4 ms·

He is not wrong. “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same” - R. Kipling Media riles up those who have been limit

by dzink 3y ago

He is not wrong. “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same” - R. Kipling Media riles up those who have been limited or deprived by circumstances. It waves flags and triggers emotions and creates envy and conjures social ladders to political influence, or financial gains, or popularity and public attention, or peaks of history. The reality though is that those apply to the people who don’t know better - the new grads, the hungry and ambitious, the midlife-crisis sufferers, the naive who haven’t encountered bad people or circumstances. If you’ve seen a lot or you know evil, you don’t need a public life where you may attract it. When you know what you have and value it, a quiet life is the best way to protect it. People value privacy when they have something to lose. If you know what you want to do and can do it without attention, you are much better off doing than dealing with collateral damage from unpredictable attention. The media today is becoming incredibly propaganda filled and charged. This is a highly combustible environment. Big geopolitical risks are coming and publicity risks making you a target. When low interest rates paid for VC-subsidized press the world was filled with startup success stories and drums up for startups and their potential gains. That meant many promising entrepreneurs took money at unsustainable expected ROI and lost years of their life working for a promise. Another word for that is lottery. When the dust settled having a quiet business and chugging along profitably proved to be like the little mice who survived underground after the asteroid hit. If you are a cat who just caught a mouse, would you go to a hill to advertise to all local predators that you are about to enjoy fresh meat?

p1esk 3y ago
I don’t know, try to explain your point of view to people like Trump or Musk.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  It'd be easier to explain Shakespeare to a fish. Sociopaths aren't generally much for outside counsel.
- kunley 3y ago
  But what for? People like them are not a point of reference to relate everything, you know
- flakeoil 3y ago
  Maybe the world would have been a better and friendlier place if the two people you mentioned, and others like them, had an attitude a bit more muted and humble.
  - all2 3y ago
    If their attitude had been either, they would not have become what they have become. Humble men do not, by and large, take the throne or become captains of industry.
    - jzb 3y ago
      This suggests what they’ve become is desirable - it’s not.
      - p1esk 3y ago
        Are you saying that achieving what these two men have achieved is not desirable? Becoming the most powerful or the richest person in the world? I’d say that’s very much desirable, to most people.
        swiftcoder 3y ago
        Maybe in abstract. I doubt the majority of people have considered those positions in more detail than "wouldn't it be nice if no one could tell me what to do?", or "wouldn't it be nice to never worry about money ever again?". Close proximity to a bunch of tech executives very quickly cured me of any illusion that I wanted to belong to that in-group. Most already with more money than they knew how to spend, and still pulling 100-hour work weeks in service of the grind... shudders
        p1esk 3y ago
        Well, you write code for a living, right? I’m guessing the vast majority of humans would shudder at the thought of doing that 40 hours a week. It would be a similar attitude to what you expressed towards executives. Executives are sexier than coders, at least for general population. And it’s not clear which one would become more attractive to an average Joe after personally experiencing both professions. I’ve read the piece. It’s well written. But, no, that’s not how I would like to live my life, and that’s not the life I want for my kids. Too simple, too boring, not for me. But, to each its own, right?
- dzink 3y ago
  The world has many more people like them than you think. The reason for that is the media’s propensity to raise people on pedestal over the smallest things and crash and burn that made-up image. Some people find new tools in that kind of experience. Some people have learned how to raise anyone by crafting a narrative for them with money. And some people become addicted to it and the attention they never got as a child.
wuj 3y ago
> If you know what you want to do and can do it without attention, you are much better off doing than dealing with collateral damage from unpredictable attention. To achieve this state where one can operative effectively without external validation often requires them to initially engage with the public sphere. This exposure is important to getting opportunities, especially when starting out with no resources. The purpose of working is to be able to transcend this phase and do more autonomous and focused work...
TimedToasts 3y ago
> If you’ve seen a lot or you know evil, you don’t need a public life where you may attract it. When you know what you have and value it, a quiet life is the best way to protect it. People value privacy when they have something to lose. That's a wonderful way of framing it. No one is intent on violating my privacy to give me anything, only to take.
- acron0 3y ago
  This comes down to perspective. For example, the state would argue they're violating your privacy to give you safety.
AndyMcConachie 3y ago
[flagged]
- lolinder 3y ago
  For anyone who cares to read a balanced perspective on Kipling I highly recommend Orwell's. He criticizes Kipling fiercely where criticism is called for without falling into the maddened and equally ignorant invectives of OP. The whole thing is worth a read, but here's the conclusion: > One reason for Kipling's power as a good bad poet I have already suggested — his sense of responsibility, which made it possible for him to have a world-view, even though it happened to be a false one. Although he had no direct connexion with any political party, Kipling was a Conservative, a thing that does not exist nowadays. Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists. He identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition. In a gifted writer this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality. The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions. Where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly. ... Kipling sold out to the British governing class, not financially but emotionally. This warped his political judgement, for the British ruling class were not what he imagined, and it led him into abysses of folly and snobbery, but he gained a corresponding advantage from having at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like. It is a great thing in his favour that he is not witty, not ‘daring’, has no wish to épater les bourgeois. He dealt largely in platitudes, and since we live in a world of platitudes, much of what he said sticks. https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip
- alt227 3y ago
  This opinion is the reason that cancel culture exists today, and why academics are increasingly finding it difficult to have intelligent debates about taboo subjects. Have an example: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-how-good-scientific-debate-happens-academics-on-culture-of-fear-in-gender-medicine-research https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-ho...
throwaway7h65 3y ago
The counterpoint to this is that having “internet status” begets a number of benefits. For example, when you email support at $bigco you’re more likely to be taken seriously. When you contact a random founder for a meeting, they’re more likely to meet you. You forget to take out the trash from your Airbnb and nobody complains, etc. Basically everything in your life gets a bit easier, because people are more scared to piss off someone with a lot of twitter followers.
- urlwolf 3y ago
  > Basically everything in your life gets a bit easier, because people are more scared to piss off someone with a lot of twitter followers This is terrifying. Status online shouldn't bleed on all those other domains. Using your influence online to get things (or else I will tweet about you and the sky will fall on your head) is petty, and one more bad thing that social media has brought to our lives. Now we have to aim to please those who have amassed followers?

