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

The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

documentjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 471 posts

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#291

Post by klyrs »

ALittleLight wrote: post #256
klyrs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that FSM does satisfy your stricter definition of counterculture. Like the Church of Satan, one of the stated goals is to force legal examination of whether or not "freedom of religion" actually means "freedom to practice Christianity". LARPing and kink also have some opposition by fairly mainstream religious-types. They're seen as counterculture, even if they don't define themselves that way. Sorry. Changing…

Maybe the FSM is counter cultural but only in the way that housecats and lions are both felines. There is a very large difference between trying to hang Mike Pence or kill police and believing that established religions are illogical. Maybe it's slightly countercultural in the areas where Christianity or other religions predominate (which is not where I live).

I have family that literally think that Harry Potter turns children to Satanism, and think that the books should be banned on that basis (JKR was cancelled on the right long before she was cancelled on the left). You might consider those folks to belong to a counterculture in your context, but Evangelical Christianity is extremely popular in large swathes of the US.

And yes, both lions and housecats are felines. There's gradients and degrees. I'd call the folks you're talking about as "extremists" not a mere counterculture.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#292

Post by airhead969 »

cbozeman wrote: post #216
airhead969 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Antisocial media" would a truthful title. I don't even like texting. Email is a letter replacement. Call me and pickup when I call, or GTFO. Faceblock, Twatter, Instaglam, Discard, Snapper, TikTak, LinkedOut can all listen to the flushing sound of me deleting their advertising monetization. "Buh buh all of your Ivy and Pac12 associations that made you look important on a résumé." Too bad, I haven't talked to most of…

> LinkedOut That's the one that made me laugh out loud.

It keeps the spacetime continuum together with personal branding, consultant think-pieces and virtual cocktail hour networking while scanning the universe for a more important person to elevator.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#293

Post by msla »

airhead969 wrote: post #126
keiferski wrote: post #55

Charles Taylor, the philosopher, covered much of this about twenty years ago with far less snark and buzzwords. I strongly recommend reading The Ethics of Authenticity. It’s all about the trend of individualism and how it precedes social media by...centuries. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674987692 Social media is no longer authentic so you’re seeing a slowly growing backlash against it. https://se…

"Antisocial media" would a truthful title. I don't even like texting. Email is a letter replacement. Call me and pickup when I call, or GTFO. Faceblock, Twatter, Instaglam, Discard, Snapper, TikTak, LinkedOut can all listen to the flushing sound of me deleting their advertising monetization. "Buh buh all of your Ivy and Pac12 associations that made you look important on a résumé." Too bad, I haven't talked to most of…

> Call me and pickup when I call, or GTFO.

I don't exist at your beck and call. Text me and respect that I have a life beyond hanging on the telephone, or I don't care to distinguish you from the billions of autodialers who are the only ones still rude enough to make such demands on my time.

BTW, cute misspellings. Little jugs got big ears, I suppose.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#294

Post by perfectritone »

keiferski wrote: post #55

Charles Taylor, the philosopher, covered much of this about twenty years ago with far less snark and buzzwords. I strongly recommend reading The Ethics of Authenticity. It’s all about the trend of individualism and how it precedes social media by...centuries. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674987692 Social media is no longer authentic so you’re seeing a slowly growing backlash against it. https://se…

Don't forget Guy Debord who was writing about this in 1967.

"The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than "that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance."

"False choice in spectacular abundance, a choice which lies in the juxtaposition of competing and complimentary spectacles and also in the juxtaposition of roles (signified and carried mainly by things) which are at once exclusive and overlapping, develops into a struggle of vaporous qualities meant to stimulate loyalty to quantitative triviality."

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#295

Post by TameAntelope »

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #249
giantrobot wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most vulnerable voices It's really sad you apparently posted this seriously.

I'd like your thoughts on why their political beliefs are not vulnerable.

Because you decide your political beliefs, and reactions to those decisions inform whether or not you continue to hold them.

