For those who haven’t read the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death is incredible, and absolutely worth reading. One of my mentors gave it to me years ago and it became one of those mind blowing reads.
In the book, Postman analyzes how media affects humans and society. He basically gives a framework for predicting and understanding the effects of different types of media. The book was written before social media, so the examples are books, newspapers, tv, radio, etc. But so much of social media seems obvious once you read his analysis.
Every time I see the typical discussion (person A: social media makes people dumb; person B: Plato said books make people dumb) I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
This is not exactly correct. When the book was written, a lot of commentators had written off television as useless garbage -- totally bad for society. Postman (correctly) complicates that by pointing out that television is great for emotional storytelling, and he is in favor of fictional television shows that model social values for people. Television turns everything into emotional content, which is why TV news evolved to be so sensationalistic -- TV is not good at news. Printed media is good at news. So, each media has uses that play to its strengths and weaknesses. When a medium is used in weak ways, that is bad for society.
(I don't know what the redeeming argument for TikTok would be...)
TikTok is good at personal content— short form videos that capture a slice of life for other real people. TikTok is a salon.
Little bits of entertainment — music, poetry, jokes/clowning, gossip, show and tell on all kinds of topics, musings about life and interpersonal relationships, practitioners demonstrating their craft.
It presents an interesting cross-section of news that's hard to get anywhere else. It's not great or even good at the normal news format but you can read about a riot and that the mayor called in the national guard in the paper, but the video of someone on their porch getting screamed at and having warning shots fired at them for not going indoors has an impact.
That makes sense. It sounds like the good parts of TikTok are getting little slices of life from interesting people, and of course, jokes and entertaining stuff, and the misaligned parts are accounts that purport to be "informational" about news or politics. TikTok is probably just as bad a source for that as TV is.
Printed media were emotional and sensationalistic too when there was not TV yet. Journals like that still exist and they used to be common and large. Sensationalism changed form, that is it.
Precisely - the medium is the message. Books are slow, deliberate, require imagination and attention. Seven second tiktok videos are the opposite. The method by which we consume the information impacts us just as much if not more than its content.
I've started reading more books (again) lately and the depth of character development and ideas in long form fiction is striking compared to even most long-form TV and films, let alone short attention span social media slop. (... and the best long-form TV and films are often based on books ...)
You can really get deep into characters' heads, their motivations, etc. The more I read the more I feel like it makes me a better person as I absorb empathy and deep insights about consciousness and the human experience.
Back then when people read a lot there was "junk literature". I read it a lot when I was younger. There was no dept of character development nor complex plots. It was formulaic, simple, you got your violence/romance/thrill/whatever fix for the week and moved on.
The things people read when they read a lot were not deep masterpieces. They were, basically, shovelware in book form.
There is still a boatload of junk literature, but if you dig there is ten lifetimes worth of good stuff. I will never read it all. New good stuff is always being published too, but like music you have to dig.
I like to read a mix of new material from good up and coming authors and classics on my backlog.
I strongly second this. When I got back into reading I was also struck by how much deeper the stories and characters are, even compared to excellent TV shows or longform articles.
My parasocial relationships started over the radio, I suppose, and TV took that to a whole new level (simultaneously) especially with the advent of music video. Now it's Social Media with the Stars, all the time...
When I was young, it was a rare thrill to interact with my idols. To accost them for a signature after a concert. To send fan mail and receive a personal postcard in return. Once, there was a surrealist late-night host who I met by chance at a Burger King with my mother. He was subsequently arrested with charges of child endangerment!
So now we're on the Internet and it's so easy to become a fan, a patron, a supporter, of "stars" and "influencers" who are so niche that your money and attention make a difference, and they can return that attention with personal comments and reactions, or even commission works for you. In days of yore, it was the Church and State and wealthy aristocrats who commissioned art, and now I could fund a KickStarter or Patreon for next to nothing. You've got private/semiprivate livestreams where they just read your comments and react. And we remain perfect strangers.
Thankfully, there are ways to stay connected to the community and maintain healthy relationships too. Since before the pandemic, I've "gone to church" on YouTube and I do see familiar names in the live-chat. You can attend city council meetings and other real stuff of local interest. Your support group can stay connected via Zoom.
But these pernicious ideas that a celebrity is your best friend, that your attraction to a woman will be requited or reciprocated, that a personal connection has been made, that's dangerous and a growing threat to our collective safety and sanity.
Yes, that is true and they feel a loss after a 7 second video.
I believe living in an environment that favors short attention spans were usually dangerous. Monitoring constant change is what one does when they are alert.
I see the real issue is the duration of the reward cycle without building to a larger idea.
By definition, you can’t build a parasocial relationship with an object. You could argue about parasocial attachment to characters I guess but even then I’m sceptical. I understand what you mean but parasocial is not the correct way to describe it.
Cambride Dictionary explicitly includes books in its definition "involving or relating to a connection between a person and someone they do not know personally, for example a famous person or a character in a book: "
Maybe I should have specified that I meant the characters in a book, I thought that would be clear from the context.
I'm a huge roger waters fan, in particular the album named after this book (not to mention huxley). I was excited to finally get to read what had inspired him. I found it dated (obviously I'd read it nearly 40 years after it was published), commentary on the evils of tv.
> I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
I think media simply mostly brings out the behaviors already inherent to people. If a shitty person sees their behavior validated in media, they are now more likely to act it out in real life. Likewise for good behaviors.
Some people are definitely more susceptible to such influence than others.
Bit of an aside, it was fun to notice the Australian references in the comic. Surprises me still to see something Australian on the "regular" internet.
People make too much of what Orwell supposedly feared may happen some day. He was writing about stuff the Soviet and British governments were doing in his time, and in particular, imagined what Soviet rule over Britain may look like. Assigning this philosophy to him and criticizing him for it seems unfair.
Also… maybe he achieved his purpose? Most people have read his books, and it helped generate a widespread aversion to authoritarianism… actually preventing it from happening in the USA and Britain. Many countries nowadays do have societies and governments that look a lot like 1984.
I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.
Another, non-fictional, example of a corporation run wild is the British East India company. At one point they had a larger army than Britain. Because many of the British establishment had investments in the company and because the awful things it did were 'out of sight' it seems they were allowed to do pretty much whatever they wanted. As long as they kept turning a profit.
Both the EIC and its Dutch equivalent VOC were eventually dissolved by their respective governments. This disarms people from viewing even rampant corporations as truly dangerous; even corporations that fielded armies and waged wars ultimately weren't beyond the reach of the law.
This seems so very close to Google etc. today. No one wants to corral tech because their entire portfolio value is tied to tech through something as simple as the SP500.
Did it really though? Ideological censorship has been on the rise for awhile. Books might only be occasionally banned but that's because their relevance in the modern zeitgeist has waned. The privatization of the public square has nonetheless meant that moderation of communication has become widespread and politically charged.
I didn't claim Orwell had universally eliminated all traces authoritarianism... it is rising in popularity right now. Only that it may have shifted things enough to keep us from literally living in a 1984-esque society nowadays... enough so that people in this thread and the article above are saying Orwell was "wrong."
No, most people pretended to read Animal Farm and 1984 in middle school and haven’t thought about them since. They didn’t understand them at the time, and they don’t see the similar manipulations going on in today’s society.
_Animal Farm_ was taught to me by my capitalist and authoritarian teachers as an anti-communist screed. The problem with the farm is that the pigs end up being capitalists, though I have never seen or heard of the text being taught to children as an anti-capitalist text.
This culture does a very good job of assuming that the field of possibilities can easily and quickly be reduced to two choices and, further, that we're forced to choose between the two and, finally, that anyone who thinks there are additional possible choices is "being childish and unrealistic".
I find the US to be highly authoritarian, full of easy examples double-thought and duck speak.
I don't, however think folks are being manipulated: I think that the fundamental authoritarian move is that folks here have manipulated themselves. To me, that's close to the point of 1984. Or Mark Fisher's books, or Ursula Le Guin. I'm in the middle of Butler's _The Parable of the Sower_ and it's feeling like that self-deception is core to what is happening in that book as well:
folks reducing the world to some pretty horrible binaries and then becoming happily ensnared in the ensuing problems.
> I find the US to be highly authoritarian, full of easy examples double-thought and duck speak.
I’m curious to know where else you have lived (I assume you live in the US). As someone that has lived under an authoritarian regime, I find this statement really hard to agree with. The US is far from perfect but it is far from authoritarian in my opinion.
> I don't, however think folks are being manipulated: I think that the fundamental authoritarian move is that folks here have manipulated themselves. To me, that's close to the point of 1984.
Yes. It's rare to find people online who understand this point of 1984, that everyone becomes big brother and that's how it (it being the oppressive system in place to keep people in check) sustains itself.
That's what I was thinking. First, if you don't remember the text go read it right now; it will take you an hour. It's not really pro- or alt- anything, as much as anti-
“These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists. […] Tolerance and decency are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible, and they have to be kept alive partly by conscious effort. The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. […] But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?
[…] intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. […] I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.”
> _Animal Farm_ was taught to me by my capitalist and authoritarian teachers as an anti-communist screed
And then you find out:
Animal Farm (1954 UK animated film) was funded in part by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who also made changes to the original script.
Sometimes there is a "conspiracy" and the truth is weird. The animated movie has a entirely different resolution at the end than the book does. Presumably teacher's materials in the USA were similarly biased?
As an outsider, occasionally I am surprised by the similarities between the USA and the USSR even if the precise details are very different.
Yeah I think this is a misreading of Orwell. Orwell wasn't afraid that the government would point a gun at the public's heads and the people would hate it. He was afraid that, when that happened, the people would love it.
Authoritarians are popular. The January 6th Capitol attack was perpetrated by people who wanted the state to exert itself violently, because they believed The State and The People were one and the same, and anyone who is a victim of The State was not truly part of The People to begin with.
The threat of Big Brother is not that he'll watch us, but that we will believe he is watching everyone else on our behalf. Police militarization and mass incarceration are already proof that Americans are willing to cede rights when they believe that only "outsiders" will suffer as a result.
I see "The Circle" as being the updated version of 1984 that is more relevant in our times. In that novel, it's not a government spying on people but is a big company, and the protagonist gradually gives away her privacy in exchange for some services or benefits.
Did he fear what would happen, or propose extrapolating the current experience as a cautionary tale? Meanwhile Huxley presented a world where we voluntarily pursue ignoble goals. I don't think we're criticizing him as much as mourning we appear to have palced the yoke upon ourselves.
If anything I think that the general population is becoming more aware and educated.
A more diversified leisure industry with more options than the days of having three channels on television is not the same as drowning in amusement, or the average person spending more time on amusement than on “serious” and “thoughtful” activities. Instead, it means that the individual has more options for forms of amusement they enjoy.
I think you can argue that 'books' were deemed as intellectual in Huxley/Orwell's time, so banning them would be a sign of society decline ---> BUT, todays books can be seen as just part of the entertainment distraction. Books sales are up, but how many of them are YA, Manga , Pop-Fiction. They are as shallow and distracting as a TV Show.
I tend to think even reading the worst trash book is still better than Video. But it is still playing into distraction.
Note: I Like Manga, but those series that are 100 volumes long, that is distracting.
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect. Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda, gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy, politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols.
Now add to it all that we have discovered since then in Neuroscience/Neurobiology on how to bypass the "rational" side of the Brain and you will realize that we mostly have "Informed Opinions" and "General Confusion" rather than Real "Education" and "Awareness".
If anything, the latter has become far more difficult to achieve today.
Content from Amusing Ourselves to Death presented as a visual comic to facilitate/"enhance" its communication is deeply ironic. Can't wait for the TikTok video.
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 fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.
>>If men learn [to read], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.<<
Plato, 400-300 BC
Basically, learning to read and write would lead to an overreliance and provide only a "semblance of wisdom", rather than "true wisdom".
haha the man probably would have been absolutely devastated to learn that his posterity has degenerated to the point of using Google while coding... or god forbid, interviewing.
I don't know that much about literacy rates and social competition in ancient Greece, but I suspect it may have been in Plato's personal interests that others remain illiterate.
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.
But playing Chess at any serious level (more than a couple hours a week) has some non Chess side effects; it teaches you to examine your own behaviour, it teaches you that even if you're very good you can still lose (and hopefully how to lose well), and it teaches you that the other side gets a vote (get a turn, no action happens in a vacuum).
Something that I believe sets chess aside from most other pursuits (e.g. sports, other games) is the lack of luck; it’s almost all skill. You and your opponent both have everything laid out in front of you, and if you’re skilled enough you can see more than they see, etc etc
There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same.
And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot at the current moment. But a home computer from 20 years ago would beat >90% of the world in chess.
A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight.
Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guarantee a win.
> A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated
Less complicated than any sport that a computer can't be better at than humans.
By definition there are more moving variables in 99% of sports than chess. 5 on 5 basketball, at any time any player can be in an almost endless number of positions on the court in an almost endless number of contortions with different velocity and acceleration of multiple components of the body. The mental intelligence required to teach a robot how to walk and run is significantly harder of a problem than beating the best chess player in the world.
Chess isn't complicated. There is a finite number of moves a player can make at any one turn. And there is a finite number of unique possible games that can be played in chess, which means its solvable (not neccesaeily that it will be solved). You can notate an entire chess game on a napkin, you can't even fully quantify any sport with full length video footage. Comparing the vast complexity of physical movement to pieces on a board. Its a joke, you're a joke.
> games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight.
CSGO is difficult because of thw minor movements a human has to make with their hands, which is hard for humans to do. It isn't complicated compared to sports.
Also of course you bring up a video game. Try doing something productive, twitch tv watching moron.
I don't know how you are defining randomness, but the best player doesn't win the game every time, which is about as much proof as you need that there is a degree of randomness.
Define random in terms of sports, the same conditions apply to chess. The wind affecting trajectory of a ball could be similar to environmental factors effecting cognitive performance.
I wouldn't use the term "random" either. What randomness exists for baseball? Slight curve of a bat? Maybe that is part of the game and should be calculated into by the player and isn't randomness at all but part of the game. "Randomness" exists in almost every competitive activity, its called variance.
It's not even worth discussing, you don't even understand the terms you are using.
> There is no random element to the game of chess.
No idea how you are defining random. What random elements exist for cricket? The same things you would define as random for a sport would be the same for chess.
The sad part is I am better at chess than you are. And have a deeper understanding of the game. Unless you are CM rated or above, highly doubt it.
So take a game AI from Deep Mind, link it to some AI that can build a world model, categorize images, put it in a robot, maybe an LLM so it can talk to you, give it some goals. See what happens.
I don't think that's true, let alone self-evident.
In any case, a life spent solving crossword puzzles would almost certainly deliver more positive net effects to the "player" (and society at large) than a person spending a lifetime getting good at chess. It really is odd that chess is considered so refined, laudable, etc. We probably shouldn't put it on a pedestal any higher than where we place video games.
(In fact, video games might actually be better—and I'm not saying that as someone staring up from a batch of sour grapes and/or looking for an excuse to play video games; that's not how I spend my time.)
There was some chess prodigy who, in his teens, was already winning against most champions, and who in his early twenties abandoned chess altogether, citing it a "waste of life".
Is this meant to be an analog to Postman’s argument? Because it isn’t. His argument doesn’t really have a moral bent to it. It’s a very practical argument that different mediums are capable of carrying different messages.
I read it as a counter to Postman’s citing Huxley that society is becoming enamored with the superficial (ie the ignoble) pursuits. I read the OP as effectively saying “who is to say what is noble vs trivial, considering it varies in societal context.”
170 years ago, people may have thought chess was superficial. I think now, maybe it would be considered a more noble pursuit.
Or, maybe the OP was saying it’s a constant devolving towards the increasingly trivial.
Lenin eventually took the same view - that chess was distracting him from a higher purpose. Perhaps a harmless game would have been a better use of his time.
I much prefer people amuse themselves to death than they think and theorize themselves- (or others, in the case of many late 19th and early 20th century intellectuals) to death.
At what point did this become a valid and legitimate issue?
Why do we feel the need to prefer or not prefer what others do with their time? Isn’t that something that concerns only the person and their own life, which really shouldn’t concern us at all?
I think your point really highlights this ethical mindset that has become so prominent today, especially with the rise of the internet.
They did not mean 'prefer' in the way you interpret it. They mean 'I believe the world would be better if...' rather than 'I'd choose for others to behave like...'
Why does he have to be bad at chess if he doesn't like playing online? Also I think "Playing with your grandpa." was just a metaphor for, playing with people you like. Some people just play games to have fun, you know, not everything has to be a competition.
