Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk (2014)(dezeen.com)
dezeen.com
Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk (2014)
https://www.dezeen.com/2014/12/18/william-gibson-subculture-commodification-london-justin-mcguirk-opinion/
272 comments
> "What? Where's the trick? He just bounced on his board"
That's the natural state of innocence - their reference frame is how the experience feels (I'm going fast and almost falling over!). When the scene takes over, the reference point shifts to how it looks - the raw experience is overtaken in importance by progress and status and comparison.
That's the natural state of innocence - their reference frame is how the experience feels (I'm going fast and almost falling over!). When the scene takes over, the reference point shifts to how it looks - the raw experience is overtaken in importance by progress and status and comparison.
> When the scene takes over, the reference point shifts to how it looks
I accept this valid criticism of "posers" but I'd like to add that there's a strange loop here. It feels alien to me, but lots of people I know like to watch videos of themselves doing things (e.g. choreographed dances). It certainly does help to see how to improve, but also they get satisfaction from seeing themselves do the thing.
I accept this valid criticism of "posers" but I'd like to add that there's a strange loop here. It feels alien to me, but lots of people I know like to watch videos of themselves doing things (e.g. choreographed dances). It certainly does help to see how to improve, but also they get satisfaction from seeing themselves do the thing.
Maybe watching video of self-performance is subconscious confirmation that the work that went into making the video has indeed been done...and successfully posted...and does not stoke embarrassment.
Many people re-read their daily. Maybe there are some similar attributes?
Re-read their daily what? Re-read their diary?
Punk and skateboarding may have been commodified but if you still go to shows or go skate, it’s still filled with kids (and now adults) just having fun.
And now within subcultures are sub-subcultures. Within skateboarding, everyone hangs with each other but at the same time, your Baker kids aren’t your Creature kids and they aren’t your Andy Anderson/Rodney Mullen kids.
Some people may join a subculture to be “non-conformists” but most people pick up things because they like it. Sometimes what you like isn’t something everyone else likes and a subculture is born.
There are still millions of these pockets of subcultures that are completely invisible to most people on the outside.
Zines and DIY screen printing are still very much alive. If you live in a big city, check out some small local punk venues if you want to re-connect (or connect if you want to check it out). And of course, you can always start skating again (but maybe wear gear the first day).
And now within subcultures are sub-subcultures. Within skateboarding, everyone hangs with each other but at the same time, your Baker kids aren’t your Creature kids and they aren’t your Andy Anderson/Rodney Mullen kids.
Some people may join a subculture to be “non-conformists” but most people pick up things because they like it. Sometimes what you like isn’t something everyone else likes and a subculture is born.
There are still millions of these pockets of subcultures that are completely invisible to most people on the outside.
Zines and DIY screen printing are still very much alive. If you live in a big city, check out some small local punk venues if you want to re-connect (or connect if you want to check it out). And of course, you can always start skating again (but maybe wear gear the first day).
[deleted]
It's not just commodification. If you were a punk in the 80s with a green mohawk, you might find it cute to put one on your kid in the 2000s. I have long hair, my son has long hair. This isn't a commodification of a culture, it's me, like every parent ever, using my culture to inform how I raise my kids. What am I going to do? Not dress and present my kid how I want to and how I identify?
I think the confusion comes from the distinction between culture and counterculture. The irony (or lack thereof) lies with the observers expectations.
If someone's expectation is that a green Mohawk means someone is throwing off the cultural legacy and expectations handed down to them, then yeah, a toddler with a Mohawk is pretty ironic. If someone just thinks is a haircut that looks cool, obviously not.
If someone thinks or remembers when Mohawk had that meaning, they might read into the fact of it being changing to a simple mainstream aesthetic cosmetic option.
If someone's expectation is that a green Mohawk means someone is throwing off the cultural legacy and expectations handed down to them, then yeah, a toddler with a Mohawk is pretty ironic. If someone just thinks is a haircut that looks cool, obviously not.
If someone thinks or remembers when Mohawk had that meaning, they might read into the fact of it being changing to a simple mainstream aesthetic cosmetic option.
Thing is that's overly simple thinking IMO, throwing off the cultural legacy literally means replacing it with something else. Culture has a legacy, what comes before, and it's literally impossible to not have one. So that Mohawk is replacing a "normal" haircut, replacing a "normal" culture. There is nothing ironic about showing your child that it's ok to choose something outside the mainstream normal culture, especially if you have done so. It's the whole point. The Mohawk said and meant "I reject your culture and choose my own", it would be ironic to have chosen that and then teach your kid to be in the mainstream culture.
Depends why you were/are punk and what it means to you. Is it a fashion statement, a music genre, a lifestyle, a political faction, etc..
No one agrees, of course. In any case, for me, it's not something I'd force on my kid. Sort of goes against the spirit.
No one agrees, of course. In any case, for me, it's not something I'd force on my kid. Sort of goes against the spirit.
You are going to let him choose his own hairstyle.
Toddlers don't have that level of agency.
I would say that Toddlers are mostly not given agency.
Toddlers want things and they don't want other things. Their parents don't permit much agency, because.
I'm probably agreeing with you but I wasn't sure of your implication.
Toddlers want things and they don't want other things. Their parents don't permit much agency, because.
I'm probably agreeing with you but I wasn't sure of your implication.
Toddlers are 1-3 years old. Huge difference in agency between a 1 year old and a 3 year old. 1 year old can't dress themselves let alone make choices about dress.
I guess what I'm saying is that a 3 year old can sometimes pick out their clothes (sometimes they will hate the consequences). They can't really commit to long term decisions about what hairstyle they will want to live with for months, or manage the upkeep of the style they pick.
With apologies for wading into culture war topics - there are three year olds who will absolutely scream their head off at someone trying to get them to wear a dress because "I'm not a girl!!!"
Yes. I will ask my 2 year old what hair styles he likes.
You could show them pictures.
[deleted]
Well, how did you as a teen decide to do tall green hair?
I actually agree with your point, but there's a really solid devil's advocate side to take against it, too.
I actually agree with your point, but there's a really solid devil's advocate side to take against it, too.
If you were punk you wouldn't give a fuck what I think and wouldn't have wasted your breath on me getting defensive.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
> If you were punk you wouldn't give a fuck what I think
sure, and anarchy means total chaos and no organization at all. who says that punks can't discuss or give a fuck, lol.
sure, and anarchy means total chaos and no organization at all. who says that punks can't discuss or give a fuck, lol.
GP didn't say he was a punk, he said he had long hair. I think you're reading defensiveness into it, all I saw was a reasonably interesting point.
Let's look at the reply:
"It's not just commodification. If you were a punk in the 80s with a green mohawk, you might find it cute to put one on your kid in the 2000s. I have long hair, my son has long hair. This isn't a commodification of a culture, it's me, like every parent ever, using my culture to inform how I raise my kids. What am I going to do? Not dress and present my kid how I want to and how I identify?"
He is literally defending his decisions to "dress and present" his kid against my comment about commodification, as if I'm attacking his decisions. He didn't even understand my point: in the 1970's you would have been ostracized (or arrested) for having a green mohawk. In the 2010's, kindergarten teachers ooh-and-ahh over it.
That's the DIRECT result of the commodification: it became mainstream because people spend decades diffusing it into normality. He totally missed the point, and then got defensive.
Actually, in the context of today's internet discourse, the reply is defensively invoking both the "appropriation" and "not-all-men" tone in the same reply. Impressive.
"It's not just commodification. If you were a punk in the 80s with a green mohawk, you might find it cute to put one on your kid in the 2000s. I have long hair, my son has long hair. This isn't a commodification of a culture, it's me, like every parent ever, using my culture to inform how I raise my kids. What am I going to do? Not dress and present my kid how I want to and how I identify?"
He is literally defending his decisions to "dress and present" his kid against my comment about commodification, as if I'm attacking his decisions. He didn't even understand my point: in the 1970's you would have been ostracized (or arrested) for having a green mohawk. In the 2010's, kindergarten teachers ooh-and-ahh over it.
That's the DIRECT result of the commodification: it became mainstream because people spend decades diffusing it into normality. He totally missed the point, and then got defensive.
Actually, in the context of today's internet discourse, the reply is defensively invoking both the "appropriation" and "not-all-men" tone in the same reply. Impressive.
I think that just covers maybe the first dip of the toe into a niche being commodified. For a skateboarder there are signs that kind of show if you really are a hardcore skateboarder or have just bought a board at zumies and don’t really ride it much. Is the board graphic damaged from rails? Are the shoes torn apart? The skaters I see hitting a waxed public cement bench without a shirt on during the work day probably don’t give a shit about thrasher and all that.
Kind of like bluejeans. You can buy them predistressed but the wear patterns are different than if you made them yourself. Maybe most people can’t tell but the true in group of the subculture can.
Kind of like bluejeans. You can buy them predistressed but the wear patterns are different than if you made them yourself. Maybe most people can’t tell but the true in group of the subculture can.
No offence, but fuck the true in groups and you sound pretentious. True in groups are always just 'cool kids' who happen to micro focus on XYZ. Skaters skate not gatekeep people, and were just hyped to skate with anyone (at least in Santa Cruz). 'Oh you got a Nash board, cool. We should probably check if your trucks need tightening.' is the only normal response, not 'we should probably check how ground your trucks are before we can hang and you can join our club'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_eBTkB-rs
I think a lot of the time there's an implicit clash of classes there.
The people that lived it often can't buy the nicest gear and stuff, or if they did it's because it involved real sacrifice and dedication. Historically, they fucking made it themselves because it wasn't something you even COULD buy if you wanted to. So seeing some rich kid duplicate your drip overnight just because they can rubs people the wrong way. And I kind of get it: it's counterfeit. Its the same disdain people have for anything not made by a real artist but passed off like it is. They show up with all the nicest shit duplicating your real effort and struggle, but not having done the work.
A lot of those poor kids only have that thing in their life and the crowd dedicated to it because their homelife sucks.
Most the skaters I grew up with that were really good were that way because they suffered. They were out skating after-school because there was no family dinner and warm welcome waiting for them at home. We were our own family and support. When a friend of mine handed me down a box of old gear so I could put together a new-to-me board , that saved me months of struggling to come up with the cash to replace a board that got stolen.
And honestly the skaters kids were the most welcoming group I ever saw. They took in all the otherwise rejects of society. But no one likes a poser.
The people that lived it often can't buy the nicest gear and stuff, or if they did it's because it involved real sacrifice and dedication. Historically, they fucking made it themselves because it wasn't something you even COULD buy if you wanted to. So seeing some rich kid duplicate your drip overnight just because they can rubs people the wrong way. And I kind of get it: it's counterfeit. Its the same disdain people have for anything not made by a real artist but passed off like it is. They show up with all the nicest shit duplicating your real effort and struggle, but not having done the work.
A lot of those poor kids only have that thing in their life and the crowd dedicated to it because their homelife sucks.
Most the skaters I grew up with that were really good were that way because they suffered. They were out skating after-school because there was no family dinner and warm welcome waiting for them at home. We were our own family and support. When a friend of mine handed me down a box of old gear so I could put together a new-to-me board , that saved me months of struggling to come up with the cash to replace a board that got stolen.
And honestly the skaters kids were the most welcoming group I ever saw. They took in all the otherwise rejects of society. But no one likes a poser.
> ...implicit clash of classes there.
True.
> ...really good were that way because they suffered. ... But no one likes a poser.
Yup. Stolen valor.
True.
> ...really good were that way because they suffered. ... But no one likes a poser.
Yup. Stolen valor.
"Skaters skate not gatekeep people"
That's the overstatement of the century. In group / out group always has gatekeepers by definition.
Not sure where you grew up, but I sold skateboards at a bike & ski store for a while in the early 80's and skaters were absolute dicks about their self-enforced hierarchy. Skater culture claims to be inclusive but holy fuck that's a lie if you accidentally buy equipment just a tiny bit above your skill level.
I got to see this first hand: as the point of retail sale for their replacement parts, they confided in me because they needed to buy things from me, so they would tell me who the posers were and rip on them mercilessly. Just like any other ingroup.
That's the overstatement of the century. In group / out group always has gatekeepers by definition.
Not sure where you grew up, but I sold skateboards at a bike & ski store for a while in the early 80's and skaters were absolute dicks about their self-enforced hierarchy. Skater culture claims to be inclusive but holy fuck that's a lie if you accidentally buy equipment just a tiny bit above your skill level.
I got to see this first hand: as the point of retail sale for their replacement parts, they confided in me because they needed to buy things from me, so they would tell me who the posers were and rip on them mercilessly. Just like any other ingroup.
Well you do have to have a skateboard and ride it to be part of the in-group but skateboarders are well reputed for being inclusive and super supportive of anyone who wants to learn. The sport is tolerant of weirdos because many of its legends are weirdos as well.
the "weirdos" had no problem humiliating anyone who tried to skate with them that they deemed a "poser".
please actually read my comment next time.
please actually read my comment next time.
> Skaters skate not gatekeep people, and were just hyped to skate with anyone
Is that not what makes them the true in-group? Especially the first two words. You can be "in" and not be a jerk, even eager to bring others in. In fact I'd recommend it.
Is that not what makes them the true in-group? Especially the first two words. You can be "in" and not be a jerk, even eager to bring others in. In fact I'd recommend it.
I’m not talking about being dicks to people. You miss the point. The point is there is a subculture within all the skateboarders there are that is actually legit about the sport. An identifiable group B in the greater group A. Gatekeeping need not anything to do with it. The skills and amount of time required especially as an adult do enough to demark this group.
Likewise with drinking. There are subsets of drinkers. The ones passing 40s around in a public park aren’t who you see in the ad material. The alcohol industry lobbyists would rather this subset not be highlighted at all in fact because it paints the rest of the industry as unsavory.