Unlike a protected class, which you cannot choose to be a member of. Being of a political party is not a protected class, nor should it be.

The "most vulnerable people in our society" are the people who are discriminated on things they are, not things they do. Gab users are not the most vulnerable, because they choose to be who they're judged for.

It's viscerally insulting to see that point misunderstood, because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of large portions of how society functions in practice. Because of what you said, and people who believe what you've said, people suffer. That's hard to confront on HN, because you don't expect it.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#296

Post by rossdavidh »

JasonFruit wrote: post #4

I'm going to have to read this again to see if it's brilliant or just pretentious. But I'm going to print it and read it again more carefully, which suggests to me that it may lean toward the former.

Keeping in mind, it can be both brilliant _and_ pretentious, especially in different paragraphs.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#297

Post by icedchai »

airhead969 wrote: post #197
wussboy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard "antisocial media" before but I love it

The antisocial social club most def raises the Jolly Roger flag against "social" media. ;-] At some point, I just want a private platform that is paid for using microcredits, no ads/data harvesting, requires verified named people with faces (improved communication quality), connections only stay alive if you actually interact with them IRL, doesn't automatically share everything with everyone in a single context, and…

You just need to go back to the 1990's, when Usenet and BBSes were still active.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#298

Post by AnimalMuppet »

randomdude402 wrote: post #283
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Churches (specifically Christian churches) can be dead center in the culture. Or they can be solidly Christian, and still be countercultural. They might say things like: You're looking for social unity? Politics isn't going to create that, no matter which side wins. We can show you a real social unity. You're looking for security? The government's Covid response isn't going to give you that, even if they do it perfec…

Some things that count as churches may have sprung up to make such offers, but I am assuming most churches have been standing since before Covid, before Facebook, before Trump and Obama and Bush. If say 40% of people are attending these gatherings, it's a tough sell that they are so far from mainstream as to be countercultural. People have been visiting churches in search of unity, security, and joy for thousands of…

And for thousands of years the churches have been saying, "The culture isn't going to give you that."

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#299

Post by intricatedetail »

krapp wrote: post #238
bluefirebrand wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hadn't thought of boycotting much of popular online space as being counter-cultural. It's an interesting thought I think the interesting part is that it's kind of counter-culture but it itself is not really a culture at all. There are no groups (as far as I know) for people who eschew social media. They don't meet up at the pub and talk about it, they don't have any kind of organization, even a loose one. People…

>There are no groups (as far as I know) for people who eschew social media. They don't meet up at the pub and talk about it, they don't have any kind of organization, even a loose one. Hacker News is basically that culture. A lot of people here spend their time complaining about how much they hate every aspect of social media, the web and modern culture ( except for HN, of course) and make a point of virtue-signaling…

Yet there are groups here that tend to downvote certain not necessarily evil views to oblivion. For example if you support capitalism and in context write your opinion in favour of some events, expect a rain of downvotes or if you dare to criticise Apple. Quite ironic.

Re: The internet didn’t kill counterculture – you just won’t find it on Instagram

#300

Post by herval »

airhead969 wrote: post #288
krick wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's weird. I mean, you do you, but if this is a popular opinion, I had no idea. On the contrary, I'm mildly annoyed when someone calls me to say something that could've said over the text. And I don't think of it as a personal preference: async information exchange is objectively less intrusive, which is why it should be preferred when possible (which isn't always the case, because it's also objectively less fluen…

Would you be content with chatbots, a sex doll, and living in an undersea bubble? If so (I doubt it), great, go for it. If not: don't answer, silent mode, or power off, or appreciate human contact when you do. If people are "calling too much," it's because you failed to train them how to interact with you. And, now you're resenting their assuming it was okay because you were too "nice" to be honest. Instead of mind-r…

Or maybe a text message is just a much more practical and less disruptive form of communication with, you know, another human being. You're being quite judgemental on other people and ascribing behavior just because they happen to communicate in methods that you find inappropriate. Not very constructive.
Post reply on HN