Because their argument wasn't "competitive gameplay is terrible for society", but "chess is bad".
But even if it was the former argument: that's unquestionably false too. Just look at professional sports like soccer or Basketball. Surely you're not going to argue that this is bad...? Because that's fundamentally the same, just on a different topic
This goes beyond media entertainment. All of our senses are being exploited and overstimulated for commercial gains. Food, perfumes, music, furniture. People crave for saltiest or sweetest food. They fill their noses with strong artificial fragrances, their heads with loud, distracting, catchy music, all the while butt-slouched on the comfiest couches or beds. If this continues on, there will be a point where humanity will be so desensitized and can no longer feel anything natural with their own senses.
Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there.
Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade our sense of dissonance that the present is most certainly not that.
Case in point, nobody wants to rid the Earth of insects, fill the oceans with plastic or plough microplastics into every orifice, but we are all complicit and can't seem to gather ourselves to fix it.
This is something I regularly read, something in the line of 'we're doomed and it's our own fault since we are actively part of this destructive system'.
I think while humanity is destroying things they are fixing things as well. Banning of heavy metals in environment, removing asbestos, getting most people to stop smoking, eating less meat, energy transition... it's not perfect but we are working on it. Meanwhile average age increases and violence decreases (averaged over a large period at least)
> First of all, I know it's all people like you. And that's what's so scary. Individually you don't know what you're doing collectively.
- The Circle by Dave Eggers
> In the course of her job, Resaint had met people like Megrimson, executives who went into work and sat down at their desks and made decisions that ravaged the world. They didn't seem evil to her. They seemed more like fungal colonies or AI subroutines, mechanical components of a self-perpetuating super-organism, with no real subjectivity of their own. That said, she would have happily watched any of them die.
- Venomous Lumpsucker by Ned Beauman
I know it's still science/climate fiction, but very relevant to your point.
It would take someone mentally ill (i.e. "neurodivergent") to actually go beyond the routine and take drastic action to fix. Normal people don't go against what society deems normal. Normal people will lie to themselves rather than face the truth, and that's a good thing usually. Almost always is it better to be united in a less optimal path than divided. This is true for the individual as well as socirty.
However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.
The last hope for the world lays in the hands of the Muslims. The Taliban have been a bright star in a dismal wasteland of depravity. I wish it were Christians, but they have been castrated, deradicalized from a religion of poverty and fierce love.
What Christians still dedicate their entire life to God, reject all worldly things and live as Jesus did? Muslims die for God, kill for God. Like it was in the wedding parable, you may have been invited but you didn't show up so the ones who did show up (and are chosen) are the ones who are blessed.
> Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources ...
Or for governments, doing government jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks...
I come from a town where the biggest employer is the state in a few different forms. I think it's entirely valid for the government to keep them all busy 9-5, salaried and pensioned. Main function of the state IMO.
This doesn't deserve to be downvoted, it is very legitimate point.
I think there is a role for public organisation, with political groups being one type. I am, however, critical of the prevailing agenda, since they often exist in a system where money can play a big role in deciding which priorities rise to the top.
I am not sure that politics plays such a central role as it used or as many people assume. Our society today seems to be divided functionally... we answer to many bosses, some economic, some political, some technological, and so on.
For me the more/less gov't debate misses the important points. It is the incentives, mechanism and processes that determine their value. I think you are referring to maintain order and keeping the peace - valuable functions, but made more necessary when people are under such strain in their daily lives.
"a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case" — Nathan Heller
Whats the public vs private split to this idea? Its not a new idea -
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” — John Wanamaker
Doubt is not a strategy and nay-saying rarely moves a conversation forward.
My comment was not intended to illicit the abdication of responsibility - quite the reverse.
Where was my petitioning? Your response is combative, seemingly intended to be personally offensive and built on a straw-man argument, likely the result of a multitude of others treating your opinions like crap. I'm not them...
You are absolutely right, agency and the realisation of it is a key component to shifting us out of this mess. I put significant daily effort into building an alternative kind of personal existence, at significant personal cost. I attempt to carry as much of this as I can since I recognise my own complicity in this mess.
My more relevant point to the OP, with reference to your comment, is that no, we are not amusing ourselves to death. It's more that we are worrying ourselves to death, despite a lack of personal indicators about this or that. If you want to proceed meaningfully to self, this requires prioritising one's personal experience over the provided stats, which are as much a control/guidance mechanism as anything.
I have lived in South Florida, close to the Atlantic ocean for close to 40 years. In the time I have lived here, the insect populations have noticeably dropped. I have also queried relatives from the midwest. It used to be every summer your car would get covered with dead bugs, not so any more.
As for plastics in the ocean, every time I go to the beach I see a lot of macro plastics.
Thank you for your personal testimony. It's good to hear that in your experience it seems that the insect populations really have dropped. Of course, there may be other reasons - eg if there are highways where it used to be small roads, you would expect insects to stay clear of the area. Also, litter you can see, is not microplastics - you can't see the microplastics.... But they are there! Apparently.
One has to ask oneself, is it better to have a comforting story, that is likely leveraged for someone, somewhere's benefit, or to start with the honest position, which is that "I don't know". One can of course become more certain of whatever-it-is, but not without attempting some personal research. Or, one can just defer all personal responsibility and parrot whatever the consensus view is.
So then, obviously, you've been personally responsible and tried to replicate all of the studies that led to the conclusion that microplastic concentrations in reservoirs are increasing, as well as the ones that concluded that bioaccumulation of microplastics have deleterious effects on human health, and then got them peer reviewed, right? And you also decided that 'personal responsibility' is actually tacitly accepting that when petrochemical lobbyists write op-eds that deny these scientific consensuses and that you don't need to make any lifestyle adjustments and their clients don't need to make any changes to their supply chain, they're telling the truth. Truly heroic that you still have time to shitpost on HN after all that.
And demanding that everyone else adopt this policy of radical individualist solipsism, built on a deliberate misunderstanding of what scientific consensus is. The net effect of which is basically indistinguishable from being contrarian for its own sake because to do otherwise is actually quite discomforting.
Well to be honest, we don't truly 'know' anything, we can only make best guesses. My best guess based on what i've read from who i perceive as smart people is that microplastics are everywhere, not enough exercise makes you ill, looking in the sun kills your eyes and doing drugs is no good. Are you just can say "I don't know"
Yes, we don't truly know much (not nothing). We can, on occasion, drill into whatever is being claimed, look at the data and see if we agree with the conclusion.
If you personally sample test studies, comments or whatever you then get a handle on how many assumptions you feel are being made, whether you always/occasionally/never agree with what is stated.
Are you aware of widespread fraud in the data associated with insect population decline? Or are you arguing that science is just inherently fraudulent or unreliable? These sound like pretty extreme responses of the type ancaps gave for years to the claim that global surface temperatures were rising. Those looked pretty quaint even without the benefit if hindsight.
Which is simultaneously broad and vacuous. Why? Compared to what? In this specific context, what method would provide a better intellectual foundation?
Well, did you see with your own eyes the earth is round rather than flat? No, so you can't state either? That makes most reasonable statements impossible to make.
Are you able to say that 'you assume that the earth is a sphere but don't know that to be the case'? Do you actually say 'I know the earth is a sphere' even though you don't "know"? Do you know the difference between belief and knowing?
I think/believe/know that the main difference between thinking/believing/knowing is in their nuance. Fundamentally i believe they reflect the same meaning, mainly their strongness is different.
I believe the earth is sphere shaped. I'm pretty sure it is, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes. I have seen parts of the curvature of the earth, but can't be 100 percent sure this was not due to lens effects of the atmosphere. Nonetheless I am quite strong in my belief because all i read and heard about the topic seems to make sense. I never met Newton, Keppler but I believe what was written by/about them is correct.
Great. I'm glad you are happy to use 'believe' rather than 'know', if you are trying to convey your meaning clearly.
I think there is a huge value in this, in being clear on what one knows (that I am sitting on a chair) and what one believes (that the earth is a sphere). Belief in a thing indicates that something is a hypothesis to oneself, while knowing conveys whatever-it-is is a fact.
I totally accept that think/believe/know are used interchangeably in conversation etc, but I also hold that there is a (huge) value to oneself in being able to keep these distinctions clear.
Taking a moral angle to it, misusing these terms is actually to lie or mislead others by overstating or understating your certainty.
Do you have a definition for 'know', in a hard/technical/non-colloquial sense?
I understood what you are trying to say an i mostly agree. I guess most people find it a bit pedantic to make a hard distinction between believing and knowing. One of the pet peeves of mine is to use words correctly. Often in the office we use words that are incorrect but everybody uses them and hence I'm the pedantic one pointing them to the fact those wrong wording might create a wrong view on things. There are plenty such words and expressions and often things would clear up by using the most appropriate term or expression.
That said, indeed saying 'I know God exists' is misleading. It is trying to convince by stating beliefs as being True.
The thing is, i believe knowing is simply a colloquial term. I read the book 'reality is not what it seems'. We make models of the world. Those models are wrong but mostly good enough to get along, but over time science prooves that each should be replaced by a less wrong model. Models stay wrong ad infinitum. That all to say that just maybe Truth with a capital does not exist, we can only converge toward it. Hence non-colooquial knowing might not exist.
Yes, the model one has and the terms one uses probably vary from person to person. However, a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur anyway, if we are prepared to hone in on definitions of words, and correct the difference in personal meanings. This requires patience and good will.
It is the opposite to making Barnum statements, such you get in politics like: 'this is a good thing' allowing each individual to mislead themselves with their own definition of 'good'.
Imo, truth with a capital T does exist - it is that which has happened. This is valid if we are not living in a simulation... which I personally don't think we are in. However, we only have our personal view on truth/reality. Pretending we can have anything more (via shared models such as religion or science) is flawed. Recognising the (very limited!) boundaries of what we know, and knowing the difference between belief and knowledge is essential.
I briefly spent some time on Twitter a few months ago, and it was almost entirely widespread hysteria over things that were easily verifiable as trivially false. For example, at the time people were enraged about a supposed trans woman winning a boxing match in the olympics- but she was not in fact a trans woman.
My take is that X/Twitter is mostly sharing fake rage bait, to emotionally manipulate people into supporting various hate based political movements.
The actual issue was that this athlete, Imane Khelif, is male. And was competing in a women's boxing match, despite having previously been deemed ineligible by the International Boxing Association for this reason, after a karyotype test revealed XY chromosomes.
The problem is that women's boxing in the Olympics doesn't verify sex other than via identity documents such as passports. Even though the other categorical attribute - weight - is directly verified during competition.
As Khelif (and another male boxer, Lin) had a female passport, this permitted competition in the tournament despite the fact that it enabled a male to pummel female boxers, to an eventual unanimous victory.
Obviously, many people are against this, for the same reason as why mixed-sex boxing tournaments aren't considered acceptable, for reasons of fairness and safety.
> The actual issue was that this athlete, Imane Khelif, is male.
No, she’s not, even in terms of assigned gender at birth, and she represents an Islamic country in which she would be imprisoned if she was and was living as a woman.
> despite having previously been deemed ineligible by the International Boxing Association for this reason, after a karyotype test revealed XY chromosomes.
The IBA had already been stripped of its role as a governing body with regard Olympic boxing due to the rather extraordinary and flagrant corruption in that organization (and for that to reach a level intolerable to the IOC is saying quite a bit), but even if the IBA’s claim of karyotype testing wasn’t fraudulent or carried out under unreliable conditions, a detected XY karyotype doesn't mean you are male, even in nonsocial medical terms, or phenotype without intervention terms. Swyer syndrome can result in a female phenotype with exclusively XY karyotype, and chimerism (possibly combined with Swyer) can result in a female phenotype where XY karyotype would be detected (potentially exclusively, without sampling different tissue in a way that a simple test would not).
All the evidence revealed so far indicates that Khelif is male. Regardless of the IBA's other issues, there are two blood tests from independent labs showing XY karyotype, and a member of Khelif's coaching team described problems with chromosomes and hormones such that Khelif has been on medication to adjust testosterone levels to bring this closer to the female range.
This implies that Khelif went through male puberty and has the male physical advantage in sport that is caused by male sexual development. Most likely, Khelif was assigned female at birth due to having a difference of sex development (DSD) conferring an external genital appearance that at first glance may seem female.
I don't know where this oft-repeated idea that Khelif has Swyer syndrome came from, but it's nonsensical. Swyer comes with bone defects due to hormone deficiency, and suffering from osteopenia and osteoporesis is not compatible with an elite athletic career, particularly not boxing. Anyone with Swyer would be getting fractures from all the punching and being punched. Nothing about Khelif's situation aligns with this.
However, there was previously in the Olympics a very similar situation with Caster Semenya, a male runner whose penis didn't develop properly due to having the DSD 5-ARD, and was therefore erroneously assumed to be female, and given identity documents to match. Semenya was eventually disqualified from track events due to having internal testes that produce male levels of testosterone and have done since puberty. Probably Khelif has the same or similar condition.
I would like to reiterate that, like I said, people were specifically spreading the misinformation that she was a trans person that was allowed to compete only under some new policies coming from their political enemies- as part of a broader movement and large group of people that spread anti-trans hate online.
In this context, hardly anyone would care about this if not fueled by an anti-trans political movement that latched onto it. Personally, I think it is in poor taste to publicly comment about if someone else may or may not be medically an intersex person- especially when fueled by an undercurrent of hating people for being different in some way. This person is legally a woman, and is a skilled athlete competing in the only way they are legally allowed to.
Wow. No, X/Twitter is showing things people (and quite a few bots) say. There’s no mechanism there to emphasize things that are. In fact you’re rewarded for saying things that aren’t, if they generate engagement, which is so much easier if you just make stuff up.
While the situation may be grave it was usually much worse for the vast majority of the population.
People are aggravated and enraged by famine deaths precisely because they affect much smaller percentage of people than they used to, where death from hunger was common.
The debt and likely coming financial repression is a weaker form of coin debasement practiced regularly by many kings. And so on...
A couple of years ago i was working for a design studio which produced an image movie for a big cooperation which somehow painted an utopian future for their upcoming product ideas. In that movie there was a woman reading in "Brave new World".[EDITED] It was clear none of the people involved read the book. My remarks were swept aside by claiming hardly anyone has read the book anyway... headlessness might be a real issue.
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
yes, I’ve read that and many of his books. they all a bit similar and he reuses tons of similar quotes and ideas. but that is even better, he just tries to drive the same points.
I remember rolling my eyes at Technopoly a lot more than I did at Amusing Ourselves, but actually...I read Technopoly maybe 15 years ago, when the Internet had a lot more promise and less downside. Maybe if I read it now it would seem a lot more correct.
Amusing Ourselves, on the other hand, was brilliant when I first read it, but now we seem to be living in a world that is both Orwell and Huxley. The free market provides endless pap, AND governments/political figures have learned to use new media to provide endless misinformation designed to keep us fearful. So maybe if I read it today it would not seem as relevant.
Doing things merely to stimulate pleasurable brain chemistry is fine unless all you do is play games or watch formulaic media that have no lasting effect or achievement.
Formulaic or novel media doesn’t make a huge difference, it’s just passive consumption either way.
Coincidentally I’ve been listening to Divers a bunch recently (which is a really great album, although I am just passively consuming just like everything else… I don’t know if it falls under formulaic for you, but it is a good formula if so). A lot of it is about death and time, and she ends one of the songs with a sort of gentle sing-songy “Look, and despair.” I always read the “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” in Ozymandias as a giant “fuck your hopes and achievements” from that ancient king.
Anyway, Joanna Newsom’s delivery is a lot more gentle, so maybe the fact that all of our effects and achievements will ground to dust is not so bad. Mattering would be very stressful.
If you, like me, would have had to watch people play Candy Crush on the Tube [= the London subway] on the way to work every morning for seven years, you would not ask.
I felt terribly sorry for that loss of GDP and decline in mean global IQ.
Given the current pro-war propaganda all over the place combined with the creeping cost of living, I think Nineteen Eighty-Four is becoming more prescient than Brave New World.
1984 can't be more prescient than a book that has already become reality in most of the world that matters (culture, art, science, influence wise). If you don't see that hedonism and general moral decay has become the overwhelming norm, you're probably part of it.
1984's surveillance may be here, but the brute force is only reserved for the rare nails sticking out; if those haven't already gone crazy from surviving in the sane asylum.
Imo, the "Media Bias Chart" is an appeal to authority Postman may have warned against. Iirc, it rates articles 'in the news cycle'. Except those very sources determine which "news" items are worthy of coverage.
Sources that are not in the prescribed 'news cycle' like AntiWar.com, FEE, The Institute For Justice, MintPressNews are not on the self-licking-icecream-cone list.