Likewise with drinking. There are subsets of drinkers. The ones passing 40s around in a public park aren’t who you see in the ad material. The alcohol industry lobbyists would rather this subset not be highlighted at all in fact because it paints the rest of the industry as unsavory.
Wearing a t-shirt with a prefabricated group identity marker, whether purchased or self-manufactured, makes one a curious sort of "non-conformist".
It is pretty cute. People want desperately to conform, and they know the non-conformists are cool. So they do the logical thing and conform with the non-conformists.
Heart in the right spot. Execution has room to improve.
Heart in the right spot. Execution has room to improve.
As a wise song once said, "You'd be non-conforming, too, if you looked just like me."
Memories of YTMND come flooding back
It's really sad if you think about it.
Nowhere in time has freedom of speech been enshrined and creation been easier. But we just can't seem to take advantage of all the freedom and tools that we have at our disposal.
Nowhere in time has freedom of speech been enshrined and creation been easier. But we just can't seem to take advantage of all the freedom and tools that we have at our disposal.
It isn't sad at all. Freedom for most people is freedom to conform to the ways of someone they respect as opposed to cronies of some government official. And more philosophically freedom is to give the people worthy of imitation as much room to be great as possible so that people who follow them get the best version to copy.
Humans (with rare exceptions) are happiest when operating in groups.
Humans (with rare exceptions) are happiest when operating in groups.
> Heart in the right spot.
In what way? Seriously.
In what way? Seriously.
Someone imitating someone else is generally considered and act of something like respect and flattery. They're doing it because they sincerely believe that the target of imitation is doing something right. It is a friendly and supportive act.
I'm not convinced. In particular I think sincerity or any sort of honest judgment is missing when talking about [non-]conformity rather than the merits of individual choices.
My style might be plain shirts, yet I can never find those, they just aren't a stable configuration of atoms.
Hanes 3 packs at Target. $17.99.
In the context of a bunch of social animals wearing t-shirts, what exactly is curious about it?
seeing it as non-conformity
Albini was a real treasure.
Leading up to and during the Covid pandemic he recorded a large number of videos on recording craft and techniques for free viewing.
Died young, but of course…
Leading up to and during the Covid pandemic he recorded a large number of videos on recording craft and techniques for free viewing.
Died young, but of course…
I find it hilarious how anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist sentiments are heavily monetized with targeted products. You can buy t-shirts on Amazon that say “stop buying shit you don’t need.” I am embarrassed in hindsight that as a teenager I had a Che Guevara shirt from the Hot Topic store in the mall. The ubiquitous popularity of the “Obey” clothing fad- where people were caving to social pressure to buy clothing with pithy commentary on not caving to social pressure was equally ironic.
This discussion is making me think of Derek Guy's commentary on clothes as less simply things to cover your nudity and more things of social language: https://www.threads.net/@die_workwear/post/C_j1ZECpOFt?hl=en
> So my only strong belief is that you should think of style first and foremost as social language, not purely as artistic expression. Aesthetics are rooted in culture—punk, skate, prep, workwear, etc. Identify a cultural language that resonates with you.
So yes, to borrow the example of the GP, you had to know someone with the proper equipment to silk-screen an anarchist shirt, which necessarily meant the only way you could really get one was that way. Now, you can have dozens of them, in innumerable colors, styles, and designs. And I mean, I think it's fair to say that the old folks back in the day would've happily bought that shirt too rather than going into a buddy's workplace after hours and doing it themselves.
I don't think the criticism "you aren't a real X you just bought it" really holds water. I'm sure the wide availability of these things necessarily makes things easier for that no-doubt real slice of owners who have no idea what that A means or why it matters to a community of people, but at the same time, it also makes it tremendously easier for all those in that community to dress how they want to dress, to perform their identity in social spaces, which in turn allows them to find one another more easily.
Like I say this as a brain-rotted boy from the suburbs of the cultural wasteland of the early 2,000's: I had no identity in school, and that is a problem people. I have experienced firsthand the broad rejection you feel when you do not fit into any given social group, and don't know how to join one. Would a fashion sense have spared me that? I don't know, I had a myriad of other issues going on. But when I read Derek's writing about how clothes function as a language that we can communicate with one another without words, and form communities based on shared values? I hurt for my former self. I wish someone had helped me back then so I could fit in more. Maybe my loner, extremely contrarian self would've found companionship and not have had such a rough go until I was in my mid-twenties and started actually figuring out who the hell I was.
> So my only strong belief is that you should think of style first and foremost as social language, not purely as artistic expression. Aesthetics are rooted in culture—punk, skate, prep, workwear, etc. Identify a cultural language that resonates with you.
So yes, to borrow the example of the GP, you had to know someone with the proper equipment to silk-screen an anarchist shirt, which necessarily meant the only way you could really get one was that way. Now, you can have dozens of them, in innumerable colors, styles, and designs. And I mean, I think it's fair to say that the old folks back in the day would've happily bought that shirt too rather than going into a buddy's workplace after hours and doing it themselves.
I don't think the criticism "you aren't a real X you just bought it" really holds water. I'm sure the wide availability of these things necessarily makes things easier for that no-doubt real slice of owners who have no idea what that A means or why it matters to a community of people, but at the same time, it also makes it tremendously easier for all those in that community to dress how they want to dress, to perform their identity in social spaces, which in turn allows them to find one another more easily.
Like I say this as a brain-rotted boy from the suburbs of the cultural wasteland of the early 2,000's: I had no identity in school, and that is a problem people. I have experienced firsthand the broad rejection you feel when you do not fit into any given social group, and don't know how to join one. Would a fashion sense have spared me that? I don't know, I had a myriad of other issues going on. But when I read Derek's writing about how clothes function as a language that we can communicate with one another without words, and form communities based on shared values? I hurt for my former self. I wish someone had helped me back then so I could fit in more. Maybe my loner, extremely contrarian self would've found companionship and not have had such a rough go until I was in my mid-twenties and started actually figuring out who the hell I was.
Also check out The Rebel sell by Joseph Health and Andrew Potter. Another great read in the same vein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rebel_Sell.
> in the 1960's it was ... a simpler time and the outcasts looked like normal kids having fun compared to today
Seems like some sort of gatekeeping and old-man shaking his fist at youth to me. The overwhelming majority of people skateboarding today are regular kids and young adults who are just in it to have fun. If their techniques are more advanced, its probably because technology has improved and also because they're emulating the things they see professional or otherwise experienced skaters do, but what's the problem with that? They're still having fun, aren't they? That's the point of it all, isn't it?
And buying a shirt means you don't have personality? Is personality all about happening to know a guy who does custom T-shirt printing? What makes one more authentic than the other? Seems like nonsense.
Seems like some sort of gatekeeping and old-man shaking his fist at youth to me. The overwhelming majority of people skateboarding today are regular kids and young adults who are just in it to have fun. If their techniques are more advanced, its probably because technology has improved and also because they're emulating the things they see professional or otherwise experienced skaters do, but what's the problem with that? They're still having fun, aren't they? That's the point of it all, isn't it?
And buying a shirt means you don't have personality? Is personality all about happening to know a guy who does custom T-shirt printing? What makes one more authentic than the other? Seems like nonsense.
You didn't 'happen to know someone who made t-shirts' if you were around the scene. If you went to the skate park regularly, Bennie was always there, and Bennie hustled struggled by doing things like make t-shirts to support the scene. Bennie always had decks/trucks/stickers/t-shirts for sale out of the back of his car. If people were working on a park or a ramp or something Bennie let everyone know when and where. So you couldn't not know Bennie if you regularly were around. Hence not knowing Bennie meant you weren't regularly around.
Sounds like it was a lot more about where you lived and a lot less "whether you had a personality". I was never a skater kid and never pretended to be one, but I knew plenty and they wore shirts from Kmart because in rural PA kids aren't going to have access to the whole "authentic punk social infrastructure" or whatever it is that supposedly grants kids access to "personality".
>supposedly grants kids access to "personality".
You have it backwards. The shirt is neither necessary nor sufficient. sporkydistance was dogging on poseurs. deadfread was explaining why a t-shirt was ever an indicator (and even when there's someone handmaking shirts for your thing they're taking as many sales as possible).
The shirt validating the identity is a wrong interpretation of what was written. But it's also a normal perspective these days, one core to social criticism this conversation is getting at.
You have it backwards. The shirt is neither necessary nor sufficient. sporkydistance was dogging on poseurs. deadfread was explaining why a t-shirt was ever an indicator (and even when there's someone handmaking shirts for your thing they're taking as many sales as possible).
The shirt validating the identity is a wrong interpretation of what was written. But it's also a normal perspective these days, one core to social criticism this conversation is getting at.
Bennie sells discs at the disc golf course. Bennie is the guy who arranges timed skiing races up on the mountain. Bennie is just the placeholder of 'if you do this a lot locally, you know XYZ who is always around' and hence you are 'part of the scene' IE you have actually engaged with it on some level. Nowadays that might be substituted with 'do you watch XYZ streamer'.
The t-shirt didn't represent having a personality. It represented than 'I am around this community enough I have at least interacted with Bennie'. Someone wearing a Kmart t-shirt saying 'ah did you get that from Bennie' would be the exact cred/personality as having a Bennie shirt.
The t-shirt didn't represent having a personality. It represented than 'I am around this community enough I have at least interacted with Bennie'. Someone wearing a Kmart t-shirt saying 'ah did you get that from Bennie' would be the exact cred/personality as having a Bennie shirt.
Cultures evolve and signs change meaning
Not much news herw
Not much news herw
Anarchy tshirts might have been provocative or even showing some ideological fervor in the early 1970s. Maybe because it was a fashion that suited the economy and psyche of the time. However after all participants are now over fifty, with a different economy situation than the 1970s, global or ideological, what would you expect?
Proclaiming "I believe in anarchy" is childish cute nowadays not because of an evil capitalist plot, but because it is out-of-place retro to a different time. Also it was always childish, but back then it was segregated only inside a community of adolescence, so no one noticed
Proclaiming "I believe in anarchy" is childish cute nowadays not because of an evil capitalist plot, but because it is out-of-place retro to a different time. Also it was always childish, but back then it was segregated only inside a community of adolescence, so no one noticed
there are still subcultures: the ones unpalatable to corporate interests; ones around topics that are illegal, very politically fringe, or centered on weird sex stuff
I would also add things that are unprofitable and/or participating in them requires a high degree of personal investment which can't be substituted with money.
Which describes a lot of things if you think about it.
Which describes a lot of things if you think about it.
Those get commercialized quickly, too.
You'd think that e.g. dumpster-diving for food would be "unprofitable" and require "high degree of personal investment which can't be substituted with money", but freeganism already turned into aspirational hobby for many, and has its own little ecosystem of influencers selling books. It fits in nicely among its even more commercial cousins, like "minimalism", "healthy eating", "organic food", "zero waste", "frugal lifestyle", etc.; together, they form a larger "anti-consumerist"/"degrowth" market segment, which is happily growing as more people buy merch.
The irony. But as the old adage goes, the market can merchandise everything; it'll happily sell you a hi-vis vest, baclava, baseball bat and a chain you can use to cuff yourself to an utility pole as you camp in front of the supermarket to protest capitalism ruining the world.
You'd think that e.g. dumpster-diving for food would be "unprofitable" and require "high degree of personal investment which can't be substituted with money", but freeganism already turned into aspirational hobby for many, and has its own little ecosystem of influencers selling books. It fits in nicely among its even more commercial cousins, like "minimalism", "healthy eating", "organic food", "zero waste", "frugal lifestyle", etc.; together, they form a larger "anti-consumerist"/"degrowth" market segment, which is happily growing as more people buy merch.
The irony. But as the old adage goes, the market can merchandise everything; it'll happily sell you a hi-vis vest, baclava, baseball bat and a chain you can use to cuff yourself to an utility pole as you camp in front of the supermarket to protest capitalism ruining the world.
None of those require any personal investment.
I think GP meant something that takes a lot of your personal time to do, while staying unprofitable no matter the skill level. For example, ROM hacks and emulators: they're difficult and time-consuming to create, and they can't be monetized for legal reasons.
I think GP meant something that takes a lot of your personal time to do, while staying unprofitable no matter the skill level. For example, ROM hacks and emulators: they're difficult and time-consuming to create, and they can't be monetized for legal reasons.
> they can't be monetized
Yeah difficult to corporately commercialise, however they can be statusified.
Yeah difficult to corporately commercialise, however they can be statusified.
I'd say excessive commercialization so that the whole activity is centered around buying and selling, or most members are gearheads who rarely go out and do stuff, etc, is definitely unfortunately common. But I see it mostly as an individual failing, enabled and made worse by media environment. Tune out.
All protests need good baklava.
Curious what subcultures comes to mind for you. I havent finished my coffee, but and drawing a blank on cultural interests that cant be commodified.
Playing an instrument (or being part of a band), being part of a writing club. Anything where the meat of the activity either requires genuine ability and/or effort, or enjoying skillful humans performing that activity for you.
The problem of a lot of subcultures is that they define themselves in large part by flashy externalities, and commodification is part of their DNA.
For example: You like an underground band's music, as you feel the message they broadcast through their music resonates with you, and you'd like to display your participation, so you buy their merch and go to their shows.
No matter how authentic they may seem, they've already sold themselves off as a commodity, and you've participated in the low effort transaction of buying a piece of identity, like you'd buy a share of a company's stock.
Now, if later the band gets popular, that share of identity gets diluted, and you get to be one of those annoying people who insist you like the band before they were cool.
The problem of a lot of subcultures is that they define themselves in large part by flashy externalities, and commodification is part of their DNA.
