Sad as Hell

That said, the tone (as far as there can reasonably be understood a 'tone' from two words) and the upvote the post had when I posted my comment did not, prima facie, lead me to believe that the purpose of the post was to be informed about who actually Justin Bieber is. A 5 second google search would've shown more than enough to be able to understand what the GP (and following posts) are complaining about. So, all these circumstances combined, lead me to believe that there is at least a core of truth to my post, even if it's not as dramatic as spelling it out like I did makes it seem.

Then again, me making these ridiculous multi-paragraph posts on a topic that is wholly devoid of any intellectual value would probably rationally be considered indicative of me taking pride in some sort of meta-pseudo-intellectual snobbery; so am I sticking up for pop culture because for the right reasons or for vain self-gratification? Does it matter? I don't know. And I think it doesn't matter that I don't know, either ;)

-- everything is new again just like before

-- there is nothing new under the sun ~ all is vanity

-- the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn

for a more culturally correct critique, though less direct, i.e. more metaphorical: this article is a micro-benchmark with a sample size of 1 and not having adequate controls when measuring in a noisy environment.

this is more or less a cousin of what you're saying to me. although it's humorous that you're making it as a critique of me and not of the article when in fact it and i are both painted with that brush.

and while i can just as easily make the same critique, i dispute it as a another conceit: the physical sciences' over-reliance on rationality in a universe that is not fully understood. an old philosophical problem, and one at the core of feynman's overestimated notions of superiority, brilliant as he was, he'll gladly cut down the social sciences and simultaneously provide us with high-quality tools for mass devastation.

ah, the fraternal sciences, one of whom is convinced it is no sibling, but rather the ubermensch already come.

but, yeah, that sort of micro-benchmark metaphor can be popular when misapplied to the humanities. and what do we get out of that?: economics. woohoo! i'm on fire! now, peeps, hurry with the down votes.

so, explain to me reality again, social what? ;)

Maybe this effect is stronger in those who remember when information was scarce, especially information on subjects that used to be obscure, like, say, programming languages. :) You instinctively try to eat up as much as possible. Except that strategy is actually harmful nowadays, because there simply is too much information on just about anything, for one person to process. That concept is easy to grasp, but it's not so easy to actually change our habits.

More likely he was pointing out to bobf, the user whose post to which he was replying, that participation in pop-culture is entirely voluntary. I think to assume that he was passing judgment on Justin Bieber fans out of some 'pseudo-intellectual snobbery' is just a little bit presumptuous.

I guess I shouldn't debate... I read the line about "... the hilarious moment 3 seconds into an intimate embrace when I realize that I'm literally rubbing the screen of my iPhone against his spine," and assumed the author was female because in my head, the "default" participants in an intimate embrace are a guy & a girl, since that's the one I'm most familiar with. So, negative points for me on the knee-jerk gender assumption front.

I thought that was a really great line, potential elicited sexism notwithstanding, by the way. I've had those moments myself. It took me a second to realize exactly what she was talking about, but once I did, I couldn't help but chortle at how much I've chided myself for the very same thing.