Hacker News Reader

Comment by newswriter99 | Hacker News Reader

God forbid we have more people entering the middle class, who want to explore the world.

I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be. The writers come from these urbanized, upper middle class backgrounds and have no self-awareness. When I (with my small-town highschool dropout roots) read stories like this, I can't help but reword what they're saying in my head:

"Go back to being working-class scum who stays in the same place so us upper-class people can enjoy jet-setting and taking photos in exotic locations only you can dream of."

View on HN

Did you read the entire article? The final paragraphs seem to suggest that on balance, the author believes that the benefits of travel by the wider population outweigh the risks of over-tourism:

"These phenomena inevitably mean more complaints from locals, and more damage and lines and selfies and bad behavior. But they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."

Then maybe they shouldn't have picked such a click-baity title.

Personally, I got about a third of the way through and clicked out because I felt the same disgust as the op. At least to the point in the article I got to, the author didn’t cite any real data, just cherry picked anecdotes to support their pearl clutching. I mean, why are boats with an all you can eat buffet a problem anyway? Right, because the author wants the buffet scarfing philistines to stay in flyover country where they belong.

> I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be.

They have been this way for decades, it's kinda their thing. Just look at the monatage scene in the orginal 1984 Ghostbusters, they roast The Atlantic pretty well 35 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs#t=1m55s

EDIT: The OP I am replying to has changed their posting quite a bit. Hence my comment does not make much sense anymore.

I had forgotten that little tidbit. It's a funny jab, but at the same time a completely believable Atlantic headline, and I'd totally be interested in reading an article on the civil rights of ghosts.

SNL alumni of that era were pretty sharp

Can you quote some passages that you felt were preachy? I read your comment and then read the article expecting to find the worst. But it seemed pretty even handed and didn't at all suggest people go back to being working class scum.

But maybe that's just my own biased reading. If you could point out the passages you find problematic it would help me improve my empathy.

>Can you quote some passages that you felt were preachy? I read your comment and then read the article expecting to find the worst. But it seemed pretty even handed and didn't at all suggest people go back to being working class scum.

If you are working class, such things are more felt and nuanced at, than explicitly said (at least not in polite upper class company). Not that dissimilar with racism.

(Except of course if you're very poor -- then everybody has the free pass to call you "white trash" and mock you, in a way that they wouldn't dare mock any other group).

It's in the writing. Look at the headline: "Too many people want to travel"

Funny how she didn't give a damn when it was just her group getting to travel. Now that there's the rest of us getting to do it? Oh, that's too many, go back to not traveling you people.

The headline is chosen by the editor, not the author.

How do you know what the author used to think? Can you link to her previous writing establishing that?

Not all the time. Source: reporter

Think of how causally people throw around the term 'redneck' without thinking twice about it.

It's easy to pick on the rural poor that don't have the same access to services as the enlightened city folk. Let's call them racist because they have a certain (ignorant) perception of what their problems are and not do anything to help those people and improve their situation.

It's also eat to pick on people who literally do things like roll coal, block hybrid charging stations, routinely practice racism, and cling to preconceived notions regardless of what they are shown in evidence. I've lived in rural areas. I've lived in cities. Neither are perfect but they make fun of each other pretty equally, I've never been run off the road by a truck in the city, had motorcycles swerve at my family riding bikes in the city (cars are about problem), and never had to explain that it's inappropriate to fly the stars and bars in a town parade in the Northeast to anyone in the city. There are plenty of nice people in rural towns, but many of them work hard to earn their reputations, just like smug city dwellers who think they are better. They are all just annoying, prejudiced humans in their own ways.

Yes, I also have a handful of cherry-picked anecdotes about how city-folk are closed-minded, pompous, rude and bigoted.

I guess that means I'm right too, huh?

The comment prior to mine was about how city people are all jerks looking down on rednecks. My point is that people always think other people are jerks and not themselves. I've got tons of stories about city folks too.

My point was it's politically correct to pick on a certain class of people and people that are otherwise extremely politically correct don't find the hypocrisy in doing so.

The "enlightened city folk" is from the disparaged group's point of view, not mine.

You know I think we're all saying something similar using different words.

People are entirely capable of articulating what phrasing is racist dog whistle; when I read, say Ta-Nahesi Coates he is able to elaborate his point even to an audience with a very different context. It happens all the time. I'm asking for someone to actually explicitly explain to me the classist dog whistle in the article so that I can learn something.

For the classic classist dog whistle you're looking for a few things. You can't just say "screw the poor" or "screw the bourgeois" you go after behaviors, interests, and appearances. You describe them as rude, ignorant, or criminal.

Here, from the article, for example: "...selfie-stick deaths, all-you-can-eat ships docking at historic ports, stag nights that end in property crimes, the live-streaming of the ruination of fragile natural habitats..."

- So, selfies / selfie sticks leading to falling off a cliff (rude and dangerous) -All you can eat ships (cruises, gluttony, probably fat people) going to historic ports (stinking up the place) -Stag nights leading to property crimes (fornication and loud partying + criminals) -live-streaming of the ruination of fragile natural habitats (a lack of shame and propriety + ecological damage)

So, just from that, I can tell you this is a hit piece against the not-quite-poor, like I could tell you one from decades past would mention tchotchkes, or dancing, or casserole.

edit: pardon the borked formatting.

I think any of those examples can just as easily apply to upper class / wealthy travelers.

