[HN Gopher] 'Luddite' Teens
___________________________________________________________________
'Luddite' Teens
Author : Kaibeezy
Score : 184 points
Date : 2022-12-15 19:59 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| sedeki wrote:
| I want to start doing this too. I bought a flip-phone some time
| ago, but it never stuck.
|
| My usage is pretty much: listen to music, use (Google) calendar,
| texting, FaceTime.
|
| Any surfing is plain doom scrolling and not productive.
|
| Recommendations for me? Analog/simpler substitutes?
|
| For ppl that has gone down this path - how do you feel now?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| You could use the parental controls to lock it down.
|
| iOS has Screen Time, which allows you to set limits on how much
| you can use an app. I'm sure there is some equivalent on
| Android.
|
| I made the mistake of purchasing FTL (a game) and had to add a
| Screen Time rule for it. :)
| sedeki wrote:
| Yeah, I have it activated. But I want to experiment with the
| idea to abolish my phone as much as possible.
| vitaflo wrote:
| Personally it wasn't very hard for me to go down this path
| because I never found social media (which lets face it is the
| big driver of phone overuse) to be all that interesting in the
| first place.
|
| That said I treat my phone mostly like a phone. I have my calls
| and texts whitelisted. If you're not in my contact list, the
| phone won't ring or ding. Then if I hear it ring, I know it's
| someone I know.
|
| I remove most of the apps on my phone and keep it on my desk at
| all times. No different than a phone you would have hanging on
| a wall. I treat it the same, so I don't feel the need to really
| "use" it.
|
| I will take my phone with me when I go places, and use it for
| music or maps in the car, but because I mostly treat it as a
| phone, I don't really see it as anything other than that.
|
| When I started doing this I was admittedly pretty bored, but
| over time I just found other things to do and am never bored
| now. You just get used to it. Humans are pretty adaptable.
| nvr219 wrote:
| When I attempted this I did a flip phone and transitioned the
| rest to my laptop. As a result, I just carried my laptop around
| all the time. Didn't solve the problem!!!
| overthemoon wrote:
| I'd be curious as well. I realized in the last few months that
| I rarely enjoy looking at anything on my phone. I like it when
| my friends and family text me. I like the discord group I have
| with my friends, especially now that we all have kids and have
| moved away. I started by deleting apps that weren't essential,
| keeping the utilities or the things I don't do compulsively, or
| do situationally.
|
| With Twitter in particular, I don't know a better way to find
| artists, writers, and podcasts. I have never enjoyed Twitter
| less than I do now, but it is unfortunately the best way I
| currently know. I guess it's time to start digging.
| psychphysic wrote:
| Between texting and FaceTime is pretty much the entire
| functionality of a modern smart phone.
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| All I do is put the phone on vibrate and put it in my pocket.
| Other than taking out the phone to capture a photo, I never
| really feel the urge to pull it out and waste time on it unless
| I am actively waiting and there is nothing else to do. I like
| to be 100% engaged in what I am doing whether that's
| socializing with friends, enjoying a hobby or walking
| somewhere. Maybe that's my secret? The desire to feel fully
| engaged and present?
|
| All that being said, I work on a computer all day long. I am in
| front of the computer all day and do a fair bit of "time
| wasting" there.
| chunk_waffle wrote:
| This describes my usage too, I also am on a computer all day
| long, its also where I waste my time. I see my phone as a
| less useful computer, with the worst typing interface
| possible and try to use it as little as possible.
|
| I'd be totally content to replace my physical phone, with a
| virtual one on a computer, provided I could make calls and
| send/receive text messages. Maybe I need to look into Google
| Voice...
| barbinbrad wrote:
| I don't have a phone. It's fine.
| [deleted]
| lzauz wrote:
| In these discussion threads I always see people mixing call/gps
| functionality (which is genuinely useful, especially in case of
| an emergency, and not addictive) with social media. You can
| have one without having the other. Instagram didn't come with
| your phone, you installed it. So, don't.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| There's a lot of people who show up in these threads whose
| only coping strategy is to go cold turkey. Maybe that's good
| advice, but it's not the only advice. There's no reason you
| can't carry a smartphone in your pocket without it becoming a
| pacifier.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Devil's advocate here: addiction is tricky. There's no
| reason you can't carry around a pack of cigarettes and not
| smoke them, either, but in practice that strategy would not
| work for many smokers. Cold turkey isn't the magic bullet,
| but try whatever you suspect might work.
| falcolas wrote:
| This is definitely an option; we as a society did it for
| centuries.
|
| It will impact your social life, but you can mitigate that if
| you put in the effort.
|
| The worst for me when I don't have my phone while driving. It's
| an odd anxiety.
| nathias wrote:
| weird, I bought the same one, I view it as the peak of mobile
| phone design and I mostly don't want to have a smartphone with me
| LinuxBender wrote:
| If this is a real thing then maybe I feel there is hope for at
| least a small pocket of society. Good on them for taking back
| some control of their lives. Color me impressed.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| https://archive.ph/gsqDH
| Finnucane wrote:
| The kids are alright.
| freemanofthewan wrote:
| "They marched up a hill toward their usual spot, a dirt mound
| located far from the park's crowds. Among them was Odille Zexter-
| Kaiser, a senior at Edward R. Murrow High School in Midwood, who
| trudged through leaves in Doc Martens and mismatched wool socks."
|
| _Wow, these kids sound like the new beatniks._
|
| "The club members cite libertine writers like Hunter S. Thompson
| and Jack Kerouac as heroes,"
|
| _and there 's Jack.._
| wara23arish wrote:
| I don't think beatniks particularly wore the equivalent $150+
| Doc Martens.
|
| Tangent, I really enjoyed reading On the Road
| LarryMullins wrote:
| What did they wear? Sandals or something? I tried birkenstock
| sandals before but they only lasted about a year before they
| became too gross to wear.
|
| $150 doc martens seem like good value to me. They last about
| 5-8 years at the rate I wear through them, or about $20-30
| per year. Certainly more efficient than any sneakers.
| wara23arish wrote:
| Maybe Im missing out but Ive never felt the need to spend
| so much on shoes.
|
| There's countless of alternatives to boots/shows that
| aren't name-brand Doc Martens with that aesthetic.
|
| Personally, I just shop at the clearance sections or sales
| (ive never seen doc martens there ime)
|
| I always feel like a fool if i drop money on something
| expensive.
|
| From reading On The Road, I just remember that they were
| always broke, drunk, drugs and chasing experiences and not
| aesthetics. at least thats what I took out from the book
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > Maybe Im missing out but Ive never felt the need to
| spend so much on shoes.
|
| It's something you can't understand unless you actually
| buy and wear a pair of well-made boots or shoes.
|
| A mall store pair of leather boots might weigh 1-1.5 lbs
| because it's made of bad leather, EVA foam, and
| adhesives. A pair of well made boots, one boot will weigh
| almost 2 lbs because they use good leather uppers, real
| rubber or leather soles, a steel shank, and cork footbed.
|
| A $300 pair of boots with last 5x longer than a $100 pair
| of boots if you take care of them and don't wear them
| daily.
| freemanofthewan wrote:
| Sir, please try a good pair of footwear, for your sake!
| If you need convincing, look up the Boots Theory.
| Personally, I live in my boots and have worn out many
| cheap pair. Sometimes 2 a year. Invested a little more,
| my body was never so happy, and I didn't need to replace
| them for 4 years. Easy math.
| [deleted]
| armenarmen wrote:
| Ever hear of the Sam Vimes Boot Theory? Terry Pratchett
| in the Discworld novel Men at Arms has the Vimes say:
| "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned,
| was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots,
| for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus
| allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost
| fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which
| were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like
| hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars.
| Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and
| wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell
| where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel
| of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted
| for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars
| had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry
| in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only
| afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on
| boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
| This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of
| socioeconomic unfairness"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I've tried some other brands of boots, the quality is hit
| or miss but I've yet to find a brand that had a
| durability:price ratio better than Doc Martens. I'm sure
| such a brand exists, but I'd hate to find out how many
| pairs of boots I go through until I find that brand by
| trial and error.
|
| I've sworn off sneakers entirely though. Unless you're
| buying sneakers for a specific athletic purpose, I think
| sneakers as a default footware is something of a scam.
| They're all built to fall apart after months, maybe a
| year or two max. They're usually made with fabric instead
| of leather, with thin and soft rubber soles. Even the
| ones made with leather still have thin soles that wear
| out fast. I've never had nor heard of a pair of sneakers
| that didn't disintegrate before two years of daily use.
|
| As for the broke, drunk and drugs lifestyle, I think
| dependable boots are a great choice. Even if nothing else
| in your life is stable, at least you can rely on your
| boots.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| wishinghand wrote:
| I've only dropped $200+ on footwear a few times because
| those pairs of shoes or boots have not yet worn out. And
| they're very comfy and look sharp.
| qup wrote:
| Boots are a good thing to look for in thrift stores.
