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

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#61

Post by judofyr »

quartesixte wrote: post #53
judofyr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thinly veiled 'I despise stupid people', this one. Are you talking about this comic (i.e. a few sentences from the book) or the whole book? I read the book a few years back and it's entirely focused on culture as a whole and less about the individual choices. He's not making a point of "television makes you dumb" (or "dumb people watches television"), but rather he makes the distinction between an "oral"-, "press"-…

>He's not making a point of "television makes you dumb" (or "dumb people watches television"), but rather he makes the distinction between an "oral"-, "press"- and "television"-based culture. He claims that it's bad when television becomes the main platform that a society centers its communication around. Or as Postman himself put it, "the medium is the metaphor". And he strongly disliked the metaphor TV was bringing…

> And everyone should note this is the television of the 1980s. You still don't really have home recording, there are a limited number of channels, and the monoculture truly exists.

This is a good point as well! When reading it I was reflecting on how internet compares to 1980s television. Yes, it has much more dopamine-fueled content, but it's way less of a monoculture. It gives a lot of opportunity for people to seek out what they're interested in and there's hundreds (thousands?) of communities with very different set of thoughts.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#63

Post by 082349872349872 »

anthk wrote: post #28

Brave New World and 1984 are books to avoid every extreme on politics, either left or right (put every Monopoly neocon fanboy, racist non-civic nationalist or burocratic socialist in there). 1984 looked scary, but BNW was hopeless. It exerced a much better control. The world of 1984 collapsed down itself.

What's wrong with BNW? Have you forgotten the islands?

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#64

Post by mdp2021 »

valval wrote: post #6
ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #2

A person running for president of this country comes from show business and there are venture capitalists like Mark Andreeson who seriously talk about him as somebody who knows policy all because they can get a seat at the table.

And that should disqualify a presidential candidate… why exactly?

The OP did not express the idea properly: people are not prejudicially disqualified because of the industries they worked in, but intrinsic disqualification comes from twisted profiles. "Guts exciters", getting followers through seducing their lower instances, is one of them.

I am not labelling individuals here - but there are very many around the world fitting that description.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#65

Post by doubleorseven »

podviaznikov wrote: post #7

Live Neil Postman. Discovered him around 2016 and read many of his books. And planning to regularly reread him. So many things changed since he died but his ideas hold up pretty good.

He passed away before the first iPhone and now my only 2 wishes are: 1) a new book about how smartphones revolutionize the modern world and 2) a new Lauryn hill album

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#66

Post by AStonesThrow »

onion2k wrote: post #32
cen4 wrote: post #19

Think more about Attention. Not about Information. Information is exploding and global available Attention doesn't grow. People who pay attention to one thing, can't use the same time to pay attention to something else. So govts and corps fight over this common pool of Attention using the Media (TV/Movies/Radio/Social/News/Sports/Gaming etc etc), just like they fought over land and oil and other natural resources. Me…

But no one wins as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose. The problem is that "people working in Attention Capture fields" are the exact people who are winning, at least by the most common scoring mechanism of 'wealth'.

Yeah but there's negative attention, too.

Negative attention will eventually have consequences. Either they grow deaf, run away, become enraged, etc.

I think of the millions of ads, singers, bullies, salesmen who've vied for my attention, and you wear down. You get sick of saying "no", pretending not to notice, brushing aside dialogs, feeling bad because you can't help.

https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Laurie-Anderson/Language-I...

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#67

Post by mdp2021 »

gomerspiles wrote: post #48
tuatoru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Biden was never an entertainer like the other 2 demented old men (entrusted with WMDs) under discussion. If we send you to space you'll have to pass a fitness test.. Because we aren't stupid? But sure, anyone in the middle of a psychotic break who can't tell fact from fiction should be fine for the entirety of national interests. Shoot down another plane for the old Gipper!

> If we send you to space you'll have to pass a fitness test.. Because we aren't stupid?

The real problem societies face is reaching a good fitness test for decision makers.

That includes voters - discriminating, promoting, managing (etc.) the best electorate. And we had more focus and success in the past (abbeys, Venice etc.) than in the present, where the matter of electoral systems is kept like a theoretical branch of political science. And in running reality, people get Gerrymandering - an _opposite_ effort.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#68

Post by ffsm8 »

kubb wrote: post #49
helloplanets wrote: post #47

A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages…chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements … they require out-door exercises–not this sort of mental gladiatorship. A game of chess does not add a single new fa…

I kind of agree. Chess sucks big time, especially played online. Playing with your grandpa in the park is OK.

[flagged]

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#69

Post by Aeolun »

portaouflop wrote: post #60
mikub wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is not really wrong. Chess can be fun, but I always thought it is pretty fascinating that the chess champions are viewed by the media as some kind of genius. I mean, it's just a game, not more but also not less.

Life is a game no more no less. If you can be a champion at anything you deserve recognition - just look at the people lauded for chugging dozens of hot dogs

To be fair, I do not understand how someone can gobble up food so quickly and not throw up. It really is amazing in a sense.
Post reply on HN