> To be truly countercultural in a time of tech hegemony, one has to, above all, betray the platform which may come in the form of betraying or divesting from your public online self.
Interesting enough quote, maybe obvious but maybe a nice reminder too.
> Search Google Images for ‘counterculture’ and it overwhelmingly returns black-and-white photos of young people all now over 60.
I just love the idea of some social media addicted teenager trying to break free and google image searching "counterculture"... I'm sure that was me c.2005
Because the term didn't exist or was popularized by people that are now over 60.
---
counterculture (n.)
also counter-culture, "way of life or collective values deliberately at variance with the prevailing norms of a time and place," 1968, from counter- + culture (n.).
Popularized by, and perhaps coined in, the book "The Making of a Counter Culture" by U.S. academic Theodore Roszak. As an adjective by 1972.
> Because the term didn't exist or was popularized by people that are now over 60.
And because even if it was nominally a generic term, its use to describe the generic phenomenon faded with the aging of the particular youth counterculture movement it was coined for; “punk” and later movements which might fairly be described as countercultural were never as popularly labeled with the term “counterculture” as the hippies were, and now it's a term groups overtly focused on exaggerating traditional elements of mainstream culture claim as a means of clout chasing.
I wonder... Is it because with increasing cultural fragmentation there is no longer a single culture to be counter to and therefore the term itself is outdated?
The real counterculture right now is non-participation.
In a world where virtually everything is either designed to completely waste your time or fail and not be repairable, it's a highly radical act to stop consuming like the 95%, preferring to spend time with other humans in reality doing something that isn't technological. In spite of the popular world pushing the message that you will be fulfilled living in virtual reality and consuming soy/insect products, the radical sets their phone to "do not disturb" and plays frisbee-golf or pub trivia.
During Covid lockdowns I joined a powerlifting gym that was a startup in an old dry cleaners, had to “try out” to get in (make sure I wasn’t a narc), was the only gym in a city of 5+ million that was open and they had papered over the windows so prying eyes couldn’t observe the no-masks inside. I had the fewest tats in the place, you only wear black, there will never be any TVs and the heaviest lifter in there at the time gets to control the Spotify station which is always metal.
They have both a pro-2A plaque and a trans flag on the wall. One of the co-owners is gay and films onlyfans in the gym at night.
Fast forward years later and I get my coffee beans from a startup local roaster who hosts an Elvis impersonator, for the motorcycle meetup, I learned where the tats get done, I support a local microbrewery, there is a cafe where I get lunch, I got my black t shirts from a designer…every single business owner I just mentioned goes to the same gym.
It’s a neat little community. And I’ve NEVER seen one of these people pull out a phone around others (unless they were filming a PR for their trainer)
(Make sure I wasn’t a narc) What does this mean in the context? Were they afraid of getting shut down during covid or something? I’m assuming that is what you meant.
Could be roids. When I used to powerlift that stuff was all too common. When I was kid lifting with the grownups they sold GHB next to the protein bars.
It's definitely the corona virus lockdown mandates. To me, with the mention of papering over the windows _so no one could see the no masks on inside_, it 100% indicates that they wanted to make sure he wasn't going to call the police and get the gym shut down. The people wanted a gym community and so they built one while heavily vetting who was allowed to know about or enter the space, specifically so they could avoid the eyes of the government during the lockdowns.
Yes my thought was juicing. Beyond the obvious bodybuilders in gyms the world over, when fitness is needed past a certain level of seriousness it’s much more common than expected.
> papered over the windows so prying eyes couldn’t observe the no-masks inside
I inferred it was lockdown/facemask or otherwise Corona related. I knew a couple of underground bars/restaurants that operated in a similar "speakeasy" fashion back in the 'rona times.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here and the relation to the post you responded.
>Fast forward years later and I get my coffee beans from a startup local roaster who hosts an Elvis impersonator, for the motorcycle meetup, I learned where the tats get done, I support a local microbrewery, there is a cafe where I get lunch, I got my black t shirts from a designer…every single business owner I just mentioned goes to the same gym.
So you consume/buy products that are most likely pricier, but sell you the idea of being 'more valueable' because they are organic, local this, that. And this is your idea of counter-culture and non-participation?
You buy things and consume products that Walmart doesn't sell? This seems like a pretty generic, consumerist way to to distinguish yourself from the rabbles and appears to me like a typical 2010s hipster lifestyle you are portaying. But the so-called counter-culture crowd you found doesn't pull out their smartphones when being around others, therefore they renounce the modern tech world?
I really can't say if your post was meant to be sarcastic or if I am just not getting the joke or you are being serious.
Yes agree. Finding small local interest groups usually leads towards communities that’ll run again the Insta-grain. This is most of my social life as well.
I always think it’s so interesting that on the threads about counterculture, nobody brings up the obvious counterculture that is a huge topic of conversation in America: Homeless people.
A large group of individuals who live their life very differently from the mainstream (countercultures do not have to be opt-in), who have completely different goals/morals/motivations than the mainstream, and are fully and violently rejected by the mainstream.
I think the 1960’s mythology confused a lot of people into thinking that counterculture is what young white people choose to do to seem cool, but homeless people are actually probably the most prominent counterculture America has ever had.
In practice, it’s hard to think of something more core to American culture than private property ownership and we have an increasing large group of people who are not participants in that.
> A large group of individuals who live their life very differently from the mainstream (countercultures do not have to be opt-in)
Yes, it does, and it has to have aspirational elements, distinct from those of the mainstrram it is defined against. Otherwise, while it is a a distinct (possibly sub-)culture, it isn’t a counterculture.
When you have to alter the widely understood meaning of a term to argue everyone else is overlooking an example, its a pretty good clue that its not an example.
> I think the 1960’s mythology confused a lot of people into thinking that counterculture is what young white people choose to do to seem cool,
Well, yes, “counterculture” was largely a label of the 1960s version of the boomer/millenial fight, but for “Greatest" vs Boomers, and without the adoption of marketing generational terms, and then as now it mainly applied to whites, because if it wasn’t intergenerational cultural conflict within White America, it got other labels.
I agree homeless people aren’t a political movement that’s trying to abolish homes, but they are completely rejecting mainstream culture (by choice or not).
> Countercultures are often described as radical groups of people who reject established social values and practices and who embrace a mode of life opposed to the mainstream. Countercultures emerge in the wake of dramatic economic and social developments. They are reactions to social dislocation and alienation from society. Countercultures share many similarities with subcultures, but rather than modifying dominant values and norms, they seek to reconstruct an alternative social order that rejects or subverts those values and norms.
>they are completely rejecting mainstream culture (by choice or not).
Choice is fundamental to rejection, and rejection is fundamental to counter culture.
The Roma are an interesting example, but not all homeless are Roma, so you can't generalize the idea. It's also interesting to question if Roma constitute a counterculture, and if so what culture they are in juxtaposition with given the fact that Roma culture predates contemporary culture
>Choice is fundamental to rejection, and rejection is fundamental to counter culture.
Most Westerners 'reject' Marxism, but that's not because we choose not to live in Marxist societies, it's because none exist that would take a Westerner in.
"Choice" is very often an expression of circumstance, and I would again argue the emphasis on wealthy white people choosing to become hippies in the 1960s has really skewed peoples idea of what a counterculture is.
I heartily disagree. Choice is central to rejection. Someone born blind by circumstance is not rejecting vision. Some who blinds themselves or refuses restorative treatment is rejecting vision.
Re Marxism, Most people reject Marxism by not desiring it or desiring to implement it. They have the choice to advocate for it or vote for Marxists, but in general do not. However, some do choose it and there is a small US communist party.
I dont think that constitutes rejection of Marxism. If you do everything within your power to bring about communism, are you not rejecting it.
If there is more in your power to do and you choose not to, then that is rejection.
This comes back to rejection being a matter of choice.
Does a slave reject freedom, because they dont have it and cant obtain it? Is a cancer patient who cant afford treatment rejecting treatment? Of course we wouldnt say these things because rejection implies option and choice.
Romani culture developed and maintained a nomadic lifestyle in areas where non-nomadic people already lived. To the point of choice, most Romani people are born into it.
If that's not a counter-culture, then what is a counterculture exactly?
Counterculture was very specifically people NOT borned into it, but instead choosing it as young adults. When they rejected valies of society they grew up with.
Romas are having their own lifestyle and values. If they are counterculture, every minority is counterculture. Would you say that Asians or orthodox Jews are counterculture?
I have given a fair amount of thought to the "homeless" lifestyle. I live in south Florida in what till fairly recently has been a quite little "just outside the main tourist zone" village. When I ran an art gallery/pottery shop I got to know quite a few of the local homeless, a few quite well. I realize that a fair amount of homeless folks, almost for sure the great majority, are not choosing this lifestyle. The ones that do choose this lifestyle though, I figure that they have the opportunity to "live" way more than those of us who work 30-50 years to secure a retirement. Hell, even if they die younger due to missing out on some of the healthcare that I purchase, each year they have 2000 hours more time to read, reflect, fish. Well, It is a bit to late for me to consider this option, but I cannot say that the one I chose is the better one.