|
| I got a $220 pair of redwings in good shape for $12.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| They make doc martens in China now. I imagine the 8-year
| old who made your shoes was a master craftsman,
| however...they start them young.
|
| The original factory still makes boots, they aren't quite
| as "cool" though. The people at your Communist reading
| group might not even heard of the brand.
| freemanofthewan wrote:
| Care to enlighten us as to who is now operating the
| original factory producing less "cool" boots? RedWing has
| started outsourcing to Cambodia and the quality has
| dropped significantly. I have been searching for a
| replacement. White's are all I have found.
| teg4n_ wrote:
| Doc Martens have a Made in England line. Also I was under
| the impression Red Wing Heritage boots were made in the
| US but that could have changed.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| Solovair. The original Dr Martens was actually made out
| of parts of Solovair shoes.
|
| Btw, there are still a lot of manufacturers operating out
| of this region of Britain: Barker, Church's, Cheany,
| Edward Green...some of these are way too expensive, they
| are often handmade (and tbh, probably not worth it)...but
| there are options.
| freemanofthewan wrote:
| Thanks for the tips.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Heh, I can't say I've ever been to a communist reading
| group. I've had some people tell me that my boots are for
| communists or for lesbians, but that doesn't bother me.
| Such associations are silly memes.
|
| You're right that I don't care for the style of their UK
| made boots. I like their brown burnished leather "crazy
| horse" boots, or ones styled similar. Their UK made boots
| seem to all be black, red, white, or brown but suede
| (which I don't consider durable.) These are bolder /
| punkish designs which I don't care for.
|
| If you can suggest an American brand that holds up to Doc
| Martens, maybe I'll buy those in a few years instead. But
| I think most boots are made in China or some other
| country with exploitative labor.
| dudeofea wrote:
| no, they just spent their (and other's) money on heroin
| freemanofthewan wrote:
| Some pay $150+, some go to the thrift store. True beat-
| fashion or not, I would never malign someone for choosing
| quality footwear.
| wara23arish wrote:
| Didn't mean it as malignment, just felt that the
| characterization with beatniks didn't seem right.
| [deleted]
| armenarmen wrote:
| I looked up a 1950s advertisement for similar boots and saw
| a pair for $12.95, plugged that and 1955 into the inflation
| calculator and it came out to $144.41. So not too far off
| really
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Couldn't get through it, personally. Stopped 20 pages in when
| then writing style just keep getting in the way of the
| writing.
| psychphysic wrote:
| These fads always remind me of this Ali G skit.
|
| https://youtu.be/xx5t5ps-bwc
| antihero wrote:
| How is wholesale rejection of the shitty companies and websites
| that prey on your attention span to sell adverts in favour of
| good literature and genuine connection a "fad"?
|
| I've deleted social media from my phone and it's
| been...amazing. I don't know what to do and end up staring into
| space instead of giving into my cravings for fresh content. You
| start to pay attention to your surroundings and think. It's
| wonderful.
| psychphysic wrote:
| > fad
|
| > /fad/
|
| > noun
|
| > an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something,
| especially one that is short-lived; a craze.
| pessimizer wrote:
| _not a fad:_ a complete lack of enthusiasm for something,
| especially things that are short-lived. A contempt for
| crazes.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Boredom is crucial. Boredom creates will.
|
| Your body hates boredom, because traditionally, it meant you
| weren't doing anything to better your life. Today, we won't
| die if we're not filling our boredom with farming/hunting our
| meals by hand. It's too easy to live nowadays. Now, we plug
| that hole with social media and entertainment. Rather than
| adapting that caveman survival instinct to something else:
| improving knowledge, personal health, or _real_
| relationships.
|
| That's not to say these things as a whole need to be banned
| entirely. Like all things, they can be enjoyable in
| moderation. But too much is unhealthy. Even water has this
| caveat. The problem is we don't moderate.
|
| Rather than doing/creating something useful and/or memorable,
| you're stuck scrolling a feed, watching other people improve.
| It's actually quite sad.
| weregiraffe wrote:
| You are mistaken. Hunter-gatherers, and even medieval
| farmers, worked less hours on average than we do today.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I should have been more detailed. I don't mean _just_ the
| hunting and gathering. My primary point was that it was a
| harder overall life. Upkeep on your living space and
| belongings (now we just buy a new one online or, God
| forbid, drive to the store), preparing food often (no
| such thing as long-term preservation at the time), adults
| actually had families to take care of (increasingly more
| people are single / childless)...
|
| There were more, urgent responsibilities to tend to.
| spritefs wrote:
| IMO the real problem here isn't the technology itself, but
| cultivating an unhealthy relationship with it and not using it
| maturely
|
| The most interesting thing in this article to me is the classist
| accusation. I wonder if this luddite trend is just some sort of
| counter signaling, where if rich kids decide to not use
| smartphones it's provocative (and they get flip phones from
| parents on a whim), but if poor kids don't it's because they're
| poor
| trgn wrote:
| > the real problem isn't the technology itself
|
| I very much disagree with this.
|
| We like to think that technology is value neutral, and we, as
| Olympian gods, are just applying it in good or bad judgment.
| Technology (the actual material thing) shapes the world around
| itself, it creates the conditions of its use _in absence_ of
| our judgement. The very existence of a bleepy bloopy thing that
| fits in a pocket, which constantly grabs your attention with
| gossipy, antagonizing content. That _thing_ in itself creates
| the nurturing conditions for phenomena like cyberbullying,
| meme-addiction, declining attention spans, political
| polarization...
|
| Another example; the very existence of power tools created the
| aesthetic sensibilities where we aspire to large expanses of
| perfectly trimmed bushes and leafless virginal lawns. Our
| aesthetic desires did not proceed the technology. It is the
| technology that engendered it.
|
| Let's run down more: easy-to-obtain guns, heavy and fast-
| accelerating cars, cheap mass-produced food, disposable
| furniture and living arrangements ... They all shape the world
| (and our minds, our relations to others) in _their image_.
|
| We can be equal slave to the machine as well as master to the
| machine. Modernism is the submission to this slavery. Humanism
| is the celebration of our mastery. Now answer the question; do
| we live in modernist dystopia, or humanist utopia? A leading
| question to be sure, but I reckon the contrast is instructive.
|
| Technology sometimes _is_ the problem itself. Fixing the
| problem, in many cases, will mean forceful rejection of this
| technology, rather than just finding the correct application of
| it.
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20221216204941/https://www.nytime...
| floren wrote:
| I admire the hell out of these kids. If I had a little more
| strength in my own convictions, a little more willpower, I would
| probably go flip-phone only too.
|
| Yes, they're kind of posturing and pretentious, but in ways that
| remind me of myself in high school; I feel like I get them. Your
| average high school kid is a lot more confusing to me these days.
|
| I did have to laugh at this:
|
| > "I talked to my adviser, though, and he told me most
| revolutions actually start with people from industrious
| backgrounds, like Che Guevara."
|
| I wasn't sure what they meant by "industrious backgrounds";
| apparently it means "wealthy" based on Guevara's wikipedia page.
| She's in good company, though... Ho Chi Minh and Lenin grew up
| privileged too.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Try flip an hour a day and work up. We used to only have
| landlines and phortress phones, and yet somehow still survived.
|
| I always liked how 1984's Goldstein said that _in principle_
| Inner Party children did not automatically become Inner
| themselves.
| derwiki wrote:
| What is a phortress phone?
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=pay+phone+booth&tbm=isch
|
| a pay phone (phortress, because it was safer to phreak from
| than a home phone)
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| For the nostalgia of it: https://www.2600.com/payphones
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > We used to only have landlines and phortress phones
|
| A few weeks ago I was at our local train station and there
| was an honest-to-god payphone. Walked up to it, picked up the
| receiver, and got dial tone. I had figured they were all gone
| now but apparently not quite yet.
| civopsec wrote:
| Although not Stalin
| adingus wrote:
| I don't get the 'classist' argument at all. You don't need to
| be rich to want to stop doomscrolling, or to put your phone
| down for an hour. It sounds more like the kids who call it
| 'classist' understand phone addiction but don't want to face
| the fact its actually bad for them... like when an overweight
| person says 'Id rather enjoy life than eat that salad, I bet
| that in-shape person is a bore to be around!"
| floren wrote:
| Oh, absolutely. When I was a teen, you'd be called some sort
| of homophobic slur for refusing to go along with the current
| zeitgeist. Now, it's more effective to force conformity by
| calling people classist/racist/etc., and the kids know it
| too.
| threads2 wrote:
| I think everyone's just getting sick of rich kids
| adingus wrote:
| They're kids. They're nearly innocent. It's their parents
| people should be sick of.
| threads2 wrote:
| good point
| lzauz wrote:
| You just have to look at the pictures of the article to see
| that they have money.
| makz wrote:
| I guess Logan's "Luddite Manifesto" is not on the internet...
| browningstreet wrote:
| My college aged son refuses a phone. Uni gave him an iPad, he
| rarely uses it -- he has his laptop. He has no social.
|
| None of his classmates care one way or the other.
