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

The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

documentjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 292 posts

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#101

Post by maxbond »

Pannoniae wrote: post #96
maxbond wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the best indicator is, "does this rhetoric serve to promote an agenda more than it serves to explain a phenomenon we did not understand previously?" Lots of conspiracy theories are plausible. With the sheer number of them, some of them will have strong elements of truth, even. Conspiracy theory isn't an epistemological designation, it's a political and rhetorical one. [ETA: To clarify, by political, I mean "withi…

"Conspiracy theories isn't an epistemological designation, it's a political and rhetorical one." Well, that's the problem. If the word was only used for baseless things, it would be taken seriously. But nowadays, "conspiracy theory" is mostly used to discredit legitimate opinions or ideologies just because the powers being don't like them.

"Political and rhetorical" does not mean "without substance." These are legitimate fields of inquiry, not dirty words. (The same goes for "ideology", which often gets this treatment as well.)

ETA: I think I understand better the miscommunication here, I didn't mean "for political ends," I meant more, "within the context of political science." Like you might say, "it's a physical phenomenon as opposed to a chemical one."

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#102

Post by hammock »

ravenstine wrote: post #19

The real counterculture right now is non-participation . In a world where virtually everything is either designed to completely waste your time or fail and not be repairable, it's a highly radical act to stop consuming like the 95%, preferring to spend time with other humans in reality doing something that isn't technological. In spite of the popular world pushing the message that you will be fulfilled living in virt…

Networks of cottage industry.

During Covid lockdowns I joined a powerlifting gym that was a startup in an old dry cleaners, had to “try out” to get in (make sure I wasn’t a narc), was the only gym in a city of 5+ million that was open and they had papered over the windows so prying eyes couldn’t observe the no-masks inside. I had the fewest tats in the place, you only wear black, there will never be any TVs and the heaviest lifter in there at the time gets to control the Spotify station which is always metal.

They have both a pro-2A plaque and a trans flag on the wall. One of the co-owners is gay and films onlyfans in the gym at night.

Fast forward years later and I get my coffee beans from a startup local roaster who hosts an Elvis impersonator, for the motorcycle meetup, I learned where the tats get done, I support a local microbrewery, there is a cafe where I get lunch, I got my black t shirts from a designer…every single business owner I just mentioned goes to the same gym.

It’s a neat little community. And I’ve NEVER seen one of these people pull out a phone around others (unless they were filming a PR for their trainer)

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#103

Post by spacemadness »

ravenstine wrote: post #19

The real counterculture right now is non-participation . In a world where virtually everything is either designed to completely waste your time or fail and not be repairable, it's a highly radical act to stop consuming like the 95%, preferring to spend time with other humans in reality doing something that isn't technological. In spite of the popular world pushing the message that you will be fulfilled living in virt…

I agree, but it’s just anti-consumerism in another form. Albeit with a twist as we’re what’s being sold some of the time. Anti-consumerism is anti-participation.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#104

Post by kipchak »

spacemadness wrote: post #10

“Actual power keeps a low profile; actual power doesn’t need a social media presence, it owns social media.” So where does Elon fit in here?

I think this depends on whether you assess Elon as actual power, or something closer to new money trying to put themselves in the position of being actual power.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#105

Post by giraffe_lady »

Pannoniae wrote: post #72
giraffe_lady wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you needed to derail a good point with the insect conspiracy theory dog whistle tho. If me and the homies get together weekly for bible study and fried crickets does that not fit into what you're describing?

The best indicator for "is this a conspiracy theory" is "is this true, or at least plausible?" The "live in virtual reality and consume insects" is a point pushed by at least a few people, so it's not a baseless conspiracy theory. You might say they are not influential or whatever, but it's not like this was made up on the spot. Even if it was a baseless conspiracy theory, it doesn't detract from the value of the res…

I'm not refuting its truth I'm refuting its relevance to the rest of the point. I'm a pretty sympathetic audience to criticisms of our food system and where it's taking us. But what you eat doesn't have much necessary connection to whether you participate in consumer culture.

They could have replaced "soy/insect" with "tendies" for the same rhetorical effect but appealing to a different crowd. That makes me interpret their choice as an intentional signal to a specific audience, rather than a functional part of their position.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#108

Post by wing-_-nuts »

Llamasponge wrote: post #12

In a time where tolerance and respect for minorities is slowly becoming mainstream, you could argue that the far-right has become counterculture. The far-right is VERY prevalent on both Instagram, Twitter and other social media.

I posted this comment elsewhere but it's better moved here:

I honestly think modern conservatism could now be classified by a counterculture, because they define themselves more by what they're against than what they are for.

Seriously, over the years I've wracked my brain wondering why conservatism has moved so far to the radical fringe to the point where they simply seem to stand in opposition to even the most uncontroversial stances on things like global warming, healthcare, vaccines, basic human rights, etc. This is all I got.

The right has become a counterculture, and the best way to see what their next cause de jure will be is to see what's become commonly accepted as reasonable truth on the left.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#109

Post by hooverd »

spacemadness wrote: post #10

“Actual power keeps a low profile; actual power doesn’t need a social media presence, it owns social media.” So where does Elon fit in here?

He could stayed Tony Stark in everyone's imagination if he had just shut up, instead he's Gob Bluth.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture, it's just not on Instagram (2021)

#110

Post by scythe »

Pannoniae wrote: post #72
giraffe_lady wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you needed to derail a good point with the insect conspiracy theory dog whistle tho. If me and the homies get together weekly for bible study and fried crickets does that not fit into what you're describing?

The best indicator for "is this a conspiracy theory" is "is this true, or at least plausible?" The "live in virtual reality and consume insects" is a point pushed by at least a few people, so it's not a baseless conspiracy theory. You might say they are not influential or whatever, but it's not like this was made up on the spot. Even if it was a baseless conspiracy theory, it doesn't detract from the value of the res…

Insect foods were infamously featured on NPR several times before the same outlet ran a story insisting that nobody was pushing insect foods. But insofar as we are discussing insect products, silk, shellac and resilin continue to be excellent functional materials, and avoided by almost nobody. And who can forget honey?

But the likely motivation for the "insects as edible protein" stories always struck me as investor-focused PR for insect farming companies and not real consumer market positioning. For one thing, practically no products were mentioned that are on shelves, except for "cricket powder", but the real money is not in selling ingredients. In reality, insects are still expensive, and the protein quality is disappointing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCAAS#Example_values

^ has caterpillars at 0.77 and crickets at 0.69, comparing unfavorably with legumes, cashews, quinoa etc. Silkworm pupae score very well, but silkworms have been cultivated since forever and remain expensive.

For convincing the greater fool that you can generate returns with a cricket farming security, though, a few NPR articles about insect food need not be specific or correct.

Post reply on HN