61–70 of 173 posts
Unaccounted for: the failure scenario. You had integrity, put in the work, and failed. Life is brutal - anyone can respect your effort. You tried to be the next Paris, and failed. You look like a fucking clown.
There's some survivor bias. But like a virus, the next strain will be stronger and more potent from those survivors. Very few people in 2004 could pull off the Paris. It's a lot easier in 2024.
> Increasingly, I think the “shameless” approach is becoming a dominant strategy today. It was first popularized in modern canon by Paris Hilton, who played the “dumb blonde heiress” stereotype so smoothly that everyone assumed she really was as stupid as she seemed. This seems wildly unsupported. I lived through that era, and admittedly I wasn't breathlessly tuned into the latest celebrity gossip, but from a sort of…
I’m guessing he’s more referring to the television show with Nicole Ritchie where they both acted shamelessly stupid for the attention. I supposed it’s possible she’s really as dumb as she portrayed on her “reality” tv show, but I find it extremely unlikely given the money and education.
Unaccounted for: the failure scenario. You had integrity, put in the work, and failed. Life is brutal - anyone can respect your effort. You tried to be the next Paris, and failed. You look like a fucking clown.
Well who cares about looking like a clown, considering there’s millions of them on LinkedIn and TikTok. Shame is diluted every day and no one cares
A lot of people, almost instinctively, and for good reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 one at all. So are we doomed? if we don't vote in people who can properly regulate this, it seems the dilemma continues. But how does one convince an entire society to stop being so selfish and myopic?
If you want everyone to be able to do what they want without limit, and enough people are choosing a route to destruction, then yes we are doomed. I have no idea how to convince anyone anymore. Even people who claim to care about things beyond themself immediately round up the wagons the second they have a limitation imposed. Already in this thread there’s someone mocking government regulation with a strawman argumen…
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…
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 we end up in the worst box on the Prisoner's Dilemma choices: we all have to put with other people's shitty taste in music and no-one gets any peace and quiet.
I don't get how we write this up as "authenticity" without also concluding that these people authentically have no consideration for the other people around them, and are therefore bad people. I certainly do not want these people to be authentic around me, I would very much like them to have some shame and maintain a considerate front, even if that's not their true nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics was in this weird stasis. The shameless showman broke the script where some evolution of 1960s Kennedy v. Nixon was displaced by whatever you call this era. Vice President Quayle was mocked endlessly for spelling the word potato incorrectly. Now we have a dude who can barely string a sentence together.
Perhaps it wasn't really about the potato spelling after all. Or the emails.
>It’s important to note that people were dismissive of Paris because validating her playbook would mean admitting that they were playing an inferior game. Everyone else had invested years into optimizing for the most legible version of the rules. They’d look silly if they were to admit she had found a better way of doing things. I had a co-worker who was addicted to verbally correcting everyone around him, which was…
Eh, I don't think your analysis of your coworker is correct, or it might be technically correct but missing the point. Some people are obnoxious because they never learned not to be. It's about empathy, bad habits, and never getting the right feedback. Of course there is accounting for people being different and your goal in life shouldn't be "never bother anybody", but some folks take things too far. In a work conte…
The article is way off base. Dorsey's playbook, if it even exists, isn't something to be ashamed of, especially in the context of Silicon Valley culture. Has the author never heard of Burning Man (obviously, she has and might have been more than once)? Zuck and Dorsey are two of the most common archetypes among tech company founders: the super nerd who only thinks about technology, and then money, and power, and the…
I didn't follow Dorsey. I actually hate it when the bosses above me add their personal activities to their posts. The worst was one posting about a business trip halfway around the world while the company had effectively banned all business related travel. In general though, I don't want to hear about how great life is when you're making muliple X more than me. At least not from my bosses.
The spiritually inclined tech founder is a common archetype/personality of the post-2000 tech boom, and I found the point the article was making, i.e. that his was a shameless strategy, quite off base.
It is important to differentiate between a way of being (e.g., introvert/extrovert, more or less affected by criticism), a goal, a strategy, and a tactic. An excellent read for those topics is "Winners", by Alastair Campbell, which surprisingly few people in tech, and I dare to say in politics too, have read.
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…
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…
In fact, people who act authentically are often liked not despite of but because of their flaws. To be human is to be flawed, we're all guilty. And it turns out a lot of people crave permission to not be perfect.