5 ms·

Chess in the 19th century is my go to example when trying to deprogram someone from anxious preoccupation with whatever moral panic is currently fashionable. I

Chess in the 19th century is my go to example when trying to deprogram someone from anxious preoccupation with whatever moral panic is currently fashionable. I use the word 'deprogram' in the sense of helping someone recover from a cult deliberately. You can often find an article from some newspaper of the period decrying chess and its pernicious effects on the youth, the mind, morals, et cetera. Change the instances of 'chess' to 'video games,' 'violent/sexy movies,' 'dungeons & dragons,' 'smartphones,' or whatever item is the focus of a moral panic. Maybe change a few of the sentences in the article where context demands it. Have your pearl clutching friend read the modified article. Then show them the original. Fear mongering rhetorical devices become impossible not to notice.

Brendinooo 9y ago
I disagree with the dismissiveness of the parent post. This is where I think that history has immense value, because the author is speaking to us from a world that once lived without chess being in the mainstream, a perspective that we'll never understand. I can tell my kids that my 25mbps Internet connection is blazing fast, but because they'll never live with dial-up they won't ever think anything of it. In the same way, I'll never appreciate an escalator like the folks at the Exposition Universelle of 1889 in Paris, who saw it for the first time and paid to ride one for the sheer novelty of it. I can lament that my kids don't know how good they have it. They could counter by saying that 150mbps is a thing and it would enable them to do more. Are either of us really wrong here? Beyond that, I'd largely agree with the author's commentary. But I don't know if this is really an argument that anyone can win. Our society is smarter in a lot of ways and dumber in a lot of other ways, but of course we'd probably all disagree about which ways are in which column. Also worth noting that the headline here is very misleading. The original article points to it being more distracting than destructive.
- Latty 9y ago
  > I can lament that my kids don't know how good they have it. They could counter by saying that 150mbps is a thing and it would enable them to do more. Are either of us really wrong here? Why do people need to "know how good they have it"? I'm not happy with what would have been luxury to someone 100 years ago, no. Why should I be? Why should someone 100 years from now be happy with what I have? The world changes, I don't see why anyone should feel obliged to not want more just because people in the past couldn't get more.
  - Brendinooo 9y ago
    There is a sense of entitlement that comes without context. If all anyone knows is the 40-hour work week, it'd be easy to think that we're entitled to it, or that we'd be better off with just 32. But when we learn of our grandfathers working 72-hour weeks (and maybe cleaning the foreman's house on Sunday) in extremely dangerous factories, that lets us appreciate both 1) the labor movement and 2) the status quo. Of course, our grandfather's grandfather probably worked the land for subsistence and had a much smaller say in his own destiny, so the fact that food is abundant and we can vote is really cool. If a music download goes slowly, would you rather be resentful and be look to spend more money on download speeds, and then you'll be really happy? Or would you rather appreciate that: - You didn't have to go to a live concert to hear the song - You didn't have to buy a vinyl that would wear out over time and skip during playback if you walked across the room too heavily - You didn't have to go out to the music store to buy a CD, or wait for a store to ship one to you - You didn't have to rip the song to your computer - You didn't have to buy the whole album to get the one song you wanted (if you're into that) - It cost less than a dollar - You had a broader selection of songs to choose from than any previous generation could have dreamed of I guess if your worldview is hedonistic this argument won't stick to you well. But, your reply doesn't give me confidence that you're able to find contentment in your life. Of course, that's assuming it's representative of your entire outlook on life! Trying to summarize my position better: Each piece of progress brings its own benefits and challenges. It can improve on what it replaces or not, but more likely it'll improve some things and hurt other things (cars come to mind!) There will be people who will benefit by the new thing and people who will be hurt or unaffected, but more likely it'll be a mix of both. If I had a clarity of mind before always-on Internet that I don't have now, and if I think that's a loss for myself, then it's my job to try and share or instill this perspective on a new generation that would have a very difficult time doing so on their own. Even if they reject me as a curmudgeon, maybe they gain and appreciation and thus contentment in what they now have.