I would say 1984 is rather more subtle than portrayed here.
For instance, the masses are kept at bay by scaring them with perpetual wars on the one hand and by keeping them distracted with machine-generation filthy "literature" (we only reached the level of technical sophistication to do that courtesy GPT/Llama last year). That part is more similar to what the post portrays as the "Huxley" view, perhaps.
The appendix of 1984 ("Newspeak") is a masterpiece on its own, redefining English words like "freedom" so that they can only mean "free from lice", with the notion of freedom forgotten.
This comic misses some of my favorite details from the book.
The book talks a lot about Marshall McLuhan's quote "the medium is the message" and about how discourse has turned more and more into entertainment. Nixon lost to Kennedy because he was more attractive on television, and people are judged by how they look or behave as opposed to what they say.
More than anything, this book really made me appreciate written discourse.
I think there was a quote by a Nordic writer (possibly Hans Christian Andersen) in which he talked about how circuses and amusement parks keep people distracted and busy so we don't focus on important policy issues.
Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects … that the stupified peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures, … learned subservience as naively, bit not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.
Excellent! People hardly know about "Etienne De La Boetie" much less read his works. Only "popular" authors are discussed many of whose works lack real depth.
It refers to a concept prevalent in ancient Rome, where the government would provide its citizens with free food and entertainment in the form of lavish spectacles, such as gladiator fights, chariot races, and theatrical performances. The phrase highlights the strategy employed by the ruling class to keep the population content and distracted from important political issues and matters of governance.
Orwell and Huxleys work are both centralised (authoritarian - you had to take your Soma) whereas our current risk is possibly more systematic and less conspirational.
Hey guys, what if good things were actually bad? Wow!! Instead of enjoying ourselves we should instead spend eight hours a day intently studying woodworking & tax policy. The fact that people enjoy talking to each other and looking at cat pictures on social media proves that people will accept fascism and that Western liberal democracy is fated for impotence.
There is a middle ground between woodworking and TikTok, no? People enjoyed talking to each other and had fun before we had technology.
It’s easy to see social media as harmless, and maybe it is, but it also has the potential to act as a powerful tool for serving propaganda and brainwashing.
I’m not suggesting an actual conspiracy theory here but it’s concerning that a few huge companies have the power to broadcast (and control) the flow of information to a majority of population, who will consume that information by and large without suspicion.
If for some reason Facebook or TikTok really wanted to meaningfully shift public opinion, they probably could, and in any direction they might choose.
There wasn't a time "before we had technology". Best to avoid that
line of thinking if you want to escape the determinist (Veblem) trap
and end up like Kaczynski.
Postman is an author we enjoy but seldom acknowledge the wider genre
into which he fits. It's called "tech critique".
You can study it through the ages, comparing the outlooks and
influences of Einstein, Ellul, Freud, Fromm, Heidegger, Illich,
Kaczynski, Marcuse, Mumford, Nietzsche, and Postman, as well as sci-fi
writers like Wells, Forster, Clarke, Gibson, Le Guin, Dick...It makes
a very good companion to a study of the philosophy of science.
Some takeaways (at least ones that stick in my mind):
Technology is inseparable from the human condition, There are no
primitivist escapes, noble savages or gardens of Walden.
By the same token there is not and won't ever be any golden age of
Utopian technology.
Technology most closely resembles a "drug" in all its manifest
functions.
Technology comes with an accumulative maintenance cost.
It is monotonic/directional. There's no easy way back and we can't
uninvent stuff.
Minimising the _harms_ of technology while maximising the benefits and
maintaining human dignity amidst it is the best we can do.
Even if initially excited by new developments all people are
ultimately ambivalent about technology. They fear it, use it
begrudgingly and resent their dependency on it. Iron bridges and steam
locomotives raised the same questions as GPS and iPhones do today.
Many people romanticise and worship technology. It is a secular God.
If we "love" it, it's the sick love of an addict or the sadomasochistic
power glee (tech "dealers" like Ellison, Zuck, and Musk)
A tiny few (that's us) enjoy a curious fascination that makes tech an
"end in itself". Those people get used to create a supply for the
dealers and addicts.
Anyway you gotta love Postman, if only for exquisite use of
"centrifugal bumblepuppy". What he describes in this passage is really
the soporific control/domination effects of technology in the hands of
tyrants/dealers who delight in the subjugation of attention - which I
think is made best by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.
Well, this was nothing if not besides the point. Anyone on this site should recognize that when people like the person you responded to use the word "technology", especially in this context, it is typically a colloquialism for information technology, as in television, computers, phones and the like.
Even in colloquial English amongst the public, "technology" hasn't referred to technology in general for several decades, but simply to "information technology". It has become so common that the general public refers to the entire information technology industry simply as "tech" or the "tech industry", which excludes all traditional engineering disciplines outside of electrical, despite all those disciplines working with technology.
Yes, popular parochialism is another common theme discussed in tech
critique. Each generation believes its technology to be an exceptional
pinnacle, disconnected from its antecedents. It starts to see the
world in no other terms. What you're saying feels like a reformulation
of McLuhan's "the medium is the message". People who see their world
only through the TV or smartphone screen can no longer "see" the
technology that undergirds it. Their world gets smaller, into a
Plato's cave if you like.
I disagree that influence is really that malleable. Even if we take the power of selection algorithms for granted it is still constrained and must work with the 'winds' of the content posted. If they tried something 'simple' as promoting non-mammalian meat sources they would only succeed in creating memes mocking the concept.
Besides, the most "effective" influencer does next to nothing because they were going to do that sort of thing already. There is a reason you see music stars doing promotionals for pleasurable to consume caloried drinks as a use for personal funds and not say deferred gratification products like investment banking.
>If you're reading this, you've been in a coma for almost 20 years because of a car accident. We're trying a new technique. We don't know where this message will end up in your dream, but we hope we're getting through. Please wake up.
Even if people wake up and "do something", govts will just tire us out. Similar to how online protests against reddit, (or on ground protests like occupy [X], and so on) and others failed. We have no option but to accept what is handed out to us.
Wake up and... do what exactly? Tell others to "wake up" ad nauseum? The whole "wake up, sheeple, you're being manipulated" is both correct and amusingly self-terminating.
Metacognition, for all its benefits, comes with the newfound sisyphean task of being unable to intentionally avoid thinking about a white elephant for an entire minute. "Don't be influenced by the ads/media/propaganda" works about as well.
So perhaps the best way to reduce manipulation is to find a way back to sleep sometimes. A sort of meta-meta-cognition, if you will. It's self-awareness all the way down.
Was there any follow up, I didn't see one on the wiki.
It seems like we are accelerating to this.
Even the changes between 2005 and 2024. Near 20 years, we've leaned into the Huxley vision. Really leaned into it.
This is all getting really scary. I feel like we should do something. We should really band together and change course. I volunteer to go out and do something, except of course, I'm a bit distracted at the moment, so maybe can we put off the change for another week? I really need to see the end of this season of "Industry". Then we can do something, I'm sure I'll have some free time next week to get right on this.
The precursor to both "1984" and "Brave New World" is a novel titled "We" from 1921 by Yevgeny Zamyatin[0]. The mass surveillance by One State is an apt analogy for the adtech-ruled world of today.
For a novel about this (among many other things, including semi professional tennis) you might be interested in Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace.[0]
Brave New World supposes a world of plenty controlled by a few ruling oligarchs and aristocrats; 1984 supposes a world of scarcity also controlled by a few ruling oligarchs and aristocrats. One society is controlled by the carrot, and in the other society, given the shortage of carrots, the stick is brought out to maintain the social order.
I just listened to this a few weeks ago. It’s incredible and really helps frame how we got here and is still very relevant to social media even though it’s written about TV/Hollywood. You’ll be hard pressed to find deeper media analysis that remains very approachable.
The book predates the song and album by about 7 years, so the album name references the book. Postman even mentioned the fact in his 1995 book "The end of education"
> "Postman even mentioned the fact in his 1995 book "The end of education""
Quote from Postman according to wikipedia[0]:
"the level of sensibility required to appreciate the music of Roger Waters is both different and lower than what is required to appreciate, let us say, a Chopin étude."
Ouch.
I actually got the album when it came out, and was roughly aware of the concept and the book from reviews in the music press. Had I known that it was comparing Orwell and Huxley I'd have definitely made the effort to read more. But this was before the internet so it wasn't easy (you had to do things like going to a public library), so technological progress is not all downside.
Outrage and fear are exhausting, let me tell ya. Somehow I cannot get away from nursing my PTSD online, with sick pleasure in picking fights and "winning" arguments.
Sometimes I wake up with a thread racing through my mind and the perfect retort to my "adversary"
I honestly don't hate you guys, but you give my life purpose and meaning... So thank you
>it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference.
How do you know capable and smart people will keep having good values? Seems to me that it's true until it isn't - populism takes over politics, ideology takes over the humanities, science gets Goodharted to death, etc. Values are highly circular - we value what high-status people in our (sub)culture value, and you become high-status by getting what people value. This holds for smart people as well.
Fair enough, but for the sake of this conversation, if we say 'good' values are those that keep things from staying the same, aren't the values of smart people just as likely to evolve towards 'bad' ones? For example, I'm sure most people know at least one smart person who only plays video games; it does seem that we'll keep inventing forms of entertainment that wirehead people more and more effectively, which seems in line with the Brave New World scenario.
are you saying smart people are immune to the temptations of attention-dopamine?
because i'd consider myself above average in terms of intelligence and ambition but i still fall into the procrastination trap often. now you might say that this makes me in fact "stupid" per your defininition (or maybe arrogant as i overestimate myself) but i see this in other people as well.
i also would not say that being "productive" as in moving humanity ahead must be the KPI by which everyone is measured. you only have one life, you can spend it how you want, even if that is watching tiktoks 24/7.
This sentiment, that each is entitled to a life of choosing, resonates strongly with the spirit of individualism. Within it there is a disregard for obligation or belonging that, I think, is connected to the desire for mindless occupation and distraction.
I suspect that, the more one is cut off from a sense of collective purpose, the more one finds solace in activities that reinforce a sense of "alright" in place of true wellness.
Btw, I'm also a big procrastinator and I consider it a gift. Many wonderful things in my life have been helped by it. In this sense, I agree that there is something about an inner drive that should be listened and reacted to, but I am not sure that all activities are of equal value.
> 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"- and "television"-based culture. He claims that it's bad when television becomes the main platform that a society centers its communication around.
He's also honest that there's probably far more junk (in absolute terms) in printing than in television: "Television is not old enough to have matched printing's output of junk." It's not about the amount of "junk" – it's about something more fundamental about the medium.
I found the book quite interesting and would highly recommend reading it!
> They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize?
That's an extremely pessimistic view of the world: Categorizing a set of human beings as "stupid" and saying that it doesn't matter how society is structured?
And "smart people" are also influenced by how our society is structured, no?
>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 to bear on the Western World.
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.
> 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.
You also can't create actively yourself! TV was definitely a consumer only culture, with all creation heavily gatekept by an entire industry. Compare this to the print culture prior to that.
The Internet definitely has changed this, and now we are back into a creation capable metaphor.
plenty of smart people wasting their lives scrolling through bullshit. you don't use your brain to solve problems if you're never bored and allowing your mind to wander.
I find it really strange that the 3 paragraphs of text at the top needed the comics summarizing them below. Like, did our short attention spans need those little footholds in order to progress through the point being made? :)
Sounds like I need this book added to my reading list. I've not been able to get through Brave New World, but I might give it another try also.
It is interesting that these two books essentially show the most extreme end result of the two major economic systems. Socialist authoritarian communist states gravitate towards 1984, capitalist liberal democracies turn into Brave New World.
Exactly! Both Orwell and Huxley are right but in different contexts. Also note that both of their works are an exaggerated caricature of aspects of Society which they wished to highlight and show its insidiousness. Thus one has to look beyond the "painted picture" and understand what was being meant.
However; Orwell had a better insight on the overall issues which can be found in his essays eg. "Notes on Nationalism", "All Art is Propaganda", "Politics and the English Language" (eg. Newspeak) etc.
Well said. I think the issue stems from the same point.
Both cases assume that individuals are being coerced out of their potential to transform the world for the better, whether by Big Brother or by TikTok. In my view, both stem from an assumption that I don’t see playing out in the real world: that all individuals have the desire or capacity to make a difference and be something "more".
I think this idea came from the Enlightenment. That’s when we started to forget that, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority are just here to occupy space.
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.
Yeah, I have to re-read Brave New World because over the time since I have read it I have come to believe it was actually Utopian. The artists and others that could not conform were in fact given an island where like-minded artists could flourish.
Sometimes I think that's all we all want: to find a community of like-minded people we can live among.
Brave New World features islands which are limited domains in which free-thinking is both permitted and encouraged, as Mustapha Mond explains to Bernard and Helmholtz late in the novel. In part these serve as centres of creativity which the World State needs.
Island is a paradise world which largely stands, as you note, as a counterpart to BNW. Though all does not go well.
The islands in BNW: "[Bernard is] being sent to an island. That's to say, he's being sent to a place where he'll meet the most interesting set of men and women to be found anywhere in the world. All the people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren't satisfied with orthodoxy, who've got independent ideas of their own. Every one, in a word, who's any one. I almost envy you, Mr. Watson."
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. Media is literally used like front line troops of colonial empires in Attention capture wars.
But no one wins as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose. We await someone or some group to articulate that vision. Until then people working in Attention Capture fields will keep amusing us to death.
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'.
They're enriching their bank accounts just as they're impoverishing their spirits. On their deathbeds, no one ever says "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office." The same could be said for any other wealth-motivated exercise.
If I have learned one thing in life it is this: money is, at best, a necessary evil. A means to an end. Pursuing it as an end in itself is an indication that we have strayed from the path and forgotten what we were doing.
I swear I am going to, on my deathbed, say "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office," just to stop this quote going around. In the last five years I've had a few conversations about regret with elderly relatives who have now passed away. None of them regretted going to work. My grandparents met at work. One regretted that she'd been a draftswoman rather than an engineer, but that's almost the exact opposite. I don't understand why people think doing good work that inspires pride and then getting paid for it is going to be some kind of horrible deathbed regret. It has literally never been a deathbed regret for anyone whose deathbed I have attended.
> I don't understand why people think doing good work that inspires pride and then getting paid for it is going to be some kind of horrible deathbed regret.
Because there is nothing in the definition you give that remotely looks like the median job. Societies are not structured to maximize the number of jobs that fits this definition. If social structure happens to fit your Ikigai, congratulation you won the cosmic loto, enjoy.
But maybe it’s not a relevant point to show surprise on this point. Consider how much people in the rest of humanity will have to go through major existential stressful abhorrent challenges, geopolitical struggles, being effectively reduced to dull task slaves by whoever happen to be their lord of the day. How then to be surprised that at the end of their life they can think "work moments were so shitty, I wish I had spend more enjoyable ones like those I experienced while taking time with people I deeply sincerely love".
By the way, if you haven’t yet do that today, tell at least to at least three people around you how much you love them and care that they enjoy moment passed together. I promise you won’t regret it on your death bed. ;)
I'm talking about a wide range of jobs -- draftswoman, ship's engineer and structural engineer, typist, teacher -- held by people who grew up during the major existential struggles that were the great depression and the second world war. Working as a typist in the 1940s and 1950s was not some kind of utopian magical job full of meaning, but my grandmother could still hit a higher WPM than I can and she was proud of what she'd done. Earning an income was a means of doing things that she would never have been able to do otherwise. She felt lucky to be able to do things like take a ship to Europe without a chaperone and using money she'd earned, given that her mother's generation of women would have found it much harder.
My experience has been that older people often have a different outlook on life than what people my age, including me, would predict. Part of that is experience, part is coming from a different time where the baseline for quality of life was lower, and I suspect part of it is rose-tinted glasses.
Are you trying to get in a "good school district" ? Is that really that strongly correlated to kids outcome in life .
kids grow up and fight for a house in good school district :).
I feel like having kids is root of all evil. Ppl justify all sorts of things (like wars and bidding for houses) and say that they are doing those things for sake of their kids.
No, but I want to live somewhere my kids have the freedom to bike and walk around town safely.
Anyway, I just took a job helping get more houses off gas and on heat pumps, which is aligned with my goal to be part of addressing climate change, but it is hard to get a house near work (in Amsterdam in this case) when not optimising for pay.
The problem with too rural is the people, not the wolves. You’re right though, and it’s why we moved to NL.