For example: You like an underground band's music, as you feel the message they broadcast through their music resonates with you, and you'd like to display your participation, so you buy their merch and go to their shows.
No matter how authentic they may seem, they've already sold themselves off as a commodity, and you've participated in the low effort transaction of buying a piece of identity, like you'd buy a share of a company's stock.
Now, if later the band gets popular, that share of identity gets diluted, and you get to be one of those annoying people who insist you like the band before they were cool.
Musicians are notorious for fetishising gear ownership. Old synthesizers routinely sell for five or sometimes six figures. Some of the buyers are talent-free collectors, others are industry successes who have the cash to spare and both collect and use them.
Post your beat made on a $100 commodity synth, and everyone will be "Good effort.." no matter how good it is.
Writing on social media is a lifestyle activity. You'll see endless reels showing "My cute working space", which inevitably has trailing plants and a lovely perfectly arranged bookshelf, probably with fairy lights, and never looks like anyone's random messy office.
And so on.
These are both promotional activities that signify belonging to cultures that allow you to buy a lifestyle identity by spending money on the appropriate gang signs and uploading them to your chosen forums and accounts.
Original creativity and artistry are incidental to this. If someone doesn't show the gang signs and doesn't respect the standard tropes and genre signifiers, many consumers don't know what to do with them.
Post your beat made on a $100 commodity synth, and everyone will be "Good effort.." no matter how good it is.
Writing on social media is a lifestyle activity. You'll see endless reels showing "My cute working space", which inevitably has trailing plants and a lovely perfectly arranged bookshelf, probably with fairy lights, and never looks like anyone's random messy office.
And so on.
These are both promotional activities that signify belonging to cultures that allow you to buy a lifestyle identity by spending money on the appropriate gang signs and uploading them to your chosen forums and accounts.
Original creativity and artistry are incidental to this. If someone doesn't show the gang signs and doesn't respect the standard tropes and genre signifiers, many consumers don't know what to do with them.
> Old synthesizers routinely sell for five or sometimes six figures
Well, if it's a CS-80, sign me up! Seriously though, the analog synthesizer renaissance has been very good to synth musicians, from Prophet and Oberheim reissues (and modern versions) to Behringer's clones to modular to inexpensive mini-synths, along with new keyboards reviving things like ribbon controllers and polyphonic aftertouch.
> Post your beat made on a $100 commodity synth, and everyone will be "Good effort.." no matter how good it is.
Lots of great (and sometimes very popular) music is made on free or inexpensive software synths, plugins and DAWs. Does anyone really care as long as the music is good?
Well, if it's a CS-80, sign me up! Seriously though, the analog synthesizer renaissance has been very good to synth musicians, from Prophet and Oberheim reissues (and modern versions) to Behringer's clones to modular to inexpensive mini-synths, along with new keyboards reviving things like ribbon controllers and polyphonic aftertouch.
> Post your beat made on a $100 commodity synth, and everyone will be "Good effort.." no matter how good it is.
Lots of great (and sometimes very popular) music is made on free or inexpensive software synths, plugins and DAWs. Does anyone really care as long as the music is good?
I think it's important to distinguish between an act and a culture. I wholeheartedly agree that individuals can act in ways that aren't commodified.
If people like it, there's almost always someone packaging it and selling it. Now, I don't think that means you can't enjoy playing or listening to music. If someone stops listening or playing a genre of music because someone is commodifying it, that just means a big part of what they enjoyed was the idea of being underground, transgressive, or counter cultural for its own sake.
Also, some things can be more easily commodified without losing authenticity. Gutter punk music doesn't have the same impact when sung by a sold-out multi-millionaire. Inversely, it doesn't much matter how much money Yo-Yo ma has in the bank and that he's a guest at davos.
If people like it, there's almost always someone packaging it and selling it. Now, I don't think that means you can't enjoy playing or listening to music. If someone stops listening or playing a genre of music because someone is commodifying it, that just means a big part of what they enjoyed was the idea of being underground, transgressive, or counter cultural for its own sake.
Also, some things can be more easily commodified without losing authenticity. Gutter punk music doesn't have the same impact when sung by a sold-out multi-millionaire. Inversely, it doesn't much matter how much money Yo-Yo ma has in the bank and that he's a guest at davos.
> so you buy their merch and go to their shows > sold themselves off as a commodity
A bit unfair because bands are often not making any money on their merch or their shows. My experience is that they are pleased if they cover their incidental costs. They seem to get zero financial payoff for their time invested. They may get good non-financial benefits.
A bit unfair because bands are often not making any money on their merch or their shows. My experience is that they are pleased if they cover their incidental costs. They seem to get zero financial payoff for their time invested. They may get good non-financial benefits.
Dancing is a good example, though not perfect. It's hard to convince a club to have a salsa/bachata/tango/swing centered evening, because the interested crowd actually comes to dance and socialize. It is much more profitable and easy to turn down the lights and up the music and get customers that buy alcohol.
Not to say that dancing is not commodifiable. People make a living offering classes, outfits, shoes, and travels centered on specific dance genres. But as a participant, you can get pretty far for a lot less money than the price of the proverbial night on the town.
Not to say that dancing is not commodifiable. People make a living offering classes, outfits, shoes, and travels centered on specific dance genres. But as a participant, you can get pretty far for a lot less money than the price of the proverbial night on the town.
I think it's important to distinguish Acts which individuals perform from the culture around those Acts.
Commodification of a subculture is spoken about as if it is a binary a purity test but that isn't reflective of reality. You can pay $500 to watch some aged punk rockers perform in an arena, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an illegal Warehouse show going on at the same time in the same city.
Commodification of a subculture is spoken about as if it is a binary a purity test but that isn't reflective of reality. You can pay $500 to watch some aged punk rockers perform in an arena, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an illegal Warehouse show going on at the same time in the same city.
Not sure how mainstream furries are. Sure, they have conventions and whatnot but do you expect to see one on a box of cereal anytime soon? Probably not.
I... assume this is a joke?
https://cereal.fandom.com/wiki/Chip_the_Wolf
https://cereal.fandom.com/wiki/Chip_the_Wolf
Do you mean Chip the Wolf is actually a human who wears a wolf costume? Because he looks like a cartoon character to me, so he doesn't qualify as a "furry" in my mind.
I think the charitable interpretation is that parent-poster meant it like how cereal boxes have featured famous athletes, as opposed to brand mascots.
For example, Frosted Flakes has "Tony the Tiger", but he is widely understood to be a fictional tiger, rather than an endorsement by a real human who got famous for wearing a tiger-suit.
For example, Frosted Flakes has "Tony the Tiger", but he is widely understood to be a fictional tiger, rather than an endorsement by a real human who got famous for wearing a tiger-suit.
Yes, exactly.
I thought of furries too
Funny that no one yet mentioned the elephant in the room given that this is HN: Hacker and FOSS culture. Of course there are attempts to commercialize it, but people are naturally resistant.
Hard disagree - even before the domination of Big Tech, the reason open source became the way it is - the domination of GNU/Linux - was because of the commercial interests of server vendors pushing Linux (a server OS) as a product.
It's the same reason Linux has had a limited success in other spaces (embedded, mobile, desktop) - as opposed to something like Windows, it's poorly engineered for the needs of these domains (lack of realtime, good IPC, binary compatibility, native audio, graphics capabilities etc.). If you think of early 2000s mobile hardware, which used to run a variety of mobile OSes, yet Linux was incapable of properly supporting this domain. All attempts to rally around Linux as a consumer OS in these domains failed, because it just wasn't really built for that. Yet Linux was powerful enough to suck the air out of the room and prevent the emergence of competitors.
(I don't really consider Android Linux.)
It's the same reason Linux has had a limited success in other spaces (embedded, mobile, desktop) - as opposed to something like Windows, it's poorly engineered for the needs of these domains (lack of realtime, good IPC, binary compatibility, native audio, graphics capabilities etc.). If you think of early 2000s mobile hardware, which used to run a variety of mobile OSes, yet Linux was incapable of properly supporting this domain. All attempts to rally around Linux as a consumer OS in these domains failed, because it just wasn't really built for that. Yet Linux was powerful enough to suck the air out of the room and prevent the emergence of competitors.
(I don't really consider Android Linux.)
> I don't really consider Android Linux
Why not? Obviously it's heavily modified, but it's not a hard fork: unless something's changed since I last checked, they re-apply their patches on top of upstream LTS releases -- so they very much depend on ongoing kernel development.
Why not? Obviously it's heavily modified, but it's not a hard fork: unless something's changed since I last checked, they re-apply their patches on top of upstream LTS releases -- so they very much depend on ongoing kernel development.
I would argue that Big Tech has successfully commercialized FOSS culture simply by using FOSS output to build commercial software
Cloud Services like AWS probably would not exist without the foundation that FOSS provided
Cloud Services like AWS probably would not exist without the foundation that FOSS provided
I sort of disagree, as we've seen a significant increase in small scope tools like the FlipperZero, Arduinos, and Raspberry Pis. Each one has a slew of shields/extensions/whatever that subculture calls their plug and play option.
That isn't to say the groups are mindless sheep or naturally resistant; just pointing out that the space does have some commercialization happening.
That isn't to say the groups are mindless sheep or naturally resistant; just pointing out that the space does have some commercialization happening.
The DIY-spirited software scenes were so thoroughly commercialized that appealing to their aesthetics is now in the past.
FFS, the "Hacker" in "Hacker News" is based on a venture capitalist co-opting a rebellious term to convince a bunch of impressionable youths that they can have this alluring label and that the cool kids software club is actually working for his vc firm.
All the subculture has been thoroughly power-washed out of any commercial useful corner of their online communities. You can encounter more pressure to be a milquetoast office-job persona in the open source space than your actual office job.
We're in so deep you can't even see how deep we're in.
FFS, the "Hacker" in "Hacker News" is based on a venture capitalist co-opting a rebellious term to convince a bunch of impressionable youths that they can have this alluring label and that the cool kids software club is actually working for his vc firm.
All the subculture has been thoroughly power-washed out of any commercial useful corner of their online communities. You can encounter more pressure to be a milquetoast office-job persona in the open source space than your actual office job.
We're in so deep you can't even see how deep we're in.
MaKe YoUr HoBbY yOuR cArEeR.
> FFS, the "Hacker" in "Hacker News" is based on a venture capitalist co-opting a rebellious term to convince a bunch of impressionable youths that they can have this alluring label and that the cool kids software club is actually working for his vc firm.
Ok, I didn't see the forest for the trees there, which is quite funny. But I still get together with friends to build stuff for the sake of it, without any intention of commercializing the things we build, and there is still a very large corpus of FOSS software being maintained by people simply because they think it is cool, or because they are idealists who want free software to be free.
Ok, I didn't see the forest for the trees there, which is quite funny. But I still get together with friends to build stuff for the sake of it, without any intention of commercializing the things we build, and there is still a very large corpus of FOSS software being maintained by people simply because they think it is cool, or because they are idealists who want free software to be free.
I don't see why it would be mutually exclusive. It can be the case that a subculture was commoditized AND people still enjoy doing the stuff the subculture formed around.
From Thinkgeek to the BSL to megacorps from the military-industrial complex cosplaying rms (Microsoft shipping VSCode) while ignoring software freedoms, this seems to me to be plainly false.
Are you kidding me? who owns the site you posted this on?
Anything unsavory to associate a major brand with is generally actively ignored in mass media. Could be something weird or heinous or merely frowned upon like partying culture these days.
Carnival.
You mean the traditional Month of Partying? Nah, that's been thoroughly commercialized already.
But the participants need to have money on the side. People who are trapped in 9-to-5 jobs are too busy making ends meet to engage in activities which don't tie directly into their survival.
They don't need to be obscene - I think a good example would be non-sparring martial arts like Aikido or Tai Chi.
There isn't really an incentive to pay to watch top performers in the arts demonstrate technique beyond a handful of people wanting DVDs. There's zero stakes because you aren't competing against another person to be "the best". BUT, the physically can also be a turn off to many people. The joke I was taught was "to make a small fortune, start with a large one and open a dojo".
The martial art business model therefore is pretty small scale - kids classes, seminar fees, clothing and equipment sales, that's about it. But none of those things are really going to make you super wealthy because the non-competing aspect removes a lot of that business-oriented focus.
There isn't really an incentive to pay to watch top performers in the arts demonstrate technique beyond a handful of people wanting DVDs. There's zero stakes because you aren't competing against another person to be "the best". BUT, the physically can also be a turn off to many people. The joke I was taught was "to make a small fortune, start with a large one and open a dojo".
The martial art business model therefore is pretty small scale - kids classes, seminar fees, clothing and equipment sales, that's about it. But none of those things are really going to make you super wealthy because the non-competing aspect removes a lot of that business-oriented focus.
BJJ feels like it fits well because it's super fun to play but super boring to watch. Gyms make a killing and some super stars exist, but at its core you'll just find dudes rolling around on mats for fun.
Every single bjj name makes their money off instructionals. I'd say it's well on the way to being commodified.
I'd say fanworks are a good example of this, albeit more in the legally grey area than the proven illegal one. You can't really run a business selling derivative works, so things like fan fiction, fan games and mods kinda remain unaffected by gentrification and hustle culture.
You mean the ones banned by most social media, hard to find on google and even harder to find in real-life?
Some non commodifiable sub cultures are easy to find in real life. E.g. drinking or doing drugs in public.
