6 ms·

No, it's completely different. 1) 30 years ago, large swaths of people didn't want to be 'famous for being famous'. Yes, people may have wanted to be athletes

No, it's completely different. 1) 30 years ago, large swaths of people didn't want to be 'famous for being famous'. Yes, people may have wanted to be athletes or actors, but that's different. 2) Even those things were hugely aspirational. People didn't think that they could really just quite their jobs and play for the NFL. Surely meany dreamed of that, but few know NFL players in real life. Everyone knows someone with a social media account a few followers. I generally don't think generations are that that different, but I find this data to be repulsive, it's almost sickening. It gives me a very dim view of that generation. In particular is the complete lack of sense of civic duty or even self betterment that goes along with that. The word 'duty' has completely fallen away from the lexicon, but even here the aspiration towards exceptionalism (even when it can be selfish) is a bit absent. It's the most egoic, selfish, lacking in virtue aspiration, it's probably the lowest form of existence above doing something actually harmful. People who are social influences due to something else i.e. sports/entertainment, that's fine, but when an entire generation wants to be 'famous for being famous' it's just toxic.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
> 1) 30 years ago, large swaths of people didn't want to be 'famous for being famous'. Yes, people may have wanted to be athletes or actors, but that's different. They absolutely did. > It gives me a very dim view of that generation. It was by happenstance that our generations grew up without the same influencer content being pipelined into our brains not by virtue. > People who are social influences due to something else i.e. sports/entertainment, that's fine, Why? Why someone's ability which is apropos of nothing worth turning into a following? Sure I can respect an impressive display of a skill but fame in general seems toxic to me. People see one thing a person can do and they wish to know them, emulate them, hear their opinions. I don't see that as that much better than following someone because you like their marketing.
- jollybean 4y ago
  1) "They absolutely did" Nope. Which list of people 30 years ago were 'famous for being famous' and which cohort of society aspired to be them? Name names. It was not 'a thing' aside from a few random, quixotic people. Nobody wanted to 'be them' or thought they could be that. 2) Yes, we live in different circumstances, that's fair. But my grandparents were born in homes without electricity or plumbing. They did not turn to prostitution or aspire to the 'least' they could be. 3) "Why someone's ability which is apropos of nothing " Because being a great athlete or artists (or scientist etc.) is not 'a propos of nothing'. Yes, it's a bit glib for people to fanboy athlete's the way we do, and Michael Jordan is a jerk, but he's also a spectacular athlete.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    > Which list of people 30 years ago were 'famous for being famous' and which cohort of society aspired to be them? Name names. This was the life blood of MTV 30 years ago. To this list I'd add all those pickup artist cretons, half the food network and Donald Trump. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/10/32-celebrities-who-became-famous-for-virtually-no-reason/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/10/... You don't remember them because their contributions are inconsequential or you consider them consequential because they leveraged their fame into something that resembles accomplishment. > But my grandparents were born in homes without electricity or plumbing. They did not turn to prostitution or aspire to the 'least' they could be. What? > Because being a great athlete or artists (or scientist etc.) is not 'a propos of nothing'. Really? Has knowing who Pete Townsend or Kurt Cobain or Andy Warhol or Dolly Parton is enriched your or anyone else's life? Knowing their produce may have. Why is heaping accolades upon them and deriving influence from them warranted?
    - jollybean 4y ago
      > You just proved my point, because the list you provided does not go back that far, and, almost none of those people are famous. > People of generations past did not generally aspire to take the easiest, lowliest path to some kind of arbitrary success. > Your delving into whataboutery trying to argue that artists, especially those who are also entertainers don't contribute something. You could argue the same about anything.
      - DubiousPusher 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nan_Kempner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nan_Kempner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsa_Zsa_Gabor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsa_Zsa_Gabor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Toya_Jackson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Toya_Jackson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Winkler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Winkler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raquel_Welch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raquel_Welch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Roosevelt_Longworth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Roosevelt_Longworth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edie_Sedgwick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edie_Sedgwick Vogue magazine made many women nationaly famous who would've otherwise been known only within a certain social set by dubbing them "it girl" or "girl of the year". I never said entertainers don't contribute. I explicitly said their products may in fact have a positive impact on people. I just don't agree that that warrants fame. IMO, a lot of people knowing about you or your work is different from the concept of fame as discussed here.
wiseowise 4y ago
This is the most “boomer” statement I’ve ever read. What’s even duty? Duty to what or who?
- jollybean 4y ago
  The fact that someone would even have to ask is a bit problematic. "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." - JFK Duty to your family, your community, you nation, to humanity, to the Greater Good or God if you prefer. It's probably a latent communitarian impulse most people have, historically developed in some kind of civic manner by cultural institutions. Civilization, even in the most civic, secular sense, depends upon our willing participation to get along in a positivist manner, i.e. doing more than just the minimum of respecting each other's boundaries, but 'actively' working towards a Greater Good. Unfortunately, the concept collides with both libertarian ideas of 'freedom', and populist ego appeal which is the ultimate means of selling out to garner attention. Every leader, everyone trying to sell an idea or product, has an incentive to 'sellout' and just appeal to our little egos by telling us that 'it's all someone else's fault', or telling us lies like 'we can invent the reality around us'. It's popular in grievance politics, and both in some strains of social justice populism. 'Your bad situation is someone elses fault', or, 'You are what you say you are' as the Gen Alpha mantra. The libertarian 'freedom' ideologies generally have to exist, because in civilization we have a tendency to end up in tyranny, so the impulse towards that expression can be positive. But, it comes at the cost of an ideological ego appeal: 'you' should be 'free to do whatever whenever' is a seductive concept inconsistent with the reality there's quite a bit of work to be done towards just making civilization function, it's an impractical appeal to the ego in that sense that has us 'outsource' all of the work to an 'other' when of course that's impossible and irrational.

