3 ms·

If you wanted to build a bomb to blow up a society, the explosive and containment vessel you need are: 1. People with a lot of free time on their hands. 2. Th

If you wanted to build a bomb to blow up a society, the explosive and containment vessel you need are: 1. People with a lot of free time on their hands. 2. Those same people not feeling they have accessible ways to spend their energy on something meaningful, rewarding, and socially esteemed. If people are prevented from feeling actualized and valued, and they have the time to dwell on it, they will burn down the walls for even a tiny shred of chance that the resulting cinders will leave room for a future society that gives them a better chance. I think Gamergate, 4chan, MAGA, Christian millennialist, doomsday preppers, all of that, has this as the fundamental throughline. We have a whole lot of younger and older men in the US who feel like society has taken away their means of generating esteem, and all they've been given in return is distracting videogames. Now, whether or not they are correct in their belief is a separate question. But many do believe that, and that belief fuels a lot of the unrest we see in the US. I can't tell you how many Trump supporters I've talked to over the years that voted for him specifically because is a bull in a China shop. They knew he was chaos walking, and they wanted him to tear down institutions. They didn't think he'd be a good President. They wanted a bad President to break the system. Again, whether they would actually be happier in a world where our cultural institutions have been shattered is a separate question. But they believe it, which reflects something about how little they think our current institutions value them.

gumby 3y ago
Please avoid being political like that in this thread as it could derail the discussion. It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. 4chan is a good example of user creation though! Didn't think of that.
- munificent 3y ago
  > Please avoid being political like that I don't think you can talk about group behavior without being political. Whether discuss politics is partisan is sort of a different point, which I accept. > It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. I think by definition, that doesn't fit my two criteria. If someone feels they have meaningful ways to contribute to collective enterprises like Wikipedia or their local national park, then they aren't falling prey to my second point. It's when people have energy but no perceived outlet that trouble brews. I think the positive way to spin my observation is to say, "OK, there are people that are falling into this trap. How can we help them avoid that?" How can we give people productive avenues to reach meaning and social esteem? But it's very hard to do that because it is often perceived as reducing their agency when you try to help them.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    Meaningful and rewarding seem awfully easy compared to socially esteemed. (the Brave New World approach was to condition everyone to esteem their station, which —although we do do this currently via targeted advertising— is ... problematic) I guess we could —slightly less problematically— provide generative AI claques?

gumby 3y ago

Please avoid being political like that in this thread as it could derail the discussion. It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. 4chan is a good example of user creation though! Didn't think of that.

munificent 3y ago
> Please avoid being political like that I don't think you can talk about group behavior without being political. Whether discuss politics is partisan is sort of a different point, which I accept. > It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. I think by definition, that doesn't fit my two criteria. If someone feels they have meaningful ways to contribute to collective enterprises like Wikipedia or their local national park, then they aren't falling prey to my second point. It's when people have energy but no perceived outlet that trouble brews. I think the positive way to spin my observation is to say, "OK, there are people that are falling into this trap. How can we help them avoid that?" How can we give people productive avenues to reach meaning and social esteem? But it's very hard to do that because it is often perceived as reducing their agency when you try to help them.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Meaningful and rewarding seem awfully easy compared to socially esteemed. (the Brave New World approach was to condition everyone to esteem their station, which —although we do do this currently via targeted advertising— is ... problematic) I guess we could —slightly less problematically— provide generative AI claques?