|
| It's all good.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| I have a good friend like this, he works remotely now after
| graduating and moving and he's pretty lonely.
|
| Won't be true of everyone of course.
| trgn wrote:
| Most of the handwringing about tech is the middle-aged
| projecting their anxieties on their children. It's not
| necessarily the kids who are threatened by social media. It's
| them, whole fucking 40 year olds, scrolling on tiktok (wtf!)
| and feeling queasy about it. Kids these days yeah right.
|
| Listen to this kid subtly rubbing it in:
|
| > "I still long to have no phone at all," she said. "My parents
| are so addicted. My mom got on Twitter, and I've seen it tear
| her apart. But I guess I also like it, because I get to feel a
| little superior to them."
|
| Anyway, that aside. The article is complete cringe though. NYT
| really is 95% lifestyle branding and 5% factoids. Also, these
| kids, I don't know if they realize, but it's always just that
| little skeevy (not necessarily in a sexual nature, more
| generically, as-in, unseemly, too familiar, think "cool
| teacher"), when adults - journalists, artists, ...- worm their
| way in kids culture, package their growing up for the
| entertainment of jaded, passe 50 year olds.
| djaouen wrote:
| This is a unique form of privilege. Most people don't have the
| choice to "disconnect". It's engage or die. Not that I think
| technology is the be all and end all, but I think we are lucky if
| we are in the position to be able to shun it. That's all I am
| saying.
|
| Edit: OK, I am probably wrong about this. Sorry for the stupid
| opinion :(
| greenie_beans wrote:
| did you read the article? the kids mention that critique
| floppydiskette wrote:
| How is it engage or die?
| djaouen wrote:
| Imagine, for example, applying for a job with no social media
| presence. OK, maybe "engage or die" is not the right phrase,
| but you get the gist of what I'm saying.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| I would suggest a lack of social media presence is better
| when applying for jobs than having a potentially
| problematic social media presence. I have long considered
| giving my potential future children "unsearchable names" so
| if anyone puts "jack smith" into Google they are unable to
| get any accurate hits by which to judge them on.
| tryauuum wrote:
| Hmmm... Applying for a job with no social media should be
| easy, just send a CV to email. However finding a job
| without using social media is harder.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I can imagine - because I did it about six years ago. And
| since then I've hired some team members who may or may not
| have had social media presence but I sincerely doubt that
| their presence or absence had any impact on being hired.
| And the same with the candidates not hired -- I don't think
| it came up at all.
| [deleted]
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| I once applied for a SV company, and recruiter told me I
| need at least 100 FB friends. I created an account and
| played some stupid game that gave bonuses for bringing
| friends. After couple of days I had 400 friends. Manager
| emphasized my social acumen to everyone's cheer when
| introducing me to my new team.
| notch656c wrote:
| Were they bilking you for contacts? Why on earth would
| that be a requirement? I'm wary of any job that requires
| me to disclose connection to non-employment related
| parties. It's a pretty well known scam technique used by
| places such as multi-level marketing to exploit someone
| and then toss them when sales channels through their
| contacts are exhausted.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| That's a bit of a stretch. They have phones (some of them
| still have smart phones - the article mentioned them
| putting away their iphones when they met). I think a phone
| is as much as you need to get by in the world and get a job
| dudeofea wrote:
| if what you are saying is that any deviation from the norm
| incurs a cost to your life, I agree. Some people are
| already abnormal so they can't pay that cost, but others
| can't pay simply because of some of the other choices they
| have made. I personally wouldn't call the latter a lack of
| privilege
| djaouen wrote:
| Maybe. I'd have to think about it some more to formulate
| a more solid opinion. Thanks for the criticism!
| adingus wrote:
| I've never had a job that requires or has even asked about
| social media. You don't need a smartphone to keep a
| LinkedIn account or Instagram. You can simply log in when
| you're at home on a desktop or laptop.
| itronitron wrote:
| how would a social media presence help anyone in a job
| application?
| floppydiskette wrote:
| It just seems like a bit of an exaggeration. If they
| weren't using the internet or phones in any sense I might
| understand, but not having social media or 24/7 access to
| it does not seem like an absolute prerequisite or something
| only "privileged people" could get away with.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > This is a unique form of privilege. Most people don't have
| the choice to "disconnect".
|
| Not seeing it myself. Where's the not having the choice to
| disconnect? You just have a flip phone. People can still call
| and text you.
| huehehue wrote:
| Can't say that I love the praise over Chris McCandless, given the
| amount of deliberate self-sabotage and the fact that hikers have
| literally died trying to recreate his pilgrimage.
|
| > We've all got this theory that we're not just meant to be
| confined to buildings and work. And [McCandless] was experiencing
| life. Real life. Social media and phones are not real life.
|
| I'm nitpicking, just think there are way healthier examples.
| Overall I love the mentality and really hope the next generation
| or two embraces a major shift away from tech addiction. Feels
| like growing pains from head-spinningly rapid technological
| innovation and availability.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Can't you keep the smartphone but ditch all the social media
| apps, to the same effect? I think maps or Uber are useful but not
| addictive or harmful.
| Archipelagia wrote:
| It reminded me of one of pg's old essays -
| http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html. Highly recommended.
|
| On a personal note, it's also something that worries me for the
| day when I'll finally have my own children.
|
| I wouldn't want them exposed to modern cyber-addictions from
| young age, but at the same time, I'm not sure how to protect
| them, when I can expect that all their peers will be on whatever
| social app's gonna be popular at that time.
| slothtrop wrote:
| I'm thinking about this periodically.
|
| I expect that - in addition to mere time restriction from the
| outset - ensuring that the kids are sufficiently busy with
| leisure outlets _and_ spending enough face-to-face time with
| others their own age will go a long ways. At the core of it,
| the addiction we have, as social media is concerned, is to each
| other, excepting the mindless never-ending-scroll entertainment
| part of it.
|
| Not to say I would overschedule, but would take care that they
| a) are registered to at least one sport for the majority of the
| year (intramural is fine), b) have the means and habit to make
| use of things for creative ends, or to get out of the house and
| explore. If that foundation is there from the start, might not
| have to pry the phones/tablets out of them.
|
| I can't very well completely cut off any access to devices
| because the SO and I use them and it will just become a sore
| spot, particularly as the kids age.
| thedorkknight wrote:
| Depending on how long you wait to have kids, it may not be
| social media apps, but literal digital drugs, depending on how
| far along brain/computer IO has gotten by that point.
|
| If you're interested, read the books "the pleasure shock" and
| "towards a psycho-civilized society"
| wil421 wrote:
| We recently deleted my 3 years old YouTube Kids app and the
| change made me contemplate my own live decisions. She likes
| Disney and a few other toddler style games. Seeing the
| difference in her behavior has made me look hard at my own
| YouTube watching.
| ivan888 wrote:
| Yes, "how can we simultaneously protect while also healthily
| socialize children?" is a difficult question to answer as a
| potential future parent. Social acceptance (to a degree) is
| critical to healthy development, while some of the most common
| uniting social tools (for previous generations, high levels of
| consumerism and signaling; for now and the future, near-
| constant technology use) are viewed by some parents as
| unhealthy and lead some to want to abstain entirely.
| legohead wrote:
| It's very difficult. I was lucky to have access to the internet
| in the late 80s and have watched it grow, mature, evolve. I
| know how quickly things can change, and I don't want my kids to
| miss out or be left behind. But at the same time, the dangers
| that exist today didn't exist even in the 90s. My biggest fear
| then was receiving an email virus.
|
| Now, Social Media alone is enough to make a parent take a step
| back and wonder what is the right time to introduce your
| children to the internet.
|
| Our solution, which isn't perfect, is to use a parent control
| app. Kids can use their devices for X hours and only certain
| times of day, and we have to approve each app install or
| purchase made on the phone. It feels like too much control, but
| the alternative is too dangerous. And even still I walk in on
| the kids to see what they are doing.
|
| It's a balancing act that will take time to figure out. We are
| evolving as a global cultural, technological race, and evolving
| fast.
| tryauuum wrote:
| I don't have kids so you can throw away my advice instantly
|
| But if I were doing it, I'd do the same, but allowed couple
| of days per month of unrestricted internet usage. Just so
| they would experience how unproductive these days are
| compared to normal days
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _Social Media alone is enough to make a parent take a step
| back and wonder what is the right time to introduce your
| children to the internet._
|
| I can't help but wonder whenever I hear this message: _do you
| know, really_?
|
| After taking with them a little, it often comes down to
| pretty ... innocuous things in my opinion. Sure, there's
| always peer pressure and they'll be constantly judged etc,
| but that's just a an exaggerated baseline of what teenagers
| always had. Surely troublesome and not good for their mental
| health, but they'll probably get over it _eventually_.
|
| From my perspective, the biggest danger that current social
| media created is that the _creep_ factor is gone for
| stalking. To make a pretty regular example, let 's say there
| is a teenage girl that's feeling lonely. She starts a live
| stream to talk with people. Some people show up and are super
| positive! They even give her some stickers (which are
| literally just money on TikTok she can check out...). Isn't
| it great to be valued? I don't think I need to write the rest
| of the story, as it's quiet obvious where the grooming
| eventually leads.
