3 ms·
Ballett's words are descriptive. But when you describe things you are making an assessment of something and alluding to some sort of truth, no? Forget about th
by tolerance 2y ago
Ballett's words are descriptive. But when you describe things you are making an assessment of something and alluding to some sort of truth, no?
Forget about the face of the study for a moment. There are plenty of cute faces to gawk at in this world and to feel drawn to and to find familiarity with and to be contented by. I'm hanging on to the passages that I'm referring to because to me they show a glimpse into the soul of the study.
| On its face, browsing like a hunter is something
| i do when i do performative searches, for my
| memoire or something, and browsing like a busybody
| is what i do by idleness, just because i like to read
| interesting stuff randomly, it should be logic
| that in countries with high level of social control,
| the first one is rewarded and the second one
| viewed as useless, thus performed
On what grounds do you view this as logical? I'll ask you again, have you checked out the full study? Is it at all apparent that what you aver is plausible within reason past the allure of the sharp and swirly graphs and squiggly-symbol-bearing equations the authors employ to support the claims that I've clung to?
Is the inverse that in "less oppressive" countries, the first method is deemed useless and the second is rewarded? If so, maybe you're on to something similar to our colleague throaway54:
| You could easily speculate the opposite;
| that countries with more structures
| of oppression or I patriarchal forces
| have greater levels of focus!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668540
I can get down with that too. Where are you from by the way?
If we want to address the topic at the surface (there's different ways to browse the Web depending on the need and interest) then that's cool. But if we are going to...ahem...critically theorize* the societal implications that one method draws in relation to the other and posit them as "logical", then in a world that is wanting for focus, I am on the side of focus. And if that puts me on the side of the supposed "structures of oppression", then I'm forced to challenge what you mean by that, because I'd go as far as to say that in the present age, your oppressors would much rather you dillydallying, busy-bodying, meddling* online, from pillar to post, instead of hunting for truths indigenous to the nature of you existence.
I'd go even further to say that the fact that "hunting" is nominally positive and "busybody" is negative is not a matter of miscomprehension, it's a subversion of their intending meaning, it's a performative posture of "resistance" and "rebellion" to authority as desired by the authors (namely, Bassett and her brother).
Or, I'd withdraw all the way and revert back to the study at it's face value: People use the internet in different ways and to pass one way off as more virtuous than the other and to posit societal implications in association to these virtues as contrived by the ideals of the author only makes for an interesting argument in theory, it's science fiction and when scrutinized against reality (for those that feel and believe that there is indeed A Reality®), it amounts to nonsense as far as the argument in association to pedigree of the arguers is concerned and If the study isn't going to do us the service of outlining what countries are more inclined to a given method of browsing in a sensible manner, all that's left is to speculate, so it becomes less about the "science" than it is about signaling to and affirming the beliefs of those who would already submit to the "Woo" or a "speculative fiction" masked as noble inquisition.
I have a hunch that when people associate postmodernism as an ideology with critical theory as a practice, this is the type of stuff that they're referring to. They both share a focus and apprehension toward power, authority and "oppression", although I reckon that the traditional ontology of the Frankfurt School was perhaps pegged to more traditional conceptions of truth and reality and postmodernists, well, appear to be ambivalent, if not outright antagonistic toward tradition, truth and reality...
- orwin 2y ago> Yes, Is the inverse that in "less oppressive" countries, the first method is deemed useless and the second is rewarded i agree with that too! Having broad, but ultimately not usefull knowledge is kinda rewarded in my country (France), it allows you to participate in multiple idle discussions without deep thoughts. And also, idle discussion is typically a case where i will superficially search wikipedia to confirm or disprove a thought we had. And your following sentence is why i also don't like the term "structure of oppression". Social control describe the situation way better, and you don't have to imagine "oppressors" who don't really exist as such. The society as a whole control itself, via different methods (social pressure, traditions, hierarchical pressure mostly). Sometime you can design oppressors, but its the tip of the iceberg. I like your idea of subverting the meaning of hunter and busybody, that would be a killer in a philosophical book or a novel, i doubt this is the case here, but it seems we are reading this very differently. I was not engaging with the postmodernism bit of your commentary because in my experience, anglo just don't understand it and conflate it with Frankfurt's school neomarxism. For good reasons, most postmodernists authors are obscure on purpose (or not) and the translations are even worse. And for at least bad reason: Ayn Rand couldn't read. And most postmodernists authors are idiots too, which does not help. But some were right on at least one thing (and i have a very "meta" example): the label "postmodernist", at least in the anglo world, has now more meaning that postmodernism itself. Once again, the only definition of postmodernism is one you do by negative, as it only is defined by what it reject, and one of its main aspect is "we reject metanarratives". Since it seems the author try to find a meta-narrative here, i'll posit that the author is not postmodernist at all and you should find another ideology to disqualify them.
- tolerance 2y agoNot to try and force my issue, but I have a suspicion that meta-narratives are inescapable and that a lot of people, particularly in America, are unaware that they are “postmodernists”, at least according to my green understanding of the ideology. I still need to do some thought on the first claim and the second one just came to mind after reading your comment. This has been a lot of fun. Thanks for the engaging and earnest discussion. If Allah wills, maybe I’ll implement this in a killer philosophical book & you’ll catch a hold of it. (We can exchange contact info if you’d like and I’ll keep you updated if I ever follow through). Peace.