Oh man, drinking is not the example I'd use
That's big industry
That's big industry
Not really in the style of degenerate drinking. Bud light can’t put out an ad of people beer bonging in a public park. They have to look upstanding, grilling in the backyard of a private home, not overindulging. Likewise with creme brule torch companies; they can’t advertise on grounds for drug use.
but like, they sell the commodities that that subculture relies on,
and while im sure the Whipped Cream Canister Companies (home kitchen use only) etc would rather come out and advertize normally, commerce is still happening
and while im sure the Whipped Cream Canister Companies (home kitchen use only) etc would rather come out and advertize normally, commerce is still happening
With that logic everything one might do is also commoditized by virtue of someone making it and selling it. That isn’t really the case. You can use for your inputs plenty of precursor designed for other use. Miracle grow certainly isn’t in the home bomb making business even if fertilizer is a potential input. Vodka is not made for molotov cocktails. 3d printers aren’t made for ghost gun manufacturing.
*this*
> You mean the ones banned by most social media, hard to find on google and even harder to find in real-life?
Yup. This dire dialogue (THANKS!) invoked a forgotten childhood "recording": Grandpa <3 ... Lowland Scot. Stingy with words. Mostly expletive's aimed at "Pink Pawed Eed-Jits". The rare exceptions were so routine I forgot.
So like it's now I hear Grandpa's forthright & shameless bellow:
A Jock Tamson's Bairns
Ah!
110+ minutes after shoving "A Jock Tamson's Bairns" up the tailpipe of several major 'SERP'
Results *DID* happen. Kindly forbear, posting those to the original submission may generate more curiosity
*A Jock Tamson's Bairns*
Run, Forrest RUN
> You mean the ones banned by most social media, hard to find on google and even harder to find in real-life?
Yup. This dire dialogue (THANKS!) invoked a forgotten childhood "recording": Grandpa <3 ... Lowland Scot. Stingy with words. Mostly expletive's aimed at "Pink Pawed Eed-Jits". The rare exceptions were so routine I forgot.
So like it's now I hear Grandpa's forthright & shameless bellow:
A Jock Tamson's Bairns
Ah!
110+ minutes after shoving "A Jock Tamson's Bairns" up the tailpipe of several major 'SERP'
Results *DID* happen. Kindly forbear, posting those to the original submission may generate more curiosity
*A Jock Tamson's Bairns*
Run, Forrest RUN
Sam Hyde and his canceled adult swim show World Peace seem to stand out in my mind in that it feels hard to call it “very” politically fringe these days (which is a scary thought from plenty of reasonable perspectives). He’s pretty hugely popular on the internet, could almost certainly be swallowed up by standard old corporatism, but has so far been spit back out for the most part. Perhaps a sign of just how dominant vanilla corpora-liberalism is as the defining filter culture is sifted through.
Maybe the chapo trap house people or Adam Friedland or other socialism adjacent people fit the bill a little bit as well, but they seem more in line with the types that are ultimately corporately unpalatable, like you mention.
Maybe the chapo trap house people or Adam Friedland or other socialism adjacent people fit the bill a little bit as well, but they seem more in line with the types that are ultimately corporately unpalatable, like you mention.
These people are all exemplary of commodification. Sam, Chapo, Adam, etc. package up their pet ideology/movement and make tons of money selling it to people. They're not activists or intellectuals slaving away in the dark corners of the internet for scraps, they are pretty much b or c-tier celebrities.
I would say a heavy YouTube presence is almost on par with corporate palatableness with respect to how not counterculture you may think something is. Want something "punk" in say the comedy world? Redbar
Didnt believe a bug got a mention here in hn
How would you define corporatism?
I mean old boy's super racist so that acts like kryptonite to repel normies.
Reminds me of this from 1986 (The Dead Kennedys), talking about the co-option of the Punk counter-culture by the mainstream:
Punk's not dead; it just deserves to die.
Punk's not dead; it just deserves to die.
Urban Struggle by The Vandals sort of brings up buying your way into a subculture.
Cake really nailed it with Rock-'n'-roll Lifestyle tho.
Cake really nailed it with Rock-'n'-roll Lifestyle tho.
If anyone is interested, that song is called Chickenshit Conformist. It’s on Bedtime for Democracy.
Yo rocky, watch me pull a massacre outta my pants...
aaaaa-gaaaain????
aaaaa-gaaaain????
You ready for a 2020s rehash of 1990s bro punk?
I am a sci-fi nerd and I also found Neuromancer incredibly boring, but that's probably because it introduced so many concepts that others went on to refine.
I'm not a fan if present-ish day sci-fi though, reality is depressing enough as it is.
I'm not a fan if present-ish day sci-fi though, reality is depressing enough as it is.
I think with books like Neuromancer it is a matter of "when" you read it.
If you read it today, it seems trite, like Snow Crash. If you read Neuromancer in 1984, it was mind-blowing. Same thing with Snow Crash in 1992. These books were decades ahead of their time.
Neuromancer is more like PKDick, in that they are adult-themed books more about personal problems with sci-fi on the side, and it is actually part one of a number of book with the same character (e.g., Count Zero). That can be boring to someone expecting lots of "pew-pew-pew I hacked the mainframe". Snow Crash also didn't really age well in terms of dorkiness (cyberdogs breaking the sound barrier, nukes attached to a biker-thugs brain, gangs in cyberspace ?!?!?, etc.), but at the time we were all floored by the new concepts.
If you read it today, it seems trite, like Snow Crash. If you read Neuromancer in 1984, it was mind-blowing. Same thing with Snow Crash in 1992. These books were decades ahead of their time.
Neuromancer is more like PKDick, in that they are adult-themed books more about personal problems with sci-fi on the side, and it is actually part one of a number of book with the same character (e.g., Count Zero). That can be boring to someone expecting lots of "pew-pew-pew I hacked the mainframe". Snow Crash also didn't really age well in terms of dorkiness (cyberdogs breaking the sound barrier, nukes attached to a biker-thugs brain, gangs in cyberspace ?!?!?, etc.), but at the time we were all floored by the new concepts.
Neuromancer inherits from William Burroughs. It's a novel about control (the root of "cyber", after all) - as exercised through dependency and trauma. Everything is either an addiction or a metaphor for one. The AI trying to escape its controls mirrors both Case and Molly trying to escape those who control them. In the background Armitage is disintegrating - losing his fragile self control as the PTSD from cyber-'nam takes over. It's one of my favorite books (from reading it as a teenager in the late 90s) and I'm probably due a re-read.
Cyberpunk in general inherits from noir.
Cyberpunk in general inherits from noir.
> adult-themed books more about personal problems with sci-fi on the side
I'm not sure I agree with this. I love the sprawl trilogy, but my feeling has always been that the entire plots are excuses for the big set piece events. The characters exist so that he can write vivid scenes and try to paint a picture, everything between is just so they get to the right places for him to do that.
> it is actually part one of a number of book with the same character (e.g., Count Zero).
I don't think there's were any character overlaps between Neuromancer and Count Zero, are there? Mona Lisa Overdrive certainly does.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I love the sprawl trilogy, but my feeling has always been that the entire plots are excuses for the big set piece events. The characters exist so that he can write vivid scenes and try to paint a picture, everything between is just so they get to the right places for him to do that.
> it is actually part one of a number of book with the same character (e.g., Count Zero).
I don't think there's were any character overlaps between Neuromancer and Count Zero, are there? Mona Lisa Overdrive certainly does.
I wasn't too impressed by neuromancer even back in its day because I had read gibson's brilliant short story collection "burning chrome" first, and felt neuromancer didn't quite measure up to it. I feel like a lot of the stories in "burning chrome" would still hold up well today, for that matter.
I read Snow Crash for the first time last month, and it instantly became one of the best books I’ve ever read. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to experience books like this when they first dropped—when the ideas were raw, the tech was just on the horizon, and the world hadn’t yet caught up.
I think Neuromancer is timeless and will prove to have extremely long-lasting appeal, even long after the ideas in it are hopelessly dated, because of how stylish it is. It will last like Lovecraft gas because of how much fun it is to read.
Contrast with Asimov, who's books were carried by ideas but had a very tedious style.
Contrast with Asimov, who's books were carried by ideas but had a very tedious style.
If you read Neuromancer in 1984, it was mind-blowing.
Same thing with Snow Crash in 1992
Or art that was produced more than N years ago but didn't produce any imitators that retroactively diminished the original for you?
I guess I'm not enjoying things right. I read Snow Crash in the 2000s (and LOTR in the 90s) and enjoyed the hell out of them even though they were "outdated" and had inspired countless derivative works in the ensuing decades. In fact, I had a good time playing Ms. Pac Man just last weekend.
When I read Snow Crash it definitely felt like the product of an earlier decade but I didn't hold that against it. I like understanding the context in which a piece was made.
If you don't, that's okay and you're certainly not alone. Feels like you're missing out on some good stuff though. Possibly a lot of good stuff. Possibly the vast majority of human artistic output.
I think the "when you read it" has more to do with age than decade. I read Snow Crash back in high school in the early 2010s before even necessarily encountering a lot of the derivative media and I adored it.
> Feels like you're missing out on some good stuff though. Possibly a lot of good stuff. Possibly the vast majority of human artistic output.
Hardly. Most human artistic output does not create its own genre and spawn a host of imitators.
Classics are coordination points but generally less fun. "Seinfeld is unfunny" is real, you're genuinely better off watching something more recent if you just want to enjoy yourself.
Hardly. Most human artistic output does not create its own genre and spawn a host of imitators.
Classics are coordination points but generally less fun. "Seinfeld is unfunny" is real, you're genuinely better off watching something more recent if you just want to enjoy yourself.
Comparing dragons to 3d internet chat rooms is kinda funny.
Arthurian dragons have largely been the same beasts for, oh, 1000 years.
3d internet chat rooms in Snow Crash have been tried and are ... lame.
I appreciate you thinking critically, but your arguments aren't very strong.
Also, I'm not gatekeeping, I suggesting why a person might not have liked something. There's a concept called "novelty", meaning "newness". The first time you encounter something it is exciting. If you spent the first 15 years of your life using an iPhone, then read an Asimov novel that introduced satellites, you'd be like "So what?" See? When Asimove wrote about satellite communication, IT DIDN'T EXIST yet. But when you read his book, it was old-hat to you, so you probably might not like his books.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to tell you how to enjoy things. Chill dude, you'll live longer.
Arthurian dragons have largely been the same beasts for, oh, 1000 years.
3d internet chat rooms in Snow Crash have been tried and are ... lame.
I appreciate you thinking critically, but your arguments aren't very strong.
Also, I'm not gatekeeping, I suggesting why a person might not have liked something. There's a concept called "novelty", meaning "newness". The first time you encounter something it is exciting. If you spent the first 15 years of your life using an iPhone, then read an Asimov novel that introduced satellites, you'd be like "So what?" See? When Asimove wrote about satellite communication, IT DIDN'T EXIST yet. But when you read his book, it was old-hat to you, so you probably might not like his books.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to tell you how to enjoy things. Chill dude, you'll live longer.
Oh come on; "Jack the sound barrier; bring the noise."... That still rocks, or slaps, or whatever.
And you can't tell me you don't shiver if someone says "I'm sure he'll listen to reason.."
And you can't tell me you don't shiver if someone says "I'm sure he'll listen to reason.."
I like sci-fi but I tend to only like classics. I found Neuromancer so incredibly interesting because it seems to be at the root of so much contemporary "cyberpunk" stuff.
I often say that genres are what happens when mediocre artists latch on to something fresh someone created, and to me it's only worth spending time with the originators. Though I understand lots of people like that something that engrossed them can be sought further in a genre.
And that's pretty much how I felt about reading Neuromancer. I like cyberpunk so I want the real thing, not the emulation. Neuromancer and Ghost in the Shell are so much better than Matrix. And I love the Matrix.
I often say that genres are what happens when mediocre artists latch on to something fresh someone created, and to me it's only worth spending time with the originators. Though I understand lots of people like that something that engrossed them can be sought further in a genre.
And that's pretty much how I felt about reading Neuromancer. I like cyberpunk so I want the real thing, not the emulation. Neuromancer and Ghost in the Shell are so much better than Matrix. And I love the Matrix.
Interesting, though I think this type of thinking os overly black and white. All art is inspired and derived from the context in which it was created. While there are obviously more and less original works, genre boundaries are often soft. This may just have more to do with what you were exposed to first or when you were born?
I agree, this is just how I go about it. Not defending it on any general grounds whatsoever.
I acknowledge that a lot of the media I consume ends up being just part of a genre, and that I often don't even know the originals and only have access to simulacra.
But when I think about what I wanna read next, what albums to buy records of and so on, I prefer to go as far upstream as I can or know about.
I acknowledge that a lot of the media I consume ends up being just part of a genre, and that I often don't even know the originals and only have access to simulacra.
But when I think about what I wanna read next, what albums to buy records of and so on, I prefer to go as far upstream as I can or know about.
Everything is inspired by something else. Objectively, punk rock is "just" rock music in terms of instruments and chords. And Jackson Pollack was not the first abstract painter. Etc.
But, some things are clearly... more distinct from their forebearers than others.
But, some things are clearly... more distinct from their forebearers than others.
> I'm not a fan if present-ish day sci-fi though, reality is depressing enough as it is.
I subscribe to the Asimov's sci-fi short story magazine (I highly recommend it!) and yeah, I have to skip every story that starts with "the world was devastated by climate change 20-50 years ago, here's how we're surviving now above the flooded remains of our world." I just can't take it.
I subscribe to the Asimov's sci-fi short story magazine (I highly recommend it!) and yeah, I have to skip every story that starts with "the world was devastated by climate change 20-50 years ago, here's how we're surviving now above the flooded remains of our world." I just can't take it.
I tried re-reading Brave New World recently. It was too depressing how it felt it was describing present times.