|
| It's especially hard to swallow because the money she could
| make is astronomically higher then she'd ever have a chance
| of making anywhere else. Good luck explaining that...
|
| Seriously, the original social media was so frickin _tame_.
| It 's so much more twisted now that money is involved and
| everything is moving towards 1 person with an audience vs
| "your group of friends" before.
| adamrezich wrote:
| when I got my own PC in my bedroom (with Ethernet!) as a
| middle-schooler around 2004, sure, there was plenty of
| online games and game development forums and porn and
| whatever else to occupy my attention... but I had no way of
| taking any of it with me on the go, easily-accessible
| wherever I am.
|
| this is the basis of my fears for introducing the children
| I will be having (in the next few years) to the new
| Internet: it's a pervasive lifestyle change. modern social
| media apps (instagram, tiktok) are nothing short of digital
| drugs that you never run out of. why do x y and z in the
| real world when you could just pull your phone out of your
| pocket, swipe your finger across its screen a few times,
| and _instantly_ obtain _infinite_ entertainment that is
| _infinitely more engaging_ than anything else you could
| possibly do with your time?
|
| the real challenge in my opinion is to instill the dangers
| of these sorts of things upon one's children in such a way
| that despite peer pressure--including the _ambient_ peer
| pressure of _everyone out in public_ staring idly at their
| phones--they come to see these dangerous digital drugs as
| what they are, without having to partake in order to "find
| out for themselves."
|
| and of course, this all has to be done without accidentally
| causing the classic "well my family banned this in our
| house but now that I'm on my own I'm going to binge as much
| of this shit as possible" conundrum. which I was definitely
| guilty of myself as a young person whose family highly
| restricted access to video games for most of my
| childhood... turns out that's a great way to get a kid to
| end up becoming a game developer lol
| McSwag wrote:
| That's a serious concern for sure. There's also the
| weaponization of information which shouldn't be overlooked.
|
| At an age when kids really haven't learned to think
| critically or have the wisdom to realize they're being
| manipulated particularly those vulnerable teen years, I
| think parents do need to consider this. It's pretty much at
| least a second job to keep tabs on what kids are
| viewing/consuming/doing online at all times. If you have
| multiple children forget it. Parental controls are
| extremely limited, schools require access to youtube.com
| and google.com and facebook for events so that pretty much
| opens the door to view/access most adult things without
| ever touching a "questionable" website. "The algorithm"
| still forms a bias on what kids see as well, further
| eroding critical thinking skills.
|
| A vast majority of parents don't bother with any controls
| at all which undermines the effort of those that do which
| the can lead to resentment and frustration because of peer
| pressure.
|
| To say that I'm worried about this is an understatement but
| I also don't think the cat can be put back in the bag.
| a-dub wrote:
| some of my first ever C programs did just this for the dos
| computers at my high school.
| eikenberry wrote:
| IMO they need to be exposed at a young age but need guidance to
| make sense of it... much like most things in the world. If you
| shelter them from it they won't learn how to deal with it and
| will be forced to figure it out themselves. As a parent I think
| it is my responsibility to expose them to as many of these
| sorts of things as possible and teach them to deal with them in
| a healthy way.
| verdenti wrote:
| You protect them by not giving them a smart phone. My daughter
| is 2 and she hasn't seen a screen yet.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Sounds pretty easy to do at that age. But how long are you
| going to protect them? Until their 18? Or 16? Or 12? When do
| you see yourself allowing a phone. Are you keeping iPads away
| too?
|
| Some of my friends with kids gave them cell phones around
| 12-14. But most of the kids had iPads prior.
| verdenti wrote:
| As long as I can, prob 12 unless school requires a laptop
| or something.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Right up to the point where the only highschool in your
| region _forces_ your child to have a smartphone.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| Sure, but by that time they will have developed
| sufficiently to be better able to handle it.
|
| This is similar to alcohol or smoking. It is worth not
| giving it to your children even if "they will anyway try it
| later".
| verdenti wrote:
| lisper wrote:
| Your comment was downvoted to death but I vouched for it, and
| leaving this followup comment to make it less likely to get
| killed again, because I think this is the Right Answer (or at
| least a big part of the Right Answer).
| Archipelagia wrote:
| I'm not sure that's a good long term solution. Like, once
| they see that all their friends have a smartphone, I think
| it's natural they'll feel jealous. What are you thinking of
| doing at that point?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| You avoid as long as you can; not exactly rocket-science.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| You're doing the right thing.
|
| w.r.t. _" what will you do when they get older and
| jealous?"_, learning to deal with jealousy is a good lesson
| to teach kids. Giving a kid everything they envy and demand
| is how you raise an entitled brat.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| They aren't jealous of the tech. They are jealous of not
| being included. They might not get invited to events or
| understand their friends jokes because they weren't part of
| the group chats. This can make them resent their parents
| and give them social anxiety. Kids can be very cruel and
| lack the empathy skills to understand why their friend
| isn't allowed a phone.
|
| Overdoing it either direction can be a serious mistake.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >They are jealous of not being included.
|
| It's better to instill in kids early that it's important
| to cultivate deep rather than wide social connections.
| Teaching your kid to stand up for themselves and make
| friends that don't care about blue chat bubbles or
| fashionable clothes is necessary. Because there's always
| gonna be some group you're not going to be cool enough to
| be a part of. Maybe you're not pretty enough, athletic
| enough, maybe your parents aren't rich enough to send you
| on the holiday trip the other kids can go on, sooner or
| later everyone's going to learn the lesson that this
| isn't how you build genuine connections.
|
| I noticed this even as an adult in my 20s, people who
| hadn't ever learned to deal with social rejection carry
| that teenage group behavior into their own adult life and
| can't deal with exclusion.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > Teaching your kid to stand up for themselves
|
| But they aren't standing up for themselves. They're
| standing up for decisions forced on them by their
| parents.
|
| > make friends that don't care about blue chat bubbles or
| fashionable clothes is necessary
|
| It has nothing to do with being cool (and I've never
| heard of anyone referencing blue chat bubbles that wasn't
| using it derogatorily like you are). It's about not being
| unable to communicate with people. Like, they may have
| friends who want to invite them to a party but don't
| because they put the event on (whatever app is cool).
| Your kids don't see it and therefore don't go to an event
| everyone wanted them to go to.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _But they aren 't standing up for themselves. They're
| standing up for decisions forced on them by their
| parents._
|
| They're learning how to deal with adversity created by
| circumstances beyond their control.
| [deleted]
| manholio wrote:
| > and I've never heard of anyone referencing blue chat
| bubbles that wasn't using it derogatorily like you are)
|
| there is a reference to this in TFA, it's a real
| phenomenon
| dr-detroit wrote:
| idrios wrote:
| Kids can be naive and selfish, but even most kids aren't
| _so_ unempathetic as to not understand that their friend
| doesn 't have a phone because their parents won't buy
| them one. The addage "if all your friends jumped off a
| bridge, would you do it too?" seems relevant here.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Oh I'm sure they aren't consciously, but are they going
| to make the effort everyday to communicate with the
| person who makes it hard to be reached? It will be harder
| to maintain/build relationships. I'm not passing
| judgement either way, I'm just stating a reality and that
| reality can be dark.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| damn i should've bet somebody that this would go mainstream one
| day
| hindsightbias wrote:
| What flip phones work now that 3G is getting dropped?
| MandieD wrote:
| While not, strictly speaking, a dumbphone, this one sold under
| various branding can be used as one, and my never-smartphone-
| using dad and aunt are satisfied with it:
|
| [0]https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone/schok-flip
|
| [1]https://www.consumercellular.com/shopping/details/link_II/vi
| ...
|
| It has proven reliable in middle-of-nowhere West Texas over the
| past few months on both T-Mobile and Consumer Cellular, likely
| using T-Mobile's network.
|
| I have no idea how any of the other functions stack up, but
| neither my dad nor my aunt care about anything other than
| making and taking dialed phone calls.
| [deleted]
| floren wrote:
| You can buy 4G flip phones these days. Poke around the corners
| of the displays at an AT&T store or a Best Buy, there's usually
| one or two hiding somewhere.
| karaterobot wrote:
| So many of these NYT pieces are a character study framed as
| though it were describing a small part of a larger movement. I'd
| _like_ this sentiment to be widespread and robust among the
| upcoming generation of young adults, but will it be? It 's
| difficult to believe.
| falcolas wrote:
| I appreciate that they've recognized they have choices, and are
| being supported in the choices they're making.
|
| It's not a choice I'll make (I lived that life without a choice
| for several decades; I'm good), but I still like that they can.
| themadturk wrote:
| I agree. I'm Team Smartphone, but those who want and can do
| without have my admiration.
| LucyEverylove wrote:
| I've been experimenting with a "no phone" protocol for a few
| months now. It has been amazing. Only occasionally
| problematic/inconvenient, mostly miss the GPS and music. Most
| things I used to do on phone I simply do on a laptop. But not
| constantly grabbing for a phone and staring at a screen...