> nobody brings up the obvious counterculture that is a huge topic of conversation in America: Homeless people.
Oh, this is such an excellent point. I talk with a lot of homeless people regularly, and they've even begun to adopt a more overt tone of counterculture: I've been increasingly hearing fantasies from them about a "homeless uprising/revolution".
> I always think it’s so interesting that on the threads about counterculture, nobody brings up the obvious counterculture that is a huge topic of conversation in America: Homeless people.
I don't think homelessness is a counterculture, unless it's been adopted as a conscious choice/preference. My understanding is the vast majority of homeless are such because of involuntary mental health/substance abuse issues or poverty. It might be a subculture, but not all subcultures are countercultures.
That's irrelevant. IMHO, making the conscious choice to rebel against mainstream culture is the defining characteristic of a counterculture. Not all cultural affiliations typically have so much "choice" but countercultures do.
I’ve thought this about “Free People” or w/e the term is. The homeless kids with backpacks. I think they are different slightly than most homeless in that they ~chose that life, and then ya sounds like a counterculture.
The vagabond/train hopping/squatting culture is a better fit for the subculture label, I think. Similar motivations but more obviously “chosen” as a lifestyle.
The living in a virtual reality and consuming insects (or owning nothing and being happy, or whatever other creepy thing the Davos crowd comes up with) part is rejected completely by the predominant culture. The WEF is therefore closer to counter-cutural movement than you are.
A counterculture doesn't have to be a thing for commoners. It can be limited to the upper classes.
The most famous example is probably the Socrates and his academy. Athenians saw him as a dangerous sophist that corrupted the youth, a common trope with regards to counter-cultural leaders. Eventually he was executed for that very reason.
Of course, by the time the man was executed, young aristocrats who had been under Socrates' tutelage had killed about 5% of the citizens in an attempt to abolish democracy and establish a proto-totalitarian regime in the Spartan model, which may or may not prove the Athenians right.
I work seasonally and spend the other half of the year trying to disconnect and focus on real-life, outdoor hobbies. Even if I leave my phone turned off, the majority of the people around me, young and old alike, are on their phones. They feel a need to document what they are doing on social media. Even in countercultures that draw on the 1960s hippies for examples, people might frown on photos going on social media, but participants are still whipping out their phones constantly to look at stuff. Today, the person who takes that radical act finds it much more difficult to have a community of like-minded people.
> I work seasonally and spend the other half of the year trying to disconnect and focus on real-life, outdoor hobbies.
A bit off-topic, but I'm curious if you have any advice for finding seasonal jobs? It feels a bit ironic to be working in tech, making twice what I actually need to live off of, but with no real option to just work half as much.
Sorry, I don’t work in tech at all but a different profession, one where seasonal work is easily arranged. I’m on HN because I learned shell/Python/Emacs as part of installing Linux decades ago and so I enjoy a “news for nerds” site, and I ended up here just because there was little place else to go after the decline of Slashdot.
Any primary industry plus tourism will find you those kind of jobs. They're advertised just the same way as any other jobs. Pay and benefits are usually bottom-tier, with much dishonesty among employers. Work is usually very tough and stressful physically and mentally. Work mates can be some of the most fun people you've met.
the radical sets their phone to "do not disturb" and plays frisbee-golf or pub trivia
I have recently been surprised to learn how robust both the stamp collecting and model railroading hobbies are these days.
Living in the HN bubble, I just assumed they were both dead. They're not. Not by a long shot. I wonder what other "old timey" hobbies are still popular.
Railroading is and has always been huge as far as I can tell. I know quite a few folks who are into it and the projects they build are featured in our local museums. It turns out that kids LOVE trains and of the 3 history museums in my city, all of them have an exhibit for model trains. One of them (our heritage park) provides funding to the creators, paying them to transport and set up their models in their museum. So far, the room that has such exhibits shows off 20+ large scale train models.
It's pretty cool seeing the older train hobbyists training new folks on how to create trees, little homes, automated circuits, etc.
What's even more cool is them interacting with the community and sharing their knowledge to wide-eyed little kids. Warms the heart seeing people of all ages bonding over a shared interest.
that's funny, I saw a thing recently covering the death of stamp collecting, with participants obsessive but aging, very few young people entering the scene and very few interesting stamps (to collectors) being made.
I'm confident railroads will continue to be a thing though, its ajacent to wargaming which I know is going strong from my own participation :)
This was one of my two outlets for social participation until about 10+ years ago, but this pursuit has been ruined by phones. Participants cheat without a second thought and the emcees refuse to enforce rules.
The truly radical have combined frisbee-golf and pub trivia into a single, chaotic event with the introduction of ping-pong balls, water clocks and questions asked in made up languages.
Agreed up until DND & frisbee golf. It's actually off/airplane mode and what happens in counterculture stays off the internet. Instead frisbee-golf pics will be posted to fool the masses.
I think this is accurate. I feel more on the outside the more I push into keeping costs low, not opting in to millennial megaplex apartments, all the consumption, all the social media. I hate feeling like in this position of a Luddite-hipster but I’m not hustling in my career and comp just do I can suck all my money and time into that. But increasingly, doing this brands you as “alternative.”
> I hate feeling like in this position of a Luddite-hipster
Wanting a well-balanced life isn't being a "luddite". Also, the term "luddite" as an insult is in fashion these days and is tossed around so often that it's become mostly meaningless anyway. It does tell you something interesting about the people who use it, though.
Yes I think the tricky aspect of any sort of mass-reversion out of a digital-first life is that so many have bought into it, asking for something different is seen as an implicit criticism of their choices, and by extension them. IMO it’s a little bit of this sure (why are you giving your 8 year old unlimited screen time…), but also the bad offenders literally came out of UI/UXs literally pioneered addictive design labs (Stanford etc). Hence, Luddite criticisms.
My non-tech-working buddies don’t understand why I don’t want to PC game on discord all night at the same desk I just spent all day working in. Hell, even some of my tech-working buddies don’t either.
Kinda ironic that it’s more often than not the techie folks who are unplugging more often so to speak.
Ya I work in tech for the opp to keep it all at a distance from me.
I’ve specifically thought about how stupid the loop is of building stuff at the computer and then turning around and consume all the same stuff I build for work (so to speak). Every time I’m on Reddit I hate myself. I also hate that that I can’t install an easy DNS blocking tool that isn’t likely selling my traffic and also works always (ie mobile and Wi-Fi, so PiHole is only half of this).
It’s like being too far past the abstraction to see the tech product galaxy as a “worthwhile activity” and I try to keep it out of my life now.
Just thinking out loud here because I haven’t actually looked into this, but isn’t the second half just running your own DNS with black lists and pointing your phone at it?
Just did a quick search in my iPhone settings and it seems like I can’t actually set up DNS myself. I do know I can configure a VPN, point it at your home network, at that point the PiHole can do its thing again.
That’s an interesting approach, thanks for sharing. I will dig into both ideas more for cellular service blocking, thanks for breaking this open a bit for me.
I wish sometimes someone could offer up a solution where if I opted in, then reddit and the rest of my known offender websites that suck my time and attention abilities away get blocked for life. The issue, in my mind, is essentially mass auto-opting in to tech consumer patterns and it being very hard to “opt out” without data sales/privacy or DIY FOSS blocking.
I wish I had better willpower to stop my internet patterns organically, and I have axed out big chunks over the years (social media is only hackernews and LI for me). Or, I could probably reach out for an ADHD diagnosis. I’m fairly certain I don’t have it unless it’s some internet-induced version, but I know the RXs work for focus. I don’t want to get locked into a RX dependency just for 101 life functionality in the face of the internet though. Tough times.
The best indicator for "is this a conspiracy theory" is "is this true, or at least plausible?" The "live in virtual reality and consume insects" is a point pushed by at least a few people, so it's not a baseless conspiracy theory. You might say they are not influential or whatever, but it's not like this was made up on the spot.
Even if it was a baseless conspiracy theory, it doesn't detract from the value of the rest of the comment.
Insect foods were infamously featured on NPR several times before the same outlet ran a story insisting that nobody was pushing insect foods. But insofar as we are discussing insect products, silk, shellac and resilin continue to be excellent functional materials, and avoided by almost nobody. And who can forget honey?
But the likely motivation for the "insects as edible protein" stories always struck me as investor-focused PR for insect farming companies and not real consumer market positioning. For one thing, practically no products were mentioned that are on shelves, except for "cricket powder", but the real money is not in selling ingredients. In reality, insects are still expensive, and the protein quality is disappointing:
^ has caterpillars at 0.77 and crickets at 0.69, comparing unfavorably with legumes, cashews, quinoa etc. Silkworm pupae score very well, but silkworms have been cultivated since forever and remain expensive.
For convincing the greater fool that you can generate returns with a cricket farming security, though, a few NPR articles about insect food need not be specific or correct.
No, the best indicator is, "does this rhetoric serve to promote an agenda more than it serves to explain a phenomenon we did not understand previously?"
Lots of conspiracy theories are plausible. With the sheer number of them, some of them will have strong elements of truth, even.
