It's growth is largely uncontrolled, somewhat yes. So far.
But I think this opinions fearmongers quite heavily. It totalizes the perspective, uses the worst to draw conclusions about the whole.
We have millions of times more reach, exposure, & connection than we had. To me it takes a very dark place to say this is bad. Are we good at combatting the bad yet? No. Greater Internet Fuckead Theory is not new but it's still in-force, so far, but even two decades in, this is still very new, & it's still just one scary branch of a very prolific new tree of e-connected human interconnetivity. One with many interesting & great qualities, that deserve more that derisive snark.
My comment contained some snark. I’m just tired of the “both sides” that even your comment is full of. Social media preys upon inherent weaknesses in the human psyche because humans were never meant to be this connected and we lack the mental tools to thrive in this environment.
I truly believe our children’s children will look back upon us in horror and bafflement. In horror at what we allowed social media to do to culture, society and health. In bafflement that it took us so long to do anything about it.
> In bafflement that it took us so long to do anything about it.
Fully agree, but mostly I think the reactionary forces we have now are low-grade, petty, shitty, antagonistic, reactionary forces. They grumble & whine & attack, but they don't really have anything to offer; it's all mud-slinging.
I don't think we've tried actually helping people, and I see now proposals out there for what we would do. In my view, there's works like Web Annotations & https://Hypothes.is that we could use to overlay new civil layers to the online world, without having to ask permission or fight each site. The people to blame here are us, for not bothering to actually own & become decent techies. The social sites are barely able to keep shit together, and it's not their fault, and intervening won't make anything better: we need civic exploration, we need personal empowerment, and we have everything we need to try & explore better right now if we cared to.
This feels very Pandora's Box. Do we just try to slam the box shut? Do we risk leaving hope trapped inside? Do we give in to fear? Personally I think the way out is through. That we must better explore what being online people could mean & how to assess & weigh value. That we must better be able to reflect & share our reflections on what we happen upon, with not quite such heavy friction as we have now (having to write long paragraphs, or being reduces to sending heart/stars). Society has, in my view, roundly refused the mantle of responsibility, and I hardly blame them given how obtuse tech is, but simply being conservative & reactionary to the state of affairs, being upset & negative, is the negative-revolutionary force: actual positive tenants need to exist & be promoted somewhere along the line. I see so few who can offer a reasoned approach, who have shown any real consideration for how we might get beyond where we are.
These are people who need an enemy in their lives but are too lazy or coward to get themselves one via physical altercation either in the ring or the mat.
Or find a cause to fight for that actually requires some amount of effort. People love to get worked up over things when the solution doesn’t require them to do or change anything. You trigger their sense of righteous superiority, and they’re all in. “Why can’t everyone just be like me?”
I saw a bit about this recently. I think the main thread here is trash media like vice jumping on whispers from the seediest corners of Twitter and pretending they mean something. I do have a niggling concern that the insane left has gotten so excited about this. There's a tendency it seems for that side in particular to try and emulate the worst charicature painted by its opponents, so I won't be shocked to see real calls for this in the next few years
They're leading white supremacist and neo-nazi thought leaders. Also a failed dietician on Petersons part who's drug-fueled meat-only diet landed him in a coma
Could twist this on it’s head and proclaim “city dweller conspiracy theorists think suburbs are spread-out prison dystopias.” To which suburbanites would probably crack-up, seeing their lawns, backyards and garages; with cars as the only mode of transport as best thing in the world.
That being said I live in an enormous communist-era brutalist concrete block tower with a labyrinth underground maze, a number of padlocked gates, homeless inhabitants, stores, shops, an amazing kebab joint and a health clinic. All in the same building. In line with hilariously unsuccessful utopian socialist modernist architectural ideals and strange problems straight out of that movie Brazil.
To me walkable 15-minute cities are a drag - 5-minute cities are the way to go! I want instant gratification cities.
NYC is highly walkable, and very large. Same with London.
The benefits of large walkable cities is that people get motivated to do urban 'hikes' and the hours of exercise are much larger than in typical cities (especially compared to walking and cycling unfriendly cities).
As far as 'conspiracy theorists' this represents a vast spectrum of individuals, and no doubt that would be foolish to lump into a single one-dimensional stereotype unless your aim is some sort of propaganda or social conditioning.
>As far as 'conspiracy theorists' this represents a vast spectrum of individuals, and no doubt that would be foolish to lump into a single one-dimensional stereotype unless your aim is some sort of propaganda or social conditioning.
Exactly; this type of anti-walkable-city thought is totally normal for probably a majority of the US population. NYC is indeed walkable, but it doesn't represent America at all, and half the country sneers at the city and hates it, and anything that resembles it.