Would they do those same sorts of things, yes. Would it be described the same way, no.

Nuance doesn't begin and end with "dog whistles".

You can allude to middle class phenomena without mentioning anything explicitly useful as a signal.

There's a "if you have to ask, you will never know" element involved.

The article seems fine. The title could be interpreted harshly but it's just a title, it's optimized for clicks. I agree that there's a lot of trust funded journalism coming out of places like Vox and the Atlantic but I don't think this is one of those articles.

I couldn't find any dog whistles and I'm usually pretty good at seeing the author's agenda before clicking the "other articles" link.

Edit: Even after checking the other stuff she wrote I don't see anything substantial to complain about

> If tourism is a capitalist phenomenon, overtourism is its demented late-capitalist cousin: selfie-stick deaths, all-you-can-eat ships docking at historic ports, stag nights that end in property crimes, the live-streaming of the ruination of fragile natural habitats, et cetera. There are just too many people thronging popular destinations

Use of "demented late-capitalist" in the context of the paragraph and article reads, to me at least, as an indictment of the behavior of the newly-middle-class (i.e. people whom capitalism has recently enriched).

The first few paragraphs paint a picture of why the author thinks tourism by the massses is a problem. But then proceeds to tell us how when only aristocrats traveled, there was no problem. Not being an aristocrat, the obvious implication is that I ought to leave the traveling to my betters.

That's not the problem. They have the right to. We encourage it. But there are too many humans.

This is just a hisper example, but pollution, food quality, democraty, education and the health system suffer from the same problem.

It's going to get worse and all we do is finding temporary solutions, not adressing the elephant in the room: promoting growth forever is not sustainable.

I really lile this conf:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D&playnext...

Because it addresses the problem mathematically, and answers the usual rebukes about innovation, moderation and other "sustainable growth".

That's my point. From my perspective, the headline isn't: "There are too many humans" Instead it's: "It was better when only us privileged humans got to do this thing"

There is nothing wrong with that inconvenient truth. Finite systems don’t care about political correctness.

Perhaps a better headline would’ve been, “Not everyone can join the middle class”.

That would make it subject to outcry because it could be understood as "you are not allowed", while the problem is that "there are too many of us for this lifestyle"

>There is nothing wrong with that inconvenient truth. Finite systems don’t care about political correctness.

Some care is needed though, because neither the poor butchering the rich classes with machetes during a revolt care about political correctness either...

>Perhaps a better headline would’ve been, “Not everyone can join the middle class”.

How about, "less tourism, whether upper or middle class"?

I'd like to see wannabe tourists earn the right to travel, as opposed to it being the default or just what money buy you. Maybe a cultural exam based on the destination? Make people work for it. Of course that's not in the interest of huge tourism industries, domestic or abroad.

People that travel just to drink cheep beer or expensive champagne in another country, could always just stay at home and drink there.

> How about, "less tourism, whether upper or middle class"?

That won't work on the long run. Watch the video, it is addressed.

I’m sure we can handle more people on this planet if we don’t all eat meat daily, we don’t need to drive cars, and don’t get on airplanes to travel 200-500 miles.

How much wasted space do we have in cities because we build around cars?

https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-...

Watch the video. This is addressed as well.

There are many variables to this: the time we get to react, the effect on democracy, the innovation fallacy, our perspective on resources availability, etc.

We are a reaaally far cry from exhausting all our resources. Overpopulation is a concern but all trends point at a curb of growth in the 2050's. The problem isn't that we collectively consume too much, it's that some consume waaaaay too much and others fight for crumbs and get told off when they dare yearn for more.

Guilt-tripping middle-class and poor people into accepting lower standards of living is dangerous imo, because silly contributions you may make are dwarfed by corporate contributions. Studies show that people who do token actions such as eating less meat are less likely to take part in actions that matter e.g. dismantling Exxon and putting its top execs behind bars).

Forecast is a 60% increase of the world population by the end of the century...

The future of climate change and the environment is hopeless because of that as we already don't do anything now.

I don't know who's childishly downvoting any comment that points this out. I can only suggest that they wake up and smell the coffee.

This is addressed in the video I linked as well. Watch it, your point is logical but doesn't take in consideration several variables.

Actually I think you are reading way to much into it, seems to me she is neither condemning nor praising, the article conclusion does mention there is an upside to this raise in travel: "they also mean more cross-cultural exposure, more investment, more global connection, more democratization of travel, and perhaps more awe and wonder. Even overtourism has its upsides."

I have to admit that I've wrestled with frustration at what I perceive to be people traveling to "tick off the boxes" whether that is going to Machu Pichu or some Instagram famous spot just to get a selfie of themself "experiencing" the place and then immediately leave without perhaps "experiencing" the place as I understand "experiencing" to truly consist of.

> "Go back to being working-class scum who stays in the same place so us upper-class people can enjoy jet-setting and taking photos in exotic locations only you can dream of."

Pretty much. It's weird how journalists have the presumption that we should care about literally anything they say. Opine me, dearly appointed ones.

Yeah no, not at all.

It's a real problem when Mt Everest is so overcrowded that people are dying. The problem the author points out is that as the population and middle class grows it inevitably leads to more travel, but many of the wonders of the world don't have the infrastructure to support the massive influx of people.

The truly wealthy have the means to avoid the crowds, they can fly private, stay in exclusive resorts, rent private yachts.

This is a very modern and new problem of overpopulation meeting an increasing amount of free time and wealth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com