3 ms·

> The Screen and the Job have displaced The screen and the Job have no volition of their own. It's humans themselves that choose to spend more time with them i

> The Screen and the Job have displaced The screen and the Job have no volition of their own. It's humans themselves that choose to spend more time with them instead of interacting with nearby humans. And this is happening despite the fact that we 're no longer in the industrial age, and people don't need to live near the factory where they work. The Job provides people with enough money to frequently escape from nearby people (travel, or "experiences"), money to move in upscale tiny apartments where they can be alone in a crowd, or to move in comfy suburbs where they can be alone physically. It seems highly-paid people choose those, and it is lower class people that keep socializing with their neighbours. I presume many of those people do not idolize their relationships with other humans as the most precious thing in the world. They weigh them against the freedoms afforded by money and technology and act accordingly.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I think many people value being disentangled from other peoples' problems. They move to the suburbs so that they don't have to have roommates or people in the next door apartment - so that they have some space. Then they find out that they have no community - they're isolated and lonely. As you say, we're doing it to ourselves.
barberousse 7y ago
As a software engineer who comes from the lower class (the West side ghetto of Chicago, in fact), let me tell you right now that lower class people socializing with their neighbors doesn't mean those interactions are at all inclusive of different approaches to life. Yeah, you get more socializing and connections, but those interactions tend to be constrained by forces like homophobia, racism, etc. Just because they're socializing doesn't mean they are also re-enforcing a world where everyone can feel accepted. It strikes me as naive to think the working class are this miasma of authentic relations, they socialize better because the set of considered opinions is virtually uncontested.
- buboard 7y ago
  1. nobody said the do or that they should "be inclusive" 2. miasma is a negative word (means repulsive) I agree however, it is actually one of the reasons that more well-off people tend to socialize less: other people are not always "wonderful"
  - mntmoss 7y ago
    A known phenomenon is that being homeless can work wonders for one's social skills. Being poorly presented and inarticulate is a form of privilege - it's traditionally associated with academia, but with the rise of the "computer nerd" stereotype, it has increasingly slipped into other venues. What comes to mind is Tfue, the world's top Fortnite player, whose Twitch streams largely consist of him grunting "uuggggghn" and complaining about "stream snipers" with coarse language. He gets millions of viewers.
  - barberousse 7y ago
    1 - Of course not, but its a requisite to strong social bonds isn't it? The point is that that the discussion around fulfilling bonds is fairly underspecified to the point that it isn't practically useful from my perspective. 2 - Apologies, I was misusing the word
    - buboard 7y ago
      > Of course not, but its a requisite to strong social bonds isn't it? A requisite, it isn't. But, for people living in cosmopolitan cities, or people who have an open mind about the world, of course it is.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

I think many people value being disentangled from other peoples' problems. They move to the suburbs so that they don't have to have roommates or people in the next door apartment - so that they have some space. Then they find out that they have no community - they're isolated and lonely. As you say, we're doing it to ourselves.

barberousse 7y ago

As a software engineer who comes from the lower class (the West side ghetto of Chicago, in fact), let me tell you right now that lower class people socializing with their neighbors doesn't mean those interactions are at all inclusive of different approaches to life. Yeah, you get more socializing and connections, but those interactions tend to be constrained by forces like homophobia, racism, etc. Just because they're socializing doesn't mean they are also re-enforcing a world where everyone can feel accepted. It strikes me as naive to think the working class are this miasma of authentic relations, they socialize better because the set of considered opinions is virtually uncontested.

buboard 7y ago
1. nobody said the do or that they should "be inclusive" 2. miasma is a negative word (means repulsive) I agree however, it is actually one of the reasons that more well-off people tend to socialize less: other people are not always "wonderful"
- mntmoss 7y ago
  A known phenomenon is that being homeless can work wonders for one's social skills. Being poorly presented and inarticulate is a form of privilege - it's traditionally associated with academia, but with the rise of the "computer nerd" stereotype, it has increasingly slipped into other venues. What comes to mind is Tfue, the world's top Fortnite player, whose Twitch streams largely consist of him grunting "uuggggghn" and complaining about "stream snipers" with coarse language. He gets millions of viewers.
- barberousse 7y ago
  1 - Of course not, but its a requisite to strong social bonds isn't it? The point is that that the discussion around fulfilling bonds is fairly underspecified to the point that it isn't practically useful from my perspective. 2 - Apologies, I was misusing the word
  - buboard 7y ago
    > Of course not, but its a requisite to strong social bonds isn't it? A requisite, it isn't. But, for people living in cosmopolitan cities, or people who have an open mind about the world, of course it is.