| priceless.
| jjav wrote:
| > mostly miss the GPS and music
|
| I mostly go phoneless if at all possible. I use an old ipod
| nano for music. It's much better at it than the phone because
| it is so tiny and thin (and has a headphone jack).
|
| For GPS my watch (Garmin) has GPS.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Yep, my 10-year old uses a 17-year old nano for music. I've
| stockpiled a few 30-pin cables. With a USB A-toC adaptor it
| works fine on M1 MBP and is fully supported! It blew my mind
| that just a year or two ago I plugged it in and it got a
| firmware update.
|
| The only worry I have is whether I'll be able to replace the
| battery when it finally needs it.
| fragmede wrote:
| Plenty of batteries on ebay and amazon!
| floren wrote:
| > For GPS my watch (Garmin) has GPS.
|
| Your watch can do navigation? Without being tethered to a
| phone? I'm interested, which model?
| Unbeliever69 wrote:
| I used a flip-phone from 2011-2018 after standing in line day-
| one to buy an iPhone. Those were very productive years of my
| life.
| rr888 wrote:
| Phone without a sim card. You'll get GPS and music too. :) Just
| have to avoid wifi.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I still use a small mp3 player - no video just a tiny digital
| display. They're so superior to any smart phone for actually
| playing music. Tiny, fits in any pocket easily, volume and be
| adjusted and tracks changed without looking at it...
| jabthedang wrote:
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| It's possible to argue that dispensing with the _habit_ of
| carrying and using a music player is _also_ a potential win.
| What 's one of the reasons smartphones can be a problem? That
| they distract and disconnect you from your environment and
| absorb you in something other than what's around you. Music
| players can also do that. If you turn the music off, it'll open
| your ears to the sounds of your environment. If you try it for
| an extended period of time, you may develop a greater
| attentiveness and auditory acuteness.
|
| Each of these devices, while not bad on its own and in itself,
| does provide an opportunity for the device to lay claim to one
| or more of our senses. The multiverse is a step further in that
| direction, a further bubble of engineered experience
| disconnected from reality and yes almost posing as reality.
| This does not bode well for the intellect as nothing in the
| intellect was not first in the senses. Our intuitions are at
| their best when seeded by the passive experience of the world,
| and if our experience is constantly flooded by media and
| engineered simulations often of a very unhealthy variety, then
| our alignment with reality will be off. This sort of passive
| perception of reality is at the heart of contemplation which is
| what true leisure (not recreation) is all about.
|
| To quote Josef Pieper[0], "the greatest menace to our capacity
| for contemplation is the incessant fabrication of tawdry empty
| stimuli which kill the receptivity of the soul."
|
| [0] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/408300-happiness-
| and-c...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The next step after this epiphany is to realize you can do this
| without actually giving up the phone. Just because it's in your
| pocket doesn't mean you need to pull it out constantly and look
| at it. It's just a tool, relegate it to that position in your
| life and don't use it like a pacifier.
| dilap wrote:
| I don't think this would work for me, absent some sort of
| brain surgery. Even if I'm not looking at my phone, my brain
| still knows I _could_ look at my phone, which colors my
| experience.
|
| I think these kids have the right idea, going back to a flip
| phone. (Or maybe the modern variant: go Apple-watch only.)
| jackpirate wrote:
| And the next step after this epiphany is that you still have
| to remember to take the phone with you places, not to leave
| it behind, and worry about it getting dropped in the toilet
| by a toddler. Not caring this tool still has a lot of
| benefits.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's not realistic. The phone is calling out, begging you
| to pay attention to it, and makes itself more difficult to
| use the less you want to be entangled.
|
| You just have to put it away. If it's a tool, treat it like a
| tool. You don't carry a hammer in your pocket all day.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Your phone calls out to you? I guess when I receive a
| message it does. But that's why very few apps are allowed
| push notifications.
| Jorengarenar wrote:
| >The phone is calling out, begging you to pay attention to
| it
|
| No, it doesn't; it's _you_ who carves to escape into the
| phone. I wish it would call me sometimes to at least
| remember to keep it charged.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| Nah, you just need to break the addictions to that apps
| that cause that.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Turn off notifications, put it on do not disturb mode,
| whatever.
|
| And many people do carry a pocket knife or multitool in
| their pocket all day.
| 543g43g43 wrote:
| >But not constantly grabbing for a phone and staring at a
| screen... priceless.
|
| And once the spell is broken, you find yourself staring at
| people stumbling around, tied to their tiny screens.
| null0ranje wrote:
| One of the big things keeping me from going down this road is
| the need to carry around a phone for 2FA purposes. Is there
| anything that can fill that gap?
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| yubikey type things? we were using little blackberry-format
| devices for 2FA in the previous century.
| factsarelolz wrote:
| Hard token, yubikey
| jjav wrote:
| TOTP if at all possible. Then you can run the code calculator
| on your laptop or wherever most convenient for you, not them.
| latchkey wrote:
| Raivo runs just fine on my desktop, although it does ask for
| my thumbprint randomly (known issue).
|
| If you're using 2FA with SMS, just stop, or switch to
| something like Google Voice.
| chunk_waffle wrote:
| Many sites don't support hardware tokens, and some sites such
| as banks require and only allow SMS 2FA. I even planned to
| switch banks and the two others near me also required a cell
| phone SMS 2FA for online banking with no other alternatives.
|
| Online banking is far too beneficial to give up (traveling
| abroad, checking balance, moving funds around) and there are
| other sites besides banks that do this too. It's infuriating.
| glogla wrote:
| Yeah, around here (EU) every bank decided you need to have an
| app to be able to do anything with your account or pay using
| card online. You don't need just a phone, but a smartphone.
| SN76477 wrote:
| I have considered a large ipad to replace my phone. Still able
| to get calls, gps and take pics but with much less convenience
| than a pocket device.
|
| Somehow we have placed all of our faith in these devices.
| sequoia wrote:
| This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely
| performative these kids are as well, at least how they're
| characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an
| unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski
| and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are
| like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful
| not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of snobbishness (as I
| also did as a young punk).
|
| One thread they're touching on that I think is healthy and good
| is the DIY aesthetic, and the resistance to tools and media that
| primarily serve to make you a passive consumer, and to choose and
| live ones values more consciously & proactively. These features
| are (or ate least were) prominent in the punk scene, but also in
| many other subcultures including many religious groups.
|
| I am glad to see "the kids" continuing to question & challenge
| and try to take more control of their own lives, so this is great
| in my opinion. A bit of pretentiousness is a small price to pay
| in my opinion.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| >This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely
| performative these kids are as well, at least how they're
| characterized in this article.
|
| I mean, they are teenagers. I said this in a longer comment in
| this thread, but teenagers tend to be performative. That's sort
| of the point of growing up and finding yourself.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| I picked up on this a few years ago and mentioned it briefly in
| Digital Vegan. What struck me while researching was that the
| accusation of "Luddite" is levelled mainly against older
| (Boomer, Gen-X/Z) people and comes _from_ the same group.
| Whereas younger people, glorified as "digital natives" by our
| older group, actually have more critical attitude towards
| gratuitous connection and consumption.
|
| It made me realise that the mythologies of tech (an inevitable,
| ubiquitous force of progress and 'convenience' that we must
| slavishly follow or be "left behind") resides in my generation.
| belfalas wrote:
| In many ways the article feels like it's documenting kids with
| the freedom to have an opinion. Looking at the pictures in the
| article, it feels like a pretty uniform demographic. And in New
| York City, no less.
|
| Also, they idolize Chris McCandless - he was also a child of
| privilege who wanted to reject society. Chris didn't have to
| die but he did because he went up to Alaska woefully
| unprepared. That doesn't make his death any less tragic, of
| course.
|
| I guess my point is that this phenomenon is not anything new,
| if anything we've just gotten for enough into the 21st century
| that the 1970s ethic is making a comeback.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Also, they idolize Chris McCandless - he was also a child
| of privilege who wanted to reject society._
|
| Idolizing McCandless is such an odd thing; Alaska is filled
| with people who rejected their past lives like he did, but
| who _didn 't_ die because they had more humility and respect
| for the land.
| poopiokaka wrote:
| Lol I can't imagine judging kids this hard. You're doing
| great
| LarryMullins wrote:
| His death wasn't a freak accident, it was a predictable
| consequence of him going into Alaska unprepared. He shot
| a moose and let it rot because he didn't know better and
| didn't bother to learn first. This was hubris; Alaska is
| not the place to fake it until you make it.
|
| Anyway, my critique of McCandless is mild, talk to some
| Alaskans if you want to hear some proper vitriolic
| criticism of him. I barely scratched the surface by
| accusing him of hubris.
|
| If you mean my criticism of teens idolizing McCandless, I
| don't know what to tell you. He isn't a good role model.
| There are obviously worse role models, but he isn't a
| good one.
