Live data from Hacker News

Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

xmodtwo.com

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#971

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaccines are supposed to provide immunity (not "protection") This is, in fact, wrong. Vaccines can't give us immunity. "We’re Asking the Impossible of Vaccines" https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... > Complete protection against infection has long been hailed as the holy grail of vaccination. It might simply be unachievable. > No infection means no disease, no death, and no transmission, t…

See, so I am right that this is counter culture? I said this and it triggered you to jump and respond with fact checks and whatever. https://web.archive.org/web/20060212064058/https://www.merri... Can also show you that the dominant medical narrative around vaccines was that they provide immunity (except in the case of immune compromised individuals). To this day I'm actually astonished watching the entire medical co…

At least, vaccine providing immunity (or, at least, protection, even if complete immunity is difficult) is the intention; but they are not 100% effective, and sometimes may have side effects. However, they are usually better than nothing. (But, sometimes the companies that make them will even be dishonest, to try to earn more money; this possibility should not be ignored.)

I suspect that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been properly tested for side effects that do not occur until many years have passed, because they did not have enough time to make these tests. (Only side effects that occur quickly would have been tested.)

I cannot comment properly about "recession" because it is not something that I am familiar with.

Not everyone's chromosomes are XX and XY, and while this usually makes you female or male sometimes there are exceptions, and then there is intersex, also. However, this is not the same as "gender identity" and "gender expression" (which I think are unnecessary, since you can just do how you like to do regardless of that; but if people want to do it anyways I do not intend to stop them, since they have freedom to do what they like), although they are usually correlated to the biological sex. Really, it isn't so simple, as they say it is (such things are like abbreviations to explain common circumstances; like an other words (in any other context, explaining about something entirely unrelated, even), they cannot possibly explain everything).

Sometimes words are not used so clearly, but that was true in the past and is true today too. Meaning of words often are shifted due to many reasons, and sometimes some meaning becomes more common than other meaning of the words. Describing clearly what you mean, would be a good idea; unfortunately, too often they instead want to avoid being offended instead of being clearly what you mean. I think that clearly what you mean is more important, although if you can also avoid being offensive at the same time then it should usually be good to do both, isn't it?

(I don't say always, because there are so many things that you cannot predict and many things can be all difference from each other. Only if you do mathematics can you potentially prove that some property of a number will be "always".)

The ability to choose is not the same as the freedom to choose (and to do what you want); you should need both. Freedom of speech definitely is important (including opposing views than each other, and also the third way, and even the fourth way and fifth way, too).

As other comment mention, also you will need freedom to think and to feel, too, as well as freedom to do something. However, just because something is freedom, you should still consider if it is a good idea or not, in this circumstances. Whatever your position is, you should be prepared to argument, whether it is a common opinion, or if it is against the common opinion, or both or neither (such consideration as both/neither is often ignored too much, I think).

Unfortunately, the Conspiracy tries to hide many things that you are trying to be freedom, and are trying to control you.

For example, many people actually were opposed to copyright (and other things, too), but the Conspiracy would not show that study (people have made such a thing, but they refused to pay for it) to others. When the Conspiracy made their own study, they would say the methods are secret. Well, the methods are secret is not the proper way to make a scientific experiment, isn't it?

Other ways this trying to change the freedom, are done includes by peer pressure, by claiming to being "offensive", etc.

However, the true freedom is not only the freedom to speak but also the freedom that others are allowed to speak against you (you can choose to listen or not).

Husband/wife/kids is not the only family, it is just one of them. Family is they are related. This includes also grandparents/aunt/uncle/siblings/etc. People who are married are usually not so closely related to each other. However, really everyone are going to be related even distantly, even the trees are your distant relatives too. And then, there is also such thing as adoptive families, and married without children, orphans, etc; so, there is many more complicated than the simplified description only.

Some protests are more or less peaceful than others, and some things that are peaceful may be protest and some aren't.

Unfortunately, many people think that, if you are good then the opposite is bad, if you are one kind of thing then the opposite is the opposite kind of thing, etc. But, that is no good. Things have to be properly considered and nuanced.

Racism is no good, but that should not mean you have to give preferential treatment to someone. It also should not mean that you have to make "diversity" hiring, etc. If you are hiring, you can hire anyone (black people, white people, men, women, Christian, Hindu, atheists, height, etc) but to do by if they are competent at that job (or can learn), and not by skin colours, etc. Depending what people are in this area, you might or might not get many black people there; but, as long as whoever they are, is good at this work, then that is good.

In some businesses (e.g. movies) it may be helpful to have many different "diversity" of people, although this still does not mean that they should not be hiring based on if you are good actors. They are good actors for movies that are needing, more importantly. However, sometimes people with specific visual appearance or voice (or other things such as languages) may be helpful for some kinds of roles in a movie, but they need not appear in every movie; they can make many different ones.