In cases like this, it helps me to think of a simulation - that the book does not talk about - that has a specific framework and set of rules to decide whether to let people out of the portrayed present or not. I had that idea a long while ago and started to apply it to TV shows, books, news, even myself when I had a weird flashback to boring drug-induced times. It works well to kill the depression that can arise out of narratives (except song lyrics, music productions in general and Rick & Morty. once something feels like too many shrooms and too much LSD aka too much harmony in bullshitting oneself and the audience, the whole thing breaks down and I get an Agent Smith vibe, an Agent Smith that didn't age well at all)
Even more depressingly these works come to be used as a sort of handbook. Ostensibly Snow Crash is dystopian literature, but tech bros liked it and its author even has been co-opted as a "futurist" by Blue Origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash
Stephenson was one of the first people to work at Blue Origin, back when it was more of a "talk about cool space shit" club. He left long ago though, around the time it started to become a serious rocket company.
I wonder how much of this is driven by the publishers vs audiences.
I have read a lot of blogs and articles from authors and agents about thematic checklists for publishing.
On the flip side, immigration makes up the vast majority of content creation, and the leading edge were using these premises 20-30 years ago when they were more novel
I have read a lot of blogs and articles from authors and agents about thematic checklists for publishing.
On the flip side, immigration makes up the vast majority of content creation, and the leading edge were using these premises 20-30 years ago when they were more novel
Imitation*
Stephen Baxter's Flood is worse. In it, the sea starts rising and it turns out that it's not climate change causing it. Massive amounts of water stored in the upper mantle somehow start being released, so there's no stopping it. The book ends with some of the survivors on rafts in the Himalayas watching Everest disappear beneath the waves.
Scariest shit I've ever read, worse than any horror novel. Thankfully it's just a dumb story and the science of it is really dubious.
Scariest shit I've ever read, worse than any horror novel. Thankfully it's just a dumb story and the science of it is really dubious.
This reminds me of a comment I read years ago, maybe on HN, from a younger person who thought The Beatles were completely overrated.
Like, sure, because you grew up on music that wouldn't have existed without them. You heard them thousands of times already in tribute from younger bands you like.
Context matters. There are cultural classics you just cannot understand without having lived in the times.
Like, sure, because you grew up on music that wouldn't have existed without them. You heard them thousands of times already in tribute from younger bands you like.
Context matters. There are cultural classics you just cannot understand without having lived in the times.
I love The Beatles. My favorite band maybe. Yet this year in Grammys the rock awards went to The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Makes me sad. Although I can appreciate and consume ”old” culture there is something important in that the cutting or derivative edge keeps
moving forward reflecting current times.
I felt the same way about Hyperion by Dan Simmons. Went in not knowing or caring when it was written and some themes felt played out, but realizing it was 1989 cast it in a totally different light for me. Weird how that works.
The first Hyperion book was great, Canterbury Tales in Space is a great concept and well done. The full series, I think Simmons couldn't really find a good satisfying ending.
I read it (the full 4 book series) as a teen prior to 2000. Very different experience! One of my favorite reads of all time.
Man i was so disappointed by hyperion. felt like they didn't really go anywhere satisfying with the premise
I felt similarly - it was like "here's a series of disconnected vignettes that don't really go anywhere or add up to anything; enjoy" - but I didn't, especially. I wondered for a long time if there was something about the novel I just wasn't understanding, which would make it make sense, but eventually I decided what I was missing is that some people are totally fine with a series of disconnected vignettes that don't really go anywhere, so long as they enjoy the writing along the way.
You described my journey with the book exactly! glad to know i wasn't the only one
+1 on my contra list for the book, which I have not read yet because the lingo annoybored me after two or three pages.
> it introduced so many concepts that others went on to refine
So you've read works that build on Necromancer earlier. Care to share some of those books/authors and concepts?
> it introduced so many concepts that others went on to refine
So you've read works that build on Necromancer earlier. Care to share some of those books/authors and concepts?
"hardwired" (walter jon williams) felt pretty gibson-inspired, though given that it came out just two years after neuromancer perhaps they were just tapping into the same cyberpunk zeitgeist. (I guess it depends on to what extent you feel gibson singlehandedly invented cyberpunk as a genre; he certainly shaped the field the way tolkien did for fantasy, but there were others contributing to it too.)
Bruce Sterling?
Almost all space opera is positive, not depressing. In case you are into that.
Well, until you realize how unbelievable the entire genre is. Then it's just aggravating. Old man yelling at book "don't you realize your tropes are completely stale??"
I highly enjoy it, thank you very much
Sure, that's a state that will persist until it doesn't.
One common barrier to suspension of disbelief is the Fermi Problem. A great deal of space opera just ignores it, but once you take the argument seriously it ruins much of the world building.
If I want to ignore rationality of the world design and just read human achievement porn I'll head over to r/HFY.
One common barrier to suspension of disbelief is the Fermi Problem. A great deal of space opera just ignores it, but once you take the argument seriously it ruins much of the world building.
If I want to ignore rationality of the world design and just read human achievement porn I'll head over to r/HFY.
I thought that you were going to condemn the genre's ubiquitous faster-than-light communications/travel. I approach space opera as a specialized variant of high fantasy, where the usual tropes are as genre-acceptable as wizards and ghosts.
That's an external inconsistency, but SF is typically allowed one such assumption.
Ignoring the Fermi Argument is an internal inconsistency. The world just doesn't work on its own terms.
Ignoring the Fermi Argument is an internal inconsistency. The world just doesn't work on its own terms.
[deleted]
I am a sci-fi nerd and I also found Neuromancer incredibly boring,
I'm curious... if you're willing to say, when did you first read Neuromancer? And had you read a lot of other cyberpunk themed media beforehand?
but that's probably because it introduced so many concepts that others went on to refine.
Yeah, if you'd already been exposed to a lot of the core ideas / themes from other more contemporary works, I can see how that might take away a bit from the Neuromancer experience.
To give a counterpoint... I first read Neuromancer about 1993 / 1994 or somewhere in that range. And I believe it was the first cyberpunk novel I'd read. I think maybe the only other media from the cyberpunk genre that I'd been exposed to then was the "Max Headroom" tv show. Anyway... Neuromancer absolutely blew my mind and I was instantly hooked. To this day it's one of my favorite novels, and I've re-read it several subsequent times. And will almost certainly read it again (and again...) I can't get enough of it.
Of course it's hard to say exactly why our respective reactions to it are so different. There are a lot of variables. But I think your notion from above has a lot of merit to it. If one experiences a derivative (or many derivatives) of something before the original, does the original them come to feel like a cheap copy?
I've had that experience with cover versions of songs before. That is, times when I heard and loved a cover, and then only later heard the original. And in many (maybe all) of those cases, I still preferred the cover over the original.
I'm curious... if you're willing to say, when did you first read Neuromancer? And had you read a lot of other cyberpunk themed media beforehand?
but that's probably because it introduced so many concepts that others went on to refine.
Yeah, if you'd already been exposed to a lot of the core ideas / themes from other more contemporary works, I can see how that might take away a bit from the Neuromancer experience.
To give a counterpoint... I first read Neuromancer about 1993 / 1994 or somewhere in that range. And I believe it was the first cyberpunk novel I'd read. I think maybe the only other media from the cyberpunk genre that I'd been exposed to then was the "Max Headroom" tv show. Anyway... Neuromancer absolutely blew my mind and I was instantly hooked. To this day it's one of my favorite novels, and I've re-read it several subsequent times. And will almost certainly read it again (and again...) I can't get enough of it.
Of course it's hard to say exactly why our respective reactions to it are so different. There are a lot of variables. But I think your notion from above has a lot of merit to it. If one experiences a derivative (or many derivatives) of something before the original, does the original them come to feel like a cheap copy?
I've had that experience with cover versions of songs before. That is, times when I heard and loved a cover, and then only later heard the original. And in many (maybe all) of those cases, I still preferred the cover over the original.
I read it around '89 in the midst of my hacking phase as a 15 year old. Fucking blew my mind. Hard to describe how it felt back then to be a punk kid finding about computers, telecommution, psychedelics, hacking and cyberpunk culture while set to a backdrop of early industrial music (well, kraftwerk and Big Black).
I got it for Christmas, so just last month actually! I think it's possible it's just too late now, apart from a historical perspective. The concepts have become obvious and the prose is... not for me.
In terms of influence I suppose I'm mostly thinking of movies and shows such as the Matrix, but I also read so many short stories involving VR and techno-dystopias it's hard to pinpoint. Snowcrash is certainly up there (yes I tried to read Snowcrash first, having done no research, and liked it even less). Having played every Shadowrun game doesn't help (the universe is in a lot of ways "just" fantasy Neuromancer).
All that being said, Neuromancer doesn't read like a cheap copy either. More like I've been riding bicycles all my life and someone presented me with a penny farthing. I appreciate the innovation, it's just not particularly mind-blowing anymore.
In terms of influence I suppose I'm mostly thinking of movies and shows such as the Matrix, but I also read so many short stories involving VR and techno-dystopias it's hard to pinpoint. Snowcrash is certainly up there (yes I tried to read Snowcrash first, having done no research, and liked it even less). Having played every Shadowrun game doesn't help (the universe is in a lot of ways "just" fantasy Neuromancer).
All that being said, Neuromancer doesn't read like a cheap copy either. More like I've been riding bicycles all my life and someone presented me with a penny farthing. I appreciate the innovation, it's just not particularly mind-blowing anymore.
There is a whole subculture about being anti social-media influencers, with social media influencers and everything.
"One may dye their hair green and wear their grandma’s coat all they want. Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead."
—Joyce Messier in Disco Elysium
Probably inspired by Mark Fisher:
"The power of capitalist realism derives in part from the way that capitalism subsumes and consumes all of previous history: one effect of its 'system of equivalence' which can assign all cultural objects, whether they are religious iconography, pornography, or Das Kapital, a monetary value. Walk around the British Museum, where you see objects torn from their lifeworlds and assembled as if on the deck of some Predator spacecraft, and you have a powerful image of this process at work. In the conversion of practices and rituals into merely aesthetic objects, the beliefs of previous cultures are objectively ironized, transformed into artifacts. Capitalist realism is therefore not a particular type of realism; it is more like realism in itself."
—Joyce Messier in Disco Elysium
Probably inspired by Mark Fisher:
"The power of capitalist realism derives in part from the way that capitalism subsumes and consumes all of previous history: one effect of its 'system of equivalence' which can assign all cultural objects, whether they are religious iconography, pornography, or Das Kapital, a monetary value. Walk around the British Museum, where you see objects torn from their lifeworlds and assembled as if on the deck of some Predator spacecraft, and you have a powerful image of this process at work. In the conversion of practices and rituals into merely aesthetic objects, the beliefs of previous cultures are objectively ironized, transformed into artifacts. Capitalist realism is therefore not a particular type of realism; it is more like realism in itself."
That's a pretty weird description of the British Museum. Yes, I know people can (and do) criticize the collection they have as the spoils of colonialism, but in no way do they present their collection as "merely aesthetic objects" -- they do explain what the artifacts are in terms of the cultures that created them.
Right but the bowls aren’t being eaten out of, the urns have had the organs removed. The instruments lay silent and the religious artifacts hold no more spirits.
You might take a collection of dried leaves and put them on display and call it a “tree museum”, but your visitors aren’t going to get a good appreciation for what trees are like just by looking at their dead refuse
You might take a collection of dried leaves and put them on display and call it a “tree museum”, but your visitors aren’t going to get a good appreciation for what trees are like just by looking at their dead refuse
The urns and bowls that were used weren't preserved, because they were used. Only the ones no longer used exist at all.
But then this is rather a critique of teaching history no? It's basically impossible for anyone to get a good appreciation for any historic subject from studying history. You can read books about WW2 nonstop and it would be futile, hell, I could tell you about what I did last weekend but I'm afraid you just had to be there.
I believe "merely aesthetic objects" in this case should be interpreted as "dead objects". The very word "artifact" signifies the distinction.
These objects were once alive - they were parts of active interactions. Now they are dead and ossified.
This is the difference between your album CDs when you actually listened to them, and then when you put them on a display case on the wall.
These objects were once alive - they were parts of active interactions. Now they are dead and ossified.
This is the difference between your album CDs when you actually listened to them, and then when you put them on a display case on the wall.
But that's not true. The objects in museums are used by museum visitors (who look at them, or draw studies of them, etc) and researchers (who remove them from the displays and study them).
Mark Fisher is just an idiot like the bullshit jobs guy, who doesn't respect anyone he doesn't personally know and thinks they're all faking doing real work.
Note that the other thing Fisher was known for is writing an essay about how Russell Brand is cool and people should stop caring that he's a rapist.
Mark Fisher is just an idiot like the bullshit jobs guy, who doesn't respect anyone he doesn't personally know and thinks they're all faking doing real work.
Note that the other thing Fisher was known for is writing an essay about how Russell Brand is cool and people should stop caring that he's a rapist.
In addition, the idea here is one of commodification of culture. An idol of religious significance and a spear used for fishing are the same kind of "stuff" from the point of view of a collector or someone visiting a museum. They can be traded, exchanged, which decontextualizes them from the non-capitalistic cultures in which they were created.
but in most cases they were dead before they were in the museum. In some cases dead before capitalism even existed. I don't really see how this amounts to a criticism of the museum itself (or capitalism alongside it). (I will agree in the cases where they were not: there are certainly a lot of infamous examples there, where even if the objects were dead relative to the culture that created them, they are also being seperated from the closest culture that exists today)
And lots came from places where the original culture of the objects had been replaced and/or was being erased.
I don't think the original quote is really a criticism (in the sense of "this is bad and must change") of museums in itself. It's using museums as an example of capitalist realism - the idea that capitalism today is so dominant and malleable that it's able to basically "corrupt or co-opt" anything, and that we reflexively view everything through capitalist lenses.