Conspiracy theory isn't an epistemological designation, it's a political and rhetorical one. [ETA: To clarify, by political, I mean "within political science" not "for political ends". That also happens, of course, it's just not what I refer to here.] A conspiracy theory purports to explain something, but actually serves to justify an ideology by stealth.
Lots of anti-LGBTQ ideology disguises itself as concern about transhumanism ("they want to turn us into soy boy sheep plugged into virtual reality" sort of rhetoric).
"Conspiracy theories isn't an epistemological designation, it's a political and rhetorical one." Well, that's the problem. If the word was only used for baseless things, it would be taken seriously.
But nowadays, "conspiracy theory" is mostly used to discredit legitimate opinions or ideologies just because the powers being don't like them.
"Political and rhetorical" does not mean "without substance." These are legitimate fields of inquiry, not dirty words. (The same goes for "ideology", which often gets this treatment as well.)
ETA: I think I understand better the miscommunication here, I didn't mean "for political ends," I meant more, "within the context of political science." Like you might say, "it's a physical phenomenon as opposed to a chemical one."
"Conspiracy theory" is nothing more/less than attributing the cause of something to manipulation by some (usually secret) group, i.e. a conspiracy. Some are correct, some are wrong.
Believing the Earth is flat isn't a conspiracy theory; believing that a secret organisation is suppressing this knowledge in favour of a false globe model is a conspiracy theory.
Believing that certain social structures/institutions disadvantage the poor isn't a conspiracy theory; believing that these are consciously perpetuated by the richest, through media control, political influence, etc. is a conspiracy theory.
There's also "conspiratorial thinking", which is distinct from any individual theory. This is a form of incorrect/irrational reasoning, whose chains of argument tend to produce conspiracy theories. A common example is getting logical implications the wrong way round, i.e. treating Theory -> Observation ("if atmospheric CO2 spontaneously condensed into dirty clothes, it would explain why my laundry basket keeps filling up") as if it were Observation -> Theory ("since my laundry basket does keep filling up, that means CO2 does condense into dirty clothes!").
Conspiratorial thinking is dangerous, since it allows any observations to be used as "proof" of basically any statement; including mutually-inconsistent ideas. Incorporating more and more of these into a single worldview requires adding epicycles and exceptions; more extraordinary, convoluted coincidences; requiring a state of affairs that is incredibly unlikely to occur by chance. The fixed-point of such reasoning is that it's not chance, but is instead engineered by someone. This is a stable solution, since any evidence to the contrary is just "proof" that it's a wider conspiracy; or involves more powerful people; or advanced secret technology; or aliens; or divine intervention; etc.
PS: Whilst implications don't logically imply their inverse; they do provide statistical evidence of their inverse. In other words, a full laundry basket isn't proof of CO2 condensation, but it is evidence. The conspiratorial mistake is to avoid normalising this evidence by the theory's prior probability. Specifically, my belief in CO2 condensation after seeing a full laundry basket should be the probability that CO2 condensation would cause it (~100%), divided by the probability of seeing a full laundry basket regardless of cause (~90%), multiplied by my previous belief that CO2 condenses into dirty clothes (~0%). Whilst the division by 90% will slightly boost my belief, that final multiplication will dominate; ensuring it stays near zero.
PPS: The conspiracy theory that the rich maintain societal systems that disadvantage the poor doesn't require conspiratorial reasoning; e.g. we can look at how much is donated to progressives/conservatives and their respective policies, etc. In contrast, maintaining a belief that the Earth is flat, despite all of the clear evidence to the contrary, requires some form of irrationality, such as conspiratorial thinking.
I agree about conspiratorial thinking, I think you wrote a good exposition on that subject, and I think the way you incorporated Bayesianism is interesting.
I disagree with the part where you say "merely," a conspiracy theory plays a particular role within political discourse.
Conspiracy theories are intimately connected with power relations and ideology. They are also syncretic (or at least, the ones that fail to be perish) - they can incorporate any idea and even contradictory ideas and accommodate them, and the contradictions only serve to reinforce the theory rather than weaken it. That's very different than other kinds of "theory".
True, the dynamics I stated are pretty broad (scarily so!): they don't describe why any particular set of ideas will take hold or not. The ones which appear will certainly depend on politics, as various goals/agendas are pushed (some good, some bad; subjectively speaking). There's also an aspect of cultural darwinism, that certain theories/agendas/politics are good at "reproducing" and others go "extinct".
I suppose the best we can hope for is to try and remain grounded in empiricism; call out incorrect arguments when we notice them (even for causes we agree with; we should prefer alternative, better arguments); and always allow for the possibility that we're wrong ;)
> No, the best indicator is, "does this rhetoric serve to promote an agenda more than it serves to explain a phenomenon we did not understand previously?"
That’s not a good indicator of “what is a conspiracy theory”.
All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”-it is a persuasive discourse not an explanatory one. On the contrary, activists often resist complex explanations for phenomena relevant to their cause, because many of them see nuance and complexity as a distraction from persuading the masses to support them, and simple messages do that best. None of that makes such movements a conspiracy theory - conspiracy theories exist in such movements too, but most of their leaders are smart enough to view those theories as baggage holding the movement back, and hence discourage them rather than encourage them.
Conspiracy theories are found all over the political spectrum-both on the far left and the far right, and everywhere in-between. They can serve any political agenda-including agendas you or I support. The problem with defending your agenda using a conspiracy theory, is that even if your agenda is correct, arguing for it on the basis of an unfalsifiable theory is almost always irrational, and it is irrational to defend even a correct agenda using an irrational argument.
> All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”...
Then it doesn't meet my criteria and I have no problem with it? I don't think we disagree.
I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same goes for related concepts like "agenda".)
I guess I neglected to include the requirement, "...and it is represented as theory to understand a phenomenon, rather than a set of normative ideas."
If I could have expressed myself in a less confusing way, I'm open to suggestions. Based on the responses I didn't explain myself that well.
> I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same goes for related concepts like "agenda".)
That's a different issue from conspiracy theories.
For example, a traditional conspiracy theory in left-wing Australian politics, is that the centre-right Australian government intentionally timed the April 1954 defection of KGB agent Vladimir Petrov (based at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra), to maximise the political damage to the centre-left opposition in the next month's election. It wasn't until 30 years later that the release of secret government records proved the conspiracy theory false (although who knows, maybe there are some left-wing diehards out there who still believe in it: how can we be sure those secret records weren't faked or tampered with prior to their release?). That was a conspiracy theory, but it had nothing to do with "justifying ideology by stealth".
> I guess I neglected to include the requirement, "...and it is represented as theory to understand a phenomenon, rather than a set of normative ideas."
In practice almost all normative disputes sooner or later become factual disputes as well. An ideal model of human rationality might suggest "we are never going to agree on values, but at least we can agree on facts", but in practice humans rarely work that way. Everybody does it, at least to some degree, nobody is entirely innocent of the temptation to read the data in the way which best supports their normative biases.
I don't know anything about Australian politics in 1954 so I can't comment on that example. I can tell you that I can identify an ideology for every conspiracy that I am familiar with. Off the top of my head:
- Flat Earth conspiracism is about an anti-intellectual pan-Christian traditionalist ideology
- QAnon is about a similar pan-Christian ideology, and a sort of radical personal responsibility
- Antisemitic conspiracy theories are about an ideology of white supremacy, and of mythic struggle among "races". It's an ideology of strict good and evil, defined not by actions or outcomes but by alignment in a sort of cosmic conflict.
Factual and normative disputes are both fine, I'm arguing against a form of bad faith.
May I ask if you've ever had an extended conversation with a conspiracy theorist?
> I can tell you that I can identify an ideology for every conspiracy that I am familiar with.
Are you familiar with UFO conspiracy theories such as Area 51/Roswell/etc? What is their ideology? How about JFK assassination conspiracy theories, what ideology are they? What is the ideology of the moon landing hoax theory? Or the conspiracy theory (which a taxi driver once tried to convince me of) that the passengers on MH370 were abducted by the CIA? [0]
> - Flat Earth conspiracism is about an anti-intellectual pan-Christian traditionalist ideology
Wikipedia [1] says:
> Research on the arguments that flat Earthers wield shows three distinct factions, each one subscribing to its own set of beliefs. The first faction subscribes to a faith-based conflict in which atheists use science to suppress the Christian faith... The second faction believes in an overarching conspiracy for knowledge suppression... The third faction believes that knowledge is personal and experiential. They are dismissive of knowledge that comes from authoritative sources, especially book knowledge
So, contrary to what you say, it says only one branch of Flat Earthers have a Christian ideology. Also, it isn’t “pan-Christian”: almost all Christian Flat Earthers are non-traditional Protestants (such as “independent Fundamentalists”); very few Christian Flat Earthers are Catholics or Orthodox or traditional Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, etc). At the time of Christianity’s founding, most educated people believed the Earth was round, and the vast majority of Christian leaders accepted that societal consensus; it is only in modern times that a tiny fringe has emerged to question it. The idea that belief in a Flat Earth was ever widespread in the history of Christianity is actually a myth that was invented by polemicists in order to defame Christians (especially Catholics) [2]
> - Antisemitic conspiracy theories are about an ideology of white supremacy, and of mythic struggle among "races".
