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

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#271

Post by Dalewyn »

mdp2021 wrote: post #253
valval wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible. Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.

«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordi…

You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly. Thanks.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#272

Post by carlosjobim »

helloplanets wrote: post #47

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…

Couldn't agree more with that quote. It is completely correct.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#273

Post by AStonesThrow »

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.

My parasocial relationships started over the radio, I suppose, and TV took that to a whole new level (simultaneously) especially with the advent of music video. Now it's Social Media with the Stars, all the time...

When I was young, it was a rare thrill to interact with my idols. To accost them for a signature after a concert. To send fan mail and receive a personal postcard in return. Once, there was a surrealist late-night host who I met by chance at a Burger King with my mother. He was subsequently arrested with charges of child endangerment!

So now we're on the Internet and it's so easy to become a fan, a patron, a supporter, of "stars" and "influencers" who are so niche that your money and attention make a difference, and they can return that attention with personal comments and reactions, or even commission works for you. In days of yore, it was the Church and State and wealthy aristocrats who commissioned art, and now I could fund a KickStarter or Patreon for next to nothing. You've got private/semiprivate livestreams where they just read your comments and react. And we remain perfect strangers.

Thankfully, there are ways to stay connected to the community and maintain healthy relationships too. Since before the pandemic, I've "gone to church" on YouTube and I do see familiar names in the live-chat. You can attend city council meetings and other real stuff of local interest. Your support group can stay connected via Zoom.

But these pernicious ideas that a celebrity is your best friend, that your attraction to a woman will be requited or reciprocated, that a personal connection has been made, that's dangerous and a growing threat to our collective safety and sanity.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#274

Post by nuancebydefault »

renanoliveira0 wrote: post #182
somedude895 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I much prefer people amuse themselves to death than they think and theorize themselves- (or others, in the case of many late 19th and early 20th century intellectuals) to death.

At what point did this become a valid and legitimate issue? Why do we feel the need to prefer or not prefer what others do with their time? Isn’t that something that concerns only the person and their own life, which really shouldn’t concern us at all? I think your point really highlights this ethical mindset that has become so prominent today, especially with the rise of the internet.

They did not mean 'prefer' in the way you interpret it. They mean 'I believe the world would be better if...' rather than 'I'd choose for others to behave like...'

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#275

Post by nuancebydefault »

willguest wrote: post #83

Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there. Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade ou…

This is something I regularly read, something in the line of 'we're doomed and it's our own fault since we are actively part of this destructive system'.

I think while humanity is destroying things they are fixing things as well. Banning of heavy metals in environment, removing asbestos, getting most people to stop smoking, eating less meat, energy transition... it's not perfect but we are working on it. Meanwhile average age increases and violence decreases (averaged over a large period at least)

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#276

Post by nuancebydefault »

verisimi wrote: post #196
willguest wrote: post #83

Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there. Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade ou…

[flagged]

Well, did you see with your own eyes the earth is round rather than flat? No, so you can't state either? That makes most reasonable statements impossible to make.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#277

Post by baliex »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #235
tankenmate wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can't I learn this from any game, some with other, more life-applicable lessons and benefits, like sports?

Something that I believe sets chess aside from most other pursuits (e.g. sports, other games) is the lack of luck; it’s almost all skill. You and your opponent both have everything laid out in front of you, and if you’re skilled enough you can see more than they see, etc etc

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#278

Post by nuancebydefault »

verisimi wrote: post #244
willguest wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well to be honest, we don't truly 'know' anything, we can only make best guesses. My best guess based on what i've read from who i perceive as smart people is that microplastics are everywhere, not enough exercise makes you ill, looking in the sun kills your eyes and doing drugs is no good. Are you just can say "I don't know"

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#279

Post by nuancebydefault »

verisimi wrote: post #245
cholantesh wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would be nice if strengthened by some concrete examples.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#280

Post by HKH2 »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #261
dave333 wrote: post #21

Doing things merely to stimulate pleasurable brain chemistry is fine unless all you do is play games or watch formulaic media that have no lasting effect or achievement.

Which thing can you do that does not serve the purpose of generating desirable brain activity?

You missed 'merely'. The answer is: anything that involves delayed gratification.
Post reply on HN