4 ms·

I kind of dropped out of The Discourse a few years back, mainly by quitting Twitter, and articles like this have really stopped making sense to me. I'm sure tha

I kind of dropped out of The Discourse a few years back, mainly by quitting Twitter, and articles like this have really stopped making sense to me. I'm sure that there is Somebody doing all these things he's talking about, but I kind of have to wonder if it drives him that crazy why is he still listening? Just go to underground shows in your city, indie music is more active than ever before (or at least it is where I live). What do I care what some NPR host thinks about Taylor Swift vs., idk, Priori or Kush Jones or any of the artists that I like. So long as I can still see them perform or listen to their music then I'm ship-shape! The Culture Industry has been shitty since the 60s, is this really news?

jdminhbg 2y ago
> I'm sure that there is Somebody doing all these things he's talking about, but I kind of have to wonder if it drives him that crazy why is he still listening? It is pretty annoying when sources of music news and reviews you used to rely on to find new music are poptimized.
- tech_ken 2y ago
  Okay that makes sense to me; I've historically avoided music reviews bc I personally hate people giving me their opinions about stuff I like/dislike, but I can see how it would be frustrating if like the Jop and Pazz section just suddenly started only recommending Sabrina Carpenter or similar.
  - Triphibian 2y ago
    aka what happened to Pitchfork in the early 2000s.
    - tech_ken 2y ago
      Nothing lasts forever....even cold November rain. We'll always have the monkey piss review though
    - jdminhbg 2y ago
      Summed up in a tweet: https://x.com/JucheMane/status/852949235981012994 https://x.com/JucheMane/status/852949235981012994
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
This is just one a long long number of Deboer articles all cut from the same cloth. There's a whole (low) culture of reactionaryism & contrarianism whose existence is to rile people up & make "yet you participate in society, curious" sound like a smart edgy take that makes them better than everyone else. There are some sources of submissions that are almost always like this. And we keep wandering in without context, taking the article at face value & trying to engage honestly, without seeing the underlying bias & context. The presence of discussions around Deboer submissions, to me, is a canary in the coal mine example of one of the primary weaknesses of social networks, which is that we come in context-free to every reshare rebroadcast out. Unless it's Barack Obama or DJT most people won't generally have a model of the implicit biases & slant of what they're reading, & wont have the time energy interest or access to go hunt down what these biases are. We are forever at risk of Freddie Deboer's (and unherd/quilette/reason) naively & slyly (that is, without having ascertained the greater context, upon which it becomes an honest acceptance) tainting us with their elaborately/conversionarily argued reactionaryism or whatever other ism.

jdminhbg 2y ago

> I'm sure that there is Somebody doing all these things he's talking about, but I kind of have to wonder if it drives him that crazy why is he still listening? It is pretty annoying when sources of music news and reviews you used to rely on to find new music are poptimized.

tech_ken 2y ago
Okay that makes sense to me; I've historically avoided music reviews bc I personally hate people giving me their opinions about stuff I like/dislike, but I can see how it would be frustrating if like the Jop and Pazz section just suddenly started only recommending Sabrina Carpenter or similar.
- Triphibian 2y ago
  aka what happened to Pitchfork in the early 2000s.
  - tech_ken 2y ago
    Nothing lasts forever....even cold November rain. We'll always have the monkey piss review though
  - jdminhbg 2y ago
    Summed up in a tweet: https://x.com/JucheMane/status/852949235981012994 https://x.com/JucheMane/status/852949235981012994

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

This is just one a long long number of Deboer articles all cut from the same cloth. There's a whole (low) culture of reactionaryism & contrarianism whose existence is to rile people up & make "yet you participate in society, curious" sound like a smart edgy take that makes them better than everyone else. There are some sources of submissions that are almost always like this. And we keep wandering in without context, taking the article at face value & trying to engage honestly, without seeing the underlying bias & context. The presence of discussions around Deboer submissions, to me, is a canary in the coal mine example of one of the primary weaknesses of social networks, which is that we come in context-free to every reshare rebroadcast out. Unless it's Barack Obama or DJT most people won't generally have a model of the implicit biases & slant of what they're reading, & wont have the time energy interest or access to go hunt down what these biases are. We are forever at risk of Freddie Deboer's (and unherd/quilette/reason) naively & slyly (that is, without having ascertained the greater context, upon which it becomes an honest acceptance) tainting us with their elaborately/conversionarily argued reactionaryism or whatever other ism.