Antisemitic conspiracy theories are extremely popular in the Arab and Muslim worlds, but in that context have nothing to do with white supremacy. To quote Wikipedia’s article on the infamous antisemitic hoax “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” [3]
> Neither governments nor political leaders in most parts of the world have referred to the Protocols since World War II. The exception to this is the Middle East, where a large number of Arab and Muslim regimes and leaders have endorsed them as authentic, including endorsements from Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, President Abdul Salam Arif of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. A translation made by an Arab Christian appeared in Cairo in 1927 or 1928, this time as a book. The first translation by an Arab Muslim was also published in Cairo, but only in 1951.
The 1988 charter of Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist group, stated that the Protocols embodies the plan of the Zionists. The reference was removed in the new covenant issued in 2017. Recent endorsements in the 21st century have been made by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, the education ministry of Saudi Arabia…
The Nation of Islam has been a major promoter of the antisemitic conspiracy theory of Jewish responsibility for the Atlantic slave trade. [4] Their ideology is definitely not white supremacy. Antisemitism is found all over the ideological spectrum, even among secular progressives [5]; it is a disease which transcends the boundaries of ideology - and antisemites of any and all ideologies are susceptible to accepting antisemitic conspiracy theories
> May I ask if you've ever had an extended conversation with a conspiracy theorist?
Yes, a good friend of mine was quite taken in by PizzaGate, and tried hard to convince me of it, although in the end we agreed to disagree. Also, whatever is the ideology of PizzaGate as a whole, I know my friend didn’t share it. I’m convinced his credulity on that topic was more about his personal dislike of Hilary Clinton than disagreement with her actual policies (e.g. he was and is the kind of guy who says things like “abortion is a women’s issue, men should stay out of it”)
> Yes, a good friend of mine was quite taken in by PizzaGate.
I'm sorry that happened. That's really rough. I've also known some conspiracy theorists.
> Are you familiar with UFO conspiracy theories such as Area 51/Roswell/etc? What is their ideology? How about JFK assassination conspiracy theories, what ideology are they? What is the ideology of the moon landing hoax theory? Or the conspiracy theory (which a taxi driver once tried to convince me of) that the passengers on MH370 were abducted by the CIA?
"You gave me three examples? Well why don't you give me ten more?"
It seems like you're just trying to bury me in questions. Yes I am familiar with some of these, but I don't think this is really a good faith question or that you would be convinced if I provided you with my analysis of them, so I don't see why I should put in the effort.
> Flat Earth
> Antisemitism
So what I said was correct for a large subset of these groups (if we leave the pan-Christian part aside, my argument stands regardless of whether it is Christian or pan-Christian), and there are additional sects of the theory...? Presumably advocating different ideologies (eg you cite literal religious extremists - are you going to tell me that isn't ideological with a straight face?)? That doesn't really impact my argument. (I also just disagree with the analysis of that Wikipedia article, those are not distinct subsets of the Flat Earth community.)
I feel like you're starting to become uncharitable. I'm not really seeing a substantive disagreement here, frankly and meaning no disrespect, I'm seeing a series of nitpicks. So I think this is where I'll have to bow out of the discussion.
I never assumed bad faith on your part, yet here you've done that to me. It isn't kind, and it ignores the explicit statement in the site guidelines [0] to "Assume good faith"
I actually do have a substantive point. I admit I probably could have made it clearer. I'd be happy nice to clarify, but you are telling me you don't want to hear it.
I'm not refuting its truth I'm refuting its relevance to the rest of the point. I'm a pretty sympathetic audience to criticisms of our food system and where it's taking us. But what you eat doesn't have much necessary connection to whether you participate in consumer culture.
They could have replaced "soy/insect" with "tendies" for the same rhetorical effect but appealing to a different crowd. That makes me interpret their choice as an intentional signal to a specific audience, rather than a functional part of their position.
> The "live in virtual reality and consume insects" is a point pushed by at least a few people, so it's not a baseless conspiracy theory.
If that's the threshold for calling a conspiracy theory baseless, then no conspiracy theory is baseless. I'm not sure that's a useful way to think of it.
I wish we had more voices who could speak to culture & onlineness & the world that had more sophistication & openness to possibility than "turn it off".
The ardently negative tend to be together in their means of disbelief & upsettedness, so it's hard hard hard in compare for more hopeful ventures to pickup real traction; belief is more specific & thus harder than disbelief, which can be blanket.
I agree, but it’s just anti-consumerism in another form. Albeit with a twist as we’re what’s being sold some of the time. Anti-consumerism is anti-participation.
Precisely this. Deleted my Facebook, barely on Instagram, haven't wasted time on Snapchat, and TikTok what?
Maybe I'm a millennial boomer, but I don't care. Social media is cancer and the world would benefit from a return to a time when everyone wasn't on it.
There are dozens of memes floating around claiming that the counterculture is made of of people getting married to someone of the opposite sex, raising a family, practicing a religion, eating meals together, celebrating the holidays together etc.
Naturally, these folks have left social networks like Facebook and Instagram far behind.
I would say that those subjects dominate my social media feed, but that wouldn't actually be true as my social media feed is currently mostly pictures of women whose nipples I can clearly see through their clothes which I would think would be against Meta's guidelines, but if it drives engagement, I suppose guidelines be damned. Either way, I consider it a big upgrade from political rage/engagement bait that they used to serve me constantly.
But the social media I see from my actual human friends is in fact about 95% what you posted, and is actually what I want from social media.
All sounds nice and I've love that. But I do happen to be gay and it's not a choice so it would need to be a same sex partner. Seems like being straight can't be a counterculture because you can't just do it to be edgy and it is still the majority and the hegemony bro
Same. Soy is great source of protein that's far less resource intensive and generally cheaper than factory farming. And the only times I've heard of people eating insects are from people attacking/insulting another group of people.
Mapo tofu doesn't seem like a good counterexample since the pork component is as important as the tofu to the dish. Granted there are veg versions using mushrooms as an alternative.
Pretty much every asian tofu dish in its authentic form includes meat. Tofu was never seen as a meat replacement in its countries of origin. However, if you think about it, mixing tofu and meat as protein sources does reduce the overconsumption of meat. My Japanese friend who came to visit recently was shocked by the large steaks and whole chickens that you could buy here. There they usually eat very small slivers of meat with other stuff. So, yeah, still probably helpful to the environment and probably healthier considering humans are not herbivores.
What's weird about it? I don't know about soy, but for insects if it weren't for the internet, they would be on far fewer people's radar. It's not an unrelated thing.
> Search Google Images for ‘counterculture’ and it overwhelmingly returns black-and-white photos of young people all now over 60. In the pictures, it is so clear what they were countering: The Man, of course, who, with his white collar, white skin, and short hair, singlehandedly symbolized dominant cultural norms.
Counterculture was a force that went up against the establishment as much as it did cultural norms. These days, it appears that the cultural norm is to bed in bed with the so-called establishment. When you have Cardi B and Ye rallying on behalf of politicians and celebrities/musicians regurgitating the talking points of the mainstream media you know the counterculture is dead.
20 Interviews is an interesting read, and the author is smart to link Snowden to this indirectly.
I agree with the author’s assessment that a/the counterculture to the early 2000’s global tech MAGA FAANG thunderdome will come out of that… space in the way described: some mix of Snowden, crypto, compass meme, e-deologies.
If you read Snowden’s bio, he was fully schooled in the internet being a new space of free thought and open information.
If you read 20 Interviews, Nick Land comes up… a lot… in interviews with edgy teenagers.
One of the worst Intel leaks recently, the discord/Ukraine leaks, came from a what looks like a perma-online discord resident. You can guesstimate that he was in the direction of the political compass culture.
Crypto (cryptography and cryptocurrency) itself comes out of the original internet-establishment/surveillance state haters.
Jack Dorsey is firmly an old school cypherpunk.
I don’t think there’s a cohesive label for all this outside “cypherpunks” although that feels dated. but it is a cohesive group and this article was interesting to read as it seems rarely Linked in public.
I see it, there’s a group that is extending the cypherpunk ideologies of the 90’s combined with the nihilism of watching climate change/COVID failures combined with internet edge-lord roots. I think it’s a potent force. It has so far:
- brought consumer encryption into the world
- caused two of the largest intelligence leaks in recent memory
- love it or hate it, invented cryptocurrency and permanently changed conversations about what money is and how it’s accessed to include a new $5bil global market
Internet-era counterculture was developing en force during Occupy Wall Street and with figures like Snowden, Manning, and Assange. It scared the shit out of the powers-that-be and they worked over years to destroy the ability to form grassroots organizations.
A lot of their weapons are focused on divide & conquer and making us fight one another over identity politics and our small differences. A few toxic ideologues (and ideologies) were essentially stuck on the equivalent of an enclosed train and shipped to the heart of the problem, and the establishment amplified their voices a thousandfold with the outlets they had available to them.