DubiousPusher 4y ago

> 1) 30 years ago, large swaths of people didn't want to be 'famous for being famous'. Yes, people may have wanted to be athletes or actors, but that's different. They absolutely did. > It gives me a very dim view of that generation. It was by happenstance that our generations grew up without the same influencer content being pipelined into our brains not by virtue. > People who are social influences due to something else i.e. sports/entertainment, that's fine, Why? Why someone's ability which is apropos of nothing worth turning into a following? Sure I can respect an impressive display of a skill but fame in general seems toxic to me. People see one thing a person can do and they wish to know them, emulate them, hear their opinions. I don't see that as that much better than following someone because you like their marketing.

jollybean 4y ago
1) "They absolutely did" Nope. Which list of people 30 years ago were 'famous for being famous' and which cohort of society aspired to be them? Name names. It was not 'a thing' aside from a few random, quixotic people. Nobody wanted to 'be them' or thought they could be that. 2) Yes, we live in different circumstances, that's fair. But my grandparents were born in homes without electricity or plumbing. They did not turn to prostitution or aspire to the 'least' they could be. 3) "Why someone's ability which is apropos of nothing " Because being a great athlete or artists (or scientist etc.) is not 'a propos of nothing'. Yes, it's a bit glib for people to fanboy athlete's the way we do, and Michael Jordan is a jerk, but he's also a spectacular athlete.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  > Which list of people 30 years ago were 'famous for being famous' and which cohort of society aspired to be them? Name names. This was the life blood of MTV 30 years ago. To this list I'd add all those pickup artist cretons, half the food network and Donald Trump. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/10/32-celebrities-who-became-famous-for-virtually-no-reason/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/10/... You don't remember them because their contributions are inconsequential or you consider them consequential because they leveraged their fame into something that resembles accomplishment. > But my grandparents were born in homes without electricity or plumbing. They did not turn to prostitution or aspire to the 'least' they could be. What? > Because being a great athlete or artists (or scientist etc.) is not 'a propos of nothing'. Really? Has knowing who Pete Townsend or Kurt Cobain or Andy Warhol or Dolly Parton is enriched your or anyone else's life? Knowing their produce may have. Why is heaping accolades upon them and deriving influence from them warranted?
  - jollybean 4y ago
    > You just proved my point, because the list you provided does not go back that far, and, almost none of those people are famous. > People of generations past did not generally aspire to take the easiest, lowliest path to some kind of arbitrary success. > Your delving into whataboutery trying to argue that artists, especially those who are also entertainers don't contribute something. You could argue the same about anything.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nan_Kempner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nan_Kempner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsa_Zsa_Gabor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsa_Zsa_Gabor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Toya_Jackson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Toya_Jackson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Winkler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Winkler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raquel_Welch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raquel_Welch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Roosevelt_Longworth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Roosevelt_Longworth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edie_Sedgwick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edie_Sedgwick Vogue magazine made many women nationaly famous who would've otherwise been known only within a certain social set by dubbing them "it girl" or "girl of the year". I never said entertainers don't contribute. I explicitly said their products may in fact have a positive impact on people. I just don't agree that that warrants fame. IMO, a lot of people knowing about you or your work is different from the concept of fame as discussed here.

wiseowise 4y ago

This is the most “boomer” statement I’ve ever read. What’s even duty? Duty to what or who?

jollybean 4y ago
The fact that someone would even have to ask is a bit problematic. "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." - JFK Duty to your family, your community, you nation, to humanity, to the Greater Good or God if you prefer. It's probably a latent communitarian impulse most people have, historically developed in some kind of civic manner by cultural institutions. Civilization, even in the most civic, secular sense, depends upon our willing participation to get along in a positivist manner, i.e. doing more than just the minimum of respecting each other's boundaries, but 'actively' working towards a Greater Good. Unfortunately, the concept collides with both libertarian ideas of 'freedom', and populist ego appeal which is the ultimate means of selling out to garner attention. Every leader, everyone trying to sell an idea or product, has an incentive to 'sellout' and just appeal to our little egos by telling us that 'it's all someone else's fault', or telling us lies like 'we can invent the reality around us'. It's popular in grievance politics, and both in some strains of social justice populism. 'Your bad situation is someone elses fault', or, 'You are what you say you are' as the Gen Alpha mantra. The libertarian 'freedom' ideologies generally have to exist, because in civilization we have a tendency to end up in tyranny, so the impulse towards that expression can be positive. But, it comes at the cost of an ideological ego appeal: 'you' should be 'free to do whatever whenever' is a seductive concept inconsistent with the reality there's quite a bit of work to be done towards just making civilization function, it's an impractical appeal to the ego in that sense that has us 'outsource' all of the work to an 'other' when of course that's impossible and irrational.