval farmers, worked less hours on average than we do today.

I should have been more detailed. I don't mean just the hunting and gathering. My primary point was that it was a harder overall life. Upkeep on your living space and belongings (now we just buy a new one online or, God forbid, drive to the store), preparing food often (no such thing as long-term preservation at the time), adults actually had families to take care of (increasingly more people are single / childless)...

There were more, urgent responsibilities to tend to.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#223

Post by LarryMullins »

poopiokaka wrote: post #177
LarryMullins wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, they idolize Chris McCandless - he was also a child of privilege who wanted to reject society. Idolizing McCandless is such an odd thing; Alaska is filled with people who rejected their past lives like he did, but who didn't die because they had more humility and respect for the land.

Lol I can’t imagine judging kids this hard. You’re doing great

His death wasn't a freak accident, it was a predictable consequence of him going into Alaska unprepared. He shot a moose and let it rot because he didn't know better and didn't bother to learn first. This was hubris; Alaska is not the place to fake it until you make it.

Anyway, my critique of McCandless is mild, talk to some Alaskans if you want to hear some proper vitriolic criticism of him. I barely scratched the surface by accusing him of hubris.

If you mean my criticism of teens idolizing McCandless, I don't know what to tell you. He isn't a good role model. There are obviously worse role models, but he isn't a good one.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#225

Post by crooked-v »

rychco wrote: post #176
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…

While there’s definitely a performative aspect to it, I think there’s a genuine & sincere interest in rejecting social-media manufactured-reality. These teens, regardless of sincerity, are rejecting a demonstrably negative & harmful activity in favor of reading, art, music, & engaging with their local community. I’m thrilled that this is catching on at all. I’ve had a deep hatred of owning a smartphone for years, but…

Or to put it another way, being ironically literate and contemplative is still being literate and contemplative.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#226

Post by LarryMullins »

goatlover wrote: post #158
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.

How does something being popular ruin its quality? The reason people diss hipsters is because they’re reacting to what other people enjoy instead of just liking something for its own sake.

Several mechanisms. For one, a show running to long simply squeezes all the juice out of the premise. Popular shows are kept running too long to extract all the money out of them, but they become soulless and formulaic towards the end.

Another mechanism is flanderization, in which writers simplify characters or other aspects of the show for various reasons, mostly laziness and to conform to expectations the audience develops about how characters should act. Characters with depth become shallow shadows of their past selves as one aspect of their personality starts to dominate the others. When characters are driven by audience expectations instead of the writer's internal muse, they become soulless and predictable.

Another is overdeveloping the setting. Throwaway lines in earlier media get needlessly turned into developed storylines. It leaves less to the imagination. This is often related to the first mechanism I mention; the writers squeezing all the juice out of the earlier media.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#227

Post by adamrezich »

411111111111111 wrote: post #152
legohead wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Social Media alone is enough to make a parent take a step back and wonder what is the right time to introduce your children to the internet. I can't help but wonder whenever I hear this message: do you know, really ? After taking with them a little, it often comes down to pretty ... innocuous things in my opinion. Sure, there's always peer pressure and they'll be constantly judged etc, but that's just a an exaggera…

when I got my own PC in my bedroom (with Ethernet!) as a middle-schooler around 2004, sure, there was plenty of online games and game development forums and porn and whatever else to occupy my attention… but I had no way of taking any of it with me on the go, easily-accessible wherever I am.

this is the basis of my fears for introducing the children I will be having (in the next few years) to the new Internet: it's a pervasive lifestyle change. modern social media apps (instagram, tiktok) are nothing short of digital drugs that you never run out of. why do x y and z in the real world when you could just pull your phone out of your pocket, swipe your finger across its screen a few times, and instantly obtain infinite entertainment that is infinitely more engaging than anything else you could possibly do with your time?

the real challenge in my opinion is to instill the dangers of these sorts of things upon one's children in such a way that despite peer pressure—including the ambient peer pressure of everyone out in public staring idly at their phones—they come to see these dangerous digital drugs as what they are, without having to partake in order to "find out for themselves."

and of course, this all has to be done without accidentally causing the classic "well my family banned this in our house but now that I'm on my own I'm going to binge as much of this shit as possible" conundrum. which I was definitely guilty of myself as a young person whose family highly restricted access to video games for most of my childhood… turns out that's a great way to get a kid to end up becoming a game developer lol

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#228

Post by mixmastamyk »

Archipelagia wrote: post #55
verdenti wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure that's a good long term solution. Like, once they see that all their friends have a smartphone, I think it's natural they'll feel jealous. What are you thinking of doing at that point?

You avoid as long as you can; not exactly rocket-science.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#229

Post by [deleted] »

freemanofthewan wrote: post #87
wara23arish wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sir, please try a good pair of footwear, for your sake! If you need convincing, look up the Boots Theory. Personally, I live in my boots and have worn out many cheap pair. Sometimes 2 a year. Invested a little more, my body was never so happy, and I didn't need to replace them for 4 years. Easy math.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#230

Post by operatingthetan »

the-printer wrote: post #135
actusual wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s what I was referring to.

I'd suggest the vagueness of "often moonlights" indicated that you weren't aware of the sub-brand being a thing.
Post reply on HN