Comment by overthemoon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by overthemoon | Hacker News Reader

"One of the most troubling features of life under twenty-first-century American capitalism, I find, is the way that it can limit your sense of human potential; in the process of choosing from among overpriced health-insurance packages, I sometimes forget that it is possible for a government to refuse to allow its citizens to go bankrupt while they’re attempting to stay alive. One issue of Teen Boss features a quiz called “Which CELEB-PRENEUR Are You Most Like?” The options are life-style blogger, creator of a name-brand fashion line, owner of a YouTube channel, and founder of a personal-makeup brand. Another quiz helps girls figure out their “life motto,” letting them choose from “Be Your Own Biggest Cheerleader,” “Nothing Is Impossible,” and “Always Do What You’re Afraid to Do.”"

I really like Jia Tolentino's writing.

The magazine sucks because it valorizes materialism. There's not much more to it than that. Greed is repackaged as positivity and girl power, but it's still a void. The passage I quoted is right--our idea of success is slowly narrowing to this kind of 21st century internet-mediated entrepreneurship. We should dream bigger than kids screaming about video games on youtube.

It reminds me of the often repeated phrase used to respond to people criticizing a popular kids' book: "Well, at least they're reading." The version that would defend this kind of content says "at least they're making something!" The act of creation by itself isn't noble, neither is the act of reading alone. "Would you rather they just watch TV??" No. It's a false choice. Aim higher.

The western world is in crisis psychologically. This kind of thing didn’t cause it, but it ain’t helping. But materialism is valorized by CNBC and startup bro culture as well.

The sad thing about this kind of capitalism though is in money via brand building (id argue) no real value is created. It’s just a knife fight for eyeballs.

But for whatever reason, people do not get distribution. They tend to overlook it. It is the single topic whose importance people understand least. Even if you have an incredibly fantastic product, you still have to get it out to people. The engineering bias blinds people to this simple fact. The conventional thinking is that great products sell themselves; if you have great product, it will inevitably reach consumers. But nothing is further from the truth.

http://blakemasters.com/post/22405055017/peter-thiels-cs183-...

Her intro reminds me a bit of Renton's monologue at the start of Trainspotting, minus of course the accepting heroin as a substitute for everything else. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117951/quotes/qt0335530?mavIsAd...

Is it weird that I saw the title of the piece on HN and immediately guessed “Jia Tolentino”. I like her writing too.

I think it's important to understand the way that younger teenagers view this sort of thing.

For older people, it's impressive that a teenager goes out there and makes a name for themselves on youtube and then older people will go on and talk about the merits of the media/product being made as you've done.

It's my understanding that for many teenagers the idea of this sort of fame isn't really that big of a deal, it's essentially commoditized, where anyone who's serious about it can achieve a certain level of success. This leads to younger kids to understand that they too can succeed by driving their ideas forward, and I imagine we will see all sorts of entrepreneurship come from Gen Z when they have the skill sets and experience to both raise money from VCs and develop truly innovative new products.

The irony of Teen Boss and it's agenda is that it is a magazine so will really only be read by someone waiting in a Dentist's office. There is great YT content out there that is educational and entertaining, for whatever reason the mainstream media just can't seem to find it.

The whole piece was evocative of David Foster Wallace

>our idea of success is slowly narrowing to this kind of 21st century internet-mediated entrepreneurship.

Material success, power, fame - have been drivers of ambition throughout all of human civilization. The unprecedented success of capitalism over the last 2 centuries has been marked by countless individuals pushing forward towards those goals.

>Greed is repackaged as positivity and girl power

You have cynical spin on this, but I suppose traditional moral gender roles would be more fulfilling? Or maybe women should be encouraged to go into low profit social work? What is it you want?

A society where get-rich schemes whether they be becoming rich from social media self-branding, investing in crypto, or buying lottery tickets are not so attractive because they seem like the only way to reach financial success, independence, or security.

Who is arguing for get-rich quick(?) schemes?

>whether they be becoming rich from social media self-branding

I'm not worried about that. There is no free lunch and anybody who thinks they can start rolling in Youtube money without putting in a massive amount of work (and even then, there are no guarantees) will figure it quickly enough.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your tendentious gender-virtuous criticism. That's way out of line. It would be just as bad, if there were an analogous boy's magazine.

The point is that replacing the idea of one's worth and potential - girl power/boy power, whatever - with shallow get quick money and get famous schemes is a negative.

Would you prefer children who dream of utilizing their potential to become great at something, like a career path, scientist, scholar, artists, farmer etc., or whose dreams are about becoming Youtube stars or selling crap to a bunch of people?

As for the general remarks on history, power is the only factor in ambition beyond survival. Material success is just one form of power. Fame is power + self gratification for the emotionally weak. Ephemeral fame and get money quick schemes are superficial and weak means to power.

On the other hand, appeals to a universal subject, which doesn't exist, references to human nature, which we can't even define as a term, much less define what the elements of it are, don't really work in a proper argument.

>It would be just as bad, if there were an analogous boy's magazine.

There's a constant hum about the lack of women entrepreneurs and how women should be encouraged to pursue entrepreneurship, the earlier the better. What do you think that looks like?

If you do nothing, that's wrong, if you do something, it will never be right and will be critized.

This is an entrepreneurship magazine designed to appeal to teen girls. Entrepreneurship is a boring topic for most teens, so this is their attempt at making it relatable and fun. Give them a break.

>Would you prefer children who dream of utilizing their potential to become great at something, like a career path, scientist, scholar, artists, farmer etc.,

I noticed entrepreneur is not one of the options you listed, which is what this magazine advocates. But I support all those career paths as well. Advocacy for one, doesn't mean denial of others.

I'd characterize my spin as "dour and sullen", thank you. And no, lol, I do not want women to be encouraged to do any one particular thing over another. Women should be allowed to direct their own debasement, just like men. My point was that twisting this kind of grasping, overheated commodification into women's empowerment is actually cynical.

I certainly do not dispute the argument re: ambition and the desire for wealth as the source of capitalism's success.

I can certainly see the ideological direction you're coming from. I'll just say this: there is honor in pushing yourself through hard work and long hours to build a business - and in almost every case, the act of building the business is not an end unto itself. The promise of material gain, and other 'superficial' outcomes is a major driver. There is no shame in that.

Magazines' purpose historically has been to promote and spread materialism

the idea that citizens belong to the government is the most unamerican formulation of the actual relationship i can imagine. i’m a little grossed out having read that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com