That "The internet is already over" piece - full disclosure: I skipped over the walls of italics because I don't like that style of writing (even though I use it myself all the time) - is onto something. Definitely food for thought. I find some of the specifics unlikely (or specious in their premise) but still, that's all part of the charm. No three-sentence explainers; no Here's Why. Something different!
I meant to bring this up on the piece on Random Dog Killings, but by the time I read it there were like 200 comments and I figured it’d get lost in the white noise.
But I feel a lot of the discourse in academia and Twitter fails to engage with the world that I live in; I’m a prole in LA and man, these abstract discussions over police abolition/reform totally miss the obvious alternative. The alternative is so obvious that it is literally already happening, both in foreign nations with no centralized government and in neighborhoods at home who do not view the courts as a viable way to resolve disputes.
The obvious alternative is that in a world where strangers can beat your dog to death and nobody does anything, the only rational response is to get hypersensitive to the slights and trespasses of strangers and pull out a gun over every little thing.
It worries me that the self-appointed political-philosophers feel free to speculate on the nature and purpose of disinterested policing but apparently do not and have never lived in environments where a reputation for violence is the only thing that keeps you, your family, and your property secure. It is literally the baseline state of humanity, thankfully tamed and denuded of viciousness by civilization and written laws, but which bubbles back up the moment the legitimacy of institutions slips or falters.
Oct 15, 2022·edited Oct 15, 2022Liked by Freddie deBoer
That debate is excellent. My wife was immediately swayed by your argument, and she works in academia and admissions. In fact, she’s forwarding it to some friends in AAMC (which runs the MCAT).
It was unfortunate they passed over your main point at the beginning, about how indicators will follow less inequality, and that’s the hard work we need.
When two very different prominent bloggers both describe this person Sam Kriss as "the most brilliant essayist alive" or basically that same phrase, yet one's audience gives highly mixed reactions to the first essay and and the other's audience is very positive...well, I find that __interesting__, in a meta-level way. (Scott Alexander and ACX, for reference.)
I feel like it's a story I've been reading over and over for like a decade now, sometimes done better, sometimes done worse. This is at least an *ambitious* stab, though it's kinda tediously long for someone who knows all the upcoming beats. It's a familiar voice, too...I've never heard of Sam Kriss before, but there's a few other (in)famous bloggers who had that same kind of over-the-top, didactic-dialectic, "no really I have Hidden Gems of Insight to share, you just have to Understand" (whispered conspiratorially in plain sight)...schtick. One dearly hopes for some new content underneath the hostile formatting and tortured prose. It's not garbage, but I dunno if I'd call it brilliant necessarily. Above par, anyway. Wonder what the next topic will be.
I am not going to say he is wrong, but his logic and examples are shit. Uber is not the internet. Marie Clair (or whatever) is not the internet. Advertising is. not. the. internet. Nor are many of his examples; they are websites i.e. nodes of the internet. Apps (or whatever they a currently called) are not the internet; they are doorways to get there at best, often they are mere functionaries.
The internet is more akin to moveable type. Sure, there was a way to talk to people over long distance, but it was slow, you had a hard time explaining away any confusions, etc. But, it allowed greater communication. Full Stop. Sure, there were jackholes who said things like "its a fad, only kids want to read unillumiated manuscripts. Monks in scriptoriums will be back in a few decades, once this dies over the stake." No, it made life easier and cheaper for everyone. As does the internet. And that, that is never going away.
"Written language and pictures, along with movies, that allow instantaneous communication world wide? That is crazy talk, no one wants that. Now, were is my buggy whip?"
Sam Kriss writes well, but he still makes the same fundamental mistake all twitterati do: he believes that everyone else is foolish enough to waste their lives in the same way he does.
That Numb at the Lodge piece is so good
That "The internet is already over" piece - full disclosure: I skipped over the walls of italics because I don't like that style of writing (even though I use it myself all the time) - is onto something. Definitely food for thought. I find some of the specifics unlikely (or specious in their premise) but still, that's all part of the charm. No three-sentence explainers; no Here's Why. Something different!
I meant to bring this up on the piece on Random Dog Killings, but by the time I read it there were like 200 comments and I figured it’d get lost in the white noise.
But I feel a lot of the discourse in academia and Twitter fails to engage with the world that I live in; I’m a prole in LA and man, these abstract discussions over police abolition/reform totally miss the obvious alternative. The alternative is so obvious that it is literally already happening, both in foreign nations with no centralized government and in neighborhoods at home who do not view the courts as a viable way to resolve disputes.
The obvious alternative is that in a world where strangers can beat your dog to death and nobody does anything, the only rational response is to get hypersensitive to the slights and trespasses of strangers and pull out a gun over every little thing.
It worries me that the self-appointed political-philosophers feel free to speculate on the nature and purpose of disinterested policing but apparently do not and have never lived in environments where a reputation for violence is the only thing that keeps you, your family, and your property secure. It is literally the baseline state of humanity, thankfully tamed and denuded of viciousness by civilization and written laws, but which bubbles back up the moment the legitimacy of institutions slips or falters.
That debate is excellent. My wife was immediately swayed by your argument, and she works in academia and admissions. In fact, she’s forwarding it to some friends in AAMC (which runs the MCAT).
It was unfortunate they passed over your main point at the beginning, about how indicators will follow less inequality, and that’s the hard work we need.
The good news for the Cowboys is that Freddie is picking them this week. The bad news is that I have them as well.
That Kriss piece is fucking spectacular. I nearly broke my pelvic bone lunging toward the machine to hit subscribe.
When two very different prominent bloggers both describe this person Sam Kriss as "the most brilliant essayist alive" or basically that same phrase, yet one's audience gives highly mixed reactions to the first essay and and the other's audience is very positive...well, I find that __interesting__, in a meta-level way. (Scott Alexander and ACX, for reference.)
I feel like it's a story I've been reading over and over for like a decade now, sometimes done better, sometimes done worse. This is at least an *ambitious* stab, though it's kinda tediously long for someone who knows all the upcoming beats. It's a familiar voice, too...I've never heard of Sam Kriss before, but there's a few other (in)famous bloggers who had that same kind of over-the-top, didactic-dialectic, "no really I have Hidden Gems of Insight to share, you just have to Understand" (whispered conspiratorially in plain sight)...schtick. One dearly hopes for some new content underneath the hostile formatting and tortured prose. It's not garbage, but I dunno if I'd call it brilliant necessarily. Above par, anyway. Wonder what the next topic will be.
Great job on NPR, Freddie.
Read the Kriss piece; meh.
I am not going to say he is wrong, but his logic and examples are shit. Uber is not the internet. Marie Clair (or whatever) is not the internet. Advertising is. not. the. internet. Nor are many of his examples; they are websites i.e. nodes of the internet. Apps (or whatever they a currently called) are not the internet; they are doorways to get there at best, often they are mere functionaries.
The internet is more akin to moveable type. Sure, there was a way to talk to people over long distance, but it was slow, you had a hard time explaining away any confusions, etc. But, it allowed greater communication. Full Stop. Sure, there were jackholes who said things like "its a fad, only kids want to read unillumiated manuscripts. Monks in scriptoriums will be back in a few decades, once this dies over the stake." No, it made life easier and cheaper for everyone. As does the internet. And that, that is never going away.
"Written language and pictures, along with movies, that allow instantaneous communication world wide? That is crazy talk, no one wants that. Now, were is my buggy whip?"
Sam Kriss writes well, but he still makes the same fundamental mistake all twitterati do: he believes that everyone else is foolish enough to waste their lives in the same way he does.