| poopiokaka wrote:
| Nice. Nah I was talking about you generally roasting
| teens in comments on this thread. Just seems weird. Maybe
| you are a teen and it's not? Idk who cares I guess
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I really have no idea what you're on about. In this
| thread I have discussed: my suspicion that most teens are
| not as performative as those who get interviewed by the
| NYTimes, my preference for boots, my theory on TV shows
| outlasting their quality, my belief that children are
| better off without smartphones, and my criticism of
| McCandless.
|
| Where is the roasting of teens? The closest I've come to
| roasting teens is saying that teens idolizing McCandless
| is 'odd'.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| I think the Krakauer book does a great job of describing the
| nuances of McCandless's level of preparedness. Of course
| maybe the author has a bias, but it certainly doesn't seem
| that way to me. McCandless was fairly unlucky despite having
| done quite a bit to prepare and try to ensure success. He ate
| a plant that was categorized as edible in a respected source
| book, but the actual part that he ate (in the season that he
| ate it) was poisonous. Once that happened and he realized
| what was going on, all his prior efforts to make sure he
| would remain isolated (including dubious choices like not
| bringing a map) spelled his doom. To me, McCandless made a
| conscious choice to try to live off the land without help.
| That is also a conscious choice to die if things go too
| wrong. Did he want to die? I don't think so, but he had to
| know it was a distinct and not-so-insignificant likelihood. I
| think I would NEVER do something like that. But was
| McCandless woefully unprepared? I personally don't think so.
| I am aware that I might have a minority opinion on that,
| because he did die.
| ghaff wrote:
| Without commenting on McCandless in particular, pretty much
| every mountaineering accident report as well points out
| things that, had they been done differently, would have led
| to a better outcome. This becomes less true as you _know_
| you 're going to be pushing limits if you go to climb K2.
| But lack of preparation or just shouldn't have gone out
| that day are pretty common themes.
| cardamomo wrote:
| I think they're no more performative than other teenagers, who
| are almost developmentally predisposed to be preoccupied with
| in- and outgroup signaling.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis
| like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the
| wind."
|
| I don't know, to me it all seemed exceedingly genuine. If
| they're spending lots of time outside in parks--"rain or shine,
| even snow"--their clothing choices make sense. They like
| reading, and their reading material has made an impression (as
| good books are wont to do, especially for impressionable
| teenagers), such as by convincing them of the value of
| activities like "listening to the wind".
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| It's genuine insofar as we have gone too far one way as a
| society and now people, even young people who have no concept
| of the old days, are exploring the opposite again.
|
| I guess it seems a bit pretentious since those of us who were
| around as young adults when mobiles and the internet took
| off, and then worked in the industries that made the current
| situation happen, realise there is a happy midpoint. "The
| only thing better than a flip phone is no phone?" I can't
| roll my eyes enough.
|
| I dare say "our generation" started the idea of removing
| technology again and getting back some of the good old days.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > "The only thing better than a flip phone is no phone?" I
| can't roll my eyes enough.
|
| Yeah, but kids often say groan-worthy things, or have
| opinions that lack perspective. I still think she was being
| perfectly earnest.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| It's worth noting that Carhartt is currently hot as a fashion
| brand. Yes, really.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Hottake: the author is effectively oblivious to the impact of
| the aesthetic scene and unable to filter its impact on
| contemporary youth culture.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Considering this is a piece in the style section I find that
| almost impossible to believe. Seems much more likely that
| they're just being a bit dishonest about why these kids are
| "luddites" because it makes for a better story.
| headbee wrote:
| Carhartt is a very trendy street wear brand in addition to
| their (still very trendy and brandy) workwear.
| the-printer wrote:
| Carhartt often moonlights as a streetwear brand.
| actusual wrote:
| They actually have a dedicated streetwear/hipper line called
| WIP (https://us.carhartt-wip.com/)
| the-printer wrote:
| That's what I was referring to.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| I'd suggest the vagueness of "often moonlights" indicated
| that you weren't aware of the sub-brand being a thing.
| okwubodu wrote:
| "Streetwear" itself has a snobbish connotation as of late.
| the-printer wrote:
| I don't know what the nature of the culture is these days,
| but in hindsight, it's always been.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Streetwear has been associated with luxury/higher
| fashion/snobbery in the mainstream for at least a decade
| (though its influence both on and by high fashion goes back
| to the 90s). The biggest fashion trend of the 2010s that
| has extended into the 2020s was the rise of the streetwear
| and sneaker culture from the streets and into the
| mainstream, often at luxury price points.
| rychco wrote:
| While there's definitely a performative aspect to it, I think
| there's a genuine & sincere interest in rejecting social-media
| manufactured-reality. These teens, regardless of sincerity, are
| rejecting a _demonstrably negative & harmful_ activity in favor
| of reading, art, music, & engaging with their local community.
| I'm thrilled that this is catching on at all. I've had a deep
| hatred of owning a smartphone for years, but always feel like I
| _need_ it (slack & email for work, immediate news/link
| aggregation, etc.), so I'm jealous/happy that they've gotten a
| head start at rejecting it outright so young.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Or to put it another way, being ironically literate and
| contemplative is still being literate and contemplative.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I think there's a selection bias here; the ones who are
| performative are more likely to cross paths with a NYTimes
| journalist than the ones who aren't. People who keep it low key
| don't often rise to the notice of others.
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| Look up their parents. It's not a coincidence they crossed
| path with NY Times reporters looking to profile them.
| Nepotism teens doesn't have the same ring though.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Another interesting angle related to their coming from
| money--I don't have enough data to really even call it,
| well, data, but the limited glimpse I've had into properly
| upper-middle (as in the Fussell, social-class sense, not
| the "I make $130k/yr as a middle manager and live in a
| McMansion in a nice school district, so I call myself
| upper-middle class" sense) and upper classes' kids and
| schools, they're giving their kids phones _way_ later than
| the public-school set. Like, 20% or less the ownership rate
| by 5th grade, I 'd say. Nowhere near universal personal
| smartphone ownership by 8th grade, even, unlike the public
| schools, where nearly all the kids have one by then.
|
| _But_ I 'm mostly seeing a single school, so it may just
| be that that school operates in some kind of techphobic
| bubble, not that the better-off are generally exposing
| their kids to cell phones and the Internet _way_ less than
| the middle-class and lower.
|
| ... then again, maybe what I 'm seeing _isn 't_ a heavily
| biased sample, and that's exactly what's going on, and this
| article is a manifestation of a real tendency of the upper
| classes to curtail tech exposure for their kids, compared
| with the general population.
| subsubzero wrote:
| yeah I was wondering how a small group of say 5-8 teens
| made it to NYtimes. The paper tries to fool you to think
| these are just organic encounters that are part of a
| massive movement(anti-tech) when its really just hand
| picked people close to a friend of someone that works at
| the paper. Remember it was discovered this year the
| editorial desk of the NYtimes has a mandate that all
| stories must paint tech in a negative light.
| [deleted]
| dpflan wrote:
| Nepoteenism.
| sdwr wrote:
| Didn't read the article, but I wish I had friends who made
| listening to the wind an activity growing up. There's a lot of
| performance any direction you take, surrendering time to the
| elements is a lovely little angle.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Fear of coming across as performative has overall hindered my
| ability to coexist within certain subcultures. I wish I cared
| less about this and I admire people who manage to find
| cultural unity through performance.
| LegitShady wrote:
| at some point you have to realize the overwhelming majority
| of people you're worried about being judged by aren't
| people whose opinions you'd care about if they were offered
| to you, and that being an authentic you is more important
| than the judgement of strangers.
|
| A lot of people's lives could be way better if they
| internalized this.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| To me, this feels like you're criticizing kids for being kids.
| You grew out of it, so will they.
|
| It also might be you projecting. It's entirely possible they
| genuinely enjoy their choice of clothing and literature and
| it's not a performance.
| themadturk wrote:
| I'm old and I _love_ the Carhartt tee shirts I bought a few
| years ago...thick cotton, softened through wear and washing,
| the best shirts I 've ever owned. These kids have good taste.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| Anyone who thinks reading Dostoyevski is an acomplishment must
| be borderline illiterate*. None of his works are a hard read.
| Dostoyevski is the acomplishment, not the reader. Almost all
| fiction is a passive medium, the "work" has already been done
| by the auhtor. Tens (hundreds?) of millions of copies have been
| sold, and his works are required reading in many high schools.
|
| >I am glad to see "the kids" continuing to question & challenge
|
| They are the children of (rich?) Brooklyn hipster parents at a
| Performance arts school[0]. Who exactly are they challenging?
| If anything, they are being congradulated and pushed along on
| the hipster path. There are Brooklyn hipsters who unironically
| use 1980's antenta phones. If anything this is a worn out
| trope.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow_High_School
|
| *I don't mean to imply that you are illiterate, just that you
| haven't thought this through.
| marzell wrote:
| What I think many people would argue about Dostoyevsky is
| that it is easy to read at a surface level, but invites
| critical thinking to reveal layers of subtext and deeper
| meaning. Maybe you don't agree, which is fine, but I'd
| suggest this is why some people may associate it with high
| reading comprehension.
| chip-8 wrote:
| I loved Crime and Punishment, but I struggled to grasp some
| of the long monologues in The Brothers Karamazov. It's not
| hard to follow the plot, but because it deals with
| challenging ideas through monologues which completely stop
| the plot, I found it challenging to fully engage with. Hardly
| a very difficult read but not always an easy page-turner
| either. Maybe I just needed a better translation.
| ausbah wrote:
| "they're not authentic they're just performing" is also a
| trope. I assume someone is being genuine until proven
| otherwise
| Jorengarenar wrote:
| >Anyone who thinks reading Dostoyevski is an acomplishment
| must be borderline illiterate
|
| It's not an accomplishment, but it's definitely more, as
| parent commenter said, "performative" than saying they read
| any popular author of today.
|
| As you yourself pointed, Dostoyevski is a required reading in
| high school and as anybody who had the "pleasure" of
| attending school, knows required reading usually isn't
| something what appeals to the youth (killing joy from this
| activity is another problem).