    - Latty 9y ago
      You can enjoy what you have while still looking to improve it. I don't follow your argument that just because people want further improvement they are somehow "entitled". Just because something is better than the past doesn't mean we should be happy with it. I'm happy I'm not a slave, but that isn't my minimum bar for happiness just because it was for someone in the past. "Entitlement" seems to be the new way of telling our young people that they don't deserve to get anything better than (or even the same as) what their elders got. I don't buy that. I think my life is great, and I'm happy with what I have - that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to improve my life and the lives of others. Yes, knowing your history is important, for many reasons, but suggesting that we are "entitled" because we want to improve things further just sounds like trying to pull others down to your level out of jealousy.
wnevets 9y ago
“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.” - Socrates Im hoping its a real quote
- dmm 9y ago
  It's not a real quote but suppose it is. A man had a concern 2000+ years ago. Somehow we are still here so similar concerns now are invalid. Is that your argument? If I find an ancient quote complaining that people were drinking too much 2000 years ago, does that mean my current concerns about opiate addiction are overblown?
  - wnevets 9y ago
    My argument is that the old always complain about the young. Whether its talking, chess or video games people will always find something to dislike and complain about the generation after them. People always look at the past with rose colored glasses, for example there a lot of people who claim they want to make america like the 50s again as if it was some sort of golden age.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
siglesias 9y ago
I don't find this line of argument compelling. It's a form of moral induction that specifically selects things that are still in play today (like chess) while ignoring valid warnings that altered a trend (vehicle safety) or halted a trend (smoking). Every moral or health threat needs to be evaluated on its own merits regardless of whether it has the syntax of a historical warning that ended up in hindsight seeming kind of absurd. This is exactly the kind of argument corporations exploring potent forms of addiction want trotted out.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  There’s a difference in bring alarmist but making good points and bring alarmist and using rhetorical tricks. You are describing the former, they the latter. A problem should stand on its own without the emotional manipulation.
  - andrewflnr 9y ago
    It should, but it doesn't. If you have a conscience and want to make a change, you need both logos and pathos.
    - Retra 9y ago
      But you start with a good argument. Without one, you are wrong to continue on making emotionally manipulative appeals.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  Actually I think it can work in your case as well, especially when you see lobbying against safety measures, health concerns etc. Maybe not in a specific 1 to 1 word replacement but showing that similar, totally false claims were made in the past in regards to something we now know the truth of. An example is seatbelts - looking at how hard lobbying groups and the auto industry fought seatbelts can be inspiration for similar fights going on today. [0] I think of current events and frame them in the context of what people said about things we totally take for granted now (like seatbelts and smoking) and apply them to issues where we see similar tactics being used (climate change). [0] http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-belts http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-be...
javajosh 9y ago
While rhetoric is real, sometimes the threat is real too. Consider the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" - at the end, he really was telling the truth (although we can be forgiven for ignoring him).