I think this is well-written and argued but juxtaposed with the rest of the magazine it is simple hypocrisy. All of the fashion photo collections on the site feature only huge brands like Fendi, Gucci, LV, Saint Laurent, Prada. They are using the web, and YouTube, as a conduit to advertise Big Fashion under the banner of art.
> So what does today’s counter-hegemonic culture look like? It’s not particularly interested in being seen—at least not in person. It gets no thrill out of wearing leather and a mohawk and walking past main-street shops, which are empty now anyway.
It's really not about what you wear or don't wear, because it's all been done, it's all online.
> It’s as if, having grown up on a fully networked Earth, Gen Z has bypassed counterculture, finding it futile in the face of a hegemonic system that more clearly resembles a Hydra than the monolithic forces that legacy counterculture was rebelling against.
There is no escape so maybe fashion has become something that is completely orthogonal to counterculture, and the real counterculture is in the anonymous spaces, discourse, and connections found online, where it doesn't matter what you look like.
The author has a good use of language but so many things they say seem very off. They seem overly fixated on the idea that counter-culture also has to be progressive. They are weirdly fixated on some aspects of internet culture. The main take away I have is that this author doesn't really seem to understand culture, what is counter culture, or internet culture. They are right that instagram isn't counter cultural, But honestly the real counter culture things are just offline.
Yeah, that was my same take. To be counter-culture, according to this article, you have to be a progressive furry goth hacker, who prays to St. Greta of Climate Change and Karl Marx, puts pronouns in their bios, and moonlights as an Antifa every once in a long while.
That's been mainstream for a while. There are plenty of counter-cultures out there online; but because the author leans left, they are blind to them. Likely, the author doesn't even think of it as culture, like how "white people don't have culture."
There is no obvious counter-cultural movement in the West because there is nothing deemed subversive enough by major institutions that hasn't been commercialized to some extent. If we are viewing things on a political spectrum, the right and the left each claim to be bucking the values and traditions of "the establishment" with the approval and encouragement of both sides of the "establishment" one way or the other.
Indeed. The system will co-opt whatever is valuable and fortify its power. It’s not long for it to become the official policy of your favorite credit card and bank. Well, Occupy didn’t but that was sort of just swept away into something that could.
Counterculture may not be on the internet because the counterculture is normal, or ... square. It's not boring, it's not exciting it's just normal, or common. (Perhaps more accurately we should say that there is no counterculture anymore when the mainstream culture continues to performs the roles that it used to hold)
Current culture rejects the normal, what people think is basic or commonplace in favour of the spectacular, the colourful, the exciting, the transgressive, the provoking, the radical. Many things that were shunned when we were growing up as being geeky are mainstream now as it is packaged up and made available to buy in as many formats and products as possible.
Washing your car on a Saturday, working 9 to 5, mowing the lawn, taking your kids to the park, not caring about politics much, visiting elderly relatives, going on holiday, having a hobby, doing a craft, not worrying about authenticity, getting a mortgage, going to church. Be there by being square.
The past radicals used to say "the revolution will not be televised". Perhaps now we have to say "the revolution cannot be televised" as it's anti spectacular.
The internet used to be counterculture. Now it’s the mall.
Those of us who feel nostalgia for the countercultural internet … I fear we’re too old to be admitted into current counterculture. We are the culture the youths are countering.
Counterculture and seemingly-mainstream %thing1% are not mutually exclusive. All that’s required to subvert %thing1%’s mainstreamness is to approach it (in case of a place, be in it) differently.
Answering the phone, wearing clothes in public, taking a bus, driving a car, using a popular social media app, visiting a mall.
You can be at a mall ironically. Observe signaling from outside of your identity. Come in to take a dump in a nice bathroom. All that’s required is some self-awareness.
In fact, it is the other way around: problems often begin when a thing seems countercultural, leading you to approach it as part of your identity—it can be much harder to ironically or out of pure utility visit an artisan alley or an underground music club. In this sense, if we imagine some hypothetical scale of counterculturalness, I’d say it’s very well possible that some artisan alley would do much worse than a mall on it.
I know plenty of crust punks who bring their kids to events. They just dont let their kids do the actually fun stuff, because the kids don't have enough experience yet.
On the other hand, a lot of the counter culture that I've seen takes a view something like "The reality is that most of us have to work for a corp 9-5 to survive. What makes you counter culture is what you do with the rest of your life."
"The reality is that most of us have to work for a corp 9-5 to survive."
I think the reality is, that you have to work 9-5 to maintain the modern, expected standard. But if you don't care about that, there are plenty of other ways.
Oh for sure. When you get old, you want more comfort(or have a family to feed) and more comfort comes with more money and more money comes with loosening up some ideals.
"never trust anyone over 30" was a maxim for a reason. It's difficult to fight culture once you've become invested in the status quo, and so alienated by the cutting edge that modernity disgusts you.
The thing that disgusts me the most about modernity, is actually teenage Instagramm/TikTok zombies, totally unaware of the algorithms controlling them, created by the tech crowd.
My motto is "don't trust anyone under 30" -- because in my experience they just don't know enough yet to have valuable opinions and also because the kids these days have a value system that deifies mental illness and victimhood, and I'm just not interested in the opinions of people who operate from a mentally-ill victimhood stance.
That's a wild generalisation and actually really shows how chronically out of touch you are because I can tell you as someone in my early 20s that Harry Potter is rapidly going out of mode because we care about the fact that JK Rowling is committing political suicide rn. Pro-ana was also a thing like 10 years ago. Hilarious how you managed to show how much you don't interact with young people just by making this comment
First, who did taught them about all that, that annoys you?
Secondly, maybe try seeing more people under 30 regulary with an open mind. I am sure you will eventually find someone not engaged with that. Just like you can find people over 30, who are still open to the world.
1. If the youth is messed up, it is the fault of the older generation who failed to teach them right. That would be you and me.
2. Maybe you have distant memories left, when you yourself were young. Do you think, you would have liked to learn from someone, who thinks all young people are stupid?
> Those under 30s grew up and many are more countercultural than kids under 30 now
Pretty sure this is exactly how my Gen X parents feel. My mom couldn't understand how the music I loved in high school doesn't have a political message.
But she grew up in a time when you'd go to jail for speaking up against the regime unless it was masked through art. I grew up in a democracy. Very different.
There's a beginning of an idea here, but this article quickly degrades into faffing about. The author is opining on various cultural touchpoints and weaving narrative. But it's all rather disconnected from what happened to the internet and why it is the way it is.
The article misses what really happened to “counterculture” - it’s been killed by increasing social and economic stratification.
Sure, in the early 90s it was still possible to shock conservatives but what really made counterculture viable back then was that you could afford an apartment without having a career. It wasn’t just housing costs, either - in general, the benefits of participating wholeheartedly in the system were much more modest than they are now.
The internet has certainly been a factor, particularly in making the concept of a local music scene kind of obsolete, but the demise of counterculture is definitely due to material concerns.
Wow, really like this piece. Not much to add, just think that it ties together a lot of concepts in really conceptually rich ways (dark forest communities, "breaking" platforms as a hallmark for success, aesthetics of identity, etc). Also really admire how theory is applied in ways that add to the piece, while still leaving it approachable and appropriate for a magazine piece. Would love to see this expanded into a more full text at some point, it definitely captures the current zeitgeist far better than most mainstream articles.
A lot of what used to be considered "counterculture" now is just mainstream. If you look back to the early 2000s (around when MySpace/Facebook/Twitter/YouTube grew) to now, a lot of "pop culture" is very similar to what it was then. I think social media killed the monolithic culture that TV and other media presented and now everything has been a hodgepodge ever since. The new "counterculture" seems to be more people that are off the map and are more traditional.
Counterculture requires gatekeeping, because most people can't take it, ESPECIALLY anyone who uses Instragram
The best times I've had were having parties where we would work on cool exhibits with barely contained pyrotechnics, Tesla coils that would kill you if you touched it, and an expectation that YOU DO NOT PUT IT ON THE INTERNET and if you get hurt, YOU DID NOT GET HURT HERE.
Everyone wants a nice and curated experience of "counterculture" until they get into a scenario where they are the only person not cool with losing a finger or two from doing something fucking awesome
I don't go to cool parties like you do because I do not want to lose digits, but you hit the nail on the head; that which is transgressive gets bundled up safely and sold. It would not surprise me if that lead to the equivalent of tourists who do not understand why they are being scolded for approaching meese in a state park.
Besides literal physical danger another aspect I’ve been thinking about is the counterculture of activities that simply aren’t optimized for the production of media native to the internet.
Meditation or maybe partner dancing for example. There’s definitely plenty of internet content on both, but it feels to me like there’s certain things I can do that don’t as easily translate to an instagram story, and the reason I do them is because I benefit with some internally directed experience. A sort of connection with myself or another person. This feels like the exact opposite of doing something for the purpose of the resulting content and/or social approval.
To some, "move fast, break things" is counter-cultural, even if the term comes from an erstwhile hoodie-clad CEO that rapidly mutated into the biggest suit in corporate history.