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > As you yourself pointed, Dostoyevski is a required
| reading in high school and as anybody who had the
| "pleasure" of attending school, knows required reading
| usually isn't something what appeals to the youth (killing
| joy from this activity is another problem).
|
| That's true of a lot of students, but not _everyone!_ A
| couple of classmates in particular come to mind who
| definitely, genuinely loved the books we were assigned.
|
| Heck, while I didn't like _most_ of the books we read,
| there were a handful I loved! _Montana, 1948_ , for
| example, was amazing.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Not disagreeing, but I just want to point out Pynchon and
| Foster-Wallace as authors that require effort on behalf of
| the reader.
|
| Admittedly, the reader effort is still ridiculously far below
| that of the author.
|
| Quoting Fry: "It took an hour to write, I thought it would
| take an hour to read"
| a-dub wrote:
| it's the 2022 version of "kill your television" and i love it.
|
| in practice: i wonder how practical it is to survive as an
| adult without a smartphone. uber has decimated cabs and i don't
| think you can telephone for an uber.
|
| i wonder what else is unreachable/unworkable/etc...
| SquareWheel wrote:
| I don't carry a cellphone. The rates are atrocious in Canada,
| and I don't like being rung when I'm out and about.
|
| The biggest problem is 2-factor. Many services are starting
| to require it, which has led me to losing access to various
| accounts. Looking at you, Paypal.
|
| Otherwise, it's fine. I make a paper shopping list. I
| schedule meetings in advance, and show up at the expected
| time. Uber isn't even in my city so there's no loss there.
| frereubu wrote:
| In the UK, you can get texts sent to landline numbers. Not
| sure if it's carrier-dependent, but my Mum would
| occasionally get texts sent to her landline. She'd get a
| call saying that she'd received a text and the text was
| read to her by a computer. Perhaps that might work in
| Canada?
| kritiko wrote:
| In Brooklyn now, it's cheaper to use a car service than
| Uber/Lyft, so I think you could get by fine without those
| apps. Getting around without Google Maps would be pretty
| challenging, I think.
| depingus wrote:
| > Getting around without Google Maps would be pretty
| challenging, I think.
|
| I learned to drive before smartphones. I can assure you its
| very possible to find addresses without a phone. Heck, I
| still sometimes do it for fun! Nothing wrong with a little
| u-turn here or there.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Before smartphones I would use a street map, which were
| sold at every gas station. And if I was still having
| trouble, I would call for directions from a public pay
| phone, which were located on street corners every few
| blocks.
| a-dub wrote:
| just checked, chatgpt can give directions...
|
| reminds me of the old days when i used to text GOOGL for
| exact addresses
| parker_mountain wrote:
| > They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis
| like NYC),
|
| It's not really, it's become a pretty fashionable brand in
| urban areas. Basically a combination of work wear and basic REI
| aesthetic.
| subpixel wrote:
| Carhartt isn't unsusual at all, it's trendy and has been
| adopted as streetwear.
|
| And I think you're overthinking the performative aspect, it's
| bog standard teenage behavior that diminishes over time but
| persists forever. Every branded piece of apparel, every vanity
| plate, all interior decorating are in the same performative
| vein.
| dieselgate wrote:
| Does one always risk a bit of "pretentiousness" if they
| act/live contrary to the "main stream"? Just by having a flip
| phone, for example, someone will be called a "hipster" or
| whatever name. It's like a group social phenomena or something
| - just by being vegetarian (or being more "pretentious" by
| being vegan) people experience this sort of stuff
| agentwiggles wrote:
| "Flipsters", perhaps :)
| iechoz6H wrote:
| Haha, how times have changed, I was a pretty hard core vegan
| between 1990 and 2003 and was much more likely to be called a
| cunt than pretentious!
| ravenstine wrote:
| Basically, yes, because a lot of people don't really know
| what being pretentious or a hipster actually means. The
| passage of time has lead to both terms being misunderstood
| and simultaneously conflated.
|
| In order for someone to _actually_ be pretentious, there has
| to be a pretense. Being purposefully non-mainstream doesn 't
| make someone pretentious as much as a more normal individual
| would like to believe. Hipsters aren't necessarily
| pretentious, even when they have a pattern of rejecting the
| mainstream. A hipster might be pretentious if their image is
| disingenuous (ex. wearing some article they don't actually
| identify with, pooh-poohing something publicly while
| appreciating it secretly), but that doesn't have to describe
| all or most hipsters.
|
| I get called a hipster because I often reject or have no
| interest in many things that most people consider good on
| that basis alone. When something becomes mainstream, I like
| it less because I believe something going from unknown to
| mainstream is usually a bad sign, and that instinct is almost
| always right. _Breaking Bad_ was way better until everyone
| started slobbering over it and chanted "get back to cooking
| meth bruh", and look how it ended. Such a long way for a ham
| sandwich. haha
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| "When something becomes mainstream, I like it less because
| I believe something going from unknown to mainstream is
| usually a bad sign"
|
| If someone ever asks me for an example of a pretentious
| comment, I'm going to give them this
| Lammy wrote:
| > a lot of people don't really know what being pretentious
| or a hipster actually means
|
| https://catandgirl.com/riddle-me-this/
| scelerat wrote:
| I feel "hipster" can be boiled down to something which is
| leveled only as a mildly pejorative epithet, and frequently
| by those who are secretly envious of the subject's
| aesthetic, or their freedom to exhibit it.
| HardlyCurious wrote:
| Rejection of the mainstream / establishment properties is
| the pretense.
|
| It isn't that you like something, it's that you don't want
| to be associated to some other things. And you don't want
| to be associated to those other things because of some
| pretense about what associating to those things means.
| ravenstine wrote:
| That's not a pretense. The word you're looking for is
| _pretext_. Rejecting the mainstream is completely a
| legitimate position on its own. The only way it _can_ be
| a pretense is if it 's done for appearance only. Well,
| maybe there are other ways, but that's the only one I can
| think of at the moment.
|
| Maybe this is confusing because of the phrase "false
| pretense", which is redundant and can lead to some people
| thinking that there's such a thing as a pretense that
| isn't false-ish.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I've got a theory that the TV show Firefly is appreciated
| today because it got cancelled before it was popular; they
| quit when they were ahead and before popularity ruined it.
| But most Firefly fans seem to hate my theory.
| goatlover wrote:
| How does something being popular ruin its quality? The
| reason people diss hipsters is because they're reacting
| to what other people enjoy instead of just liking
| something for its own sake.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| I suppose popularity could inflate the creators' egos,
| leading them to make unilateral decisions without any
| advice or input from others. Not necessarily a bad thing,
| especially if the creator was already making unilateral
| decisions, but if before the popularity there was a group
| of people making decisions (such as a writers room for a
| television show) and after popularity they stop doing
| that, then there is a risk the quality goes down. Of
| course that's just one possibility of how popularity
| could lead to a reduction in quality, and its not the
| popularity itself that is the cause, it is a change in
| decision-making procedure. So in general, I would say it
| is disingenuous and pretentious to dislike something
| because of its popularity. It's not a valid reason
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _I suppose popularity could inflate the creators '
| egos, leading them to make unilateral decisions without
| any advice or input from others. Not necessarily a bad
| thing, especially if the creator was already making
| unilateral decisions, but if before the popularity there
| was a group of people making decisions (such as a writers
| room for a television show) and after popularity they
| stop doing that, then there is a risk the quality goes
| down._
|
| Kojima and the Metal Gear series.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Popular songs are ruined by being ubiquitous. They're
| everywhere for a period of time. Over concentrated.
| Inescapable. And from that point, ruined.
|
| Popular movies get discussed to death and over-mis-
| interpreted to the point where just the mention of it
| causes a mental effort to ignore the assumed sycophantic
| rambling that's to follow.
|
| Popularity ruins perceived quality by the nature of media
| to seize upon it and, as someone else said in a slightly
| different context above, squeeze every last cent of
| profit out of the opportunity that's presented by it's
| popularity.