"“The idea that neighborhoods should be walkable is lovely. The idea that idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you're ‘allowed’ to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea--and, make no mistake, it's part of a well-documented plan,” Peterson wrote."
This man forgot sidewalks exists. Paranoïa don't seem to help.
>"“The idea that neighborhoods should be walkable is lovely. The idea that idiot tyrannical bureaucrats can decide by fiat where you're ‘allowed’ to drive is perhaps the worst imaginable perversion of that idea--and, make no mistake, it's part of a well-documented plan,” Peterson wrote."
>This man forgot sidewalks exists. Paranoïa don't seem to help.
No, he's right. It's horrible that some tyrannical bureaucrats can tell me where I'm allowed to drive. If I want to drive on the sidewalks, I should be allowed to, even if there's pedestrians on them. If I want to drive through parks and run over little kids and people walking their dogs, I should have that right. How dare these government tyrants tell me where I can't drive! It's almost as bad as when they tell me I can't bring my guns to public places and wave them around and shoot at people.
16 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 50.6 ms ] threadBut I think this opinions fearmongers quite heavily. It totalizes the perspective, uses the worst to draw conclusions about the whole.
We have millions of times more reach, exposure, & connection than we had. To me it takes a very dark place to say this is bad. Are we good at combatting the bad yet? No. Greater Internet Fuckead Theory is not new but it's still in-force, so far, but even two decades in, this is still very new, & it's still just one scary branch of a very prolific new tree of e-connected human interconnetivity. One with many interesting & great qualities, that deserve more that derisive snark.
I truly believe our children’s children will look back upon us in horror and bafflement. In horror at what we allowed social media to do to culture, society and health. In bafflement that it took us so long to do anything about it.
Fully agree, but mostly I think the reactionary forces we have now are low-grade, petty, shitty, antagonistic, reactionary forces. They grumble & whine & attack, but they don't really have anything to offer; it's all mud-slinging.
I don't think we've tried actually helping people, and I see now proposals out there for what we would do. In my view, there's works like Web Annotations & https://Hypothes.is that we could use to overlay new civil layers to the online world, without having to ask permission or fight each site. The people to blame here are us, for not bothering to actually own & become decent techies. The social sites are barely able to keep shit together, and it's not their fault, and intervening won't make anything better: we need civic exploration, we need personal empowerment, and we have everything we need to try & explore better right now if we cared to.
This feels very Pandora's Box. Do we just try to slam the box shut? Do we risk leaving hope trapped inside? Do we give in to fear? Personally I think the way out is through. That we must better explore what being online people could mean & how to assess & weigh value. That we must better be able to reflect & share our reflections on what we happen upon, with not quite such heavy friction as we have now (having to write long paragraphs, or being reduces to sending heart/stars). Society has, in my view, roundly refused the mantle of responsibility, and I hardly blame them given how obtuse tech is, but simply being conservative & reactionary to the state of affairs, being upset & negative, is the negative-revolutionary force: actual positive tenants need to exist & be promoted somewhere along the line. I see so few who can offer a reasoned approach, who have shown any real consideration for how we might get beyond where we are.
Could twist this on it’s head and proclaim “city dweller conspiracy theorists think suburbs are spread-out prison dystopias.” To which suburbanites would probably crack-up, seeing their lawns, backyards and garages; with cars as the only mode of transport as best thing in the world.
That being said I live in an enormous communist-era brutalist concrete block tower with a labyrinth underground maze, a number of padlocked gates, homeless inhabitants, stores, shops, an amazing kebab joint and a health clinic. All in the same building. In line with hilariously unsuccessful utopian socialist modernist architectural ideals and strange problems straight out of that movie Brazil.
To me walkable 15-minute cities are a drag - 5-minute cities are the way to go! I want instant gratification cities.
The benefits of large walkable cities is that people get motivated to do urban 'hikes' and the hours of exercise are much larger than in typical cities (especially compared to walking and cycling unfriendly cities).
As far as 'conspiracy theorists' this represents a vast spectrum of individuals, and no doubt that would be foolish to lump into a single one-dimensional stereotype unless your aim is some sort of propaganda or social conditioning.
Exactly; this type of anti-walkable-city thought is totally normal for probably a majority of the US population. NYC is indeed walkable, but it doesn't represent America at all, and half the country sneers at the city and hates it, and anything that resembles it.
This man forgot sidewalks exists. Paranoïa don't seem to help.
No, he's right. It's horrible that some tyrannical bureaucrats can tell me where I'm allowed to drive. If I want to drive on the sidewalks, I should be allowed to, even if there's pedestrians on them. If I want to drive through parks and run over little kids and people walking their dogs, I should have that right. How dare these government tyrants tell me where I can't drive! It's almost as bad as when they tell me I can't bring my guns to public places and wave them around and shoot at people.