"Counterculture requires gatekeeping, because most people can't take it, ESPECIALLY anyone who uses Instragram"
I think the word to describe counter culture is "exclusionary," and I suspect if a large crowd of "Instagram" people showed up at a "counterculture" gathering the counterculture-ists would be equally unable to "take it."
Join a local art collective or makerspace/hackerspace. Be open to not crying on the internet because you got hurt or someone said mean things, that comes with the package.
Eventually you may start connecting with people who know things
Re-read the GP's statement. The parties are not at makerspaces. You just would expect to meet people at makerspaces who know where the local "weird parties" are, because they're the people making the shoddy contraptions for these parties.
If you are risking fingers, cutting off body parts or taking dumb risks just stop. It's not worth it. It's not cool or interesting. These are the things you regret later.
You did not get hurt here works until someone does get hurt and the hammer comes down on you.
I've hurt myself badly many times and have never regretted it, because it was fun and incredibly intellectually satisfying. I know no-one at these places that regret it, everyone accepts that that they are all working to a common goal of being awesome
No one at the events can admit to regretting it because they will be kicked out of the social group. The need for acceptance is greater than intellectual curiosity otherwise these riskful action would happen privately. That only happens for the few mental ill leaders. The rest are looking for excitement, social acceptance (from ingroup or stories later spread to new groups).
I think you're forgetting about the fact that people grow old and stop doing this, and therefore no longer have any social pressure on them to not speak ill of the idea? These parties have (presumably) been going on for a long time.
If people wanted to speak out against them, then there'd be 50-year-olds writing angry screeds to "warn the youth of today" about "the mistakes they made in their own youth, and deeply regretted, but couldn't speak out at the time." But we don't see that.
You may be surprised to learn some people survive being "dead" for a short while. I know at least two and neither regretted it, it was just a cool story.
This is an attitude today which is almost universal in Anglo countries, yet those very same countries would never have developed as much as they have had it been present in the past. Safetyism is killing Western Civilisation.
I think you're missing the point of the comment. Saying "don't do these things" isn't helpful because people are going to do them regardless. OP is saying it should not be on the mainstream internet, ie, the open "gatekeeping required" statement.
That post does make it sounds very cool to do all these things though, so I'd say it's good to have a balancing post that says that risking body parts for a thrill is uncool.
There is a vast array of body-part-risking hobbies with a spectrum of associated risk.
While I’m not one to encourage obvious stupidity, bodily risk is at the center of so many things that humans value, that I think there’s a framing problem by saying this is just uncool.
More interesting is to explore why people are drawn to these things to begin with, and to examine why we dismiss some categories of risk as unnecessary or stupid while other socially acceptable risks are part of our daily lives.
When I was a kid, I was drawn to model rocketry. I’m surprised my fingers are all still intact, but some close calls quickly reoriented my precautionary measures (I started being a lot more careful).
The book “Flow” explores why some people do the things they do, and it seems that engaging in risky endeavors like rock climbing can be rewarding because of the feeling of flow and control one experiences.
“Try crazy stuff but be as safe as you can be, and avoid impacting others” seems better than “uncool”, IMO.
I would tend to agree. It's borderline offensive to me that some snap back with "how stupid" because their threshold for acceptable risk is different and pushing up against it doesn't thrill them.
But I nevertheless have hangups with the original scenario as described. It seems constructed to dial up social pressure and exploit it to provoke careless behavior and avoid accountability. Countercultural in a sense (arguably straddling antisocial) but that's not the same as good, and it's nothing like those sports that usually have a culture (hmm) of planning, safety, and consent.
Well, maybe not motorcycling and skateboarding so much as the others, but you get the gist.
And yet, there's still something appealing about the idea... can't quite put my finger on it, but perhaps I've already blown it off.
Like some dude said, that's just, like, my opinion. I'm not forcing it on anyone, but I do want a fair chance of trying to convince others of it.
I understand that mastery and control can come from dangerous activities, but I can still voice my disapproval of these activities, since you can get the same feeling through safer ways.
Interesting position which I dont personally think is true. I dont think it can be proven either way, but my counterpoint is below
1) Variability: Different people have different attraction/affinity and passions for activities or lifestyles.
2) Non-fungability: Not all feelings/experiences have equivalent replacements and not all personalities can be modified find equivalent satisfaction in something else.
3) Risk: Given that not all feelings are replacable with similar life satisfaction, individuals can and should balance risk against the life they want. Some feelings and values are worth dying for. (e.g if base jumping makes you so happy you would rather risk dying than live without it, DO IT). This should be celebrated, not condemmed.
There are worse fates than death, and I think a safe and unfulfilled life is one of them.
Of course everyone's opinion and "general advice" on this depends on if they think the current cultural norm is erroring on the side safetyism or risk-taking behavior. Based on my experience, I am far more concerned about my friends, family, and children stifiling their self actualization by taking too few risk opposed to too many.
People's advice will also obviously depend on where they their personal attractions are. For me, many of the things that make me satisfied with my life involved some risky behavior. Someone who's life satisfaction is derived from knitting might feel otherwise, but thats not me.
I’m not arguing against caution, and I tend to be a cautious person in my 30s, but this can be taken too far in both directions.
My point was more that framing this as a thing to judge (implicit in uncool) isn’t ideal and probably less likely to change minds than an exploration of the reasons people enjoy things, with clear examination of the risk/reward, which isn’t going to be an absolute number to apply equally to all personalities and life situations.
Many rock climbers are tortured people and will tell you that doing what they do is the reason they’re alive. Having had brushes with dark frames of mind personally, I can understand the willingness to embrace whatever it is that will provide consistent/reliable relief.
The binary position (disapproval) misses the broader context. And perhaps there is a less risky alternative to be found, but it seems more likely to be found if explored from that broader perspective.
Overall, if I myself were to give a single counterargument, I'd actually agree with you.
My initial message through was that multiple counterarguments by multiple people need to be made in order to really balance out the perceived coolness of those that risk harm in extreme activities, and I was arguing to not simply shut down the poster that said:
>If you are risking fingers, cutting off body parts or taking dumb risks just stop. It's not worth it. It's not cool or interesting. These are the things you regret later.
To me, it's pretty obvious "cool" can only be defined descriptively, not prescriptively — i.e. "cool" is whatever makes idiot teenagers intuitively, instinctually impressed with you. By definition, you can't tell idiot teenagers what to think — in that, once you successfully do that, they're not idiot teenagers any more, and so are no longer the arbiters of "what's cool."
I don't believe that everyone does these things to be cool. You can't really say what drives people to do what they do, there are endless reasons. Trying to make something "uncool" isn't going to cut it.
4chan certainly isn't mainstream. Being somewhat well-trafficked != mainstream.
> Being edgy and racist isn't countercultural, certainly not nowadays.
That's just so obviously wrong, it's hard to know where to start. I mean, pretty much the entire media and business apparatus of the country spends a lot of effort loudly condemning those things. You might have the arrived at the wrong impression because those groups have the goal of achieving something close to total extermination of those things, so counter-productively give even small instances massive amounts of attention.
> I mean, pretty much the entire media and business apparatus of the country spends a lot of effort loudly condemning those things.
... and it's widely claimed by many that they're out of touch with Real American culture for doing so.
There's no easy, solid definition here. Disney and DeSantis are fighting over culture hot potatoes; which one is "establishment" and which one is "counter-culture" in that fight? (Neither, really. Both are establishment, and both are a little counter-cultural.)
4chan has become a lot less shocking than it used to be. That's a bit of a cultural shift in its direction.
Sorry, but I think you're confused about what "mainstream" is. Some congressional back-bencher saying something controversial, which we walked back and was then immediately stricken from the record is not proof a thing is mainstream. In fact, it's proof that it's not.
And we're talking about 4chan here, and wouldn't they just use the n-word?
There is also whole media apparatus and leaders of political party dedicated to promoting racism and "edgy" stuff. They even claim themselves to be the only real Americans.
Maybe the observation is that each platform can be countercultural roughly once, after which they come to be associated with a certain culture of their own. Then, in order to counter that new culture, you need to move to a different platform. It's like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis cycle.
In a lot of places there is either a formal ban on phones and cameras or at least of taking photos, or people simply are used to live simply or in the moment and don't use them (at least not for non-essential things).
This holds for writing and stories as well, so it's best to rely on personal experience and not assume that you can use the Internet to predict the details of the experiences you can have in the world.
If you have the support of almost the entirety of academia, half of the political establishment, the highest levels of government, multinational corporations, etc. you're not the counterculture "resistance"... You're the evil empire.
Money corrupts all. A big part of counterculture in the past was the luxury to go against the grain and do things without having to worry about your next meal or paying off your debts and healthcare. Unfortunately today we live in a much more complex society where a lot more people are in debt and less secure. As a result it’s become way more difficult to be counterculture today. The ones who are probably considered crazy right wingers or so on.
