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

Amusing ourselves to death

onthepathofknowledge.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#61

Post by bananacurve »

onion2k wrote: post #40
clienthunter wrote: post #34

I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing. I have problems with this. In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where doe…

I think you're doing a disservice to the 'bottom 55%' of society. Ignoring perhaps the bottom and top 5% of the curve, the spectrum of intellectual difference isn't that big. Most people can read a book. Most people can visit a museum. Hell, most could write a book. Most people can understand and enjoy intellectual pursuits. The reason why the bottom 55%'s chief pleasures are "TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect s…

So there is a conspiracy by the "elites" to make the masses love the Kardashians? This level of absurdity is not apparent to you? Being intelligent is not a perfect defense to confusion.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#64

Post by triangleman »

frou_dh wrote: post #53

Something I found surprisingly infuriating lately is that on the YouTube app for iOS, you can be watching a video full-screen and, before the video is even finished , a thing slides up from the bottom about what it wants you to watch next. Fuck off! I'm still trying to watch the one video I elected to see and it's already trying to herd me down the attention deficit rathole.

YouTube app... for iOS... there's your problem right there.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#65

Post by VLM »

cooop wrote: post #29

Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931. Is anyone aware of the technologies or behaviours at the time that inspired the novel? I've always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that culture was very different then and have been always been curious as to how he came to his prediction.

1920s flappers? Early nationwide radio networks and the related rise of radio coverage of sports and the original soap operas?

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#66

Post by m_mueller »

dalek_cannes wrote: post #19
_bfhp wrote: post #10

I never finished 1984 but both seem to ignore the ultimate driving force behind both authoritarianism and consumerism that continues to rule the world, money and capitalism. In 1984, or at least this comic, power and violence seems to happen for their own sake, "power corrupting power", and similarly for Huxley's hedonism. The comic claims "Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to pas…

> ultimate driving force behind both authoritarianism and consumerism that continues to rule the world, money and capitalism I would say the problem is any social structure that allows money to buy power, i.e. that allows the translation of economic power into political power (and vice versa). Either we should prevent that, or consider placing a cap on maximum per-capita economic power (preferably as a factor of the…

As a Swiss and living within the Swiss political system I firmly believe that laws alone can never be enough to keep people from getting too much power. Instead, implementing and defending a democracy that actually deserves its name, as in a system where the majority of people keep the last say in the law making process, instead of just letting them delegate that right every few year, is what keeps the system stable and everyone in check. Besides the direct effect on the law, this has two positive effects that most people don't quite seem to grasp when arguing about direct vs. indirect democracy:

- People tend to be more content with the laws they need to follow. Even if they lost on a vote its easier to accept in a system where its an actual majority behind it instead of just some removed cabal that you can only elect based on some pamphlet information every few years.

- Politicians in such a system tend to think ahead in terms of what can and cannot be popular with the people. They do so not only for the election years (which don't have that great of an importance here, not only because of direct democracy but also because of the way our federal government is formed by all major parties) but whenever delicate issues are coming up. One example I'd attribute to this effect is our liberal online piracy laws and our seemingly better protected privacy. When we had our own small scale Snowden affair in the 80ies it blew up into a huge scandal leading to the resignation of a federal council member ('Fichenaffäre', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal).

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#68

Post by VLM »

kristofferR wrote: post #31
sidcool wrote: post #28

What is the solution of this quandary?

And what's the problem with it? I surely think a lot of popular culture is stupid/a waste of time, but as long as I (and others) have the freedom to freely chose more "fruitful" things to do with our time - then what's the big deal?

"have the freedom to freely chose"

Do you? All it takes is social and cultural ostracism? That seems a bit expensive for something that should be very cheap if not freely encouraged.

Do you have the freedom to choose more fruitful housing architecture, or just a slightly different shade of beige? Can you marry whomever you please in any state you like? Can you teach your children your religion, or none at all, or will state sponsored schools tell them some creation myths are more equal that others? If there's one core value of all conformists, its trying to legislate their conformity, which is in direct opposition to your supposed freedom.

This is aside from PR issues, the embrace extend extinguish model of civil liberties. We'll kill brown people and take their oil because they hate our freedumbs. Whoops, that was an epic fail. Well guess we don't need this "freedom" thing anymore. No problemo, "Survivor" is on tonight so its all good.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#69

Post by frou_dh »

triangleman wrote: post #64
frou_dh wrote: post #53

Something I found surprisingly infuriating lately is that on the YouTube app for iOS, you can be watching a video full-screen and, before the video is even finished , a thing slides up from the bottom about what it wants you to watch next. Fuck off! I'm still trying to watch the one video I elected to see and it's already trying to herd me down the attention deficit rathole.

YouTube app... for iOS... there's your problem right there.

I have no idea what you're talking about. My specific complaint aside, the dedicated app is far more responsive and reliable to use than the mobile site, as is often the case when there's a choice.

Re: Amusing ourselves to death

#70

Post by onion2k »

bananacurve wrote: post #61
onion2k wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're doing a disservice to the 'bottom 55%' of society. Ignoring perhaps the bottom and top 5% of the curve, the spectrum of intellectual difference isn't that big. Most people can read a book. Most people can visit a museum. Hell, most could write a book. Most people can understand and enjoy intellectual pursuits. The reason why the bottom 55%'s chief pleasures are "TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect s…

So there is a conspiracy by the "elites" to make the masses love the Kardashians? This level of absurdity is not apparent to you? Being intelligent is not a perfect defense to confusion.

I think the conspiracy* is modern anti-intellectualism, mocking creativity, and the promotion of the idea that respect, fame and wealth should be something that comes instantly when you're judged better than your peers rather than something that can be earned by hard work. The Kardashians are the result of that rather than the means.

* Conspiracy is the wrong word. I think it's quite transparent how society has be changed in to something that benefits the ultra-wealthy more than the rest.

Post reply on HN