3 ms·
I'm not sure this is the same "type" of group. There have always been those who neglect to adopt the technology of the day or buy heavily into the culture, wit
by csallen 3y ago
I'm not sure this is the same "type" of group.
There have always been those who neglect to adopt the technology of the day or buy heavily into the culture, without also buying into some sort of counter-cultural movement. Today it might be those who eschew social media and being terminally online. In the 90s perhaps it was those who limited their TV time.
In my view, it would be inaccurate to describe this group as "subcultural franchise[s] putting on against-the-grain airs" in the way of the punks and the goths and the "blue-haired pronoun bearers."
If anything, these are more likely to be people who've spent some time adopting and evaluating what the dominant culture has to offer, then wisely adjusting their participation to healthy levels (which may mean zero), despite societal pressure.
They're more "opt-outs" than "opt-againsts".
- im_down_w_otp 3y agoI'd also expect them not to be luddites, but rather subversive rejectors. This probably isn't an entirely apt example, but think people who use things like PiHole rather than people who never adopted the internet in the first place.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoThat's what the actual Luddite movement was in the first place.
- bee_rider 3y agoIt seems quite funny that the imagined version of the Luddites, which people always contrast against, does not seem to be a very accurate description of them. Like maybe we don’t even need to contrast against the imaginary version of them because the imaginary Luddites are silly in a way that no real movement is.