Brendinooo 9y ago

I disagree with the dismissiveness of the parent post. This is where I think that history has immense value, because the author is speaking to us from a world that once lived without chess being in the mainstream, a perspective that we'll never understand. I can tell my kids that my 25mbps Internet connection is blazing fast, but because they'll never live with dial-up they won't ever think anything of it. In the same way, I'll never appreciate an escalator like the folks at the Exposition Universelle of 1889 in Paris, who saw it for the first time and paid to ride one for the sheer novelty of it. I can lament that my kids don't know how good they have it. They could counter by saying that 150mbps is a thing and it would enable them to do more. Are either of us really wrong here? Beyond that, I'd largely agree with the author's commentary. But I don't know if this is really an argument that anyone can win. Our society is smarter in a lot of ways and dumber in a lot of other ways, but of course we'd probably all disagree about which ways are in which column. Also worth noting that the headline here is very misleading. The original article points to it being more distracting than destructive.

Latty 9y ago
> I can lament that my kids don't know how good they have it. They could counter by saying that 150mbps is a thing and it would enable them to do more. Are either of us really wrong here? Why do people need to "know how good they have it"? I'm not happy with what would have been luxury to someone 100 years ago, no. Why should I be? Why should someone 100 years from now be happy with what I have? The world changes, I don't see why anyone should feel obliged to not want more just because people in the past couldn't get more.
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  There is a sense of entitlement that comes without context. If all anyone knows is the 40-hour work week, it'd be easy to think that we're entitled to it, or that we'd be better off with just 32. But when we learn of our grandfathers working 72-hour weeks (and maybe cleaning the foreman's house on Sunday) in extremely dangerous factories, that lets us appreciate both 1) the labor movement and 2) the status quo. Of course, our grandfather's grandfather probably worked the land for subsistence and had a much smaller say in his own destiny, so the fact that food is abundant and we can vote is really cool. If a music download goes slowly, would you rather be resentful and be look to spend more money on download speeds, and then you'll be really happy? Or would you rather appreciate that: - You didn't have to go to a live concert to hear the song - You didn't have to buy a vinyl that would wear out over time and skip during playback if you walked across the room too heavily - You didn't have to go out to the music store to buy a CD, or wait for a store to ship one to you - You didn't have to rip the song to your computer - You didn't have to buy the whole album to get the one song you wanted (if you're into that) - It cost less than a dollar - You had a broader selection of songs to choose from than any previous generation could have dreamed of I guess if your worldview is hedonistic this argument won't stick to you well. But, your reply doesn't give me confidence that you're able to find contentment in your life. Of course, that's assuming it's representative of your entire outlook on life! Trying to summarize my position better: Each piece of progress brings its own benefits and challenges. It can improve on what it replaces or not, but more likely it'll improve some things and hurt other things (cars come to mind!) There will be people who will benefit by the new thing and people who will be hurt or unaffected, but more likely it'll be a mix of both. If I had a clarity of mind before always-on Internet that I don't have now, and if I think that's a loss for myself, then it's my job to try and share or instill this perspective on a new generation that would have a very difficult time doing so on their own. Even if they reject me as a curmudgeon, maybe they gain and appreciation and thus contentment in what they now have.
  - Latty 9y ago
    You can enjoy what you have while still looking to improve it. I don't follow your argument that just because people want further improvement they are somehow "entitled". Just because something is better than the past doesn't mean we should be happy with it. I'm happy I'm not a slave, but that isn't my minimum bar for happiness just because it was for someone in the past. "Entitlement" seems to be the new way of telling our young people that they don't deserve to get anything better than (or even the same as) what their elders got. I don't buy that. I think my life is great, and I'm happy with what I have - that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to improve my life and the lives of others. Yes, knowing your history is important, for many reasons, but suggesting that we are "entitled" because we want to improve things further just sounds like trying to pull others down to your level out of jealousy.

wnevets 9y ago

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.” - Socrates Im hoping its a real quote

dmm 9y ago
It's not a real quote but suppose it is. A man had a concern 2000+ years ago. Somehow we are still here so similar concerns now are invalid. Is that your argument? If I find an ancient quote complaining that people were drinking too much 2000 years ago, does that mean my current concerns about opiate addiction are overblown?
- wnevets 9y ago
  My argument is that the old always complain about the young. Whether its talking, chess or video games people will always find something to dislike and complain about the generation after them. People always look at the past with rose colored glasses, for example there a lot of people who claim they want to make america like the 50s again as if it was some sort of golden age.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

siglesias 9y ago

I don't find this line of argument compelling. It's a form of moral induction that specifically selects things that are still in play today (like chess) while ignoring valid warnings that altered a trend (vehicle safety) or halted a trend (smoking). Every moral or health threat needs to be evaluated on its own merits regardless of whether it has the syntax of a historical warning that ended up in hindsight seeming kind of absurd. This is exactly the kind of argument corporations exploring potent forms of addiction want trotted out.

abritinthebay 9y ago
There’s a difference in bring alarmist but making good points and bring alarmist and using rhetorical tricks. You are describing the former, they the latter. A problem should stand on its own without the emotional manipulation.
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  It should, but it doesn't. If you have a conscience and want to make a change, you need both logos and pathos.
  - Retra 9y ago
    But you start with a good argument. Without one, you are wrong to continue on making emotionally manipulative appeals.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
okreallywtf 9y ago
Actually I think it can work in your case as well, especially when you see lobbying against safety measures, health concerns etc. Maybe not in a specific 1 to 1 word replacement but showing that similar, totally false claims were made in the past in regards to something we now know the truth of. An example is seatbelts - looking at how hard lobbying groups and the auto industry fought seatbelts can be inspiration for similar fights going on today. [0] I think of current events and frame them in the context of what people said about things we totally take for granted now (like seatbelts and smoking) and apply them to issues where we see similar tactics being used (climate change). [0] http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-belts http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-19/news/mn-546_1_seat-be...

javajosh 9y ago

While rhetoric is real, sometimes the threat is real too. Consider the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" - at the end, he really was telling the truth (although we can be forgiven for ignoring him).