Shamelessness as a strategy (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#141

Post by metalman » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 4:59 PM UTC

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #39

It's not shamelessness, it's authenticity. In today's curated, hyperreal society people desperately crave imperfections, cracks in the armour, they want something real , something human. They desire vulnerability, in part because it gives them courage to also be vulnerable, to not be afraid of judgement and rejection, and the freedom to be themselves. And I think it's actionable advice for all of us. Be genuine, be v…

shamelessness and counter signalling can be seen in another phenominon where the difference between bieng crazy or eccentric(authentic) is a million $

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#142

Post by eszed » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 5:46 PM UTC

bze12 wrote: post #28

eszed wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me an example or two?

This video gives a good overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xEi8qg266g

Thank you. That's really good.

I'd say in response that he's missing (or, at least, gestures towards but doesn't explore) an element of post-modernism - at least in literary criticism, which I know more about than specifically film - which is that it's inherently a critique of power relationships. The key post-modern observation is that all narratives are deliberately constructed - in other words, someone chooses what to include and what to leave out - so Who tells a story, and Why they tell that story in that particular way, in order to advance What view of the world is instrinsic to understanding them.

Maybe we - artists, critics, and audiences alike - are generally exhausted by that right now. Politics are particularly fraught, and decades of post-modern art and thought certainly can't claim to have advanced utopia, so what we're calling meta-modernism is certainly a response, but it's closer to (my generation's rallying cry) "whatever, man", than it is advancing a solution to anything we see ailing the world at the moment.

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#143

Post by aleksiy123 » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 5:51 PM UTC

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #79

marcus_holmes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it. In our enlightened modern times, people don't give a shit, and trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless. They are shameless about their selfishness, and apparently that's OK now. With the result, as others have said, that…

70–90% of people have functional object impermanence, and at least 50% have no inner dialogue no self awareness, no reflection. just impulse. me, me, me. blasting music in public, talking at max volume, slamming doors. taking 20 mins to use an ATM when it takes me 30 seconds. and so on.

The irony of this comment.

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#144

Post by overfeed » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

snapcaster wrote: post #131

overfeed wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was hoping that there would be a "solution" of sorts to tackle / handle this issue of when EVERYBODY seems to use this strategy, but perhaps there isn't one...? We're overdue for a major war, which will be reset on how we treat other humans by the end of it. Humans killing humans on an industrial scale between near-peers is followed by periods where people realize that maybe being dicks to each other isn't the id…

What are you talking about? can you point to a single instance of this happening? 20th century seems to contradict you pretty hard

Germany (WWII), Japan (WWII), and US (Vietnam war) all had pacifist movements spring up in the aftermath of conflict. See also the aftermath of the regimes of Franco, Mussolini,and Ceausescu for domestic resets, just from the 20th century.

All in the 20th century. I attribute the fact that the US and Russia didn't head into a hot war post-WWII to the clear-headedness of witnessing WWII.

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#145

Post by badc0ffee » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 6:43 PM UTC

potato3732842 wrote: post #118

marcus_holmes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it. In our enlightened modern times, people don't give a shit, and trying to shame them into not doing it is pointless. They are shameless about their selfishness, and apparently that's OK now. With the result, as others have said, that…

>Let's take an example: people who play music/video aloud on public transport. >In Ye Olden Days of the last century, this would be a shameful act, and people would be shamed for doing it. Your equivalent ilk of decades past complained about "kids these days" and their boomboxes in public in basically the same way you're doing now.

It's not one guy with a boombox now, it's 7 people with TikTok open on their phones.

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#146

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 6:48 PM UTC

tudorizer wrote: post #100

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #39

It's not shamelessness, it's authenticity. In today's curated, hyperreal society people desperately crave imperfections, cracks in the armour, they want something real , something human. They desire vulnerability, in part because it gives them courage to also be vulnerable, to not be afraid of judgement and rejection, and the freedom to be themselves. And I think it's actionable advice for all of us. Be genuine, be v…

You might be applying some reverse psychology by claiming shameless == authentic. Does that translate to having shame (in the interpretation of being aware or norms and being considerate to those around) == not authentic? This "freedom to be themselves" works very well when priviledge is at stake.

Shameless != authentic.

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#147

Post by lovich » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 7:18 PM UTC

potato3732842 wrote: post #115

lovich wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was hoping that there would be a "solution" of sorts to tackle / handle this issue of when EVERYBODY seems to use this strategy, but perhaps there isn't one...? It’s called government regulation. There’s whole fields of research on how to solve an arbitrarily complicated Prisoner’s Dilemma. A lot of people are allergic to the idea because they don’t want to have limits on their behavior, only on others or on no o…

You're peddling government as a silver bullet. It's not. You're no less ignorant (a much milder word than I want to use) than the people who think various flavors of near-anarchy can magically work fine. Some people are allergic to your knee jerk silver bullet solution because often times it comes with downsides that are on comparable orders to the original problem, same as every other silver bullet being peddled by…

I don't believe I called it a silver bullet. I believe I called it a solution to a specific situation the person I was replying to. You are no less ignorant(also a much milder word than I want to use for yourself) than anyone else who hears "government" and then goes on a tirade about how "gubment bad".

Shit is complicated. That's why leaving it to the random chance of whatever happens in the market happens tends to lead to sub optimal outcomes unless the only metric you care about is efficiency.

I find it comical that you end your post with "care needs to be taken" in response to me calling for government regulation, when government regulation is literally an organization making sure that care is taken.

You can argue on any specific policy points easily, but notice I didn't suggest a concrete action yet, and you still were ready to argue against it because the government was mentioned

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#148

Post by lovich » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 7:19 PM UTC

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #59

lovich wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European governments have regulations for anti social behaviors that curb some excesses and they haven’t collapsed. So I would agree, they have worked in the past

Give us some examples.

Hacker news told me to stop posting so fast (i.e. i pissed people off enough to flag) but belatedly,

the UK has A.S.B.O.s, Germany has many laws and regulations against speech and being part of extremist groups. Both countries seem to be doing fine compared to the global competition

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#149

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 7:22 PM UTC

arkey wrote: post #96

b_e_n_t_o_n wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still authenticity though. What's not authentic is people who conceal those aspects of themselves, and it's also far more dangerous.

In this paradigm you describe, should we then strive to be authentic or should we refrain? Don't you think this would open the doors to an endless amount of bad behaviours?

Yes.

No.

Re: Shamelessness as a strategy (2019)

#150

Post by lovich » Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 7:22 PM UTC

samdoesnothing wrote: post #72

lovich wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European governments have regulations for anti social behaviors that curb some excesses and they haven’t collapsed. So I would agree, they have worked in the past

Governments once banned interracial relationships and marriage, homosexuality, women working outside the home, divorce, birth control, dancing, drinking etc, on account of contributing to anti-social behaviour. It's true that they haven't collapsed, but I don't think that's because those things were once banned.

If your point is that what was acceptable in the past is now distasteful, then respectfully I do not care.

The fact that the government cannot create a regulation that works for everyone, everywhere, all at once across time and space is not a winning argument for me since that limitation applies to all actors. We go through cycles where we either change what society generally considers "ok" or we discover that something we thought was ok was actually a great evil after some forerunners on moral thought convince enough people of the righteousness of their belief.

That doesn't make regulating bad behavior not ok.