I was mostly thinking of back when I was in California to be honest. Though recently when I had to decide between a four or five day work week the biggest factor was “will I be able to outbid other people who want the same house”
As far as schools, I’ve been underwhelmed. They have kids on tablets a lot, shove a tv in front of them for lunch, and have rapidly declining PISA scores.
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.
I don't know, it's possible for a person to pay no attention to anything. Therefore it isn't always maxed out. Also the "quality" of attention can vary. I think the time spent looking at things has increased, but the level of focus and "deep attention" paid to things has likely fallen over time.
> But no one wins as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose. We await someone or some group to articulate that vision.
One of the best things I've done for myself is to stop reading the news. You will not believe how this ignorance has led me to a calmer life, to the gasp and concern of my peers, wondering how am I able to cope, to exist, without knowing what happens "in the world?"
As you say, anyone has 1 unit of attention, and unlike many other things, it is fully in our control. The biggest lie modern generations have been told is that the more knowledge about things, the greater the happiness. That you need to know what happens half a world away from you, often in more detail than what happens at your doorstep.
What saddens me the most about the future generations is seeing how politicised they has become, politics the game of rich old people; the powers that be have figured out that if they turn what happens in the palace into entertainment, people are distracted and don't get into them silly ideas like trying to change things. These days politics is slapstick comedy for "grown ups", and it's sad to see it infect the younger generations now.
You might enjoy this piece by Charles Simic, which is a touchstone of mine:
"I’m having trouble deciding whether I understand the world better now that I’m in my seventies than I did when I was younger, or whether I’m becoming more and more clueless every day. The truth is somewhere in between, I suspect, but that doesn’t make me rest any easier at night. Like others growing old, I had expected that after everything I had lived through and learned in my life, I would attain a state of Olympian calm and would regard the news of the day with amusement, like a clip from a bad old movie I had seen far too many times. It hasn’t happened to me yet. My late father, in the final year of his life, claimed that he finally found that long-sought serenity by no longer reading the papers and watching television. Even then, and I was thirty years younger than he, I knew what he meant. What devotees of sadomasochism do to their bodies is nothing compared to the torments that those addicted to the news and political commentary inflict on their minds almost every hour of the day."
Thank you for that. I really enjoyed it. It resonates with me. I have lived in three different countries, and in my two non-native countries, I have enjoyed my life much more. I think part of it is that there I have been somewhat oblivious to the news and current politics of the new places I have lived. I get some of news and politics from my friends, but I do not follow it like I used to in my country of origin. I have also dramatically reduced my news consumption in my native country, because I am not there very often, and it does not preoccupy me so much anymore. Though I have not given up the news entirely, either in my home country or in my adopted countries, but less is, I feel, much better.
I understand, fully and deeply, why news and current events are important, but they are also a cancer. At least in the way that they are sold to us. I also get a sense that the negative effect that the news has our mental health is quite widespread around the world. As in, it is not unique to America or Britain or European countries, etc.
You have it the wrong way round: when you're young, you (want to) believe your actions have world-changing impact and reach. Then you grow up, and see that the world is much bigger than you, bigger than your ego even, and cannot be wielded or moulded by anyone; so you learn to focus on what's around you and who's around you.
Arguably religion used to provide that purpose but most of the Western world has walked away from it without choosing something to replace that sense of purpose. If, as Marx asserted, that religion was the opiate of the masses then the current "attention economy" is the methamphetamine of the masses.
What I have noticed about religion is that today's view of it is distorted. I see it as closer to psychology/sociology/civics. The description I see used today about ancient ideas of social cohesion is narrow minded with a hint of superiority.
Yes, historically religion provided not only a means of understanding one's place in the social system in which one lived but also provided a sense of self in a much longer historical aspect. Successful religions existed on the order of centuries, if not millennia, and set the foundation for one's understanding of self, membership within the group, morality and ethics, legal frameworks, and an explanatory model for the universe in which all these operated.. all of which had outlasted rulers, systems of government, nations, etc.
Grand visions are more in service of megalomaniacal egos than actual solutions. They all just paint over the very real complexities of the world and expect things to just work as they envisioned. Just get rid of the sparrows eating grains and it will just be fine! There are limits to what complexities can be contained within one human mind, and with a world already orders of magnitudes more complex than that we need the humility to admit that the vision of one human mind is not and cannot be all-encompassing. I think it is fair to say that the usefulness of grand visions is dead.
There’s no requirement that a vision be constrained within one person’s mind, that it be inflexible to changing conditions, that it be incapable of testing policies before it implements them, and who’s to say that sufficiently complex machines or new organizations of people wouldn’t be capable of successfully abstracting society’s irreducible complexities well enough to make good decisions? Couldn’t a grand vision, for example, be one in which local communities make most important decisions for themselves, thus removing most of the computational failures of central governance? I just think you’re picturing fascism or communism when I say grand vision, but imo those aren’t representative of what every grand vision would look like.
We actively live under an ideology, and the idea that we should only seek to change things in small incremental ways is a fixture of that ideology. I think that’s called liberalism but I’m not really sure. Either way, who said anything about grand visions being restricted to a short time window of implementation? Any grand vision I could remotely conceive of would have to take centuries at least, unless maybe you consider some benevolent AI dictator or something.
Most companies are still in it for the money, and attention is only a means to an end.
For the idiotic narcissist leaders that pop up every now and then, attention might be interesting by itself. But luckily for us, there's just very few of those. Most of our government bodies are comprised of people who actually mean to do good, and just a bit of attention to some important matters suffices.
It's amazing that solving death and aging is not Goal #1 of every rich and poor person on the planet. Death is coming for you and you're trying to get rich? Engaging in politics? Fighting? What's that gonna do when you're falling apart in real time?
We're all dying fast. Medical industry can't stop it either, they don't know how. Nobody does.
That’s what bugs me about gen ai. How is it that all these resources are being used on recreating things that humans already do and not entirely focused on aging, health, and the climate?
We already have artists, we don’t have a cure for what we’ve done to the climate. It’s frustrating.
Some[1] do invest, others don’t. Personally, I see myself on the poor side, rather than the rich side and what I care about is having a good life however short it is. Family, friends and adventure. I don’t believe in the afterlife in any form and I wish I could live forever with my loved ones but I’ve also accepted it’s natural to die. Maybe one day we will overcome death and we will live until the heat death of the universe. Meh.
I'm talking about the poignant reality that you, me, and everyone on this website will be gone in a matter of decades (or less).
Half or more believe that upon death they will be instantly transported to a GOLDEN CITY (unless you're bad, then you go to FIRE CITY!) forever. "Gold good... fire bad..." yeah totally not made up guys sounds real.
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.
A demented figurehead with other people behind him directing the show. It's as if acting was the perfect training for the worst idea for a position in a system of checks and balances.
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.
That "fitness test" would be measuring a person's maturity, or better said "lack of immaturity". How to measure maturity might just be the most important measure ever devised by the human race, because it would enable US, the humans being led by our democracies, to finally demote the power hungry smooth talking immature, short sighted leaders.
That's a problem, but I think the problem is checks and balances for actual repairs to the checks and balances that would restrict a role are prohibitely hard to make while privilege escalations enlarging a role are at best temporarily denied.
Mr Trump was supposed to be picked up by a military tribunal and probably executed. Whether that tribunal system is overreaching would have been an excellent discussion, after the execution.
You chose to take an ambiguous statement that could be read as true or false, and call out the false interpretation. Of course the true statement was the intended meaning, as I’m sure you knew.
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.
My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible.
Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.
«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordinary protection. And you are also resolving "bestiality" with "dislike", as if arbitrary, as if relativistic.
No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".)
Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.
I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect.
I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams).
And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.)
And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.
Dalewyn, are you aware you are trolling? Low effort, unmanageable statements, assumptions, insinuations, deafness...
-- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»".
-- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot be attempts to cover objective faults with personal taste.
-- The statement (reconstructed) "the losing part rejects the system" is irrelevant: the system is rejected when faulty, regardless of side taking, which may not happen at all.
-- It's not that there "ain't no democracy": it is that "ain't no society", in face of division where scum can be confused for normal candidates. For your information, we had seen societies in which an attempt was made to restrict candidacy to presentable figures - in my lifetime.
You cannot take a picture and make of it a kindergarten sketch depicting something different.
You are indirectly defining "your guy" by defining who is not.
Your efforts to exclude candidates along your arbitrary lines and complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
> You are indirectly defining "your guy" by defining who is not
So: in Countria candidate C is elected for some office, competing with other candidates A, B, D and E. Who is «your guy»?
> arbitrary lines
There exist traits which are not arbitrary at all but evident as objectively lowly to some segments of the population. "Pornology" is one of them. Relativism towards those judgements is like fighting arithmetics. Whether candidate "P" were considered interesting by some for other reasons (Heidegger according to Jaspers: "But H. has beautiful hands!"), candidate P remains "scum". Said segment of the population will state being extremely uncomfortable with a society that allows "scum" taking office. The issue will be societal and systemic, and unrelated to competition.
> complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
Only if you remain in the narrow thought box of assumptions of acceptance of that concept of "democracy", as it appears from some uncertain interpretation of a locution hardly manageable in analytical terms. The expression contains a very loose idea of "won" that seems to imply you support some candidate, actively. And it contains an idea of "democracy" which suggests more than the term can clearly contain (as in, "then there is no democracy!" - ok, "so what", and what would that mean?).
You’re either way too smart or way too stupid for me to understand. In any case, there must be at least a 40 IQ point difference between the two of us.
I think it's fair to say the "why not inject yourself with bleach!" people shouldn't be running the show while there's a class of people who do what people tell them without questioning whether it's a good idea. People in power have a responsibility not to suggest things that would kill people. That isn't a high bar.
Not quite. It assumes that some people don't verify what they're told, and so follow what people in authority tell them. That means people in authority have a responsibility not to abuse their authority.
If everyone was rational and didn't do what they were told, choosing to verify everything and only follow what was appropriate, then the entire marketing, ad, government, legal, prison, etc industries would all collapse because they wouldn't be necessary any more. It's fairly obvious that there are people who follow dangerous, stupid advice.
Sorry. Who among the founding fathers was women to call it parents? Founding fathers seems to be more accurate than founder Mothers or Founding parents.
For those who haven’t read the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death is incredible, and absolutely worth reading. One of my mentors gave it to me years ago and it became one of those mind blowing reads.
In the book, Postman analyzes how media affects humans and society. He basically gives a framework for predicting and understanding the effects of different types of media. The book was written before social media, so the examples are books, newspapers, tv, radio, etc. But so much of social media seems obvious once you read his analysis.
Every time I see the typical discussion (person A: social media makes people dumb; person B: Plato said books make people dumb) I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
This is not exactly correct. When the book was written, a lot of commentators had written off television as useless garbage -- totally bad for society. Postman (correctly) complicates that by pointing out that television is great for emotional storytelling, and he is in favor of fictional television shows that model social values for people. Television turns everything into emotional content, which is why TV news evolved to be so sensationalistic -- TV is not good at news. Printed media is good at news. So, each media has uses that play to its strengths and weaknesses. When a medium is used in weak ways, that is bad for society.
(I don't know what the redeeming argument for TikTok would be...)
TikTok is good at personal content— short form videos that capture a slice of life for other real people. TikTok is a salon.
Little bits of entertainment — music, poetry, jokes/clowning, gossip, show and tell on all kinds of topics, musings about life and interpersonal relationships, practitioners demonstrating their craft.
It presents an interesting cross-section of news that's hard to get anywhere else. It's not great or even good at the normal news format but you can read about a riot and that the mayor called in the national guard in the paper, but the video of someone on their porch getting screamed at and having warning shots fired at them for not going indoors has an impact.
That makes sense. It sounds like the good parts of TikTok are getting little slices of life from interesting people, and of course, jokes and entertaining stuff, and the misaligned parts are accounts that purport to be "informational" about news or politics. TikTok is probably just as bad a source for that as TV is.
"Entrainment" is an apt slip.
Printed media were emotional and sensationalistic too when there was not TV yet. Journals like that still exist and they used to be common and large. Sensationalism changed form, that is it.
Precisely - the medium is the message. Books are slow, deliberate, require imagination and attention. Seven second tiktok videos are the opposite. The method by which we consume the information impacts us just as much if not more than its content.
I've started reading more books (again) lately and the depth of character development and ideas in long form fiction is striking compared to even most long-form TV and films, let alone short attention span social media slop. (... and the best long-form TV and films are often based on books ...)
You can really get deep into characters' heads, their motivations, etc. The more I read the more I feel like it makes me a better person as I absorb empathy and deep insights about consciousness and the human experience.
Back then when people read a lot there was "junk literature". I read it a lot when I was younger. There was no dept of character development nor complex plots. It was formulaic, simple, you got your violence/romance/thrill/whatever fix for the week and moved on.
The things people read when they read a lot were not deep masterpieces. They were, basically, shovelware in book form.
There is still a boatload of junk literature, but if you dig there is ten lifetimes worth of good stuff. I will never read it all. New good stuff is always being published too, but like music you have to dig.
I like to read a mix of new material from good up and coming authors and classics on my backlog.
I strongly second this. When I got back into reading I was also struck by how much deeper the stories and characters are, even compared to excellent TV shows or longform articles.
The issue is spending equal amounts of cumulative time in 7 second disparate chunks. The book could build to a complex insight.
The other strange part of video media is that intimate parasocial relationships it builds.
My parasocial relationships started over the radio, I suppose, and TV took that to a whole new level (simultaneously) especially with the advent of music video. Now it's Social Media with the Stars, all the time...
When I was young, it was a rare thrill to interact with my idols. To accost them for a signature after a concert. To send fan mail and receive a personal postcard in return. Once, there was a surrealist late-night host who I met by chance at a Burger King with my mother. He was subsequently arrested with charges of child endangerment!
So now we're on the Internet and it's so easy to become a fan, a patron, a supporter, of "stars" and "influencers" who are so niche that your money and attention make a difference, and they can return that attention with personal comments and reactions, or even commission works for you. In days of yore, it was the Church and State and wealthy aristocrats who commissioned art, and now I could fund a KickStarter or Patreon for next to nothing. You've got private/semiprivate livestreams where they just read your comments and react. And we remain perfect strangers.
Thankfully, there are ways to stay connected to the community and maintain healthy relationships too. Since before the pandemic, I've "gone to church" on YouTube and I do see familiar names in the live-chat. You can attend city council meetings and other real stuff of local interest. Your support group can stay connected via Zoom.
But these pernicious ideas that a celebrity is your best friend, that your attraction to a woman will be requited or reciprocated, that a personal connection has been made, that's dangerous and a growing threat to our collective safety and sanity.
Books also build intimate parasocial relationships. People feel a sense of loss when finishing a book.
Yes, that is true and they feel a loss after a 7 second video.
I believe living in an environment that favors short attention spans were usually dangerous. Monitoring constant change is what one does when they are alert.
I see the real issue is the duration of the reward cycle without building to a larger idea.
By definition, you can’t build a parasocial relationship with an object. You could argue about parasocial attachment to characters I guess but even then I’m sceptical. I understand what you mean but parasocial is not the correct way to describe it.
Cambride Dictionary explicitly includes books in its definition "involving or relating to a connection between a person and someone they do not know personally, for example a famous person or a character in a book: "
Maybe I should have specified that I meant the characters in a book, I thought that would be clear from the context.
I'm a huge roger waters fan, in particular the album named after this book (not to mention huxley). I was excited to finally get to read what had inspired him. I found it dated (obviously I'd read it nearly 40 years after it was published), commentary on the evils of tv.
> I think that the discussion could use some Postman - not all media affects us in the same way - some media encourages behaviors that are good for society, and some media encourages behaviors that are bad for society.
I think media simply mostly brings out the behaviors already inherent to people. If a shitty person sees their behavior validated in media, they are now more likely to act it out in real life. Likewise for good behaviors.
Some people are definitely more susceptible to such influence than others.
People have a wide spectrum of inherent behaviors. I don't think you'd expect any medium to simultaneously amplify all of them.
So if some behaviors are amplified more than other, isn't that equivalent to considering that a medium induces more frequently a certain behavior?
Original comic source: https://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ours... (archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20100111052839/http://www.recomb...)
HN discussion from 2010: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1554733
Wikipedia entry for the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
Thanks! We've changed the URL to that first link from https://otpok.com/2014/01/03/amusing-ourselves-to-death/.
Edit: err never mind, now I see why you included the archive link. Switched to that.
(2014) should be changed to (2009) too.
Done now. Thanks!
Bit of an aside, it was fun to notice the Australian references in the comic. Surprises me still to see something Australian on the "regular" internet.
"orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy"?
These are unknown to most Americans.
