Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#241

Post by johnchristopher » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:21 PM UTC

scarecrowbob wrote: post #207

bdowling wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, most people pretended to read Animal Farm and 1984 in middle school and haven’t thought about them since. They didn’t understand them at the time, and they don’t see the similar manipulations going on in today’s society.

I agree. _Animal Farm_ was taught to me by my capitalist and authoritarian teachers as an anti-communist screed. The problem with the farm is that the pigs end up being capitalists, though I have never seen or heard of the text being taught to children as an anti-capitalist text. This culture does a very good job of assuming that the field of possibilities can easily and quickly be reduced to two choices and, further…

> I don't, however think folks are being manipulated: I think that the fundamental authoritarian move is that folks here have manipulated themselves. To me, that's close to the point of 1984.

Yes. It's rare to find people online who understand this point of 1984, that everyone becomes big brother and that's how it (it being the oppressive system in place to keep people in check) sustains itself.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#242

Post by cholantesh » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:31 PM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #221

cholantesh wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of widespread fraud in the data associated with insect population decline? Or are you arguing that science is just inherently fraudulent or unreliable? These sound like pretty extreme responses of the type ancaps gave for years to the claim that global surface temperatures were rising. Those looked pretty quaint even without the benefit if hindsight.

I am arguing that scientific data is unreliable in general.

Which is simultaneously broad and vacuous. Why? Compared to what? In this specific context, what method would provide a better intellectual foundation?

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#243

Post by m463 » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:37 PM UTC

tehnub wrote: post #38

People make too much of what Orwell supposedly feared may happen some day. He was writing about stuff the Soviet and British governments were doing in his time, and in particular, imagined what Soviet rule over Britain may look like. Assigning this philosophy to him and criticizing him for it seems unfair.

Why can't it be both outcomes at once?

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#244

Post by verisimi » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:38 PM UTC

willguest wrote: post #224

verisimi wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your personal testimony. It's good to hear that in your experience it seems that the insect populations really have dropped. Of course, there may be other reasons - eg if there are highways where it used to be small roads, you would expect insects to stay clear of the area. Also, litter you can see, is not microplastics - you can't see the microplastics.... But they are there! Apparently.

So, objective science is untrustworthy and subjective testimony is easily explained away. Let me guess - only your opinion is the one that matters. You have a poorly-crafted answer for both sides of the coin, but also fail to read the details of the things you oppose.

One has to ask oneself, is it better to have a comforting story, that is likely leveraged for someone, somewhere's benefit, or to start with the honest position, which is that "I don't know". One can of course become more certain of whatever-it-is, but not without attempting some personal research. Or, one can just defer all personal responsibility and parrot whatever the consensus view is.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#245

Post by verisimi » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:40 PM UTC

cholantesh wrote: post #242

verisimi wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am arguing that scientific data is unreliable in general.

Which is simultaneously broad and vacuous. Why? Compared to what? In this specific context, what method would provide a better intellectual foundation?

Personal verification. At least some attempt towards that. And I don't mean reading an article.

The scientific method applied personally.

Pretty much no one is checking anything.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#246

Post by im3w1l » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

detourdog wrote: post #239

Liquix wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely - the medium is the message. Books are slow, deliberate, require imagination and attention. Seven second tiktok videos are the opposite. The method by which we consume the information impacts us just as much if not more than its content.

The issue is spending equal amounts of cumulative time in 7 second disparate chunks. The book could build to a complex insight. The other strange part of video media is that intimate parasocial relationships it builds.

Books also build intimate parasocial relationships. People feel a sense of loss when finishing a book.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#247

Post by ccorcos » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:52 PM UTC

This comic misses some of my favorite details from the book.

The book talks a lot about Marshall McLuhan's quote "the medium is the message" and about how discourse has turned more and more into entertainment. Nixon lost to Kennedy because he was more attractive on television, and people are judged by how they look or behave as opposed to what they say.

More than anything, this book really made me appreciate written discourse.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#248

Post by hackable_sand » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 6:53 PM UTC

robotresearcher wrote: post #17

zabzonk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person ELECTED for president of the USA came from show business - Reagan.

As did Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

I don't think he can run for office in the US so this is false.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#249

Post by api » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

Liquix wrote: post #230

richk449 wrote: post #222

For those who haven’t read the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death is incredible, and absolutely worth reading. One of my mentors gave it to me years ago and it became one of those mind blowing reads. In the book, Postman analyzes how media affects humans and society. He basically gives a framework for predicting and understanding the effects of different types of media. The book was written before social media, so the…

Precisely - the medium is the message. Books are slow, deliberate, require imagination and attention. Seven second tiktok videos are the opposite. The method by which we consume the information impacts us just as much if not more than its content.

I've started reading more books (again) lately and the depth of character development and ideas in long form fiction is striking compared to even most long-form TV and films, let alone short attention span social media slop. (... and the best long-form TV and films are often based on books ...)

You can really get deep into characters' heads, their motivations, etc. The more I read the more I feel like it makes me a better person as I absorb empathy and deep insights about consciousness and the human experience.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#250

Post by cma » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 7:12 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #234

_yb2s wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's neither anti-capitalist nor anti-communist, just anti-authoritarian.

That's what I was thinking. First, if you don't remember the text go read it right now; it will take you an hour. It's not really pro- or alt- anything, as much as anti-

Also worth reading the preface Orwell wanted for it but that I think the editor rejected:

https://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go