Hacker News Reader

Comment by axiomdata316 | Hacker News Reader

>"The tapeworm-laden ants didn’t just outlive their siblings, the team found. They were coddled while they did it. They spent their days lounging in their nest, performing none of the tasks expected of workers. They were groomed, fed, and carried by their siblings, often receiving more attention than even the queen—unheard of in a typical ant society—and gave absolutely nothing in return."

I wonder if there is a human equivalent tapeworm that the Kardashians have ingested?

View on HN

Let people enjoy things.

If you don't like the Kardashians, fine. I don't either. But clearly some folks do and are willing to help propel them to fame (or notoriety).

I know your comment is being glib, but it's emblematic of HN crowds saying, "I don't like this thing, therefore this thing is funny/bad." It costs you nothing to post your comment and just let people like the things they like.

Let people criticize things. I doubt you'd apply your comment toward your favorite political pet causes. Why are the Kardashians the one thing in our society that is not allowed to be criticized? This whole "let people enjoy things" is cynical, usually coming from the types of people who don't let anyone enjoy anything unless it is degenerate and mind-rotting.

> Why are the Kardashians the one thing in our society that is not allowed to be criticized?

They aren't, and I didn't say that. You can criticize the Kardashians all you want. Saying, effectively, "Kardashians are like these ant parasites, amirite guys?" isn't critique.

> I doubt you'd apply your comment toward your favorite political pet causes.

I think you dramatically underestimate how much I enjoy being critical of things I support, in fact much, much more so than things I oppose. Things I oppose I find easy to not discuss and write off/move past, generally.

> This whole "let people enjoy things" is cynical, usually coming from the types of people who don't let anyone enjoy anything unless it is degenerate and mind-rotting.

Let people enjoy things comes from a space of "We're all from different backgrounds, who are you to be the arbiter of what's fun?" Whether you are a furry or a larper or a reality tv show junkie or a gun nut.... who the fuck am I to tell you that you can't enjoy that? Obviously, there are limits when other people are involved (like, no, it's not an endorsement of enjoying murdering people), but I'm not out here trying to say that only lowest common denominator things are allowed.

You misinterpreted the analogy. The Kardashians aren't the parasites in the ants, they are the ants with the parasites in them.

The implication is that the Karashians sit around recieving undue attention and prosperity while providing nothing in return to their sociey.

Regardless of whether you agree with that assessment, it does qualify as critique and not just name calling.

Yeah, I understood the analogy just fine, thanks. Obviously the parent was drawing a parallel between the pampered do nothing ants and the Kardashians.

But critique implies an analysis and some thought, not just a pithy one liner.

Ah, then you needed to word your response differently. Ant parasite != Parasite ant.

I have pretty devoutly hated celebrity my entire life, but in recent years I've come to realize that the real "job" of these kinds of "celebrity for celebrity's sake" types is pretty simple:

1. Be society's mirror

2. Be society's punching bag

The Kardashians obviously fill both of these jobs. I don't think it's fair to say they're above reproach – in fact, I hear tons of criticism of them any time their names are brought up around me. They're hardly taboo to criticize.

All of that said, I still think you're 100% right that we shouldn't stop people from hating on them. If we take these two "jobs" away from these sorts of celebrities, then at that point they become actually pointless. As much as I'd like to live in a world without them, at least for now the Kardashians and others are serving their purpose – provoking conversation about what we value as a society.

For some folks, lionizing the Kardashians is a way of saying what they think "perfection" (physically/financially/socially/some or all of the above) looks like in America right now. Others want to look at them and see everything that is wrong with us. For as much as I agree with the idea that criticism of celebrities is fundamental to their role in society, I think it's important to not lose sight of the fact that celebrity has a real social function.

The Kardashians have actual jobs, though. "Celebrity for celebrity's sake" is a role the American public assigned to them, as is the role of American societal scapegoat. That isn't a fundamental role they fill, Americans just enjoy hating rich women. You never see the same degree of contempt levied at rich men.

Elon Musk says hello? I hear a lot more hate towards him than I do the Kardashians.

Anyone who's ever used a Windows PC had probably joked about murdering Bill Gates. Jeff Bezos receives a fair bit of flack too.

Where I live, Karl XIV Gustav is similarly divisive as the above figures, some hate him and everything he represents, others love him for... I'm not exactly sure why actually, Google it.

There are oooh so many more examples too.. I'm not saying we live in an equal society, but men get hated on too,I promise

Sure, there are plenty of rich men who people dislike, but they aren't hated so much that hating them becomes a meme the way hating the Kardashians or Paris Hilton has. Even the FOSS community and the people who think Bill Gates wants to inject them with Illuminati roofies don't demean him personally, meanwhile "Kill the Kardashians" is a t-shirt.

Even the few male equivalents of "famous for being famous" that I could find (the lists are almost exclusively female for some reason) like Kevin Federline and the lesser known Baldwins seem to be given a greater degree of respect by popular culture.

Very fair point - they do have jobs. I certainly don't mean to diminish the legitimate work of people doing social media, etc. It is work. I guess my point more broadly was that there are certain types of celebrity (sports, acting, music) which take a lifetime of dedication to a craft, which at least to my mind is more justifiable than folks who become famous on reputation/relationship/inherited status alone.

But of course, now that you have me interrogating my own biases, that's also true of someone like Lebron James. What other reason does he have to perform well on the court other than to maintain or improve his celebrity? Is he fundamentally different than someone like Kim K? I usually would say yes, but I'm not entirely sure now. I'm sure you're right that to some extent gender comes into play. The ways by which women become famous are scrutinized much more than the ways that men become famous, and that is pretty fucked up. I still believe that the "job" of celebrity has a lot to do with being mirror/punching bag for society, but I think the way in which I said it probably fell into some gender bias issues.

Your points are really good ones, and I appreciate you saying it!

It sounds more to me like these ants were treated the way we treat disabled humans.

While theoretically that would be an interesting hypothesis (even though the disabled humans started to get treated decently only recently and only in well-developed countries, so that puts serious limitations on "we" like "we" != "human race"), the decent treatment of disabled ants isn't known:

https://theconversation.com/these-ants-have-evolved-a-comple...

"There seems to be a threshold for rescue. Wounded ants on the battlefield are triaged carefully by their comrades. Ones with one or two legs missing are often rescued, but the severely injured are seldom retrieved. The ants do not seem to be counting legs directly, instead badly damaged ants may not be able to adopt the correct position for battlefield rescue. And even if they can get back home, severely injured ants are removed from the nest, cast out to their doom."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com