However, if they make a lot of different movies (which can actually be difference, rather than just making too many similar things) then it can hopefully be made better (although, some will be no good, but that is, you have to try).

Global warming became climate change presumably to show that there are changes other than only the heat. However, while it does that, it also fails to indicate some of the kind of changes (although, it is inevitable, unless you use too many words).

Yes, it really is difficult to communicate.

And, unfortunately, many things considered are not considered nuanced very well, either, it seems like to me too.

Generally, being clearly and precisely is good, but sometimes some things may be unnecessary, too many words, or unknown, etc, that you might indicate otherwise. Words are inherently usually not always precision. (For example, my mention of "the Conspiracy" is not precise but it is good enough for the reasons I was trying to communicate.)

And then, sometimes they think that things are same or similar things that use the same words, even though they do not match, and the words/phrases can have different meanings by the context. (One example, is word such as "Aries", "Gemini", etc are the names of constellations but also the names of astrological signs; however, constellations and astrological signs are not the same thing. Astrological signs are the measure of ecliptic longitude, each one 30 degrees. Although good arguments could be made against astrology, many people make bad arguments instead, because they do not understand what I had just mentioned.)

I don't really expect them to "redefine rented property to be yours", although it does seem likely that it will try to be hidden that it "isn't yours", in an attempt for the Conspiracy to control you in this way. In some contexts it might be useful to say it is "yours" temporarily, but that should not be confused for what it is, despite whatever word you might use; and unfortunately such confusion is common.

People can still have controversial thoughts, although often it is difficult to communicate and/or is often ignored. However, this isn't really new; it happens in the past too, but usually in different ways.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech is important, regardless of what your opinion is. Someone else must have the freedom to argue against it too, because that is also freedom of speech.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#972
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatism and traditional values can't be counter-culture since our society is based on them. It will never be counter-anything except progress.

In a sense I agree with you. What the person you are responding to is trying to say, I assume, is the new status quo is liberalism. As in lgbt, blm, van life, cannabis culture, casual dating, multiculturalism, secularism, etc. I labelled the above idea space “liberalism” but I’m not convinced it’s the right term. I am just lacking a better one. In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we most…

> In any case, if we assume the to be the status quo, which I think we mostly can, people trying to preserve these values and bolster them are conservative. They enjoy the status quo, wish to keep it and wish to reinforce it. They wish to prevent progress ( as in movement ) towards a different direction.

It is true, but there is not only one or two directions, and it must be necessary to consider that there is no only one or two directions.

People can believe in God or not as they wish, and might or might not be Christian (and there is many different Christians anyways, as well as many different non-Christians, and you need not only necessarily one religion, also). Either way can result people do good things and bad things.

Furthermore, "God exist" is not even very clearly defined. They shouldn't shame people for believe in God, although to say that it is right or wrong to believe in God can be mistaken because many people fail to consider that it is not really well defined.

Although two biological sexes do have clear roles to fulfil (specifically, mother vs father), that is a simplification and also is sometimes expanded too much (especially in the past, more often than today). That fails to consider intersex, and also people who do things differently from each other, you can do such things which are not part of biological sex.

Some people have some European heritage but not necessarily all. However, "European" is not very specific compared with e.g. "Italian", I think.

Homosexuality is not such a bad thing and even if you do not like it, it is not what should be illegal. (But, they should not force you to like it or to hate it.)

About gun rights, I think that you should need right to have weapons (especially unpowered and improvised weapons, rather than guns, but guns too) and other devices (including clothing, pencil/paper for writing, etc), and the right to not have weapons and other devices (including clothing) in case you do not want it, but that they should not just sell guns to everyone without proper safety training, etc. Proper safety training is important. However, if you make up your own weapons and other devices then you can do that; the government should not get in the way of everything. However, such a thing should not mean that you can just shoot everyone or bring guns everywhere; the law would still need to prevent against such a thing, which they already do anyways.

There are some Canadian laws relating to guns. Some of these things seems like good ideas but should not be mandatory, and are often more restrictive than they should be.

Furthermore, even if guns are legal should not mean that they should be encouraged. Use of weapons should normally be discouraged, not encouraged.

(I do not want any guns and I do not like guns, but that is just my opinion.)

Too often they say they either want gun rights or gun restrictions, either yes or no, and fail to consider a more nuanced possibility.

Cannabis, also, they fail to consider a more nuanced possibility. Now, smoking marijuana is legal, and I also do not think they should make the drugs illegal, but unfortunately they can still harm the air outside, and make smell even inside someone else's house right next to it too, so there still need to be the restriction of that. But, usually the people just consider yes or no instead of the more complicated possibility like I have described.