Searching for photos of counterculture brings up black and white photos from the 60s because the term is obsolete in modern society except for sprawling wordy articles trying to redefine the word in a modern context
In a time where tolerance and respect for minorities is slowly becoming mainstream, you could argue that the far-right has become counterculture. The far-right is VERY prevalent on both Instagram, Twitter and other social media.
There have always been countercultures which exist on the far-right (and far-left) of the political spectrum. But merely being far-right and far-left does not itself mean that its members belong to a counterculture. A defining feature of a counterculture is that its members consciously and deliberately reject mainstream values and norms. The people on the far-right/left may lead perfectly mainstream lives but hop on social media to prattle on about their extreme (compared to the median) political views.
Political extremism has always existed, but social media algorithms (and yes that includes the HN comment system) incentivize controversy while penalizing moderate, rational viewpoints as "unpopular." So these extreme views tend to bubble to the top of people's feeds, making them appear "very prevalent" to the average person.
This is one of MANY reasons that I have nothing to do with (most) social media anymore.
In a time where tolerance and respect for minorities is slowly becoming mainstream
You could have said this at least for the last 70 years. It doesn't change the systemic issues that enable prejudice against minorities. This means prejudice is still more mainstream than tolerance. Recently, there was a SCOTUS ruling that allows one to refuse making websites for same sex couples. This whole case was based on a falsified request. https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-...
>You could have said this at least for the last 70 years. It doesn't change the systemic issues that enable prejudice against minorities. This means prejudice is still more mainstream than tolerance
While I find it impossible to quantify, I think we can at least assure that prejudice is frowned upon by society. Things have definitely changed in 70 years.
>Recently, there was a SCOTUS ruling that allows one to refuse making websites for same sex couples.
No. It allows one to refuse making a product if making that product implies speech.
I think we can at least assure that prejudice is frowned upon by society.
No, you can't. If it was, at a minimum SCOTUS wouldn't be playing games wrt signaling that it's OK do discriminate against same sex couples. Also at a minimum, we wouldn't have so much, let alone rising amounts of hate crime [0]. Unfortunately, society is pretty split on the whether prejudice is good or bad.
It seems to me that you are grasping at straws in order to paint a picture of oppression that doesn't match reality. I do believe that your convictions are good, but I don't think this helps them.
And? The other side was screaming at the top of their lungs that any business should be able to discriminate against a customer for not showing vaccine records.
The only conclusion I’ve come to is that everyone is a damn hypocrite. Everyone wants to discriminate against people not in their group because they’ve been brainwashed, and because people are assholes.
Thank you for at least recognizing that SCOTUS in on a side. However, it's hard to take your counterpoint seriously when 1. SCOTUS regularly upholds a private business' right to discriminate against same sex couples 2. tons of states passed laws explicitly prohibiting at a state level proof of vaccine without challenge anyway. These are not similar situations at all.
That used to be true. Now, though, it seems that the left is labeling many things as "far right" that are not, and the right is doing the same to the left. Both are trying to shift the Overton Window their way by labeling the other side as "extreme" or "far" - that is, outside the window.
I can win a lot of arguments if I define myself as the only one who should be allowed to speak...
I posted this comment elsewhere but it's better moved here:
I honestly think modern conservatism could now be classified by a counterculture, because they define themselves more by what they're against than what they are for.
Seriously, over the years I've wracked my brain wondering why conservatism has moved so far to the radical fringe to the point where they simply seem to stand in opposition to even the most uncontroversial stances on things like global warming, healthcare, vaccines, basic human rights, etc. This is all I got.
The right has become a counterculture, and the best way to see what their next cause de jure will be is to see what's become commonly accepted as reasonable truth on the left.
> Seriously, over the years I've wracked my brain wondering why conservatism has moved so far to the radical fringe to the point where they simply seem to stand in opposition to even the most uncontroversial stances on things like global warming, healthcare, vaccines, basic human rights, etc.
Has conservatism "moved?" And if it has, has it moved to the right? If we were to time travel three generations ago, would the mainstream liberal culture then be more similar to the present day conservative culture or the present day liberal culture on the issues mentioned?
I submit that a present-day conservative would likely be a staunch liberal in those days. The Left has simply moved much further to the left.
Well, disclaimer, I used to consider myself 'conservative', as the conservatives I knew were more likely to take a hard nosed look at the facts and the science than whether or not the truth made someone feel good.
As I got older, I eventually started to notice conservatives starting to blatantly ignore the science and facts in a way I had previously only seen from the left. Today, I feel like the situation has completely reversed itself, and the right is more likely to completely ignore reality, fact and science if it clashes with their current beliefs. I do see some of this on the left, but it seems like it's gotten so much worse on the right in the past 20 years.
> I submit that a present-day conservative would likely be a staunch liberal in those days. The Left has simply moved much further to the left.
... on social issues. The mainstream left and right, as far as those in power, remain about as similar on economics as they have since the right neoliberal movement took over both parties in the 80s—a position that both parties' extremes strongly disagree with, and that isn't particular popular among their electorate more generally (which is why Trump's just-say-what-R-voters-say platform fell, remarkably, outside that consensus) but which nonetheless drives most of both parties' activity, on that front.
I mean, there were racist skinheads back in the day at the same time as leftist countercultures existed. One side of the political spectrum doesn't get a monopoly. Both of them are countercultures compared to the centre.
I think this is the biggest argument against deplatforming: it actually makes them cool.
Part of the appeal of these ideologies is clearly that they are offensive, not permitted on mainstream platforms, and therefore are something that their participants can "own" and that won't be co-opted by consumerism.
It's the same thing that fueled "Satanic" rock and similar things. Fascism is devil music. That most people are offended by it and mainstream authorities preach against it is a huge part of its appeal.
Elon Musk might be damaging this a little. It's hard to think you're a rebellious counterculture when you have one of the world's richest men acting as a public torch bearer.
>> I think this is the biggest argument against deplatforming: it actually makes them cool.
I disagree that it makes them cool. Counter culture generally contributes something different and important enough that it eventually becomes the culture and hence the counter cultural people become 'cool'. Extreme ideology of any kind isn't contributing anything. It's an attempt to feel different/special/part of a group, but there's nothing cultural about it and it's not going to receive any validation from outside the group (that would make it cool).
> I think this is the biggest argument against deplatforming: it actually makes them cool.
The thing that mystifies me is that when parents get in on something it usually nukes the coolness factor, but the far right has an overwhelming supply of 50+ year olds on just about every platform and this has had no impact on its rise in popularity among the teens and twenty-somethings.
That's because Boomer Humor is actually really funny when you get the unsanitized version. The lame Boomer jokes are just the ones that HR approves of.
That type of "cool" is not the threat, becoming mainstream is. A deplatformed niche like a few dozen neo-fascists in a street-fighting gang, can be contained, but if a hateful ideology is plaformed and funded, it can snowball. The crossover point is when it has enough power that moderates join it because of it's ubquity and benefits as if it were a career choice. It's this type of political force that dismantles democracies, encourages pogroms, commits state genocide, creates apartheid systems etc.
Musk's funding of the far right has the much more terrifying trajectory of a Hitler not an Enrique Tarrio.
No one said that a counterculture has to be 'cool'. Some can be backward and bigoted, but stand in opposition to popular beliefs, and are counterculture none the less.
I think this depends on whether you assess Elon as actual power, or something closer to new money trying to put themselves in the position of being actual power.
In the greatest circus on the world, where he's the head clown, watched by millions. Keeping a low profile and covertly performing power is actually possible if you distract everyone else with being an ultra-rich obnoxious idiot online.
I obviously can't prove it (even more so because it's unlikely Elon is more than an ultra-rich obnoxious online idiot), but it's an entertaining thought nonetheless.
Elon Musk is only powerful in that he is productive or enables productiveness, producing things that others find valuable and hard to produce. I.e. he's powerful in the capitalist sense, not the political sense.
Elon Musk is only powerful in that he is productive or enables productiveness, producing things that others find valuable and hard to produce. I.e. he's powerful in the capitalist sense.
I hesitate to vouch for this comment because of the tone, but I feel like theres genuine confusion here worth talking about.
So to answer directly - I thought it was very clear. I wouldn't describe it as word vomit at all albeit informal in tone. The idea that what used to be counter culture can not be so anymore because it feeds the beast is abstract and wild but also reasonable.
Where did it lose you? Not asking as a gotcha, genuinely curious about interesting critique, or a misunderstanding I can help clear, or even just comparing differing readings of the same bit.
The billionaire right has funneled gobs of money into mirroring racist, fundamentalist, nationalistic loons as a troop rally for tax breaks downstream at the ballot box. It's only counter-cultural if you fail to see through it.
The billionaire right like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg? The people who are the largest DNC donors? The people who are huge backers of hiring quotas, vax mandates, lockdowns? Them?
> Democrats have long relied more on small-dollar donations, and that trend continues today. Some key Republican candidates are also relying heavily on wealthy benefactors like Peter Thiel funding super PACs to support them.
> One of the stories of the GOP in the Trump era was its ability to close the gap on small-dollar fundraising — a gap that has yawned again with Trump out of office, at least through these two platforms. (Not all small-dollar donations are routed through them, but they are the parties’ respective choices for facilitating such donations.)
