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

I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

samj.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 340 posts

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#311

Post by teamonkey »

Earw0rm wrote: post #255
teamonkey wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gini coefficient usually only measures income inequality. Wealth inequality is hard to measure for various reasons but… https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ “for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%.” “If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200…

The super rich aren't the problem. 200 families is too few to have any meaningful effect on the housing market. By all means tax them til their eyes bleed, but it'll mostly just make people feel better rather than being a useful contribution to public finances.

They own a lot of UK property and land, both directly and through trusts. And given the statistic that the top 50 families control half of the UK’s total wealth, I’m not sure how you can say it wouldn’t have an impact on either tax revenues or property prices. A land tax of 0.1% would have a staggering impact on tax revenues.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#312

Post by intended »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #274
djeastm wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>mob rule Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions. If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.

> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made. So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.

The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population.

Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#313

Post by debesyla »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #296
debesyla wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have this situation in lithuanian web for a two decades now. Once the big news networks (DELFI.lt, 15min.lt, lrytas.lt, alfa.lt and few others) bought out the largest blogs and connected them to their own domains, there isn't much of an independent web left. Owners of the websites back then gladly sold out (and I would have done it too), because it seemed like a great idea to sell your work back in the 2008-ish fo…

Sounds like the main issue is Google Search ? Plenty of people are linking their own websites on HN, BTW, so it might not necessarily need to be one or the other. https://indieweb.org/POSSE ?

Please read the words 5-7 again :-)

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#314

Post by dandellion »

hkt wrote: post #58
dandellion wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it about keeping you reading for long enough to show you a pop-up for his newsletter?

Just disable JavaScript and get on with your life

I stopped reading and got on with my life just fine.

But I like leaving snarky comments, so I'm not going to stop doing it.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#315

Post by codeulike »

K0balt wrote: post #307
codeulike wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now Its much more possible for people who are the target of jokes to reply now, compared to pre-social-media 2003

Taking offense when none was tendered is a special kind of social malfeasance that has gained popularity among the idle and boorish class of recent years. I appreciate it as a facile outward indication of low character and questionable intellect.

Well that may be. But I'm talking more about differences between 2003 and now. Regardless of cancel culture etc, there is a physical possibility of reply/response now, that did not exist in 2003. Perhaps the two things are related?

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#316

Post by Biologist123 »

urbandw311er wrote: post #175
SamJordison wrote: post #167

Author here. Noticed a lot of traffic from this post - so thanks. Thanks especially for all these thoughtful comments. Just dropping in to say I appreciate the attention - and am grateful that most posters here don't seem to mind that I'm unable to draw hard conclusions in my original article. I also like the posts here that point towards the fact that atomisation maybe has had something to do with things (as well as…

Hi Sam Thanks for writing the piece in the first place – I thought it was a wonderfully self-reflective and mature look back at the book, why you created it, and how times have changed. As a mid 40something in the UK, formerly a creative writer, I have experienced exactly the same shifting attitudes as yourself. The primary reasons, as many have said, are probably the fact that people are more polarised in their thin…

I remember Crap Towns, I loved it! And the Idler! Which had an entire section on jokes for which punchlines had been half-forgotten.

Great and thoughtful reflection piece too.

I’d like to add a few other ideas into the mix as for some reason I’m uncomfortable with the idea “you can’t say that anymore” that I wonder if it’s become a thought-terminating cliche.

Firstly, I suspect there’s always been two forms of puritanism: one with power and one without power. We didn’t historically hear much from puritans without power (famously some shipped off elsewhere and founded an empire). And the ones in power? Well a fish doesn’t know it’s wet…and all the other sods now have X accounts and podcasts!

The second point is to reflect on the fact that British humour is a curious thing. You noticed yourself that satire may have curiously little real world bite.

Maybe there’s been a category error: humour isn’t a mechanism for social change, it’s a coping strategy (I live in Luton, not Hull, TFFT). Or worse mechanism for social control. In my brief time in the Uk I noticed that “banter” often chipped at eccentricities or quirks, and served to bring people into line with group orthodoxy.

In short, and to mirror your uncertainties, I’m just not so sure it’s as clear cut that free speech has been curtailed somehow. Or that humour was ever about just having a laugh.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#317

Post by _rpxpx »

Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where the author perceives that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago. But, no, "identity politics". Good riddance.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#318

Post by _rpxpx »

SamJordison wrote: post #167

Author here. Noticed a lot of traffic from this post - so thanks. Thanks especially for all these thoughtful comments. Just dropping in to say I appreciate the attention - and am grateful that most posters here don't seem to mind that I'm unable to draw hard conclusions in my original article. I also like the posts here that point towards the fact that atomisation maybe has had something to do with things (as well as…

Went through the entire article expecting imminently to get to the paragraph where you perceive that Crap Towns was a mistake because it makes fun of the poor, and that the reason it couldn't be published now is that poverty in the UK is far worse than it was 20 years ago.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#319

Post by K0balt »

codeulike wrote: post #315
K0balt wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking offense when none was tendered is a special kind of social malfeasance that has gained popularity among the idle and boorish class of recent years. I appreciate it as a facile outward indication of low character and questionable intellect.

Well that may be. But I'm talking more about differences between 2003 and now. Regardless of cancel culture etc, there is a physical possibility of reply/response now, that did not exist in 2003. Perhaps the two things are related?

I suspect you are right, both in the voice and in the causal nature of the new memosphere validating the valueless.

Re: I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

#320

Post by Earw0rm »

teamonkey wrote: post #311
Earw0rm wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The super rich aren't the problem. 200 families is too few to have any meaningful effect on the housing market. By all means tax them til their eyes bleed, but it'll mostly just make people feel better rather than being a useful contribution to public finances.

They own a lot of UK property and land, both directly and through trusts. And given the statistic that the top 50 families control half of the UK’s total wealth, I’m not sure how you can say it wouldn’t have an impact on either tax revenues or property prices. A land tax of 0.1% would have a staggering impact on tax revenues.

It might affect agricultural land prices. Indeed that's at the heart of the farming IHT controversy (farming land is effectively overpriced relative to its business or utility value, because of its previously far too generous IHT treatment). It won't affect the price of houses, because it's not 200 rich families hogging the supply.

50 families controlling half the country's wealth is a bit of a stretch. The top 50 individuals have an average net worth of maybe $4-5Bn, giving a total wealth of $250Bn. Half the country's _land_ seems more likely?

Meanwhile there are literally millions of £1M+ houses owned by relatively ordinary people, millions of Boomers and some older GenX with at least £0.5m in their pension funds, and so on.

Land tax of 0.1% would be a good thing, but it'd be equivalent to putting about a third on council tax (£1k/year on a £1m home, currently council tax is about £3k in that bracket I think?). A useful step certainly but not revolutionary.

Post reply on HN