Isn't that a reference to Brave New World?
Yes.
Why is this downvoted? Man, HN is so weird sometimes...
People make too much of what Orwell supposedly feared may happen some day. He was writing about stuff the Soviet and British governments were doing in his time, and in particular, imagined what Soviet rule over Britain may look like. Assigning this philosophy to him and criticizing him for it seems unfair.
Also… maybe he achieved his purpose? Most people have read his books, and it helped generate a widespread aversion to authoritarianism… actually preventing it from happening in the USA and Britain. Many countries nowadays do have societies and governments that look a lot like 1984.
I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.
Another, non-fictional, example of a corporation run wild is the British East India company. At one point they had a larger army than Britain. Because many of the British establishment had investments in the company and because the awful things it did were 'out of sight' it seems they were allowed to do pretty much whatever they wanted. As long as they kept turning a profit.
Both the EIC and its Dutch equivalent VOC were eventually dissolved by their respective governments. This disarms people from viewing even rampant corporations as truly dangerous; even corporations that fielded armies and waged wars ultimately weren't beyond the reach of the law.
I understand that the EIC were only dissolved by Britain, after 274 years, when it was no longer profitable/viable.
This seems so very close to Google etc. today. No one wants to corral tech because their entire portfolio value is tied to tech through something as simple as the SP500.
Did it really though? Ideological censorship has been on the rise for awhile. Books might only be occasionally banned but that's because their relevance in the modern zeitgeist has waned. The privatization of the public square has nonetheless meant that moderation of communication has become widespread and politically charged.
I didn't claim Orwell had universally eliminated all traces authoritarianism... it is rising in popularity right now. Only that it may have shifted things enough to keep us from literally living in a 1984-esque society nowadays... enough so that people in this thread and the article above are saying Orwell was "wrong."
This seems like a stronger argument that Fahrenheit 451 has failed in its purpose than that Nineteen Eighty-Four did.
No, most people pretended to read Animal Farm and 1984 in middle school and haven’t thought about them since. They didn’t understand them at the time, and they don’t see the similar manipulations going on in today’s society.
I agree.
_Animal Farm_ was taught to me by my capitalist and authoritarian teachers as an anti-communist screed. The problem with the farm is that the pigs end up being capitalists, though I have never seen or heard of the text being taught to children as an anti-capitalist text.
This culture does a very good job of assuming that the field of possibilities can easily and quickly be reduced to two choices and, further, that we're forced to choose between the two and, finally, that anyone who thinks there are additional possible choices is "being childish and unrealistic".
I find the US to be highly authoritarian, full of easy examples double-thought and duck speak.
I don't, however think folks are being manipulated: I think that the fundamental authoritarian move is that folks here have manipulated themselves. To me, that's close to the point of 1984. Or Mark Fisher's books, or Ursula Le Guin. I'm in the middle of Butler's _The Parable of the Sower_ and it's feeling like that self-deception is core to what is happening in that book as well:
folks reducing the world to some pretty horrible binaries and then becoming happily ensnared in the ensuing problems.
> I find the US to be highly authoritarian, full of easy examples double-thought and duck speak.
I’m curious to know where else you have lived (I assume you live in the US). As someone that has lived under an authoritarian regime, I find this statement really hard to agree with. The US is far from perfect but it is far from authoritarian in my opinion.
> I don't, however think folks are being manipulated: I think that the fundamental authoritarian move is that folks here have manipulated themselves. To me, that's close to the point of 1984.
Yes. It's rare to find people online who understand this point of 1984, that everyone becomes big brother and that's how it (it being the oppressive system in place to keep people in check) sustains itself.
It's neither anti-capitalist nor anti-communist, just anti-authoritarian.
That's what I was thinking. First, if you don't remember the text go read it right now; it will take you an hour. It's not really pro- or alt- anything, as much as anti-
Also worth reading the preface Orwell wanted for it but that I think the editor rejected:
https://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go
Excerpt:
“These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists. […] Tolerance and decency are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible, and they have to be kept alive partly by conscious effort. The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous. […] But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?
[…] intellectual freedom is a deep-rooted tradition without which our characteristic western culture could only doubtfully exist. From that tradition many of our intellectuals arc visibly turning away. They have accepted the principle that a book should be published or suppressed, praised or damned, not on its merits but according to political expediency. And others who do not actually hold this view assent to it from sheer cowardice. […] I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty, indeed I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. The common people still vaguely subscribe to that doctrine and act on it. In our country — it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in republican France, and it is not so in the USA today — it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact that I have written this preface.”
> _Animal Farm_ was taught to me by my capitalist and authoritarian teachers as an anti-communist screed
And then you find out:
Sometimes there is a "conspiracy" and the truth is weird. The animated movie has a entirely different resolution at the end than the book does. Presumably teacher's materials in the USA were similarly biased?As an outsider, occasionally I am surprised by the similarities between the USA and the USSR even if the precise details are very different.
Yeah I think this is a misreading of Orwell. Orwell wasn't afraid that the government would point a gun at the public's heads and the people would hate it. He was afraid that, when that happened, the people would love it.
Authoritarians are popular. The January 6th Capitol attack was perpetrated by people who wanted the state to exert itself violently, because they believed The State and The People were one and the same, and anyone who is a victim of The State was not truly part of The People to begin with.
The threat of Big Brother is not that he'll watch us, but that we will believe he is watching everyone else on our behalf. Police militarization and mass incarceration are already proof that Americans are willing to cede rights when they believe that only "outsiders" will suffer as a result.
I see "The Circle" as being the updated version of 1984 that is more relevant in our times. In that novel, it's not a government spying on people but is a big company, and the protagonist gradually gives away her privacy in exchange for some services or benefits.
Why can't it be both outcomes at once?
Did he fear what would happen, or propose extrapolating the current experience as a cautionary tale? Meanwhile Huxley presented a world where we voluntarily pursue ignoble goals. I don't think we're criticizing him as much as mourning we appear to have palced the yoke upon ourselves.
Huxley’s fears presented in this particular way are immediately debunked by actual book sales and education statistics.
Independent bookstores have been consistently growing since 2009: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol...
The book industry is expanding with particularly strong growth in e-books and audiobooks: https://worldmetrics.org/book-industry-statistics/
Educational attainment is generally increasing as time goes on in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Voter turnout has increased over time in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
If anything I think that the general population is becoming more aware and educated.
A more diversified leisure industry with more options than the days of having three channels on television is not the same as drowning in amusement, or the average person spending more time on amusement than on “serious” and “thoughtful” activities. Instead, it means that the individual has more options for forms of amusement they enjoy.
I think you can argue that 'books' were deemed as intellectual in Huxley/Orwell's time, so banning them would be a sign of society decline ---> BUT, todays books can be seen as just part of the entertainment distraction. Books sales are up, but how many of them are YA, Manga , Pop-Fiction. They are as shallow and distracting as a TV Show.
I tend to think even reading the worst trash book is still better than Video. But it is still playing into distraction.
Note: I Like Manga, but those series that are 100 volumes long, that is distracting.
> If anything I think that the general population is becoming more aware and educated.
Not necessarily.
Read Jacques Ellul's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul) book "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M... The wikipedia page has a good synopsis of all the major points. Read carefully his arguments specifically on "Information" and "Education" and how they actually make you more susceptible to Propaganda. Excerpt;
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect. Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda, gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy, politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols.
Now add to it all that we have discovered since then in Neuroscience/Neurobiology on how to bypass the "rational" side of the Brain and you will realize that we mostly have "Informed Opinions" and "General Confusion" rather than Real "Education" and "Awareness".
If anything, the latter has become far more difficult to achieve today.
Content from Amusing Ourselves to Death presented as a visual comic to facilitate/"enhance" its communication is deeply ironic. Can't wait for the TikTok video.
I'll just read the AI-generated summary of the TikTok video.
Nothing ironic about it. On the spectrum of the dry academic textbooks to binging the Kardashians, painting a picture is way way to the left.
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 fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.
Scientific American, July, 1858
[0]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/19th-century-conce...
Another more historic example in the same mold:
>>If men learn [to read], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.<<
Plato, 400-300 BC
Basically, learning to read and write would lead to an overreliance and provide only a "semblance of wisdom", rather than "true wisdom".
[0] https://fs.blog/an-old-argument-against-writing/
He wasn’t wrong; we did lose the skill for memorising large oral works. He just missed the upside.
haha the man probably would have been absolutely devastated to learn that his posterity has degenerated to the point of using Google while coding... or god forbid, interviewing.
I don't know that much about literacy rates and social competition in ancient Greece, but I suspect it may have been in Plato's personal interests that others remain illiterate.
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.
But playing Chess at any serious level (more than a couple hours a week) has some non Chess side effects; it teaches you to examine your own behaviour, it teaches you that even if you're very good you can still lose (and hopefully how to lose well), and it teaches you that the other side gets a vote (get a turn, no action happens in a vacuum).
All of which are very valuable life lessons.
You'll get that from any sport and also physical benefits
You learn all of these lessons by practicing most other practices/crafts.
Can't I learn this from any game, some with other, more life-applicable lessons and benefits, like sports?
Something that I believe sets chess aside from most other pursuits (e.g. sports, other games) is the lack of luck; it’s almost all skill. You and your opponent both have everything laid out in front of you, and if you’re skilled enough you can see more than they see, etc etc
There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same.
And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot at the current moment. But a home computer from 20 years ago would beat >90% of the world in chess.
A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight.
Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guarantee a win.
> A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated
Less complicated than any sport that a computer can't be better at than humans.
By definition there are more moving variables in 99% of sports than chess. 5 on 5 basketball, at any time any player can be in an almost endless number of positions on the court in an almost endless number of contortions with different velocity and acceleration of multiple components of the body. The mental intelligence required to teach a robot how to walk and run is significantly harder of a problem than beating the best chess player in the world.
Chess isn't complicated. There is a finite number of moves a player can make at any one turn. And there is a finite number of unique possible games that can be played in chess, which means its solvable (not neccesaeily that it will be solved). You can notate an entire chess game on a napkin, you can't even fully quantify any sport with full length video footage. Comparing the vast complexity of physical movement to pieces on a board. Its a joke, you're a joke.
> games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight.
CSGO is difficult because of thw minor movements a human has to make with their hands, which is hard for humans to do. It isn't complicated compared to sports.
Also of course you bring up a video game. Try doing something productive, twitch tv watching moron.
I don't know how you are defining randomness, but the best player doesn't win the game every time, which is about as much proof as you need that there is a degree of randomness.
Define random in terms of sports, the same conditions apply to chess. The wind affecting trajectory of a ball could be similar to environmental factors effecting cognitive performance.
I wouldn't use the term "random" either. What randomness exists for baseball? Slight curve of a bat? Maybe that is part of the game and should be calculated into by the player and isn't randomness at all but part of the game. "Randomness" exists in almost every competitive activity, its called variance.
It's not even worth discussing, you don't even understand the terms you are using.
> There is no random element to the game of chess.
No idea how you are defining random. What random elements exist for cricket? The same things you would define as random for a sport would be the same for chess.
The sad part is I am better at chess than you are. And have a deeper understanding of the game. Unless you are CM rated or above, highly doubt it.
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
"Life is a game no more no less."
Exactly.
So take a game AI from Deep Mind, link it to some AI that can build a world model, categorize images, put it in a robot, maybe an LLM so it can talk to you, give it some goals. See what happens.
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.
Lauded as champions or freaks? I'm on the side that believes there IS bad publicity...
Life can look like a game, but to think it is nothing more betrays just how easy you have it.
Yeah, if you spend your life solving crossword puzzles, you end up intellectually poor by most standards.
Note that this might also hold to some degree for computer programming.
I don't think that's true, let alone self-evident.
In any case, a life spent solving crossword puzzles would almost certainly deliver more positive net effects to the "player" (and society at large) than a person spending a lifetime getting good at chess. It really is odd that chess is considered so refined, laudable, etc. We probably shouldn't put it on a pedestal any higher than where we place video games.
(In fact, video games might actually be better—and I'm not saying that as someone staring up from a batch of sour grapes and/or looking for an excuse to play video games; that's not how I spend my time.)
There was some chess prodigy who, in his teens, was already winning against most champions, and who in his early twenties abandoned chess altogether, citing it a "waste of life".
Morphy, one of the greatest players of all time, is famous for this.
"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
Is this meant to be an analog to Postman’s argument? Because it isn’t. His argument doesn’t really have a moral bent to it. It’s a very practical argument that different mediums are capable of carrying different messages.
I read it as a counter to Postman’s citing Huxley that society is becoming enamored with the superficial (ie the ignoble) pursuits. I read the OP as effectively saying “who is to say what is noble vs trivial, considering it varies in societal context.”
170 years ago, people may have thought chess was superficial. I think now, maybe it would be considered a more noble pursuit.
Or, maybe the OP was saying it’s a constant devolving towards the increasingly trivial.
Chess is a superficial pursuit, especially today, because it became a meme due to a Netflix television show.
Not that I care. People can pursue whatever they want superficially. And I have plenty of my own superficial pursuits.
Lenin eventually took the same view - that chess was distracting him from a higher purpose. Perhaps a harmless game would have been a better use of his time.
I much prefer people amuse themselves to death than they think and theorize themselves- (or others, in the case of many late 19th and early 20th century intellectuals) to death.
At what point did this become a valid and legitimate issue?
Why do we feel the need to prefer or not prefer what others do with their time? Isn’t that something that concerns only the person and their own life, which really shouldn’t concern us at all?
I think your point really highlights this ethical mindset that has become so prominent today, especially with the rise of the internet.
They did not mean 'prefer' in the way you interpret it. They mean 'I believe the world would be better if...' rather than 'I'd choose for others to behave like...'
> Lenin eventually took the same view - that chess was distracting him from a higher purpose
The world would have been a better place had he kept playing chess then.
The world where nothing ever happens
If this man knew TikTok, he'd have a stroke.
I kind of agree. Chess sucks big time, especially played online. Playing with your grandpa in the park is OK.
[flagged]
Aside from much more variables in Starcraft and co?
Why does he have to be bad at chess if he doesn't like playing online? Also I think "Playing with your grandpa." was just a metaphor for, playing with people you like. Some people just play games to have fun, you know, not everything has to be a competition.
Because their argument wasn't "competitive gameplay is terrible for society", but "chess is bad".
But even if it was the former argument: that's unquestionably false too. Just look at professional sports like soccer or Basketball. Surely you're not going to argue that this is bad...? Because that's fundamentally the same, just on a different topic
Couldn't agree more with that quote. It is completely correct.
This goes beyond media entertainment. All of our senses are being exploited and overstimulated for commercial gains. Food, perfumes, music, furniture. People crave for saltiest or sweetest food. They fill their noses with strong artificial fragrances, their heads with loud, distracting, catchy music, all the while butt-slouched on the comfiest couches or beds. If this continues on, there will be a point where humanity will be so desensitized and can no longer feel anything natural with their own senses.
Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources or appreciate in value in the eyes of an economic system that prioritizes increasing capital valuations above all else, including human dignity, long-term survival and the life of other species, I would say we're already there.
Talking about a dystopian future is a convenient way to assuade our sense of dissonance that the present is most certainly not that.
Case in point, nobody wants to rid the Earth of insects, fill the oceans with plastic or plough microplastics into every orifice, but we are all complicit and can't seem to gather ourselves to fix it.
This is something I regularly read, something in the line of 'we're doomed and it's our own fault since we are actively part of this destructive system'.
I think while humanity is destroying things they are fixing things as well. Banning of heavy metals in environment, removing asbestos, getting most people to stop smoking, eating less meat, energy transition... it's not perfect but we are working on it. Meanwhile average age increases and violence decreases (averaged over a large period at least)
> First of all, I know it's all people like you. And that's what's so scary. Individually you don't know what you're doing collectively. - The Circle by Dave Eggers
> In the course of her job, Resaint had met people like Megrimson, executives who went into work and sat down at their desks and made decisions that ravaged the world. They didn't seem evil to her. They seemed more like fungal colonies or AI subroutines, mechanical components of a self-perpetuating super-organism, with no real subjectivity of their own. That said, she would have happily watched any of them die. - Venomous Lumpsucker by Ned Beauman
I know it's still science/climate fiction, but very relevant to your point.
It would take someone mentally ill (i.e. "neurodivergent") to actually go beyond the routine and take drastic action to fix. Normal people don't go against what society deems normal. Normal people will lie to themselves rather than face the truth, and that's a good thing usually. Almost always is it better to be united in a less optimal path than divided. This is true for the individual as well as socirty.
However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.