by dzink 3y ago

p1esk 3y ago

I don’t know, try to explain your point of view to people like Trump or Musk.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
It'd be easier to explain Shakespeare to a fish. Sociopaths aren't generally much for outside counsel.
kunley 3y ago
But what for? People like them are not a point of reference to relate everything, you know
flakeoil 3y ago
Maybe the world would have been a better and friendlier place if the two people you mentioned, and others like them, had an attitude a bit more muted and humble.
- all2 3y ago
  If their attitude had been either, they would not have become what they have become. Humble men do not, by and large, take the throne or become captains of industry.
  - jzb 3y ago
    This suggests what they’ve become is desirable - it’s not.
    - p1esk 3y ago
      Are you saying that achieving what these two men have achieved is not desirable? Becoming the most powerful or the richest person in the world? I’d say that’s very much desirable, to most people.
      - swiftcoder 3y ago
        Maybe in abstract. I doubt the majority of people have considered those positions in more detail than "wouldn't it be nice if no one could tell me what to do?", or "wouldn't it be nice to never worry about money ever again?". Close proximity to a bunch of tech executives very quickly cured me of any illusion that I wanted to belong to that in-group. Most already with more money than they knew how to spend, and still pulling 100-hour work weeks in service of the grind... shudders
        p1esk 3y ago
        Well, you write code for a living, right? I’m guessing the vast majority of humans would shudder at the thought of doing that 40 hours a week. It would be a similar attitude to what you expressed towards executives. Executives are sexier than coders, at least for general population. And it’s not clear which one would become more attractive to an average Joe after personally experiencing both professions. I’ve read the piece. It’s well written. But, no, that’s not how I would like to live my life, and that’s not the life I want for my kids. Too simple, too boring, not for me. But, to each its own, right?
dzink 3y ago
The world has many more people like them than you think. The reason for that is the media’s propensity to raise people on pedestal over the smallest things and crash and burn that made-up image. Some people find new tools in that kind of experience. Some people have learned how to raise anyone by crafting a narrative for them with money. And some people become addicted to it and the attention they never got as a child.

wuj 3y ago

> If you know what you want to do and can do it without attention, you are much better off doing than dealing with collateral damage from unpredictable attention. To achieve this state where one can operative effectively without external validation often requires them to initially engage with the public sphere. This exposure is important to getting opportunities, especially when starting out with no resources. The purpose of working is to be able to transcend this phase and do more autonomous and focused work...

TimedToasts 3y ago

> If you’ve seen a lot or you know evil, you don’t need a public life where you may attract it. When you know what you have and value it, a quiet life is the best way to protect it. People value privacy when they have something to lose. That's a wonderful way of framing it. No one is intent on violating my privacy to give me anything, only to take.

acron0 3y ago
This comes down to perspective. For example, the state would argue they're violating your privacy to give you safety.

AndyMcConachie 3y ago

[flagged]

lolinder 3y ago
For anyone who cares to read a balanced perspective on Kipling I highly recommend Orwell's. He criticizes Kipling fiercely where criticism is called for without falling into the maddened and equally ignorant invectives of OP. The whole thing is worth a read, but here's the conclusion: > One reason for Kipling's power as a good bad poet I have already suggested — his sense of responsibility, which made it possible for him to have a world-view, even though it happened to be a false one. Although he had no direct connexion with any political party, Kipling was a Conservative, a thing that does not exist nowadays. Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists. He identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition. In a gifted writer this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality. The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions. Where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly. ... Kipling sold out to the British governing class, not financially but emotionally. This warped his political judgement, for the British ruling class were not what he imagined, and it led him into abysses of folly and snobbery, but he gained a corresponding advantage from having at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like. It is a great thing in his favour that he is not witty, not ‘daring’, has no wish to épater les bourgeois. He dealt largely in platitudes, and since we live in a world of platitudes, much of what he said sticks. https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip https://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip
alt227 3y ago
This opinion is the reason that cancel culture exists today, and why academics are increasingly finding it difficult to have intelligent debates about taboo subjects. Have an example: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-how-good-scientific-debate-happens-academics-on-culture-of-fear-in-gender-medicine-research https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/this-isnt-ho...

throwaway7h65 3y ago

The counterpoint to this is that having “internet status” begets a number of benefits. For example, when you email support at $bigco you’re more likely to be taken seriously. When you contact a random founder for a meeting, they’re more likely to meet you. You forget to take out the trash from your Airbnb and nobody complains, etc. Basically everything in your life gets a bit easier, because people are more scared to piss off someone with a lot of twitter followers.

urlwolf 3y ago
> Basically everything in your life gets a bit easier, because people are more scared to piss off someone with a lot of twitter followers This is terrifying. Status online shouldn't bleed on all those other domains. Using your influence online to get things (or else I will tweet about you and the sky will fall on your head) is petty, and one more bad thing that social media has brought to our lives. Now we have to aim to please those who have amassed followers?