6 ms·

Once could argue that it is a good thing that old rebel spaces are closed as those places have a tendency go stale and turn into a cargo cult shadow of itself t

Once could argue that it is a good thing that old rebel spaces are closed as those places have a tendency go stale and turn into a cargo cult shadow of itself the more it's legacy is celebrated. The world don't need more safe-spaces where a bunch of well of kids can pretend they are changing the world, without having to deal with the fact that the movement's they pay homage to have been pacified and subverted since at the first Clinton administration. The wealthy left leaning demographics that dominate the press have always had a strange counterproductive relationship with a glorious past it was not a part of to the point where half of them don’t even realize they ran a Goldwater republican for president in 2016 and lost to Donald the foreign policy moderate baboon because his brand of dementia was less scary then Clinton’s brand of dementia to the general public.

mrgordon 9y ago
From your comment, you appear to have no personal experience with Senior House. Your comment thus comes across as incredibly misinformed and naive. Senior House was not a place where people pretend they are changing the world as the article made emphatically clear. Many of the world's greatest technologists were taught and inspired at Senior House to pursue their life's work. This has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton despite the tired attempt to frame everything as Trump vs. Clinton. You are minimizing the loss of a truly creative and ingenious community in an attempt to advance the same old political argument.
- Stranger43 9y ago
  But the greater narrative pushed by wired have pretty much everything to with the great battle for the future of America’s history. It's not about Trump vs Clinton it's about yesterdays failed rebels failing to let at new generation emerge as it's own thing and that's universal for both parties, and not even confined to just America. Whatever senior house was 10 years ago it cannot be 10 years from now because the world aren’t static so maybe it had to go to give way for something new the alumni have no right or reason to expect to be a part of. We are turning into a society of loud senior citizens and subdued youths because of the reverence today’s youth are told to have for the communities that were created by past generations despite those communities failure to tackle that many big problems head on and that’s a dangerous thing to have because it cannot lead to anything but cultural stagnation.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    Thats not what happened here. Current and former students are overwhelmingly united on the same side. The administration misused some voluntary response data as a pretext for shutting down a community that they didn't like. There are no loud senior citizens subduing youths unless you mean the administration. Au contraire, the students and alums were fighting together to prevent Senior House from being replaced with a generic dorm with no community spaces that will lead to cultural stagnation and isolation. Do you see how you're still trying to force a narrative that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation? If we have to force a political analogy, a better example would be if veterans and current military personnel banded together to prevent closing an important base that had produced tons of great ideas, high ranking generals, etc. because the Trump administration decided there was too much risky homosexual activity and partying going on. As an aside, your blanket classification of MIT alums as "yesterdays failed rebels" is comically inaccurate. Lawrence Summers lived in this dorm for crying out loud.
    - Stranger43 9y ago
      the reality of the situation is that a dorm was closed by the people whom it's financial viability depended on because it never grew into something fully independent, nor into something that the people running MIT's budget found especially useful. Already there we have a narrative break, sure a lot of people who's identity have gotten mixed with a particular community feels they lost something but that don’t mean society did. And the fact that one of the people responsible for tanking the US economy lived there don’t actually change anything. This debate is classic and symptomatic for any kind of bohemian community, who always have a super important pedigree until it have to be quantified at which point the super important narrative kind of falls apart, and this is not a isolated case every city on every continent have it's Senior House. The problem is that your asking people to fight for something utterly insignificant(more of a local petting zoo then a civil rights landmark) as if it had an impact on the battles worth fighting which it frankly don’t. Yes there is a trend on the way towards the institutions to stop financing and sanctioning counter culture but again what good is a counter culture that only exists when it's sanctioned and financed by the establishment?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mrgordon 9y ago

From your comment, you appear to have no personal experience with Senior House. Your comment thus comes across as incredibly misinformed and naive. Senior House was not a place where people pretend they are changing the world as the article made emphatically clear. Many of the world's greatest technologists were taught and inspired at Senior House to pursue their life's work. This has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton despite the tired attempt to frame everything as Trump vs. Clinton. You are minimizing the loss of a truly creative and ingenious community in an attempt to advance the same old political argument.

Stranger43 9y ago
But the greater narrative pushed by wired have pretty much everything to with the great battle for the future of America’s history. It's not about Trump vs Clinton it's about yesterdays failed rebels failing to let at new generation emerge as it's own thing and that's universal for both parties, and not even confined to just America. Whatever senior house was 10 years ago it cannot be 10 years from now because the world aren’t static so maybe it had to go to give way for something new the alumni have no right or reason to expect to be a part of. We are turning into a society of loud senior citizens and subdued youths because of the reverence today’s youth are told to have for the communities that were created by past generations despite those communities failure to tackle that many big problems head on and that’s a dangerous thing to have because it cannot lead to anything but cultural stagnation.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  Thats not what happened here. Current and former students are overwhelmingly united on the same side. The administration misused some voluntary response data as a pretext for shutting down a community that they didn't like. There are no loud senior citizens subduing youths unless you mean the administration. Au contraire, the students and alums were fighting together to prevent Senior House from being replaced with a generic dorm with no community spaces that will lead to cultural stagnation and isolation. Do you see how you're still trying to force a narrative that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation? If we have to force a political analogy, a better example would be if veterans and current military personnel banded together to prevent closing an important base that had produced tons of great ideas, high ranking generals, etc. because the Trump administration decided there was too much risky homosexual activity and partying going on. As an aside, your blanket classification of MIT alums as "yesterdays failed rebels" is comically inaccurate. Lawrence Summers lived in this dorm for crying out loud.
  - Stranger43 9y ago
    the reality of the situation is that a dorm was closed by the people whom it's financial viability depended on because it never grew into something fully independent, nor into something that the people running MIT's budget found especially useful. Already there we have a narrative break, sure a lot of people who's identity have gotten mixed with a particular community feels they lost something but that don’t mean society did. And the fact that one of the people responsible for tanking the US economy lived there don’t actually change anything. This debate is classic and symptomatic for any kind of bohemian community, who always have a super important pedigree until it have to be quantified at which point the super important narrative kind of falls apart, and this is not a isolated case every city on every continent have it's Senior House. The problem is that your asking people to fight for something utterly insignificant(more of a local petting zoo then a civil rights landmark) as if it had an impact on the battles worth fighting which it frankly don’t. Yes there is a trend on the way towards the institutions to stop financing and sanctioning counter culture but again what good is a counter culture that only exists when it's sanctioned and financed by the establishment?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]