The last hope for the world lays in the hands of the Muslims. The Taliban have been a bright star in a dismal wasteland of depravity. I wish it were Christians, but they have been castrated, deradicalized from a religion of poverty and fierce love.
What Christians still dedicate their entire life to God, reject all worldly things and live as Jesus did? Muslims die for God, kill for God. Like it was in the wedding parable, you may have been invited but you didn't show up so the ones who did show up (and are chosen) are the ones who are blessed.
> Given that the vast majority of people go to work to earn money for businesses that exist either to exploit natural resources ...
Or for governments, doing government jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks...
Or for corporations that produce things of negative value and force people to waste a big chunk of their lives on administrative tasks.
I come from a town where the biggest employer is the state in a few different forms. I think it's entirely valid for the government to keep them all busy 9-5, salaried and pensioned. Main function of the state IMO.
I don't fear government, I fear the lack of it.
This doesn't deserve to be downvoted, it is very legitimate point.
I think there is a role for public organisation, with political groups being one type. I am, however, critical of the prevailing agenda, since they often exist in a system where money can play a big role in deciding which priorities rise to the top.
I am not sure that politics plays such a central role as it used or as many people assume. Our society today seems to be divided functionally... we answer to many bosses, some economic, some political, some technological, and so on.
For me the more/less gov't debate misses the important points. It is the incentives, mechanism and processes that determine their value. I think you are referring to maintain order and keeping the peace - valuable functions, but made more necessary when people are under such strain in their daily lives.
"a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence even though, as part of the conditions of employment, the employee feels obliged to pretend that this is not the case" — Nathan Heller
Whats the public vs private split to this idea? Its not a new idea -
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” — John Wanamaker
He doesn’t speak to any particular split. The government forces the private sector to do pointless work as much or more.
[flagged]
Doubt is not a strategy and nay-saying rarely moves a conversation forward.
My comment was not intended to illicit the abdication of responsibility - quite the reverse.
Where was my petitioning? Your response is combative, seemingly intended to be personally offensive and built on a straw-man argument, likely the result of a multitude of others treating your opinions like crap. I'm not them...
You are absolutely right, agency and the realisation of it is a key component to shifting us out of this mess. I put significant daily effort into building an alternative kind of personal existence, at significant personal cost. I attempt to carry as much of this as I can since I recognise my own complicity in this mess.
My more relevant point to the OP, with reference to your comment, is that no, we are not amusing ourselves to death. It's more that we are worrying ourselves to death, despite a lack of personal indicators about this or that. If you want to proceed meaningfully to self, this requires prioritising one's personal experience over the provided stats, which are as much a control/guidance mechanism as anything.
I have lived in South Florida, close to the Atlantic ocean for close to 40 years. In the time I have lived here, the insect populations have noticeably dropped. I have also queried relatives from the midwest. It used to be every summer your car would get covered with dead bugs, not so any more. As for plastics in the ocean, every time I go to the beach I see a lot of macro plastics.
Thank you for your personal testimony. It's good to hear that in your experience it seems that the insect populations really have dropped. Of course, there may be other reasons - eg if there are highways where it used to be small roads, you would expect insects to stay clear of the area. Also, litter you can see, is not microplastics - you can't see the microplastics.... But they are there! Apparently.
So, objective science is untrustworthy and subjective testimony is easily explained away. Let me guess - only your opinion is the one that matters.
You have a poorly-crafted answer for both sides of the coin, but also fail to read the details of the things you oppose.
One has to ask oneself, is it better to have a comforting story, that is likely leveraged for someone, somewhere's benefit, or to start with the honest position, which is that "I don't know". One can of course become more certain of whatever-it-is, but not without attempting some personal research. Or, one can just defer all personal responsibility and parrot whatever the consensus view is.
So then, obviously, you've been personally responsible and tried to replicate all of the studies that led to the conclusion that microplastic concentrations in reservoirs are increasing, as well as the ones that concluded that bioaccumulation of microplastics have deleterious effects on human health, and then got them peer reviewed, right? And you also decided that 'personal responsibility' is actually tacitly accepting that when petrochemical lobbyists write op-eds that deny these scientific consensuses and that you don't need to make any lifestyle adjustments and their clients don't need to make any changes to their supply chain, they're telling the truth. Truly heroic that you still have time to shitpost on HN after all that.
No, I haven't replicated these tests. I'm just not assuming them to be true.
And demanding that everyone else adopt this policy of radical individualist solipsism, built on a deliberate misunderstanding of what scientific consensus is. The net effect of which is basically indistinguishable from being contrarian for its own sake because to do otherwise is actually quite discomforting.
Well to be honest, we don't truly 'know' anything, we can only make best guesses. My best guess based on what i've read from who i perceive as smart people is that microplastics are everywhere, not enough exercise makes you ill, looking in the sun kills your eyes and doing drugs is no good. Are you just can say "I don't know"
Yes, we don't truly know much (not nothing). We can, on occasion, drill into whatever is being claimed, look at the data and see if we agree with the conclusion.
If you personally sample test studies, comments or whatever you then get a handle on how many assumptions you feel are being made, whether you always/occasionally/never agree with what is stated.
Are you aware of widespread fraud in the data associated with insect population decline? Or are you arguing that science is just inherently fraudulent or unreliable? These sound like pretty extreme responses of the type ancaps gave for years to the claim that global surface temperatures were rising. Those looked pretty quaint even without the benefit if hindsight.
I am arguing that scientific data is unreliable in general.
Which is simultaneously broad and vacuous. Why? Compared to what? In this specific context, what method would provide a better intellectual foundation?
Personal verification. At least some attempt towards that. And I don't mean reading an article.
The scientific method applied personally.
Pretty much no one is checking anything.
Would be nice if strengthened by some concrete examples.
Well, did you see with your own eyes the earth is round rather than flat? No, so you can't state either? That makes most reasonable statements impossible to make.
Are you able to say that 'you assume that the earth is a sphere but don't know that to be the case'? Do you actually say 'I know the earth is a sphere' even though you don't "know"? Do you know the difference between belief and knowing?
I think/believe/know that the main difference between thinking/believing/knowing is in their nuance. Fundamentally i believe they reflect the same meaning, mainly their strongness is different.
I believe the earth is sphere shaped. I'm pretty sure it is, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes. I have seen parts of the curvature of the earth, but can't be 100 percent sure this was not due to lens effects of the atmosphere. Nonetheless I am quite strong in my belief because all i read and heard about the topic seems to make sense. I never met Newton, Keppler but I believe what was written by/about them is correct.
Great. I'm glad you are happy to use 'believe' rather than 'know', if you are trying to convey your meaning clearly.
I think there is a huge value in this, in being clear on what one knows (that I am sitting on a chair) and what one believes (that the earth is a sphere). Belief in a thing indicates that something is a hypothesis to oneself, while knowing conveys whatever-it-is is a fact.
I totally accept that think/believe/know are used interchangeably in conversation etc, but I also hold that there is a (huge) value to oneself in being able to keep these distinctions clear.
Taking a moral angle to it, misusing these terms is actually to lie or mislead others by overstating or understating your certainty.
Do you have a definition for 'know', in a hard/technical/non-colloquial sense?
I understood what you are trying to say an i mostly agree. I guess most people find it a bit pedantic to make a hard distinction between believing and knowing. One of the pet peeves of mine is to use words correctly. Often in the office we use words that are incorrect but everybody uses them and hence I'm the pedantic one pointing them to the fact those wrong wording might create a wrong view on things. There are plenty such words and expressions and often things would clear up by using the most appropriate term or expression.
That said, indeed saying 'I know God exists' is misleading. It is trying to convince by stating beliefs as being True.
The thing is, i believe knowing is simply a colloquial term. I read the book 'reality is not what it seems'. We make models of the world. Those models are wrong but mostly good enough to get along, but over time science prooves that each should be replaced by a less wrong model. Models stay wrong ad infinitum. That all to say that just maybe Truth with a capital does not exist, we can only converge toward it. Hence non-colooquial knowing might not exist.
Yes, the model one has and the terms one uses probably vary from person to person. However, a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur anyway, if we are prepared to hone in on definitions of words, and correct the difference in personal meanings. This requires patience and good will.
It is the opposite to making Barnum statements, such you get in politics like: 'this is a good thing' allowing each individual to mislead themselves with their own definition of 'good'.
Imo, truth with a capital T does exist - it is that which has happened. This is valid if we are not living in a simulation... which I personally don't think we are in. However, we only have our personal view on truth/reality. Pretending we can have anything more (via shared models such as religion or science) is flawed. Recognising the (very limited!) boundaries of what we know, and knowing the difference between belief and knowledge is essential.
I can only agree!
Thanks for the exchange
The sad thing is that none of it is very amusing. Current events twitter is more aggravating than amusing. We're aggravating ourselves to death.
The point is that it's both distraction. Social media has told us that enragement sucks up even more attention than amusement. Mission accomplished.
"aggravating than amusing."
But it is distracting. Huxley didn't necessarily say everything was fun, just that it is distracting.
Rage, anger, outrage, keeps people engaged more than amusing.
Yeah, and then you do something fun to distract you from said current events.
[flagged]
I briefly spent some time on Twitter a few months ago, and it was almost entirely widespread hysteria over things that were easily verifiable as trivially false. For example, at the time people were enraged about a supposed trans woman winning a boxing match in the olympics- but she was not in fact a trans woman.
My take is that X/Twitter is mostly sharing fake rage bait, to emotionally manipulate people into supporting various hate based political movements.
The actual issue was that this athlete, Imane Khelif, is male. And was competing in a women's boxing match, despite having previously been deemed ineligible by the International Boxing Association for this reason, after a karyotype test revealed XY chromosomes.
The problem is that women's boxing in the Olympics doesn't verify sex other than via identity documents such as passports. Even though the other categorical attribute - weight - is directly verified during competition.
As Khelif (and another male boxer, Lin) had a female passport, this permitted competition in the tournament despite the fact that it enabled a male to pummel female boxers, to an eventual unanimous victory.
Obviously, many people are against this, for the same reason as why mixed-sex boxing tournaments aren't considered acceptable, for reasons of fairness and safety.
> The actual issue was that this athlete, Imane Khelif, is male.
No, she’s not, even in terms of assigned gender at birth, and she represents an Islamic country in which she would be imprisoned if she was and was living as a woman.
> despite having previously been deemed ineligible by the International Boxing Association for this reason, after a karyotype test revealed XY chromosomes.
The IBA had already been stripped of its role as a governing body with regard Olympic boxing due to the rather extraordinary and flagrant corruption in that organization (and for that to reach a level intolerable to the IOC is saying quite a bit), but even if the IBA’s claim of karyotype testing wasn’t fraudulent or carried out under unreliable conditions, a detected XY karyotype doesn't mean you are male, even in nonsocial medical terms, or phenotype without intervention terms. Swyer syndrome can result in a female phenotype with exclusively XY karyotype, and chimerism (possibly combined with Swyer) can result in a female phenotype where XY karyotype would be detected (potentially exclusively, without sampling different tissue in a way that a simple test would not).
All the evidence revealed so far indicates that Khelif is male. Regardless of the IBA's other issues, there are two blood tests from independent labs showing XY karyotype, and a member of Khelif's coaching team described problems with chromosomes and hormones such that Khelif has been on medication to adjust testosterone levels to bring this closer to the female range.
This implies that Khelif went through male puberty and has the male physical advantage in sport that is caused by male sexual development. Most likely, Khelif was assigned female at birth due to having a difference of sex development (DSD) conferring an external genital appearance that at first glance may seem female.
I don't know where this oft-repeated idea that Khelif has Swyer syndrome came from, but it's nonsensical. Swyer comes with bone defects due to hormone deficiency, and suffering from osteopenia and osteoporesis is not compatible with an elite athletic career, particularly not boxing. Anyone with Swyer would be getting fractures from all the punching and being punched. Nothing about Khelif's situation aligns with this.
However, there was previously in the Olympics a very similar situation with Caster Semenya, a male runner whose penis didn't develop properly due to having the DSD 5-ARD, and was therefore erroneously assumed to be female, and given identity documents to match. Semenya was eventually disqualified from track events due to having internal testes that produce male levels of testosterone and have done since puberty. Probably Khelif has the same or similar condition.
I would like to reiterate that, like I said, people were specifically spreading the misinformation that she was a trans person that was allowed to compete only under some new policies coming from their political enemies- as part of a broader movement and large group of people that spread anti-trans hate online.
In this context, hardly anyone would care about this if not fueled by an anti-trans political movement that latched onto it. Personally, I think it is in poor taste to publicly comment about if someone else may or may not be medically an intersex person- especially when fueled by an undercurrent of hating people for being different in some way. This person is legally a woman, and is a skilled athlete competing in the only way they are legally allowed to.
> X/Twitter is showing things as they are
Wow. No, X/Twitter is showing things people (and quite a few bots) say. There’s no mechanism there to emphasize things that are. In fact you’re rewarded for saying things that aren’t, if they generate engagement, which is so much easier if you just make stuff up.
While the situation may be grave it was usually much worse for the vast majority of the population.
People are aggravated and enraged by famine deaths precisely because they affect much smaller percentage of people than they used to, where death from hunger was common.
The debt and likely coming financial repression is a weaker form of coin debasement practiced regularly by many kings. And so on...
A couple of years ago i was working for a design studio which produced an image movie for a big cooperation which somehow painted an utopian future for their upcoming product ideas. In that movie there was a woman reading in "Brave new World".[EDITED] It was clear none of the people involved read the book. My remarks were swept aside by claiming hardly anyone has read the book anyway... headlessness might be a real issue.
That’s hilariously ironic
Do you mean "Brave New World"?
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
Technopoly is also amazing, make that your next read.
yes, I’ve read that and many of his books. they all a bit similar and he reuses tons of similar quotes and ideas. but that is even better, he just tries to drive the same points.
I remember rolling my eyes at Technopoly a lot more than I did at Amusing Ourselves, but actually...I read Technopoly maybe 15 years ago, when the Internet had a lot more promise and less downside. Maybe if I read it now it would seem a lot more correct.
Amusing Ourselves, on the other hand, was brilliant when I first read it, but now we seem to be living in a world that is both Orwell and Huxley. The free market provides endless pap, AND governments/political figures have learned to use new media to provide endless misinformation designed to keep us fearful. So maybe if I read it today it would not seem as relevant.
Doing things merely to stimulate pleasurable brain chemistry is fine unless all you do is play games or watch formulaic media that have no lasting effect or achievement.
Formulaic or novel media doesn’t make a huge difference, it’s just passive consumption either way.
Coincidentally I’ve been listening to Divers a bunch recently (which is a really great album, although I am just passively consuming just like everything else… I don’t know if it falls under formulaic for you, but it is a good formula if so). A lot of it is about death and time, and she ends one of the songs with a sort of gentle sing-songy “Look, and despair.” I always read the “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” in Ozymandias as a giant “fuck your hopes and achievements” from that ancient king.
Anyway, Joanna Newsom’s delivery is a lot more gentle, so maybe the fact that all of our effects and achievements will ground to dust is not so bad. Mattering would be very stressful.
Which thing can you do that does not serve the purpose of generating desirable brain activity?
You missed 'merely'. The answer is: anything that involves delayed gratification.
whats wrong with headshots on the PC while doomscrolling on the phone in the age of monsters and idiots?
If you, like me, would have had to watch people play Candy Crush on the Tube [= the London subway] on the way to work every morning for seven years, you would not ask.
I felt terribly sorry for that loss of GDP and decline in mean global IQ.
Why would playing Candy Crush on the subway have any impact on GDP or IQ? Sounds like a non sequitur.
The plebians should be doing business during their commute, never stop hustling! /s
Given the current pro-war propaganda all over the place combined with the creeping cost of living, I think Nineteen Eighty-Four is becoming more prescient than Brave New World.
1984 can't be more prescient than a book that has already become reality in most of the world that matters (culture, art, science, influence wise). If you don't see that hedonism and general moral decay has become the overwhelming norm, you're probably part of it.
1984's surveillance may be here, but the brute force is only reserved for the rare nails sticking out; if those haven't already gone crazy from surviving in the sane asylum.
The topic of "creeping cost of living" reminded me of two other good dystopian novels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/334_(novel)
Imo, the "Media Bias Chart" is an appeal to authority Postman may have warned against. Iirc, it rates articles 'in the news cycle'. Except those very sources determine which "news" items are worthy of coverage.
Sources that are not in the prescribed 'news cycle' like AntiWar.com, FEE, The Institute For Justice, MintPressNews are not on the self-licking-icecream-cone list.
The article just lifts the content from the book and doesn’t add anything original. Great. We’ve heard.