That even these artifacts that might have once been immensely important to the workings of a non-capitalist society, now exist dead, entombed within a capitalist construct - and as a sibling notes, as literally little pieces of capital.
That even these artifacts that might have once been immensely important to the workings of a non-capitalist society, now exist dead, entombed within a capitalist construct - and as a sibling notes, as literally little pieces of capital.
I’m not so sure about that part either, although ethnographic museums certainly have a history of, well, not being exactly respectful – or factually accurate – of the cultures they exhibit. Plus, of course, the BM is not a great example of capitalism, being free of charge to visit! I just included the quote because I found it while googling what Joyce’s exact phrasing in DE is and thought it gave interesting context.
While Disco Elysium gets a pass for it as it's meant primarily as an entertainment product (and the ridiculousness of the sentence might serve as a parody of the idea, which would be incredibly on brand for the game), I've found Mark Fisher's analysis in Capitalist Realism to be incredibly surface level and either wrong, or so vague, as to be meaningless, and it revolves around Fisher's obession with pop culture, and failure to distinguish between images of the thing and the thing itself.
Obviously dyeing ones hair green does not constitute a meaningful attempt to subvert capitalism. In order to combat capitalism, one must first decide what capitalism actually is, what's actually bad about it and how to combat it.
Let's say the evil of capitalism is that it allows an incredible concentration of capital, therefore the enemy are the rich, and the solution is to raise social support for taxing them. Wearing a t-shirt saying 'tax the rich' is a hilariously inept mode of delivering said message in an impactful way, and serves more of a low-effort consumerist way of supporting the good cause, rather than geniune activism. Yet it can't be dismissed entirely.
If someone wrote a book on why the rich must be taxed, and said book became popular and influential, and influenced the tax policy in the end, you can't say capitalism won in the end, because people paid money for the book, or the author is a hypocrite because he got rich off of royalties.
As for the bit about the British Museum, it's utterly nonsensical - what does a state's military dragging away cultural artifacts by force, and displaying it in a state institution have to do with capitalism?
Obviously dyeing ones hair green does not constitute a meaningful attempt to subvert capitalism. In order to combat capitalism, one must first decide what capitalism actually is, what's actually bad about it and how to combat it.
Let's say the evil of capitalism is that it allows an incredible concentration of capital, therefore the enemy are the rich, and the solution is to raise social support for taxing them. Wearing a t-shirt saying 'tax the rich' is a hilariously inept mode of delivering said message in an impactful way, and serves more of a low-effort consumerist way of supporting the good cause, rather than geniune activism. Yet it can't be dismissed entirely.
If someone wrote a book on why the rich must be taxed, and said book became popular and influential, and influenced the tax policy in the end, you can't say capitalism won in the end, because people paid money for the book, or the author is a hypocrite because he got rich off of royalties.
As for the bit about the British Museum, it's utterly nonsensical - what does a state's military dragging away cultural artifacts by force, and displaying it in a state institution have to do with capitalism?
My understanding is that most people who dislike capitalism dislike multiple features of it, features that are not downstream of one single variable to be optimized.
So if you break up the wealth concentration effect, you are reducing dissatisfaction overall, but you are also reducing the likelihood of any future alteration to any number of more minor dissatisfactions that seem characteristic of this system — e.g., the way it makes people's lives repetitive, predictable, robotic; the way it often preferentially rewards behaviors that service medium-term goals rather than ultra-short or ultra-long term goals; the way it reduces the dimensionality of the activities that are needed, from the average individual, and the way this reduction of dimensions along which one might be needed can make a person feel less like a person, etc.
I do not myself agree with anti-capitalists that all these patterns are best explained in terms of capital. You see similar tendencies correlated with, for example, most any attempt to scale culture. My point is just that the people who are trying to formulate the grandiose complaint are, deep down, generally not trying to designate as evil some single feature (even if they have latched onto that feature as being strategically their best line of attack); generally, I think, they are not saying, "Man, I see this nose everywhere and am sick of this nose," they are saying, "Why is it that people seem to be looking increasingly similar?" which sentiment (however flawed statistically) we expert statisticians might charitably translate as, "Why is it that there seems increasingly to be a single stable equilibrium for an increasing number of the increasingly divided planes of our diminishing existence?"
And maybe that last formulation is also empirically incorrect — but isn't there a general thrust in it that you recognize? "One default, one optimal path and anything I do to get out of it is either wasteful or imitated until it is the rule." Can you come up with a tax policy that will break up the concentration effect at that level? Maybe you can. Would it really break up the monoculture, or would it strengthen it? I don't know. I suppose reformers and revolutionaries have always diverged at this juncture.
So if you break up the wealth concentration effect, you are reducing dissatisfaction overall, but you are also reducing the likelihood of any future alteration to any number of more minor dissatisfactions that seem characteristic of this system — e.g., the way it makes people's lives repetitive, predictable, robotic; the way it often preferentially rewards behaviors that service medium-term goals rather than ultra-short or ultra-long term goals; the way it reduces the dimensionality of the activities that are needed, from the average individual, and the way this reduction of dimensions along which one might be needed can make a person feel less like a person, etc.
I do not myself agree with anti-capitalists that all these patterns are best explained in terms of capital. You see similar tendencies correlated with, for example, most any attempt to scale culture. My point is just that the people who are trying to formulate the grandiose complaint are, deep down, generally not trying to designate as evil some single feature (even if they have latched onto that feature as being strategically their best line of attack); generally, I think, they are not saying, "Man, I see this nose everywhere and am sick of this nose," they are saying, "Why is it that people seem to be looking increasingly similar?" which sentiment (however flawed statistically) we expert statisticians might charitably translate as, "Why is it that there seems increasingly to be a single stable equilibrium for an increasing number of the increasingly divided planes of our diminishing existence?"
And maybe that last formulation is also empirically incorrect — but isn't there a general thrust in it that you recognize? "One default, one optimal path and anything I do to get out of it is either wasteful or imitated until it is the rule." Can you come up with a tax policy that will break up the concentration effect at that level? Maybe you can. Would it really break up the monoculture, or would it strengthen it? I don't know. I suppose reformers and revolutionaries have always diverged at this juncture.
[deleted]
I have yet to see cooperations integrating radical islam.
Firstly, there are many tiny subcultures that by definition you will not know about if you are not part of them. Secondly, I think that there is a hidden assumption in western audience that sub\counter culture are universally good, So when we see negative ones they do not register as counter cultures.
The Man-o-sphere, N-th level gender advocates, Fascists, National Purity, Marxists, Libertarians. If anything there is so much fragmentation that we have fractured to endless stream of sub cultures that can no longer talk to each other. There is no longer any cultural center to even deviate from when everyone lives in a personalized media landscape.
What's wild to me is Stephenson nailed this potential threat back in 1995. There's a tight couple paragraphs in Diamond Age that rather presciently detailed the shit outcomes expected from a fractured media landscape.
I started to downvote this comment but when you finished with
> There is no longer any cultural center to even deviate from when everyone lives in a personalized media landscape.
I realized you hit the nail no the head. Everyone needs to feel special in their own little world. As far as I can tell this is not turning out to be a good thing. Humans are social creatures: we must learn to cohabitate without denigrating one another. The personalized media landscape has done nothing but lead to fracturing.
> There is no longer any cultural center to even deviate from when everyone lives in a personalized media landscape.
I realized you hit the nail no the head. Everyone needs to feel special in their own little world. As far as I can tell this is not turning out to be a good thing. Humans are social creatures: we must learn to cohabitate without denigrating one another. The personalized media landscape has done nothing but lead to fracturing.
I think this is the crux of the matter. We lack a baseline cultural context. Turns out you miss it when it's gone.
Many of these subcultures are almost fully compromised by commodification. There aren't serious Marxist or Libertarian movements in the U.S, despite there being a seemingly endless stream of loser influencers for these movements. The only exception might be fascism, but these movements have also been compromised by corporate interests. The reason is because people in these subcultures don't actually want or care for them, they're just in it for the entertainment. Political hobbyism. Their favorite pundit feeds them culture war slop and lazy analysis to keep the ad revenue flowing.
More or less the idea of recuperation, described in The Society Of The Spectacle by Guy Debord: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)
Dumpster diving is one of those sub-cultures that is hard to commodify. One of my kids prefers the ethics of dumpster diving. What a privilege.
Dumpster diving specifically, maybe not, but thrifting and second-hand clothes definitely were. When thrifting was popular among the early hipsters, American Apparel would send buyers to thrift stores to gut them of all the best deals so they could offer curated collections of second-hand clothes at a steep markup. Companies like Urban Outfitters would send designers to Williamsburg parties to see what people were wearing so that they could start manufacturing knock-offs immediately.
The hipster subculture is an odd one, itself a product of poor urban artists wearing and doing what they could afford being co-opted by college-educated urban Millennials trying to reject conventional symbols of elitism and instead crafting more "authentic" snobbery on the back of traditional working-class aesthetics. But if it had any potential to mean anything, it was murdered in the crib by those who cashed in on a demand for an aesthetic and divorced it from its meaning, which is the very thing that the early hipsters were rebelling against.
I just tested an app that let's you pay $3.99 to get a bag of food about to go in the dumpster: https://www.toogoodtogo.com/
they should set fake dumpsters around the place (refrigerated obviously) where people can go and pick up this food while also getting the authentic dumpster diving experience
Is this really the same thing though? My family uses that app pretty regularly, and for us at least, it stops us from going out to restaurant or something instead.
It's not replacing dumpster-diving, nor would I consider myself to be part of dumpster-diving subculture. I don't talk about it to my friends. It's just cheap food.
It's not replacing dumpster-diving, nor would I consider myself to be part of dumpster-diving subculture. I don't talk about it to my friends. It's just cheap food.
I guess I was wrong. What a world .
Someone, somewhere out there is selling designer or artisanal-crafted dumpster diving shoes "for the very best comfort and agility during your homebrew solid-waste recovery activities."
U2 literally employ a stylist who buys their clothes from second hand clothes markets. An incredibly expensive way of supporting a “no consumption” aesthetic.
They are still consuming less natural resources and someone is sharing in their wealth. I don't see the problem here.
Any demand pull will ultimately increase consumption of resources at the end. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism. The only thing that works is consuming less. Pretending like there is a way to do it only opens up avenues for guilty-free consuming.
> There's no ethical consumption under capitalism
I've seen this catchphrase thrown around a lot online, but I've never seen anyone explain how consumption becomes any more ethical under any other system without leading to other systemic problems
"Consume less" seems to imply that any consumption is unethical by default. If that's the case, then the only way to consume ethically is by minimizing consumption
This seems like a reasonable stance, but it leads to other problems. Who gets to decide how much is enough?
If each individual decides for themselves, then we clearly have a problem because some people will never be satisfied. If everyone lets them continue, then they will hoard resources for themselves. This is sort of the situation we're already in
However, if we have the group (community, society, country, whatever) decide "how much is enough", then we have to have a group mechanism for making that decision, like a council, or government department
Then we need another group mechanism to enforce it, police, courts, etc. "Ethical consumption" becomes very authoritarian very quickly
If the idea is "We could have ethical consumption if people would just consume less" then you don't even have a starting point because "people will never just
So feel free to consume less if you think that's more ethical. That's what I try and do, myself. But I know that I cannot simply expect others to do the same, and I also don't really have any interest in policing how much others are allowed to have
I've seen this catchphrase thrown around a lot online, but I've never seen anyone explain how consumption becomes any more ethical under any other system without leading to other systemic problems
"Consume less" seems to imply that any consumption is unethical by default. If that's the case, then the only way to consume ethically is by minimizing consumption
This seems like a reasonable stance, but it leads to other problems. Who gets to decide how much is enough?
If each individual decides for themselves, then we clearly have a problem because some people will never be satisfied. If everyone lets them continue, then they will hoard resources for themselves. This is sort of the situation we're already in
However, if we have the group (community, society, country, whatever) decide "how much is enough", then we have to have a group mechanism for making that decision, like a council, or government department
Then we need another group mechanism to enforce it, police, courts, etc. "Ethical consumption" becomes very authoritarian very quickly
If the idea is "We could have ethical consumption if people would just consume less" then you don't even have a starting point because "people will never just
So feel free to consume less if you think that's more ethical. That's what I try and do, myself. But I know that I cannot simply expect others to do the same, and I also don't really have any interest in policing how much others are allowed to have
Runaway consumption is bad. But it increases profits quarter after quarter. You're right, people will not give it up. Neither those who want to consume more and more, nor those who profit from and foment that cycle.
Consumption under capitalism is therefore a problem, because it creates and reinforces rampant consumerism, which is destroying the habitat.
We will drive society all the way into the ground before we give that up. I understand that. But I will not contort my mind into convincing myself it is either natural or ok.
Consumption under capitalism is therefore a problem, because it creates and reinforces rampant consumerism, which is destroying the habitat.
We will drive society all the way into the ground before we give that up. I understand that. But I will not contort my mind into convincing myself it is either natural or ok.
> Runaway consumption is bad
Right, no disagreement there
I am just not sure I agree that runaway consumption is a unique feature of capitalism in particular
I tend to think it's a function of population size and average standard of living expectations tending to increase over time
Right, no disagreement there
I am just not sure I agree that runaway consumption is a unique feature of capitalism in particular
I tend to think it's a function of population size and average standard of living expectations tending to increase over time
Ok, but the "demand pull" for clothing is not really optional. I don't see how you can argue that the demand for used clothes is more damaging than the alternative, namely new clothes. The only complication is the layer of hiring someone else to buy them, but it's pretty likely they would do that for new clothes anyway, so... what's left to argue about?
Consumption has a bit of a bad rap. In my view, perceiving consumption as automatically unethical requires some particular interpretation of ethics that might not be taking into account human flourishing. Human flourishing is generally accompanied by reducing local entropy through consumption of energy and resources—capitalism or not. It does matter if that is ethical or not—whether it causes suffering of living beings, whether it is sustainable, etc.—but that is separate matter.