Abortion also is complicated, often both side they fail to consider the nuance. Ideally, I think it should be something to be avoided (it is better to start to not be pregnant, if possible), but conditions are not ideal and never are ideal. If it is your body then you will have the right to do with it (although you should still consider whether or not it is a good idea; just because something is or should be legal does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea), and can be self-defense from your own body (in case you would die otherwise), but the government should not make it difficult by getting in the way.

And then, there are some things that neither "liberal" nor "conservative" governments tend to consider, or that both do.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#973

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between ad hoc labour and the gig economy ?

By ad hoc I mean transients, hobos , hippies— people “off grid”— who want to pick up a cash job for a few weeks or a couple months e.g farm work, dishwashing, construction site, nursing, hospitality etc. You show up to the owner, negotiate on the spot and start working. the gig economy requires a credit card, bank account, background check , smartphone, app install etc – and all the tracking and hassle that goes with…

Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#974

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between ad hoc labour and the gig economy ?

Labor is an individual characteristic which happens to increase in skill. A person good at building cabins can have a nice cabin. The gig economy is a set of relationships between the state of problems and pay. It pressures workers with the fewest skills to successively solve the same problem.

That's a good distinction, thanks.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#975
post #717

Well, it seems that hacker culture and open source software would be the antidote to all these. Web2 and Web3 have been captured by the profit motive. Web2 with professional VCs and Web3 with everyone playing VC. Web1 was very much a countercultural movement. I've been part of the IndieWeb, DecentralizedWeb, OfflineFirst movements, met with Tim Berners-Lee, just finished an interview with Noam Chomsky and David Harve…

> It's hard to have a counterculture when the dominant tools are all owned by huge corporations and governments.

Yes, that is one of the problems (it is not only things that can be problems, though).

> Well, it seems that hacker culture and open source software would be the antidote to all these.

I think it will not cure everything, but I think that it will help. However, in addition to the software being FOSS, it also needs to be good. (Fortunately, FOSS can help a bit since it makes it possible to make improvements, but that doesn't automatically make it good.)

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#976

I’m going to get flamed for this but at this point the closest we’re getting to counter culture is the exact opposite… “Trads”. Young people with super traditional values doing exactly the opposite of most of what you just listed. No one would seriously suggest the trendiest most mainstream supported or glorified lifestyles (van life, queerness, gig work) are counter culture…that IS the culture; there’s very little c…

I think this is ridiculous, LGBTQ is a minority. Trads are part of a waning majority. All evidence points towards LGBTQ always existing but just becoming more open. Trads being Counter Culture? That's the same double speak that gets us Citizens United and Right to Work. Where did these trads get their radically traditional values? From the majority.

Culture isn't uniform or static, and the expressed / visible culture is concentrated on a small minority that have more influence.

The idea that LGBTQ is a minority in the population is true, but they are a plurality of contemporary expressed culture

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#977
There are countercultures aplenty, but many employ strict gatekeeping measures to exclude anyone they find unsavory for whatever reason. So if you see people refusing to throw you pearls, it may be pertinent to ask yourself "Am I the swine here?".

Case in point, it's time to log back out of HN and ignore it for another few months.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to give more attention to the collapse in ad-hoc labor. We've made life far too regimented and regulated for many people. I don't think we give enough attention to this gap in the economy.

This has been on the Forefront of my mind for a long time. Without getting too political it seems that many places, California especially, are Waging War against ad hoc labor and small businesses. Individuals are difficult to regulate in comparison to large businesses and individual autonomy comes with the trade-off of less security and protections.

Same here in Kentucky. As a self-employed carpenter, these last 2 years have been brutal. There's work, but somehow the big exploitative companies just slurp up all the work. Most of my jobs this year have been friends and family who felt sorry for me and had bits of work done here and there. Seems like the only option anymore is to work for a capitalist or die.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#979

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expression is a choice, gender or otherwise. Why would one person's expression be any more or less valid than someone else's? Because it's icky?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make / what the relevance of this comment is.

Maybe cause you don't understand I was replying to a bigot.

Re: Do we live in a society without a counterculture?

#980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with the general spirit of what you’re saying, but as a former teacher the observations that fall under Mandatory Reporting are fairly specific. Additionally, I know more than one CPS worker on a personal basis and the types of things that get a child removed from the house are religious and severe . Nothing that you have said would cause me to call in a report unless your kid showed up to class with…

Literally everything he listed can cause him a big, expensive, stressful hassle if some jerk decides to run with it at their discretion.

Certainly.
Post reply on HN