I would say 1984 is rather more subtle than portrayed here.
For instance, the masses are kept at bay by scaring them with perpetual wars on the one hand and by keeping them distracted with machine-generation filthy "literature" (we only reached the level of technical sophistication to do that courtesy GPT/Llama last year). That part is more similar to what the post portrays as the "Huxley" view, perhaps.
The appendix of 1984 ("Newspeak") is a masterpiece on its own, redefining English words like "freedom" so that they can only mean "free from lice", with the notion of freedom forgotten.
Exactly, and the comments here are not about the point in the article, just like the article points out people missing the point of Huxley.
This comic misses some of my favorite details from the book.
The book talks a lot about Marshall McLuhan's quote "the medium is the message" and about how discourse has turned more and more into entertainment. Nixon lost to Kennedy because he was more attractive on television, and people are judged by how they look or behave as opposed to what they say.
More than anything, this book really made me appreciate written discourse.
People always reference 1984 but Orwell’s essay “Pleasure Spots” is probably more relevant to this subject: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
I think there was a quote by a Nordic writer (possibly Hans Christian Andersen) in which he talked about how circuses and amusement parks keep people distracted and busy so we don't focus on important policy issues.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20220818-the-surprisingl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
La Boétie?
Excellent! People hardly know about "Etienne De La Boetie" much less read his works. Only "popular" authors are discussed many of whose works lack real depth.
Of relevance to this thread is his classic work "The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitu... and https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/kurz-the-discourse-of-vol...
One very interesting note here is that this was one of the inspirations for Mahatma Gandhi in coming up with his idea of "Satyagraha" movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha) in his struggle against British Colonialism in India - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gene-sharp-gandhi-on...
That references the Latin phrase:
Paragraph from a page describing it: Orwell and Huxleys work are both centralised (authoritarian - you had to take your Soma) whereas our current risk is possibly more systematic and less conspirational.Hey guys, what if good things were actually bad? Wow!! Instead of enjoying ourselves we should instead spend eight hours a day intently studying woodworking & tax policy. The fact that people enjoy talking to each other and looking at cat pictures on social media proves that people will accept fascism and that Western liberal democracy is fated for impotence.
There is a middle ground between woodworking and TikTok, no? People enjoyed talking to each other and had fun before we had technology.
It’s easy to see social media as harmless, and maybe it is, but it also has the potential to act as a powerful tool for serving propaganda and brainwashing.
I’m not suggesting an actual conspiracy theory here but it’s concerning that a few huge companies have the power to broadcast (and control) the flow of information to a majority of population, who will consume that information by and large without suspicion.
If for some reason Facebook or TikTok really wanted to meaningfully shift public opinion, they probably could, and in any direction they might choose.
> before we had technology
There wasn't a time "before we had technology". Best to avoid that line of thinking if you want to escape the determinist (Veblem) trap and end up like Kaczynski.
Postman is an author we enjoy but seldom acknowledge the wider genre into which he fits. It's called "tech critique".
You can study it through the ages, comparing the outlooks and influences of Einstein, Ellul, Freud, Fromm, Heidegger, Illich, Kaczynski, Marcuse, Mumford, Nietzsche, and Postman, as well as sci-fi writers like Wells, Forster, Clarke, Gibson, Le Guin, Dick...It makes a very good companion to a study of the philosophy of science.
Some takeaways (at least ones that stick in my mind):
Technology is inseparable from the human condition, There are no primitivist escapes, noble savages or gardens of Walden.
By the same token there is not and won't ever be any golden age of Utopian technology.
Technology most closely resembles a "drug" in all its manifest functions.
Technology comes with an accumulative maintenance cost.
It is monotonic/directional. There's no easy way back and we can't uninvent stuff.
Minimising the _harms_ of technology while maximising the benefits and maintaining human dignity amidst it is the best we can do.
Even if initially excited by new developments all people are ultimately ambivalent about technology. They fear it, use it begrudgingly and resent their dependency on it. Iron bridges and steam locomotives raised the same questions as GPS and iPhones do today.
Many people romanticise and worship technology. It is a secular God.
If we "love" it, it's the sick love of an addict or the sadomasochistic power glee (tech "dealers" like Ellison, Zuck, and Musk)
A tiny few (that's us) enjoy a curious fascination that makes tech an "end in itself". Those people get used to create a supply for the dealers and addicts.
Anyway you gotta love Postman, if only for exquisite use of "centrifugal bumblepuppy". What he describes in this passage is really the soporific control/domination effects of technology in the hands of tyrants/dealers who delight in the subjugation of attention - which I think is made best by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.
>There wasn't a time "before we had technology"
Well, this was nothing if not besides the point. Anyone on this site should recognize that when people like the person you responded to use the word "technology", especially in this context, it is typically a colloquialism for information technology, as in television, computers, phones and the like.
Even in colloquial English amongst the public, "technology" hasn't referred to technology in general for several decades, but simply to "information technology". It has become so common that the general public refers to the entire information technology industry simply as "tech" or the "tech industry", which excludes all traditional engineering disciplines outside of electrical, despite all those disciplines working with technology.
Yes, popular parochialism is another common theme discussed in tech critique. Each generation believes its technology to be an exceptional pinnacle, disconnected from its antecedents. It starts to see the world in no other terms. What you're saying feels like a reformulation of McLuhan's "the medium is the message". People who see their world only through the TV or smartphone screen can no longer "see" the technology that undergirds it. Their world gets smaller, into a Plato's cave if you like.
I disagree that influence is really that malleable. Even if we take the power of selection algorithms for granted it is still constrained and must work with the 'winds' of the content posted. If they tried something 'simple' as promoting non-mammalian meat sources they would only succeed in creating memes mocking the concept.
Besides, the most "effective" influencer does next to nothing because they were going to do that sort of thing already. There is a reason you see music stars doing promotionals for pleasurable to consume caloried drinks as a use for personal funds and not say deferred gratification products like investment banking.
Reminds me of my favorite copypasta:
>If you're reading this, you've been in a coma for almost 20 years because of a car accident. We're trying a new technique. We don't know where this message will end up in your dream, but we hope we're getting through. Please wake up.
Even if people wake up and "do something", govts will just tire us out. Similar to how online protests against reddit, (or on ground protests like occupy [X], and so on) and others failed. We have no option but to accept what is handed out to us.
Wake up and... do what exactly? Tell others to "wake up" ad nauseum? The whole "wake up, sheeple, you're being manipulated" is both correct and amusingly self-terminating.
Metacognition, for all its benefits, comes with the newfound sisyphean task of being unable to intentionally avoid thinking about a white elephant for an entire minute. "Don't be influenced by the ads/media/propaganda" works about as well.
So perhaps the best way to reduce manipulation is to find a way back to sleep sometimes. A sort of meta-meta-cognition, if you will. It's self-awareness all the way down.
The book came out in 2005.
Was there any follow up, I didn't see one on the wiki.
It seems like we are accelerating to this.
Even the changes between 2005 and 2024. Near 20 years, we've leaned into the Huxley vision. Really leaned into it.
This is all getting really scary. I feel like we should do something. We should really band together and change course. I volunteer to go out and do something, except of course, I'm a bit distracted at the moment, so maybe can we put off the change for another week? I really need to see the end of this season of "Industry". Then we can do something, I'm sure I'll have some free time next week to get right on this.
The book came out in 1985. The author was already dead in 2005.
Missed that.
It was re-issued in 2005. For 20th anniversary.
So nearly 40 years.
The precursor to both "1984" and "Brave New World" is a novel titled "We" from 1921 by Yevgeny Zamyatin[0]. The mass surveillance by One State is an apt analogy for the adtech-ruled world of today.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)
I read both many years ago, first 1984 and later Brave New World.
It's been so long I've forgotten some of the details.
Though, to my surprise, I remember while reading Brave New World, finding myself agreeing with a lot of the practices of that society.
A gram of soma, less aversion / denial of death, more liberal sexual norms.
For a novel about this (among many other things, including semi professional tennis) you might be interested in Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace.[0]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest
Brave New World supposes a world of plenty controlled by a few ruling oligarchs and aristocrats; 1984 supposes a world of scarcity also controlled by a few ruling oligarchs and aristocrats. One society is controlled by the carrot, and in the other society, given the shortage of carrots, the stick is brought out to maintain the social order.
I just listened to this a few weeks ago. It’s incredible and really helps frame how we got here and is still very relevant to social media even though it’s written about TV/Hollywood. You’ll be hard pressed to find deeper media analysis that remains very approachable.
The book's title is a nod to the Roger Waters album/song that deals with the same theme.
The book predates the song and album by about 7 years, so the album name references the book. Postman even mentioned the fact in his 1995 book "The end of education"
> "Postman even mentioned the fact in his 1995 book "The end of education""
Quote from Postman according to wikipedia[0]:
"the level of sensibility required to appreciate the music of Roger Waters is both different and lower than what is required to appreciate, let us say, a Chopin étude."
Ouch.
I actually got the album when it came out, and was roughly aware of the concept and the book from reviews in the music press. Had I known that it was comparing Orwell and Huxley I'd have definitely made the effort to read more. But this was before the internet so it wasn't easy (you had to do things like going to a public library), so technological progress is not all downside.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
Thank you. I was mislead by the date on the post and did not know the book was older. TIL.
I think it’s the other way around — the book is from ~ 1985 while the Roger Waters albums is ~ 1992.
Thank you, my bad, you are right, as the other sibling comment.
> incredible, and absolutely worth reading ... so much of social media seems obvious once you read his analysis (richk449)
> dated ... commentary on the evils of tv (zetsurin)
Hmm... I suppose both of these could be accurate.
Legendary comment from the old boy Terry Davis as the top post there.
Gods true OS
The only true seer of the modern age.
RIP
Dopamine is one hell of a drug.
Outrage and fear are exhausting, let me tell ya. Somehow I cannot get away from nursing my PTSD online, with sick pleasure in picking fights and "winning" arguments.
Sometimes I wake up with a thread racing through my mind and the perfect retort to my "adversary"
I honestly don't hate you guys, but you give my life purpose and meaning... So thank you
Thinly veiled 'I despise stupid people', this one.
They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize?
It's not what stupid people do in their free time - it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference.
Nietzsche laid this out quite beautifully in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Huxley and Orwell are kindergarten philosophy by comparison.
>it's what capable and smart people value and pursue that makes all the difference.
How do you know capable and smart people will keep having good values? Seems to me that it's true until it isn't - populism takes over politics, ideology takes over the humanities, science gets Goodharted to death, etc. Values are highly circular - we value what high-status people in our (sub)culture value, and you become high-status by getting what people value. This holds for smart people as well.
> How do you know capable and smart people will keep having good values?
'Good' values don't exist, so we need not worry about that one :)
Then what do you mean when you say "make a difference"?
I think they mean the literal opposite of things staying the same, not the "helping people" idiom.
Fair enough, but for the sake of this conversation, if we say 'good' values are those that keep things from staying the same, aren't the values of smart people just as likely to evolve towards 'bad' ones? For example, I'm sure most people know at least one smart person who only plays video games; it does seem that we'll keep inventing forms of entertainment that wirehead people more and more effectively, which seems in line with the Brave New World scenario.
are you saying smart people are immune to the temptations of attention-dopamine?
because i'd consider myself above average in terms of intelligence and ambition but i still fall into the procrastination trap often. now you might say that this makes me in fact "stupid" per your defininition (or maybe arrogant as i overestimate myself) but i see this in other people as well.
i also would not say that being "productive" as in moving humanity ahead must be the KPI by which everyone is measured. you only have one life, you can spend it how you want, even if that is watching tiktoks 24/7.
This sentiment, that each is entitled to a life of choosing, resonates strongly with the spirit of individualism. Within it there is a disregard for obligation or belonging that, I think, is connected to the desire for mindless occupation and distraction.
I suspect that, the more one is cut off from a sense of collective purpose, the more one finds solace in activities that reinforce a sense of "alright" in place of true wellness.
Btw, I'm also a big procrastinator and I consider it a gift. Many wonderful things in my life have been helped by it. In this sense, I agree that there is something about an inner drive that should be listened and reacted to, but I am not sure that all activities are of equal value.
> 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"- and "television"-based culture. He claims that it's bad when television becomes the main platform that a society centers its communication around.
He's also honest that there's probably far more junk (in absolute terms) in printing than in television: "Television is not old enough to have matched printing's output of junk." It's not about the amount of "junk" – it's about something more fundamental about the medium.
I found the book quite interesting and would highly recommend reading it!
> They'd be boozing (more than they already are) if there wasn't such variety of cheap and available entertainment, the author doesn't seem to realize?
That's an extremely pessimistic view of the world: Categorizing a set of human beings as "stupid" and saying that it doesn't matter how society is structured?
And "smart people" are also influenced by how our society is structured, no?
>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 to bear on the Western World.
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.
> 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.
You also can't create actively yourself! TV was definitely a consumer only culture, with all creation heavily gatekept by an entire industry. Compare this to the print culture prior to that.
The Internet definitely has changed this, and now we are back into a creation capable metaphor.
plenty of smart people wasting their lives scrolling through bullshit. you don't use your brain to solve problems if you're never bored and allowing your mind to wander.
I find it really strange that the 3 paragraphs of text at the top needed the comics summarizing them below. Like, did our short attention spans need those little footholds in order to progress through the point being made? :)
Sounds like I need this book added to my reading list. I've not been able to get through Brave New World, but I might give it another try also.
It is interesting that these two books essentially show the most extreme end result of the two major economic systems. Socialist authoritarian communist states gravitate towards 1984, capitalist liberal democracies turn into Brave New World.
Exactly! Both Orwell and Huxley are right but in different contexts. Also note that both of their works are an exaggerated caricature of aspects of Society which they wished to highlight and show its insidiousness. Thus one has to look beyond the "painted picture" and understand what was being meant.
However; Orwell had a better insight on the overall issues which can be found in his essays eg. "Notes on Nationalism", "All Art is Propaganda", "Politics and the English Language" (eg. Newspeak) etc.
Well said. I think the issue stems from the same point.
Both cases assume that individuals are being coerced out of their potential to transform the world for the better, whether by Big Brother or by TikTok. In my view, both stem from an assumption that I don’t see playing out in the real world: that all individuals have the desire or capacity to make a difference and be something "more".
I think this idea came from the Enlightenment. That’s when we started to forget that, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority are just here to occupy space.
(2014)
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?
Yeah, I have to re-read Brave New World because over the time since I have read it I have come to believe it was actually Utopian. The artists and others that could not conform were in fact given an island where like-minded artists could flourish.
Sometimes I think that's all we all want: to find a community of like-minded people we can live among.
On "The Island", well, it's the book Huxley wrote as a counterpart against BNW.
For those unfamiliar with both:
Brave New World features islands which are limited domains in which free-thinking is both permitted and encouraged, as Mustapha Mond explains to Bernard and Helmholtz late in the novel. In part these serve as centres of creativity which the World State needs.
Island is a paradise world which largely stands, as you note, as a counterpart to BNW. Though all does not go well.
Here and now boys! Here and now ...
The islands in BNW: "[Bernard is] being sent to an island. That's to say, he's being sent to a place where he'll meet the most interesting set of men and women to be found anywhere in the world. All the people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren't satisfied with orthodoxy, who've got independent ideas of their own. Every one, in a word, who's any one. I almost envy you, Mr. Watson."
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. Media is literally used like front line troops of colonial empires in Attention capture wars.
But no one wins as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose. We await someone or some group to articulate that vision. Until then people working in Attention Capture fields will keep amusing us to death.
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'.
They're enriching their bank accounts just as they're impoverishing their spirits. On their deathbeds, no one ever says "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office." The same could be said for any other wealth-motivated exercise.
If I have learned one thing in life it is this: money is, at best, a necessary evil. A means to an end. Pursuing it as an end in itself is an indication that we have strayed from the path and forgotten what we were doing.
I swear I am going to, on my deathbed, say "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office," just to stop this quote going around. In the last five years I've had a few conversations about regret with elderly relatives who have now passed away. None of them regretted going to work. My grandparents met at work. One regretted that she'd been a draftswoman rather than an engineer, but that's almost the exact opposite. I don't understand why people think doing good work that inspires pride and then getting paid for it is going to be some kind of horrible deathbed regret. It has literally never been a deathbed regret for anyone whose deathbed I have attended.
> I don't understand why people think doing good work that inspires pride and then getting paid for it is going to be some kind of horrible deathbed regret.
Because there is nothing in the definition you give that remotely looks like the median job. Societies are not structured to maximize the number of jobs that fits this definition. If social structure happens to fit your Ikigai, congratulation you won the cosmic loto, enjoy.