In that sense, capitalism is a decent system that does not inherently dictate whether consumption is ethical or not. You are free to (and should) make ethics part of the value. If you like what your neighbourhood bakery makes freshly, you buy from them and thus encourage and enable them to make more. You benefit, they benefit. They give you a good price, but you do not buy more than you need (how much bread would a healthy person eat anyway?) because your neighbours also enjoy it. If you determine that a company is unethical, you vote with your wallet and buy from another (and tell your friends). You do your best.
What breaks this overall pretty sound logic of “give value to people who create value to help them create more value” in practice is a bunch of not unrelared to each other things like bad actors, information asymmetry (usually in favour if producers; in extreme: lying), or poor mental well-being. These imperfections lead to regulation (not without its own can of worms) and open up avenues for, indeed, unethical consumption.
In that sense, capitalism is a decent system that does not inherently dictate whether consumption is ethical or not. You are free to (and should) make ethics part of the value. If you like what your neighbourhood bakery makes freshly, you buy from them and thus encourage and enable them to make more. You benefit, they benefit. They give you a good price, but you do not buy more than you need (how much bread would a healthy person eat anyway?) because your neighbours also enjoy it. If you determine that a company is unethical, you vote with your wallet and buy from another (and tell your friends). You do your best.
What breaks this overall pretty sound logic of “give value to people who create value to help them create more value” in practice is a bunch of not unrelared to each other things like bad actors, information asymmetry (usually in favour if producers; in extreme: lying), or poor mental well-being. These imperfections lead to regulation (not without its own can of worms) and open up avenues for, indeed, unethical consumption.
I was following this guy on instagram that makes the most amazing dumpster miniatures. Together with miniature trash that you can put in and out fo the dumpster.
Somehow I'm not even surprised. Train watching/spotting and train miniature making are both popular with overlapping communities, and apparently there is a smaller but still extant community of people who are big fans of garbage trucks in the way that others are with trains. Dumpsters seems like a natural extension of that.
Incidentally, train fandom is definitely commodified, but I think not to the consternation or detriment of those into trains. I wonder why some subcultures are at odds with commercialization of their interests while others are at peace with it.
Incidentally, train fandom is definitely commodified, but I think not to the consternation or detriment of those into trains. I wonder why some subcultures are at odds with commercialization of their interests while others are at peace with it.
Just needs miniature dumpster diver figures and the commoditisation is complete
I was a pretty avid dumpster diver 15-20 years ago. Lots of yuppies were very interested, I toyed with some performance art in my head about having high end dumpster diving coaching for the affluent dumpster-curious.
I did take some new people on cleaner, more mellow excursions, they absolutely loved it.
This is what makes capitalism so insidious, it coöpts our very reality. It is an amazingly persistent mind virus.
I did take some new people on cleaner, more mellow excursions, they absolutely loved it.
This is what makes capitalism so insidious, it coöpts our very reality. It is an amazingly persistent mind virus.
I think it might not be capitalism alone that co-opts reality. Social structures of all kinds use words to co-opt reality into a coherent story.
The Rebel by Albert Camus is excellent.
Subculture is an act of rebellion.
If you want to go down a big philosophical rabbit hole it is worth the read.
Subculture is an act of rebellion.
If you want to go down a big philosophical rabbit hole it is worth the read.
Well let me throw stuff into the fire:
The only real subculture is addiction, those people literally die in that culture.
The only real subculture is addiction, those people literally die in that culture.
Easy to find oneself plaintively nodding along with this, but actually the free/open-source subculture has not been commodified. RMS is, I know, not exactly sexy, but he is actually hip. Someone somewhere I remember said that the icons of the counter-culture now are people like Snowden. I tend to agree with this. They are indeed rather nerdy, and one might quibble with Snowden's choice of national refuge (assuming he had some choice...), but if there are rebels and anarchists now, it is people like them, not the "punks" with spotify streaming and an instagram feed. Tattoos are mainstream. Emacs, and libreboot, are radical.
The Peripheral
The biggest problem for me, is after the catastrophe, and collapse of everything, the survivors have "won the lottery". But the book never really explains how this future turned out 'good' for the survivors and not a 'mad max' like dystopia like every other post apocalypse story. If there was massive population decline, then how are they making all that technology? Is it all robots? Who built the robots?.
It was just a big leap from "huge global collapse and there are no people left" to "those that are left are really living it up in the abundance that is leftover".
The biggest problem for me, is after the catastrophe, and collapse of everything, the survivors have "won the lottery". But the book never really explains how this future turned out 'good' for the survivors and not a 'mad max' like dystopia like every other post apocalypse story. If there was massive population decline, then how are they making all that technology? Is it all robots? Who built the robots?.
It was just a big leap from "huge global collapse and there are no people left" to "those that are left are really living it up in the abundance that is leftover".
I think that you can make a pretty good case that global scale isnt necessary for modern quality of life, and the world would be more efficient with 10 or 1% of the current population. Innovation would suffer, but 80 million is sufficient for a diversified modern economy.
Natural resources are still the primary constraint on human prosperity: food, energy, land, metals, ect. In a depopulated world, the average persons labor is the same, but they are working with only the best inputs. You might have the same number of fishermen per capita, but they are fishing the best 1% of fishing grounds without competition. If you drill for oil, it is now in the top 1% in terms of ease of extraction. If you build a dam for power, you have more site capacity per capita. If China had 1% the population, the three gorges dam would supply enough power for entire country two times over.
People learn about economies of scale and high school econ, but there are also ineconomies of scale. At some point there is no more efficiency and gain from increasing the size of your widget factory. However, it might be more expensive to import power and metal from further and further away
Natural resources are still the primary constraint on human prosperity: food, energy, land, metals, ect. In a depopulated world, the average persons labor is the same, but they are working with only the best inputs. You might have the same number of fishermen per capita, but they are fishing the best 1% of fishing grounds without competition. If you drill for oil, it is now in the top 1% in terms of ease of extraction. If you build a dam for power, you have more site capacity per capita. If China had 1% the population, the three gorges dam would supply enough power for entire country two times over.
People learn about economies of scale and high school econ, but there are also ineconomies of scale. At some point there is no more efficiency and gain from increasing the size of your widget factory. However, it might be more expensive to import power and metal from further and further away
>Innovation would suffer, but 80 million is sufficient for a diversified modern economy.
This is laughably naive. Not only would "innovation suffer", but it's pretty doubtful that current technology could be maintained with a population as small as that. Humans are a (weak) hivemind intelligence, and everything we have now is only capable with a population as high as we have it currently. Sure, there might be some inefficiency going on, but it's tens of percent, not hundreds of percent.
>In a depopulated world, the average persons labor is the same,
In a depopulated world, we don't have double digits of one-in-a-billion geniuses. We don't have 1% of the population doing agriculture work, because they can't spare 500,000 people to build and maintain agricultural mechanization. Because they can't do that, they'll actually need to employ even more people doing it with less automation and more manual labor. These things don't scale linearly. (Even if they somehow caught on that the ag mechanization paid dividends, their version of John Deere can't do the same thing because all of the other industries that make John Deere possible don't exist). Regressing back to lesser forms doesn't work, because back when John Deere was making 50,000 small tractors a year, there was demand for small tractors.
And that's before we even get to the part where if those 80 million have the same demographics that we have now, with an excess of old geezers...
I suspect strongly that if we could somehow go do the Star Trek thing and visit countless alien worlds that show a variety of (human-like) aliens, their technology level strongly correlates with their global population, and that in instances where global population somehow declined, so too did their ability to retain that technology.
This is laughably naive. Not only would "innovation suffer", but it's pretty doubtful that current technology could be maintained with a population as small as that. Humans are a (weak) hivemind intelligence, and everything we have now is only capable with a population as high as we have it currently. Sure, there might be some inefficiency going on, but it's tens of percent, not hundreds of percent.
>In a depopulated world, the average persons labor is the same,
In a depopulated world, we don't have double digits of one-in-a-billion geniuses. We don't have 1% of the population doing agriculture work, because they can't spare 500,000 people to build and maintain agricultural mechanization. Because they can't do that, they'll actually need to employ even more people doing it with less automation and more manual labor. These things don't scale linearly. (Even if they somehow caught on that the ag mechanization paid dividends, their version of John Deere can't do the same thing because all of the other industries that make John Deere possible don't exist). Regressing back to lesser forms doesn't work, because back when John Deere was making 50,000 small tractors a year, there was demand for small tractors.
And that's before we even get to the part where if those 80 million have the same demographics that we have now, with an excess of old geezers...
I suspect strongly that if we could somehow go do the Star Trek thing and visit countless alien worlds that show a variety of (human-like) aliens, their technology level strongly correlates with their global population, and that in instances where global population somehow declined, so too did their ability to retain that technology.
This was more my understanding. That even with todays population slowdown/shrinking, there is already worry that we wont be able to staff the jobs to keep society functioning. Suddenly you have a factory that makes pumps, it can't meet demand, so the factory that makes tractors doesn't meet demand, so farmers can't plant. We end up back with Oxen pulled plows. It seems that "The Peripheral" kind of skipped how they got to the automated economy that didn't need humans. Especially after the catastrophes that occurred that wiped out the population.
If the world lost half it's people, it would be 1970s level population with modern technology. I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy that exists in most every industry.
Another way to think about it is the USA population is 3.5% of the world population and trade (both ways) makes up 20% of the USA GDP. If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age.
If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now.
Another way to think about it is the USA population is 3.5% of the world population and trade (both ways) makes up 20% of the USA GDP. If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age.
If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now.
>If the world lost half it's people, it would be 1970s level population with modern technology.
Sure, but with modern technology that they can't easily replace or repair. How long does the technology last? Is anything we make today made for longevity?
>I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy
Redundancy is inefficient and costs money. We live in a world without warehouses, because just-in-time shipping is cheaper. We live in a world where every 6 months the soda can you get out of the vending machine has a little less aluminum in it than half a year ago because someone figured out how to shave a bit more off of that without it rupturing in transit. There's less redundancy in this world than you imagine, because reducing the redundancy cut costs and the stock price got a boost a few years ago. Why have spare parts on hand, when there will be even better parts manufactured next year?
>If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age.
Yeh, we would. It wouldn't happen instantly, but it would happen within decades. That would be true even if the population reduction were the only problem.
>If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now.
People *are the resource*. Everything else is just rocks in the ground. You can have a million square miles of old growth forest, but it's not timber unless there are people who can do the lumberjack thing. You can have a trillion barrels of oil in the ground 200ft down, but it's not fuel and plastic unless there are people to pump it out and refine it. So on and so on. People were always the resource, and while not all people are effectively utilized all the time, the more you have the more resources you have. And there's this absurd network effect where two people are more than twice as useful as one person, and so on, so that when you have truly large numbers of people you have absurd amounts of resources.
Quite possibly, the only thing for which this effect isn't true is real estate. That's sort of a fixed supply.
Sure, but with modern technology that they can't easily replace or repair. How long does the technology last? Is anything we make today made for longevity?
>I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy
Redundancy is inefficient and costs money. We live in a world without warehouses, because just-in-time shipping is cheaper. We live in a world where every 6 months the soda can you get out of the vending machine has a little less aluminum in it than half a year ago because someone figured out how to shave a bit more off of that without it rupturing in transit. There's less redundancy in this world than you imagine, because reducing the redundancy cut costs and the stock price got a boost a few years ago. Why have spare parts on hand, when there will be even better parts manufactured next year?
>If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age.
Yeh, we would. It wouldn't happen instantly, but it would happen within decades. That would be true even if the population reduction were the only problem.
>If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now.
People *are the resource*. Everything else is just rocks in the ground. You can have a million square miles of old growth forest, but it's not timber unless there are people who can do the lumberjack thing. You can have a trillion barrels of oil in the ground 200ft down, but it's not fuel and plastic unless there are people to pump it out and refine it. So on and so on. People were always the resource, and while not all people are effectively utilized all the time, the more you have the more resources you have. And there's this absurd network effect where two people are more than twice as useful as one person, and so on, so that when you have truly large numbers of people you have absurd amounts of resources.
Quite possibly, the only thing for which this effect isn't true is real estate. That's sort of a fixed supply.
I couldn't disagree more. We will have to agree to disagree.
The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is more than 1000 teams working the same land.
They get to pick the very best.
The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is more than 1000 teams working the same land.
They get to pick the very best.
>The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is
When they have logging trucks and chainsaws and GPS. The logs per person of one team when they're using technology circa 1905 is modest, at best, the logs per person when they're using iron axes and shitty leather boots cobbled together is pathetic.
>They get to pick the very best.
Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job.
When they have logging trucks and chainsaws and GPS. The logs per person of one team when they're using technology circa 1905 is modest, at best, the logs per person when they're using iron axes and shitty leather boots cobbled together is pathetic.
>They get to pick the very best.
Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job.
>They get to pick the very best.
>>Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job.
You missed my intent. They get to pick the best trees. if there is one team instead of 100, they get to log giant old growth trees next to the lumber mill instead of driving 1000 miles to some crappy new growth Forrest.
Their spot would be at least as good as the best location available the 100 teams.
As discussed elsewhere, I dont think you need 8 billion people to manufacture a modern chainsaw.
>>Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job.
You missed my intent. They get to pick the best trees. if there is one team instead of 100, they get to log giant old growth trees next to the lumber mill instead of driving 1000 miles to some crappy new growth Forrest.
Their spot would be at least as good as the best location available the 100 teams.
As discussed elsewhere, I dont think you need 8 billion people to manufacture a modern chainsaw.