|
| Technically it doesn't affect the quality, but it adds a
| thick layer of media slime that can take years to dry up
| and fall off.
|
| Lastly, popularity and quality are two scales that have
| interesting intersections. It's a concept I'd actually
| like to investigate further.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Several mechanisms. For one, a show running to long
| simply squeezes all the juice out of the premise. Popular
| shows are kept running too long to extract all the money
| out of them, but they become soulless and formulaic
| towards the end.
|
| Another mechanism is flanderization, in which writers
| simplify characters or other aspects of the show for
| various reasons, mostly laziness and to conform to
| expectations the audience develops about how characters
| should act. Characters with depth become shallow shadows
| of their past selves as one aspect of their personality
| starts to dominate the others. When characters are driven
| by audience expectations instead of the writer's internal
| muse, they become soulless and predictable.
|
| Another is overdeveloping the setting. Throwaway lines in
| earlier media get needlessly turned into developed
| storylines. It leaves less to the imagination. This is
| often related to the first mechanism I mention; the
| writers squeezing all the juice out of the earlier media.
| echelon wrote:
| I think you're absolutely correct. The show was campy,
| and in time, would have become grating and fallen apart.
|
| Star Wars, once lauded, has been milked dry. There are a
| few good works, but by and large they're beating a dead
| horse.
|
| The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked out
| after Endgame.
|
| Game of Thrones was so near to perfection. It had an
| unusually large cast of a hundred characters and an
| expansive world to draw down. But even if the new show is
| good, the magic is gone.
|
| The mystery of Stranger Things after season one ended.
| We're getting a rehash with common character tropes you
| can find anywhere.
|
| The allure of Westworld softened after season one
| attempted to open up to bigger themes, but actually cut
| down on the possibility space.
|
| The third Godfather. Dexter. Every single Jurassic Park
| but the first. Jaws. On and on.
|
| Chiefly, it's simply a function of multiplied
| probabilities to continue with a success streak.
| Eventually the odds do not pay off in your favor.
|
| But I think another contributing factor is that our
| brains begin to fit the shape of the setting, the motifs,
| the character arcs, the narrative world - and we just
| aren't surprised or pleased any longer. Few people would
| ask for twenty seasons of a show. Or ten movies in a
| given franchise. Our brains learn the shape of the
| landscape and grow bored.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, some of the sometimes literal Wild West in space
| was fun given appealing characters. Even Serenity worked
| pretty well. I'm not sure how it would have played out
| longer term. I certainly probably appreciate it better as
| a brief fan fave than something that maybe wore out its
| welcome sooner rather than later.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Star Wars, once lauded, has been milked dry. There are
| a few good works, but by and large they're beating a dead
| horse
|
| That's been true since 1983.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked
| out after Endgame.
|
| First, it would be weird to say that was because Marvel
| was falling apart. It was the conclusion of a decade long
| movie franchise. Of course people might watch something
| else once the story they had been following was done. It
| doesn't mean they won't come back or didn't like the new
| movies, it means they wanted a break.
|
| But mainly, it's also not true. Leaving aside 2020 (when
| Marvel released their movies all online), let's look at
| 2021. 4 out of the top 10 movies were Marvel movies
| (including number 1).
|
| In 2022, they have 3 of the top 10 slots. They were
| beaten out by the Top Gun reboot and the latest Jurassic
| Park
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| > They were beaten out by the Top Gun reboot and the
| latest Jurassic Park
|
| Which is both sad and hilarious in the context of this
| thread
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I mean, rounding out the top 10 of 2022 are the latest
| Minions, Batman, Harry Potter, Sonic the Hedgehog (for
| some reason) and a sequel to a Chinese movie which was in
| the top 10 in 2021. Nothing original at all in 2022, and
| the big things that may still break into the top 10 (e.g.
| Avatar 2) are also sequels.
|
| In 2021, the only original things were the highest
| production cost Chinese movie in history that glorified
| the Chinese army vanquishing their enemies (South Korea,
| the US) in the Korean War (this is the one that got a
| sequel) and a Chinese comedy. The western movies were the
| latest Bond, Fast and Furious, Kong vs. Godzilla, and
| Sing 2.
|
| (A Chinese movie series also was in the top 10 in 2021)
| echelon wrote:
| > it means they wanted a break
|
| My point exactly. We tire of the familiar.
|
| > 4 out of the top 10 movies were Marvel movies
|
| Disney operates at a scale none of their peers can match.
| They have the most well tuned pipeline of any production
| company. I'd expect this.
|
| Nevertheless, metrics point to declining interest. If I
| had time to write a longer comment, I'd be able to cite
| sources and offer more than just a suggestion to google
| "marvel fatigue".
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Wanting something different is not the statement that you
| were originally making. Your original contention was that
| quality goes down, it "becomes grating and falls apart".
| dudeofea wrote:
| Firefly was a mistake,
|
| in that the corporate machine made a mistake in not
| extracting all that it could from it in follow-up
| seasons, movies, sequels, etc.
|
| You know how good a movie is by how many sequels it took
| to kill it.
| rdlw wrote:
| Well yes, most people react poorly to "The reason you
| love the thing you love is not because it is good, but
| for <shallow/superficial reason>"
| LarryMullins wrote:
| No, I'm saying that Firefly _is and was_ good. It never
| got a chance to become bad.
| ghaff wrote:
| And even if not become bad... For myself I have something
| called the 5 season rule. Not literal (quite) but
| somewhere around 5 seasons I just get bored--even if the
| show if still on a good trajectory, which it often isn't.
| drewcoo wrote:
| Well, if we're going to talk "really means," then . . .
|
| Hipsters are people who follow trends. They try to be
| "hip."
|
| Rejecting things because everyone else likes them is not
| being a hipster. It's being a contrarian.
| mromanuk wrote:
| I'm glad, some teens are doing this, I hope it become a
| mainstream trend. It's marvelous that each generation question
| everything and start this type of counter-trends. I have three
| young kids and I do my best to keep them away from smartphones.
| This gives me hope that my older daughter, when she becomes a
| teenager, will not ask me for a smartphone.
| ydlr wrote:
| Things are going to get interesting in a few years when these
| kids get jobs and can practice their machine-breaking in earnest.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| a little more difficult now that no one wears those wooden
| shoes anymore, though.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot_(shoe)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They'll still stick it to the man when their employer expects
| them to provide a personal phone for 2FA and don't have one.
| factsarelolz wrote:
| Eh just offer a hard token or yubikey and be done.
| UncleSlacky wrote:
| If my employer expects me to use a phone for work, I expect
| them to provide the phone.
| ender341341 wrote:
| Several people at my work refuse to install work software
| on personal phones so the company bought them yubikeys to
| use instead.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| I held out on this after a factory wipe on my phone
| invalidated my authenticator keys. The IT guy ended up
| using his own phone because cheapskate companies won't
| pay for real security.
| ryyr wrote:
| #tedpilled
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I respect the teens that are doing this, for whatever reason, but
| I think reading too much into a trend piece is a mistake. I don't
| know these kids, and maybe they are 100% genuine, but the whole
| thing strikes me as being about the aesthetic and the fashion
| above all else. Wanting to be different to be different, and the
| best way to do that is to reject that digital society that we are
| all in now.
|
| When I was their age, I was similar -- down to wearing the
| trendiest of trendy clothing items (that were designed to not
| look overly trendy, but anyone in the know would know that they
| were), while still thinking myself some sort of "outsider." We
| had a communist club (despite all of us really being capitalists
| and having rich parents and benefitting immensely from
| capitalism), we rejected television as a lesser medium (despite
| secretly loving our favorite shows), upheld the virtues of
| "arthouse cinema" (which, you know what, fair -- I still love
| arthouse cinema) and we only listened to certain types of music
| -- on vinyl (some things never change) -- and this was just ahead
| of the vinyl resurgence. But secretly, a lot of us still listened
| to pop music on MP3s in our bedrooms, watched the same trash TV
| we claimed to reject, and enjoyed the same populist commercial
| films. It was an outward rejection, but not who we really were.
| It was aesthetic and fashion and came out of reading and loving
| Kerouac and Salinger and Thompson (authors I still love) and
| wanting to feel like we weren't part of the suburban bubble we
| were painfully part of.
|
| I look back at my pretentious, self-important 16 year old self
| and I don't feel pity or regret, but I see it for what it is, and
| it was about fashion and aesthetic and wanting to signify to the
| world that I was "different." But the irony is that feeling
| different is one of the most universal feelings a person can
| have.
|
| Again, I don't know these teenagers. And maybe they are
| completely genuine. I don't judge them or think less of them if
| it is all an aesthetic. Or if some of this is a purposeful troll.
| But there is still an irony about a Luddite club being profiled
| by the biggest media organization in the world and going viral on
| the very platform they claim to reject.
|
| I do dig the aesthetic tho. I would absolutely carry a flip phone
| for just the aesthetic today (you can tear my iPhone from my cold
| dead hands).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-16 23:01 UTC)