But maybe it’s not a relevant point to show surprise on this point. Consider how much people in the rest of humanity will have to go through major existential stressful abhorrent challenges, geopolitical struggles, being effectively reduced to dull task slaves by whoever happen to be their lord of the day. How then to be surprised that at the end of their life they can think "work moments were so shitty, I wish I had spend more enjoyable ones like those I experienced while taking time with people I deeply sincerely love".
By the way, if you haven’t yet do that today, tell at least to at least three people around you how much you love them and care that they enjoy moment passed together. I promise you won’t regret it on your death bed. ;)
I'm talking about a wide range of jobs -- draftswoman, ship's engineer and structural engineer, typist, teacher -- held by people who grew up during the major existential struggles that were the great depression and the second world war. Working as a typist in the 1940s and 1950s was not some kind of utopian magical job full of meaning, but my grandmother could still hit a higher WPM than I can and she was proud of what she'd done. Earning an income was a means of doing things that she would never have been able to do otherwise. She felt lucky to be able to do things like take a ship to Europe without a chaperone and using money she'd earned, given that her mother's generation of women would have found it much harder.
My experience has been that older people often have a different outlook on life than what people my age, including me, would predict. Part of that is experience, part is coming from a different time where the baseline for quality of life was lower, and I suspect part of it is rose-tinted glasses.
They should have said: "gee, I wish I spent more time influencing people into buying things they do not need".
On their deathbeds, no one ever says "gee, I wish I'd spent more time at the office."
I bet a lot of people have died regretting they didn't earn more.
Money has made it far easier to barter work into what people need to survive, obtain stability & enjoy life, than its absence.
It’s easy to be jaded by those that obviously value it more than others’ well being.
But the mismatch of priorities is what is wrong, that doesn’t negate money’s positive practical value & impact.
Most people have a more multifaceted relationship with money than as a dehumanizing god or drug.
Sure, but they’re also outbidding me for a house.
Are you trying to get in a "good school district" ? Is that really that strongly correlated to kids outcome in life .
kids grow up and fight for a house in good school district :).
I feel like having kids is root of all evil. Ppl justify all sorts of things (like wars and bidding for houses) and say that they are doing those things for sake of their kids.
>…having kids is the root of all evil.
Quite a take there. Kids are also the source of all joy and happiness, depending on how you look at it.
Yea I agree. I have kids too :)
But they are also the source of global warming, wars. On a personal level they a source of anxiety, continuous striving, jealousy and fear.
No, but I want to live somewhere my kids have the freedom to bike and walk around town safely.
Anyway, I just took a job helping get more houses off gas and on heat pumps, which is aligned with my goal to be part of addressing climate change, but it is hard to get a house near work (in Amsterdam in this case) when not optimising for pay.
> No, but I want to live somewhere my kids have the freedom to bike and walk around town safely.
Hmmmz, kids can do that practically anywhere in NL (and have good schools). Except maybe in parts of the big cities.
Countryside is both cheaper, safer, and the air is healthier. But don't go too rural. Because then wolves will get your kids for breakfast.
The problem with too rural is the people, not the wolves. You’re right though, and it’s why we moved to NL.
I was mostly thinking of back when I was in California to be honest. Though recently when I had to decide between a four or five day work week the biggest factor was “will I be able to outbid other people who want the same house”
As far as schools, I’ve been underwhelmed. They have kids on tablets a lot, shove a tv in front of them for lunch, and have rapidly declining PISA scores.
[flagged]
yes exactly!
[flagged]
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...
I don't know, it's possible for a person to pay no attention to anything. Therefore it isn't always maxed out. Also the "quality" of attention can vary. I think the time spent looking at things has increased, but the level of focus and "deep attention" paid to things has likely fallen over time.
> But no one wins as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose. We await someone or some group to articulate that vision.
One of the best things I've done for myself is to stop reading the news. You will not believe how this ignorance has led me to a calmer life, to the gasp and concern of my peers, wondering how am I able to cope, to exist, without knowing what happens "in the world?"
As you say, anyone has 1 unit of attention, and unlike many other things, it is fully in our control. The biggest lie modern generations have been told is that the more knowledge about things, the greater the happiness. That you need to know what happens half a world away from you, often in more detail than what happens at your doorstep.
What saddens me the most about the future generations is seeing how politicised they has become, politics the game of rich old people; the powers that be have figured out that if they turn what happens in the palace into entertainment, people are distracted and don't get into them silly ideas like trying to change things. These days politics is slapstick comedy for "grown ups", and it's sad to see it infect the younger generations now.
You might enjoy this piece by Charles Simic, which is a touchstone of mine:
"I’m having trouble deciding whether I understand the world better now that I’m in my seventies than I did when I was younger, or whether I’m becoming more and more clueless every day. The truth is somewhere in between, I suspect, but that doesn’t make me rest any easier at night. Like others growing old, I had expected that after everything I had lived through and learned in my life, I would attain a state of Olympian calm and would regard the news of the day with amusement, like a clip from a bad old movie I had seen far too many times. It hasn’t happened to me yet. My late father, in the final year of his life, claimed that he finally found that long-sought serenity by no longer reading the papers and watching television. Even then, and I was thirty years younger than he, I knew what he meant. What devotees of sadomasochism do to their bodies is nothing compared to the torments that those addicted to the news and political commentary inflict on their minds almost every hour of the day."
https://archive.is/0GZmW
(I haven't managed to stop reading the news unfortunately...)
Thank you for that. I really enjoyed it. It resonates with me. I have lived in three different countries, and in my two non-native countries, I have enjoyed my life much more. I think part of it is that there I have been somewhat oblivious to the news and current politics of the new places I have lived. I get some of news and politics from my friends, but I do not follow it like I used to in my country of origin. I have also dramatically reduced my news consumption in my native country, because I am not there very often, and it does not preoccupy me so much anymore. Though I have not given up the news entirely, either in my home country or in my adopted countries, but less is, I feel, much better.
I understand, fully and deeply, why news and current events are important, but they are also a cancer. At least in the way that they are sold to us. I also get a sense that the negative effect that the news has our mental health is quite widespread around the world. As in, it is not unique to America or Britain or European countries, etc.
It's my opinion that "thinking locally and acting locally" is a strategy better reserved for old age.
You have it the wrong way round: when you're young, you (want to) believe your actions have world-changing impact and reach. Then you grow up, and see that the world is much bigger than you, bigger than your ego even, and cannot be wielded or moulded by anyone; so you learn to focus on what's around you and who's around you.
Arguably religion used to provide that purpose but most of the Western world has walked away from it without choosing something to replace that sense of purpose. If, as Marx asserted, that religion was the opiate of the masses then the current "attention economy" is the methamphetamine of the masses.
What I have noticed about religion is that today's view of it is distorted. I see it as closer to psychology/sociology/civics. The description I see used today about ancient ideas of social cohesion is narrow minded with a hint of superiority.
Yes, historically religion provided not only a means of understanding one's place in the social system in which one lived but also provided a sense of self in a much longer historical aspect. Successful religions existed on the order of centuries, if not millennia, and set the foundation for one's understanding of self, membership within the group, morality and ethics, legal frameworks, and an explanatory model for the universe in which all these operated.. all of which had outlasted rulers, systems of government, nations, etc.
There is a war going on for your mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ne0DmiuHeg
> as long as Global Human Attention isn't given purpose
We tried out the grand visions to improve the human condition with one great push in the 20th century- didn’t work out so well
The failure of some grand visions doesn’t doom all future ones. That’s just silly.
Grand visions are more in service of megalomaniacal egos than actual solutions. They all just paint over the very real complexities of the world and expect things to just work as they envisioned. Just get rid of the sparrows eating grains and it will just be fine! There are limits to what complexities can be contained within one human mind, and with a world already orders of magnitudes more complex than that we need the humility to admit that the vision of one human mind is not and cannot be all-encompassing. I think it is fair to say that the usefulness of grand visions is dead.
There’s no requirement that a vision be constrained within one person’s mind, that it be inflexible to changing conditions, that it be incapable of testing policies before it implements them, and who’s to say that sufficiently complex machines or new organizations of people wouldn’t be capable of successfully abstracting society’s irreducible complexities well enough to make good decisions? Couldn’t a grand vision, for example, be one in which local communities make most important decisions for themselves, thus removing most of the computational failures of central governance? I just think you’re picturing fascism or communism when I say grand vision, but imo those aren’t representative of what every grand vision would look like.
Grand vision (or ideology as it’s also called) is a dead end of history - has been tried too many times, always failed spectacularly.
Instead we need small incremental lasting change - thinking we can transform life within a generation without repercussions, that’s just silly
We actively live under an ideology, and the idea that we should only seek to change things in small incremental ways is a fixture of that ideology. I think that’s called liberalism but I’m not really sure. Either way, who said anything about grand visions being restricted to a short time window of implementation? Any grand vision I could remotely conceive of would have to take centuries at least, unless maybe you consider some benevolent AI dictator or something.
Everyone knows that if at first you don’t succeed, never try again.
The Green Revolution, vaccines, and space exploration have been pretty great.
Literacy too!
It's not all about attention.
Most companies are still in it for the money, and attention is only a means to an end.
For the idiotic narcissist leaders that pop up every now and then, attention might be interesting by itself. But luckily for us, there's just very few of those. Most of our government bodies are comprised of people who actually mean to do good, and just a bit of attention to some important matters suffices.
i would add laziness too.
attention usually takes the path of least effort.
Change attention to intention
Attention is all you need?
This is a very deep thought that has crossed my mind quite a lot as I’ve used LLMs and other AI.
Ironically, we are discovering the human condition by evaluating what we are “not”.
… but, we are.
Attention is how we see ourselves reflected in others.
It's amazing that solving death and aging is not Goal #1 of every rich and poor person on the planet. Death is coming for you and you're trying to get rich? Engaging in politics? Fighting? What's that gonna do when you're falling apart in real time?
We're all dying fast. Medical industry can't stop it either, they don't know how. Nobody does.
Yet nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.
That’s what bugs me about gen ai. How is it that all these resources are being used on recreating things that humans already do and not entirely focused on aging, health, and the climate?
We already have artists, we don’t have a cure for what we’ve done to the climate. It’s frustrating.
Even if you could solve aging, you could never solve death. Probability and entropy will catch up with you eventually.
I think that most people over a certain age are quite aware of their own mortality, and are looking to bring meaning to the time that they have.
> eventually
I'll take millions of years instead of 75 thanks
> looking to bring meaning to the time that they have
Everybody says something like this in response to this kind of question about death/aging - or they go all religious on me talking about Jesus etc.
I'm like "what is 2 + 2" and half or more of the people go "I like cake"
Some[1] do invest, others don’t. Personally, I see myself on the poor side, rather than the rich side and what I care about is having a good life however short it is. Family, friends and adventure. I don’t believe in the afterlife in any form and I wish I could live forever with my loved ones but I’ve also accepted it’s natural to die. Maybe one day we will overcome death and we will live until the heat death of the universe. Meh.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_(company)
Invest? No that aint it.
I'm talking about the poignant reality that you, me, and everyone on this website will be gone in a matter of decades (or less).
Half or more believe that upon death they will be instantly transported to a GOLDEN CITY (unless you're bad, then you go to FIRE CITY!) forever. "Gold good... fire bad..." yeah totally not made up guys sounds real.
For everyone else it's MasterCard - distractions.
[flagged]
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.
A person ELECTED for president of the USA came from show business - Reagan.
A demented figurehead with other people behind him directing the show. It's as if acting was the perfect training for the worst idea for a position in a system of checks and balances.
[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.
That "fitness test" would be measuring a person's maturity, or better said "lack of immaturity". How to measure maturity might just be the most important measure ever devised by the human race, because it would enable US, the humans being led by our democracies, to finally demote the power hungry smooth talking immature, short sighted leaders.
That's a problem, but I think the problem is checks and balances for actual repairs to the checks and balances that would restrict a role are prohibitely hard to make while privilege escalations enlarging a role are at best temporarily denied.
Mr Trump was supposed to be picked up by a military tribunal and probably executed. Whether that tribunal system is overreaching would have been an excellent discussion, after the execution.
If I remember correctly, Trump was also elected once, as stupid as that is.
He dabbled in show biz though.
As did Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
I don't think he can run for office in the US so this is false.
You chose to take an ambiguous statement that could be read as true or false, and call out the false interpretation. Of course the true statement was the intended meaning, as I’m sure you knew.
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.
My question was rhetorical, since I knew the previous poster’s position was indefensible.
Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.
«Deal» as in "I was dealt this"? As in, you play a cretinous game and we should be part of it? You seem to say, you called 'democracy' a game in which "who is elected rules, whatever the means that brought to election" - i.e. you are stating that a game is there which is pure filth. To that, you also seem to add that no judgement or criticism should be added, because the game would be under some unexplained extraordinary protection. And you are also resolving "bestiality" with "dislike", as if arbitrary, as if relativistic.
Hilariousness not fitting.
You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly. Thanks.
No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".)
Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.
I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.
Is that supposed to be funny?
I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect.
I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams).
And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.)
And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.
>we require that administrators be decent
Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
Dalewyn, are you aware you are trolling? Low effort, unmanageable statements, assumptions, insinuations, deafness...
-- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»".
-- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot be attempts to cover objective faults with personal taste.
-- The statement (reconstructed) "the losing part rejects the system" is irrelevant: the system is rejected when faulty, regardless of side taking, which may not happen at all.
-- It's not that there "ain't no democracy": it is that "ain't no society", in face of division where scum can be confused for normal candidates. For your information, we had seen societies in which an attempt was made to restrict candidacy to presentable figures - in my lifetime.
You cannot take a picture and make of it a kindergarten sketch depicting something different.
You are indirectly defining "your guy" by defining who is not.
Your efforts to exclude candidates along your arbitrary lines and complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
> You are indirectly defining "your guy" by defining who is not
So: in Countria candidate C is elected for some office, competing with other candidates A, B, D and E. Who is «your guy»?
> arbitrary lines
There exist traits which are not arbitrary at all but evident as objectively lowly to some segments of the population. "Pornology" is one of them. Relativism towards those judgements is like fighting arithmetics. Whether candidate "P" were considered interesting by some for other reasons (Heidegger according to Jaspers: "But H. has beautiful hands!"), candidate P remains "scum". Said segment of the population will state being extremely uncomfortable with a society that allows "scum" taking office. The issue will be societal and systemic, and unrelated to competition.
> complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
Only if you remain in the narrow thought box of assumptions of acceptance of that concept of "democracy", as it appears from some uncertain interpretation of a locution hardly manageable in analytical terms. The expression contains a very loose idea of "won" that seems to imply you support some candidate, actively. And it contains an idea of "democracy" which suggests more than the term can clearly contain (as in, "then there is no democracy!" - ok, "so what", and what would that mean?).
You’re either way too smart or way too stupid for me to understand. In any case, there must be at least a 40 IQ point difference between the two of us.
My measurements are very, very high. But I believe that effort plays a role: train yourself to see better.
It ain't democracy if you ain't won.
-Vocal Minority, Intellectual Minority, Minorities et al.
Congrats. You brainwashed yourself into believing only certain class of people can run the country. Founding fathers would be proud.
I think it's fair to say the "why not inject yourself with bleach!" people shouldn't be running the show while there's a class of people who do what people tell them without questioning whether it's a good idea. People in power have a responsibility not to suggest things that would kill people. That isn't a high bar.
You make a case against stupid and irresponsible people that I agree with completely.
Entertainers are not necessarily these things.
Just like lawyers - presidents are often lawyers - are not necessarily brilliant paragons.
This assumes people are stupid and have no intelligence of their own and needs to be told what they should be doing.
Not quite. It assumes that some people don't verify what they're told, and so follow what people in authority tell them. That means people in authority have a responsibility not to abuse their authority.
If everyone was rational and didn't do what they were told, choosing to verify everything and only follow what was appropriate, then the entire marketing, ad, government, legal, prison, etc industries would all collapse because they wouldn't be necessary any more. It's fairly obvious that there are people who follow dangerous, stupid advice.
Okay. That's fair.
I'd prefer that the people elected to lead are smarter than I am.
The founding fathers, not the founding parents.
Those slave-owners held it self-evident that all men had the unalienable right of liberty (among other rights.)
I can't remember 1984 well enough to remember any specific examples of doublethink, but they can't be as good as this one.
> The founding fathers, not the founding parents.
Sorry. Who among the founding fathers was women to call it parents? Founding fathers seems to be more accurate than founder Mothers or Founding parents.
And yet the alternative is worse.