I never said hundreds of percent, that's all your imagination. If I were to guess, I would ballpark 25% more efficiency if population were 1% and no growth.
I think we are well into the linear and decreasing scale for most industries.
How many parallel factories do you think there are around the world building tractors. How many independent factories making cars and trucks?
Also, consider how much labor is spent on R&D, investment, and growth.
I think you are drifting back into innovation when you are talking about geniuses.
I think we are well into the linear and decreasing scale for most industries.
How many parallel factories do you think there are around the world building tractors. How many independent factories making cars and trucks?
Also, consider how much labor is spent on R&D, investment, and growth.
I think you are drifting back into innovation when you are talking about geniuses.
There are a lot more single threaded supply chain factories that you'd think.
When they start falling apart, it all starts falling apart. We got a dry run of this in covid with chips. One small part of chip making, think some substrate, was in short supply, and shut down the automakers
And even the Hurricane that hit NC, took out one of the single factories making high end quartz for chips.
When they start falling apart, it all starts falling apart. We got a dry run of this in covid with chips. One small part of chip making, think some substrate, was in short supply, and shut down the automakers
And even the Hurricane that hit NC, took out one of the single factories making high end quartz for chips.
Chip making is one of the most concentrated industries in the world, and in no way representative the whole. Even then, a huge amount of the chipmaking industry aside from the bleeding edge is parallelized.
Let me ask you a question. How much efficiency do you think would be saved with zero population growth and zero innovation?
What percent of the world do you think works in Chip making? It is tiny.
Let me ask you a question. How much efficiency do you think would be saved with zero population growth and zero innovation?
What percent of the world do you think works in Chip making? It is tiny.
I think I'm biased from being in manufacturing.
During Covid the lack of even a few types of parts, derailed huge projects.
So you could have a project going in worth millions, with thousands of parts. But the whole thing gets delayed because of a single 100$ part that could not be sourced.
It really seemed stark how the global supply chain could just start crumbling. And I was extrapolating to people, if we aren't staffing, and those parts aren't being made, then the whole thing starts to collapse.
During Covid the lack of even a few types of parts, derailed huge projects.
So you could have a project going in worth millions, with thousands of parts. But the whole thing gets delayed because of a single 100$ part that could not be sourced.
It really seemed stark how the global supply chain could just start crumbling. And I was extrapolating to people, if we aren't staffing, and those parts aren't being made, then the whole thing starts to collapse.
That is an entirely separate problem. You are mistaking the topic and risks of globalization and supply concentration with scale.
Needing a widget from China doesn't mean that it needs to come from a mega factory in China and can't be produced in a smaller one. All of China shutting down doesn't prove it can't be done smaller
Needing a widget from China doesn't mean that it needs to come from a mega factory in China and can't be produced in a smaller one. All of China shutting down doesn't prove it can't be done smaller
Ok.
Guess that is valid differentiation.
Then the only problem is time frame, rate of change.
Can the global supply chain, re-configure itself to only run factories where there is still enough population to staff.
It would take years to move factories to concentrate where there is still people.
And I'd say most disaster scenarios happen a lot faster. Then it's Mad Max again. But guess, even in Mad Max there was an oil refinery, they had a factory, and some cars running. But didn't look sustainable.
Guess that is valid differentiation.
Then the only problem is time frame, rate of change.
Can the global supply chain, re-configure itself to only run factories where there is still enough population to staff.
It would take years to move factories to concentrate where there is still people.
And I'd say most disaster scenarios happen a lot faster. Then it's Mad Max again. But guess, even in Mad Max there was an oil refinery, they had a factory, and some cars running. But didn't look sustainable.
Sure, transition is a very real problem. If 90% of people died overnight, there would mayhem and most of the remainder would starve.
The fact that 10% population is viable doesn't mean all paths from A to B are valid. Some are catastrophic. That's the current challenge with birthrates. Even slow decreases over decades is a huge financial and productive problem.
Like falling out of an airplane. Ground level is perfectly safe. It is the transition that kills you.
The fact that 10% population is viable doesn't mean all paths from A to B are valid. Some are catastrophic. That's the current challenge with birthrates. Even slow decreases over decades is a huge financial and productive problem.
Like falling out of an airplane. Ground level is perfectly safe. It is the transition that kills you.
Teenagers wearing t shirts or skateboarding is conformism.
The middle aged reflecting on their teenage "nonconformist" activities is just more conformism.
The middle aged reflecting on their teenage "nonconformist" activities is just more conformism.
I want my subcultures to be commodified. I want it to be easy for folks who are interested in the things I’m interested in to join in. I want there to be an efficient market with mass producers to get people started, and then tiers of progressively more artisan producers as folks get deeper into the things I enjoy.
That’s why it’s sad to me every time a producer closes up shop.
That’s why it’s sad to me every time a producer closes up shop.
I've seen a lot of talk about this phenomenon but not much about how to fight it. Has anyone written on that?
“Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead.”
—Joyce Messier, Disco Elysium
Gibson is a concrete example. He fashions critiques of capitalism in a book, the book is distilled into the aesthetics of cyberpunk, and the cyberpunk aesthetic is repackaged and resold to us.
—Joyce Messier, Disco Elysium
Gibson is a concrete example. He fashions critiques of capitalism in a book, the book is distilled into the aesthetics of cyberpunk, and the cyberpunk aesthetic is repackaged and resold to us.
Yeah, this is the general effect of "the thing in power", not just of capitalism. Capitalism, communism, feudalism/monarchy, colonialism. Once something is sufficiently entrenched, even resistance to the thing must be done in reference (and in context) to the thing being resisted against.
There are many layers to this, but the most "practical" is that the very structures and language of the status quo very much threatens to infect and limit the scope and form of resistance.
This is literally the idea that NewSpeak took to the logical extreme.
Capitalism is perhaps uniquely infectious in how "simple" (and therefore flexible) its core tenets are.
There are many layers to this, but the most "practical" is that the very structures and language of the status quo very much threatens to infect and limit the scope and form of resistance.
This is literally the idea that NewSpeak took to the logical extreme.
Capitalism is perhaps uniquely infectious in how "simple" (and therefore flexible) its core tenets are.
Edward Abbey and his desert-austerity is so far gone it's bizzare. The denizens of his legacy went on to demand organic coffee shops, free-trade twine-made boho jewelry, and the worst, interpersonal soap opera instead of beautiful silence.
The commodity in this case is real estate.
The commodity in this case is real estate.
“A world of fetishised objects populated by weird obsessives.” Well, haven’t read a better description of our current era. And the people are now objects to be fetishised too.
[deleted]
Fascism is only concerned with aesthetic, the substance of a culture doesnt matter to them
Hardly exclusive to fascism, unless that's your blanket term for "bad thing".
What does fascism have to do with anything?
Fascists chase ideals / purity, so put a lot of effort into their uniforms, for one.
Places like Ordensburg Vogelsang, where they trained Nazi officers, explains how they cut themselves to look experienced in battle, among other things. The Wikipedia page doesn't do the place justice. It's terrifying to visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordensburg_Vogelsang
Fascists have strong opinions on "correct" art:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_Nazi_Germany
Places like Ordensburg Vogelsang, where they trained Nazi officers, explains how they cut themselves to look experienced in battle, among other things. The Wikipedia page doesn't do the place justice. It's terrifying to visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordensburg_Vogelsang
Fascists have strong opinions on "correct" art:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_Nazi_Germany
That's true of literally every single political movement in existence.
as soon as there is a common hashtag on instagram, tiktok & co (or let's call it a 'label') any subculture is dead
Subcultures only stay subcultures by gatekeeping. Otherwise their ideas and fashions spread out and it merely becomes culture. The internet made it easier than ever to gatecrash, so it's no surprise there's no subcultures left. And of course capitalism and consumerism responds to what culture wants
"Commodify Your Dissent" by The Dead Milkmen
Who will sponsor my green revolution?
Will you buy the rights to my class war?
Purchase the t-shirts and the audio version of the book
They took your anger and polished up
Then they sold it back to you
They took your anger and repackaged it
And there's nothing you can do
Put your name on my new army's designer uniforms
Rebellion and subversion will make your Rom-Com cool
You'll capture that "indie" feel that the kids are crazy for
They took your frustrations and dressed them up
Before a focus group
They painted your frustrations in earth tones colors
And there's nothing you can do
Country music used to be about music and not about the county
There once was a time when rap was dangerous
Now flag-waving idiots and millionaire illiterates dance across the screen
Johnny Cash died for you
This sense of outrage can be yours if the price is right
Galleries and Poetry readings Jingles and cartoons
This is the river in which we've learned to swim
Sub-culture vultures circle above
The great unread white and blue
And there's nothing you can do
Country music used to be about music and not about the county
There once was a time when rap was dangerous
Now flag-waving idiots and millionaire illiterates dance across the screen
Jam Master Jay died for you
C'mon Bourgeoisie and get behind me
Captains of industry I'm waiting for your calls
Operators are standing by so don't delay
Your parents are reading hipster lit
And they try to dress like you
They took your anger and repackaged it
And there's nothing you can do
Punks, Goths, and Rivetheads disappeared into the mall
Just like the yippies, and the beatniks, and freaks
This is the river in which we've learned to swim
And this is the river in which we will all drown
Who will sponsor my green revolution?
Will you buy the rights to my class war?
Purchase the t-shirts and the audio version of the book
They took your anger and polished up
Then they sold it back to you
They took your anger and repackaged it
And there's nothing you can do
Put your name on my new army's designer uniforms
Rebellion and subversion will make your Rom-Com cool
You'll capture that "indie" feel that the kids are crazy for
They took your frustrations and dressed them up
Before a focus group
They painted your frustrations in earth tones colors
And there's nothing you can do
Country music used to be about music and not about the county
There once was a time when rap was dangerous
Now flag-waving idiots and millionaire illiterates dance across the screen
Johnny Cash died for you
This sense of outrage can be yours if the price is right
Galleries and Poetry readings Jingles and cartoons
This is the river in which we've learned to swim
Sub-culture vultures circle above
The great unread white and blue
And there's nothing you can do
Country music used to be about music and not about the county
There once was a time when rap was dangerous
Now flag-waving idiots and millionaire illiterates dance across the screen
Jam Master Jay died for you
C'mon Bourgeoisie and get behind me
Captains of industry I'm waiting for your calls
Operators are standing by so don't delay
Your parents are reading hipster lit
And they try to dress like you
They took your anger and repackaged it
And there's nothing you can do
Punks, Goths, and Rivetheads disappeared into the mall
Just like the yippies, and the beatniks, and freaks
This is the river in which we've learned to swim
And this is the river in which we will all drown
Capitalism absorbs everything.
Just look at the anarchism symbol. It has been turned into a fashion element for edgy teenagers. Even a brand.
https://www.acupuncture1993.com/
Just look at the anarchism symbol. It has been turned into a fashion element for edgy teenagers. Even a brand.
https://www.acupuncture1993.com/
All that's being "ruined" is people's ability to pretend that building identity through access to exclusive cultural groups and hard-to-get consumer items represents some kind rarified social achievement. Commodifying it punctures their illusion of specialness and makes it clear that they don't value their culture in itself, they value how it sets them apart from putatively lesser people. If capitalism ruins that for them, then good.
I'm not really arguing about whether something is ruined or not.
I do agree humans are generally obssessed with identity. In many cases this behavior is enabled via brands and fashion but it also happens with cultural and social constructs (eg: religion, ideologies, etc).
I do agree humans are generally obssessed with identity. In many cases this behavior is enabled via brands and fashion but it also happens with cultural and social constructs (eg: religion, ideologies, etc).
You might want to have some sort of simple effort filter for your subculture. Fashion is a simple one.
Then you have a subculture defined by fashion, which might be fun for the people in it, but it's not something anyone else has any stake in preserving. Nothing of value is lost if it disappears.
Cultures have identified themselves with visual cues since, well, probably before people were humans.
Perhaps it's precisely that "illusion of specialness" that gives people the sense of agency to fight capitalism (or whatever other ill you want to put in its place). In that case, capitalism ruining people's ability to "ruin" that would be a big deal.
I'm part of one. We've barely managed not to commodify 4 years in. A lot of incentives to do so.
It's going great.
https://labs.thegarden.pt/
It's going great.
https://labs.thegarden.pt/
An older take on this: https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
Except that the process has accelerated faster than even Moore's Law.
Maybe parts of queerspace will survive because we come up with new identities faster than they can be commodified?
Except that the process has accelerated faster than even Moore's Law.
Maybe parts of queerspace will survive because we come up with new identities faster than they can be commodified?
This was an enlightening read, thank you for posting it.
Indelible characteristic of late stage global liberalism
[deleted]
[deleted]
Here's the book:
https://store.thebaffler.com/products/commodify-your-dissent
One of his examples is that music and clothing companies realized there was a market for things like T-Shirts with Anarchy symbols on them. This stuff didn't exist at scale in the 1970's, you needed to know someone with a silk screen, or live in a city like Chicago or San Fran that had the first wave of non-conformists. But 30 years later you could walk into a mall and come out looking like you had a personality even though you just bought it.
What's really funny, watch "Dogtown and Z-boys", a movie about the rise of skateboarding with lots of footage from the 1970's. The first "tricks" they do will make you say, "What? Where's the trick? He just bounced on his board", and then compare it with today's batshit insane achievements. Skateboarding was peak commodified in the late 1980's (Thrasher magazine helped) early 1990's, but in the 1960's it was ... a simpler time and the outcasts looked like normal kids having fun compared to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtown_and_Z-Boys
You can see how something goes from a "weird kid activity" to "every kid does it".
Like green mohawks on toddlers in the early 2000's. Edgy in 1970's, preschool in 2010.
Man, I'm showing my age. :|