> And now comes more data, which shows that Democratic small-dollar donors — one key measure of how engaged a party’s base is — appear significantly more motivated than their GOP counterparts.
There's not really just one counterculture. There's still far left old school hippy counterculture out there, just minding their business and forming collectives and communes and putting good vibes out and making the expensive local tofu that's sold at the "all natural" grocery stores. The right counterculture is also there, they both just stand in contrast to different aspects of mainstream culture.
Edit: another modern counterculture that's easy to identify: the Amish.
In what sense? The last 24 years in the US have/will be split equally between Democrat and Republican presidents. In the UK the majority of this century has been run by the Conservative party. The US Supreme Court is 'right leaning' and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. How can the right wing be the counter culture when it holds most of the power? [Obviously just looking at two countries I'm familiar with but right wing ideology has surged all over in the last decade].
The US right lost ground for as long as I can remember. Remember, when Clinton was president he couldn't even talk about gay marriage, now it has been legal for a decade.
Sure the republicans have won elections, but would you really call Trumph conservative?
This ended when they won Row vs Wade, but short of that, they lost almost every battle they engaged in. The US is less religious than ever, porn and violent video games (not to mention DnD) is available everywhere and trans people are accepted at least in some places.
The left has won socially and the right won economically. The rich have won a greater share of the money, while social progress for homosexuality etc. has also been won.
The difference is that the poor and middle class of the right don't get to enjoy the benefits of their side's "win".
I found some insight in your last sentence, but on examination it feels myopically specious like so much political discourse. The invocation of "left" and "right" are always put forth as some overriding distinction, but the actual dividing line for the issues in your comment is whether policies were palatable to big business, regardless of whether out of immediate financial self interest or to divide the plebs over social issues.
That dynamic is kind of inevitable when you buy into someone else's battle for your own win condition. Falling for the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" dynamic was never going to result in a good outcome. But the same lack of benefits of "winning" apply to the "left" as well - the majority is still heteronormative, and so doesn't directly benefit from societal acceptance of homosexuality. So in reality the grassroots of both tribes are mostly looking at symbolic victories that don't convey direct benefits, and directing focusing on a single one is just further stirring the pot.
(And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).
As a straight white dude I still benefit from living in a world with more social equality and less division.
But sure, it's less tangible than the rich benefitting from sucking up all the money.
There are tangible reasons for social progress as well, like for example in a world where women aren't pressured to be closeted I don't have to worry about marrying a lesbian who's trying to fit in.
But rather than iterate the reasons we all benefit from living in a world with acceptance, it feels like enough to support it on principle.
> rather than iterate the reasons we all benefit from living in a world with acceptance, it feels like enough to support it on principle
>> (And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).
Sure. This type of comment is exactly what I meant by the last bit I said. Including a summary of one team's well-reasoned support for a topic is also one-sided stirring the pot, regardless of whether one agrees with the argument specifically (which I do).
(The "right" would make an analogous argument about trickle down economics and how things would be so much worse for the grassroots right if big business was further constrained in any way)
Why does the counter culture have to be left wing or right wing? It could be centrist. Apolitical. Based around other shared beliefs outside of political differences.
Counter culture by definition counters some established cultural paradigm. It is at least critical, and at most actively hostile - but cannot by its very nature be apolitical, much less maximally accepting.
Counterculture among the right would be the alt-right/white supremacist movements and QAnon, which counter mainstream conservatism. Among the left it would be actual (not the American definition of "anyone to the left of Reagan") communists, tankies, black and indigenous activism, etc.
It's true that not every counterculture has to be defined, or define themselves, along the left/right axis, but given the greedy nature of that axis, it seems inevitable that any counterculture could be.
The right wing has absolutely dominated culture for the last 30 years. They have however presented very successfully as counterculture by naysaying literally every attempt at progress in any direction. Every conversation we're having about social, political, or economic issues is framed by right wing grievances. Did the gay marriage battle have to be such a big deal? It was fixed by the stroke of a pen in several states before being challenged in courts federally, then we all had to hear about it on the news for years and years. Climate change. Healthcare. It goes on forever.
When they finally overturned Roe v Wade they went too far. Their results from the 2022 midterms, which should have been an absolute bloodbath with GOP dominance, was one of their worst showings ever. President's party usually gets punished, rampant inflation, another war, rising interest rates, housing crisis, etc. The GOP barely managed to take the house and did slightly worse in the senate. It's because of abortion. They exposed themselves as The Man, for all time.
I think maybe what true counterculture needs is risk. Something has to be at risk, either by the participants being excluded naturally from a greater system, or choosing to exclude themselves and risking their privilege. Being queer is still countercultural, because there is still significant risk to them every day. Rainbow flags at Starbucks does not mean they are "safe." They can get married, but they still find themselves excluded from a lot of traditions later in life. Young women now literally risk death from accidental pregnancy in many states. Being a vocal proponent of unionization can lose you your job.
There's really nothing at stake for the right wing. Their mouthpieces fall out of fashion and go on to lucrative gigs at consulting firms, or writing books filled with grievances, or really just sitting at home because they were already obscenely wealthy. Tucker Carlson doesn't need to work ever again. Haven't heard from Ann Coulter in a while, but she's still worth tens of millions.
I don't think it's really right wing, there is an exodus of people from the Left as it becomes increasingly ideological, they may dally with the Right a bit - I think the first mention of this phenomenon was way back in 2014 by Scott Alexander as the "grey tribe" that was beginning to form: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
But these people aren't necessarily conservatives, at least as their defining attribute, they frequently maintain liberal values after their exile from the increasingly illiberal world of the left. They very rarely turn into gun-toting and God-fearing, card-carrying Republicans. Two great examples - Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf recently doing strangely cordial interviews with Jordan Peterson, you could hardly call either of those women conservative Republicans, but they get along with him splendidly on the topic of why the Left is f*'ed up.
I think the article hits the nail on the head with the line "To be truly countercultural today, in a time of tech hegemony, one has to, above all, betray the platform" - this really is the essence of it, it so happens that the mainstream platforms are pretty Left, so betraying them feels like an anti-Left thing to do, but to do so isn't necessarily Right.... it's a counter-culture going off in its own direction. The mainstream may call them Right wing as a slur to discredit them, whether they are or not.
> I don't think it's really right wing, there is an exodus of people from the Left as it becomes increasingly ideological, they may dally with the Right a bit - I think the first mention of this phenomenon was way back in 2014 by Scott Alexander as the "grey tribe" that was beginning to form:
No, there isn't and a sector defined by a particular ideological position doesn’t get “more ideological”. (There might be a belated exit of lingering ideological conservatives from the Democratic Party, a historically right-wing institution, as it has stabilized as the left-most major party with its main factions center-right neoliberal and center-left progressive, but most of that happened in the 1970s-1990s.)
It may also be the case that previously politically detached members of privileged groups that were well-served by the past status quo are becoming reactionarily defensive of their privileged status as it seems threatened but still identify with the privilege of being “apolitical” and with ideology being a thing other people do and they remain “above”, forming a group that is very much part of the reactionary right (with a very clear and self-focussed ideology) but identifies as “apolitical” and “non-ideological”. Which is a much better understanding of the “grey tribe”.
How do you explain Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf condemning intolerance in the Democratic Party in an interview with Jordan Peterson? Neither one is exactly a "lingering ideological conservative."
When I said the Left is becoming increasingly ideological perhaps I should have used the word intolerant instead. It is becoming more rigid in terms of what beliefs its members are allowed to hold, and the punishment for holding transgressive beliefs is becoming more severe. Another example of this is the "canceling" of JK Rowling - a liberal feminist who is virulently anti-conservative - for stepping out of line on a single issue. This list of liberals being ejected from the Left for their thought-trangressions is growing rapidly. I don't see how any clear-headed observer can deny its existence.
> How do you explain Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf condemning intolerance in the Democratic Party in an interview with Jordan Peterson?
Tulsi Gabbard has had bizarre (usually extreme but also radically inconsistent over time) set of political positions, her moving around relative to a group generally isn’t a matter of the other group moving at all, its usually (including her formal move away from the Democratic Party) directly associated with substantive changes of her positions, whether its her move from being an extreme anti-LGBT activist where she built he early political career to a move to a moderate mainstream Democratic position, her move from an extreme Islamophobe and anti-Arab racist activist to rhetorically coddling Assad, or her more recent moves.
Wolf seems to have been an opportunistic, dishonest hack her entire career, and pushing culturally conservative angles at least as far back as her work under Dick Morris doing image work for Clinton.
Yes. When Disney, Ratheon, the DoJ, the police, City Hall, Ford, GM, Delta, Google, Facebook and Apple support your movement, you are no longer the counterculture. It doesn't matter how hard you want to be.
Interesting enough quote, maybe obvious but maybe a nice reminder too.
> Search Google Images for ‘counterculture’ and it overwhelmingly returns black-and-white photos of young people all now over 60.
I just love the idea of some social media addicted teenager trying to break free and google image searching "counterculture"... I'm sure that was me c.2005