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

261–270 of 292 posts

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

#261

Post by rchaud »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #86
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…

There are dozens of memes floating around claiming that the counterculture is made of of people getting married to someone of the opposite sex, raising a family, practicing a religion, eating meals together, celebrating the holidays together etc. Naturally, these folks have left social networks like Facebook and Instagram far behind.

They have? Facebook is the only place where you'd even see memes like that, always shared from one of the million "traditional values' Pages.

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

#262

Post by skissane »

maxbond wrote: post #91
Pannoniae wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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?"

That’s not a good indicator of “what is a conspiracy theory”.

All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”-it is a persuasive discourse not an explanatory one. On the contrary, activists often resist complex explanations for phenomena relevant to their cause, because many of them see nuance and complexity as a distraction from persuading the masses to support them, and simple messages do that best. None of that makes such movements a conspiracy theory - conspiracy theories exist in such movements too, but most of their leaders are smart enough to view those theories as baggage holding the movement back, and hence discourage them rather than encourage them.

Conspiracy theories are found all over the political spectrum-both on the far left and the far right, and everywhere in-between. They can serve any political agenda-including agendas you or I support. The problem with defending your agenda using a conspiracy theory, is that even if your agenda is correct, arguing for it on the basis of an unfalsifiable theory is almost always irrational, and it is irrational to defend even a correct agenda using an irrational argument.

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

#263

Post by rchaud »

JohnFen wrote: post #27
tekla wrote: post #20

Counterculture requires gatekeeping, because most people can't take it, ESPECIALLY anyone who uses Instragram The best times I've had were having parties where we would work on cool exhibits with barely contained pyrotechnics, Tesla coils that would kill you if you touched it, and an expectation that YOU DO NOT PUT IT ON THE INTERNET and if you get hurt, YOU DID NOT GET HURT HERE. Everyone wants a nice and curated ex…

Yes. Social media in general, and particularly things like FB, IG or Tiktok, are the exact opposite of "counterculture".

Depends which side of the funnel you're on.

To some, "move fast, break things" is counter-cultural, even if the term comes from an erstwhile hoodie-clad CEO that rapidly mutated into the biggest suit in corporate history.

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

#264

Post by maxbond »

skissane wrote: post #262
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…

> 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?" That’s not a good indicator of “what is a conspiracy theory”. All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”-it is a persuasiv…

> All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”...

Then it doesn't meet my criteria and I have no problem with it? I don't think we disagree.

I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same goes for related concepts like "agenda".)

I guess I neglected to include the requirement, "...and it is represented as theory to understand a phenomenon, rather than a set of normative ideas."

If I could have expressed myself in a less confusing way, I'm open to suggestions. Based on the responses I didn't explain myself that well.

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

#266

Post by Anon_Forever »

omginternets wrote: post #255
Anon_Forever wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "counter-cultural thing".

Use whatever definition you think is appropriate.

You were the one asking for examples and yet you refuse to define what examples you're looking for.

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

#267

Post by skissane »

maxbond wrote: post #264
skissane wrote: post #262

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?" That’s not a good indicator of “what is a conspiracy theory”. All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”-it is a persuasiv…

> All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”... Then it doesn't meet my criteria and I have no problem with it? I don't think we disagree. I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems…

> I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same goes for related concepts like "agenda".)

That's a different issue from conspiracy theories.

For example, a traditional conspiracy theory in left-wing Australian politics, is that the centre-right Australian government intentionally timed the April 1954 defection of KGB agent Vladimir Petrov (based at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra), to maximise the political damage to the centre-left opposition in the next month's election. It wasn't until 30 years later that the release of secret government records proved the conspiracy theory false (although who knows, maybe there are some left-wing diehards out there who still believe in it: how can we be sure those secret records weren't faked or tampered with prior to their release?). That was a conspiracy theory, but it had nothing to do with "justifying ideology by stealth".

> I guess I neglected to include the requirement, "...and it is represented as theory to understand a phenomenon, rather than a set of normative ideas."

In practice almost all normative disputes sooner or later become factual disputes as well. An ideal model of human rationality might suggest "we are never going to agree on values, but at least we can agree on facts", but in practice humans rarely work that way. Everybody does it, at least to some degree, nobody is entirely innocent of the temptation to read the data in the way which best supports their normative biases.

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

#268

Post by maxbond »

skissane wrote: post #267
maxbond wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”... Then it doesn't meet my criteria and I have no problem with it? I don't think we disagree. I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems…

> I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same g…

I don't know anything about Australian politics in 1954 so I can't comment on that example. I can tell you that I can identify an ideology for every conspiracy that I am familiar with. Off the top of my head:

- Flat Earth conspiracism is about an anti-intellectual pan-Christian traditionalist ideology

- QAnon is about a similar pan-Christian ideology, and a sort of radical personal responsibility

- Antisemitic conspiracy theories are about an ideology of white supremacy, and of mythic struggle among "races". It's an ideology of strict good and evil, defined not by actions or outcomes but by alignment in a sort of cosmic conflict.

Factual and normative disputes are both fine, I'm arguing against a form of bad faith.

May I ask if you've ever had an extended conversation with a conspiracy theorist?

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

#269

Post by omginternets »

Anon_Forever wrote: post #266
omginternets wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use whatever definition you think is appropriate.

You were the one asking for examples and yet you refuse to define what examples you're looking for.

You’re hiding behind a blade of grass.

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

#270

Post by akeck »

dogman144 wrote: post #149
soupfordummies wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My non-tech-working buddies don’t understand why I don’t want to PC game on discord all night at the same desk I just spent all day working in. Hell, even some of my tech-working buddies don’t either. Kinda ironic that it’s more often than not the techie folks who are unplugging more often so to speak.

Ya I work in tech for the opp to keep it all at a distance from me. I’ve specifically thought about how stupid the loop is of building stuff at the computer and then turning around and consume all the same stuff I build for work (so to speak). Every time I’m on Reddit I hate myself. I also hate that that I can’t install an easy DNS blocking tool that isn’t likely selling my traffic and also works always (ie mobile an…

For private mobile filtering, some folks do something along the lines of:

* $5/month VPS running Wireguard and pihole

* Use iOS/Android Wireguard app to route all traffic through VPS with local VPS pihole as your Wireguard DNS server.

Post reply on HN