Live data from Hacker News

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

71–80 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#71
post #52

Dopamine is one hell of a drug.

Outrage and fear are exhausting, let me tell ya. Somehow I cannot get away from nursing my PTSD online, with sick pleasure in picking fights and "winning" arguments.

Sometimes I wake up with a thread racing through my mind and the perfect retort to my "adversary"

I honestly don't hate you guys, but you give my life purpose and meaning... So thank you

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#72
post #68
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree. Chess sucks big time, especially played online. Playing with your grandpa in the park is OK.

[flagged]

Why does he have to be bad at chess if he doesn't like playing online? Also I think "Playing with your grandpa." was just a metaphor for, playing with people you like. Some people just play games to have fun, you know, not everything has to be a competition.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#73
post #28

Brave New World and 1984 are books to avoid every extreme on politics, either left or right (put every Monopoly neocon fanboy, racist non-civic nationalist or burocratic socialist in there). 1984 looked scary, but BNW was hopeless. It exerced a much better control. The world of 1984 collapsed down itself.

What's wrong with BNW? Have you forgotten the islands?

On "The Island", well, it's the book Huxley wrote as a counterpart against BNW.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#74
post #33

Thinly veiled 'I despise stupid people', this one. They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize? It's not what stupid people do in their free time - it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference. Nietzsche laid this out quite beautifully in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Huxley and Orwe…

>it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference. How do you know capable and smart people will keep having good values? Seems to me that it's true until it isn't - populism takes over politics, ideology takes over the humanities, science gets Goodharted to death, etc. Values are highly circular - we value what high-status people in our (sub)culture value, and you become high-status…

> How do you know capable and smart people will keep having good values?

'Good' values don't exist, so we need not worry about that one :)

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#75
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden was never an entertainer like the other 2 demented old men (entrusted with WMDs) under discussion. If we send you to space you'll have to pass a fitness test.. Because we aren't stupid? But sure, anyone in the middle of a psychotic break who can't tell fact from fiction should be fine for the entirety of national interests. Shoot down another plane for the old Gipper!

> If we send you to space you'll have to pass a fitness test.. Because we aren't stupid? The real problem societies face is reaching a good fitness test for decision makers. That includes voters - discriminating, promoting, managing (etc.) the best electorate. And we had more focus and success in the past (abbeys, Venice etc.) than in the present, where the matter of electoral systems is kept like a theoretical branc…

That's a problem, but I think the problem is checks and balances for actual repairs to the checks and balances that would restrict a role are prohibitely hard to make while privilege escalations enlarging a role are at best temporarily denied.

Mr Trump was supposed to be picked up by a military tribunal and probably executed. Whether that tribunal system is overreaching would have been an excellent discussion, after the execution.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#76
post #72
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why does he have to be bad at chess if he doesn't like playing online? Also I think "Playing with your grandpa." was just a metaphor for, playing with people you like. Some people just play games to have fun, you know, not everything has to be a competition.

Because their argument wasn't "competitive gameplay is terrible for society", but "chess is bad".

But even if it was the former argument: that's unquestionably false too. Just look at professional sports like soccer or Basketball. Surely you're not going to argue that this is bad...? Because that's fundamentally the same, just on a different topic

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#77
A couple of years ago i was working for a design studio which produced an image movie for a big cooperation which somehow painted an utopian future for their upcoming product ideas. In that movie there was a woman reading in "Brave new World".[EDITED] It was clear none of the people involved read the book. My remarks were swept aside by claiming hardly anyone has read the book anyway... headlessness might be a real issue.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#78
post #56

A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages…chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements … they require out-door exercises–not this sort of mental gladiatorship. A game of chess does not add a single new fa…

Which is not really wrong. Chess can be fun, but I always thought it is pretty fascinating that the chess champions are viewed by the media as some kind of genius. I mean, it's just a game, not more but also not less.

But playing Chess at any serious level (more than a couple hours a week) has some non Chess side effects; it teaches you to examine your own behaviour, it teaches you that even if you're very good you can still lose (and hopefully how to lose well), and it teaches you that the other side gets a vote (get a turn, no action happens in a vacuum).

All of which are very valuable life lessons.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#80
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is not really wrong. Chess can be fun, but I always thought it is pretty fascinating that the chess champions are viewed by the media as some kind of genius. I mean, it's just a game, not more but also not less.

But playing Chess at any serious level (more than a couple hours a week) has some non Chess side effects; it teaches you to examine your own behaviour, it teaches you that even if you're very good you can still lose (and hopefully how to lose well), and it teaches you that the other side gets a vote (get a turn, no action happens in a vacuum). All of which are very valuable life lessons.

You'll get that from any sport and also physical benefits
Post reply on HN