Hacker News Reader

Comment by VMG | Hacker News Reader

> The most oppressive and authoritarian thing about it is, at root, that most people appear to enjoy it and not see any problems with it, while you view it as this heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space.

While many of my friends enjoy Facebook and I'm still to lazy to upload a profile image and mainly use it to find out where the next birthday party is located, I really can't say that I am feeling oppressed.

Some people just like camp.

View on HN

I don't think the original comment is saying there's something wrong with liking camp, but there's something wrong with people liking camp because they're supposed to like camp. of course we can't look into people's hearts and see if they actually like something or they're just liking it because they're supposed to like it, but if you pay attention and see how much care people put into doing things, it becomes obvious if it's an actual willed choice or a default reaction.

"but there's something wrong with people liking camp because they're supposed to like camp"

Huh? Don't understand what you are talking about... A quick study of human history and psychology will show that this is a bedrock of human behavior. For good and ill, it is what I would regard a well-accepted facet of human nature. We wouldn't be the species we are without the pressures of 'social norms'

Actually, a quick study will show you that it's the (by definition) minority of people who rebel against social norms and mass movements, the people who aren't followers, who have been the drivers of civilization, the catalysts for new ideas, the creators and inventors. I think it's safe to say most of those people hated or would hate summer camp.

People who really love camp might be poster children for human herd behavior, and they certainly make excellent prison guards when they grow up. But they suck at thinking for themselves.

[edit. on consideration, the second paragraph was an unnecessarily harsh blanket statement, emotional, and without any logical foundation at whatsoever. The more important question is whether free thinkers who do reject social media, camp, or group activities in general, are being pushed further from their ability to contribute to mainstream society by their choice of self-exclusion from FB than they would by e.g. choosing not to drink coffee at Starbucks, or be a customer of some other individual mega-corp.]

> But they suck at thinking for themselves.

Maybe they just enjoy the outdoors. Maybe they really get a kick out of building fires and singing songs and making crafts. What on earth does any of that have to do with herd behavior or independent thinking?

The belief that contrarianism is required as proof of "thinking for themselves" is a common logical fallacy. It is logical and valid to consider that someone may think for themselves and, after due diligence of doing so, make a decision which happens to coincide with that of many others.

I'm not talking about contrarianism, or a compulsive desire to come to the opposite conclusion as others. I'm talking about critical thinking: The ability to maintain an unpopular view, after due diligence, and particularly the ability to do so in the face of social pressure.

I see. I can buy that. It's just that you said that people who love summer camp suck at thinking for themselves and I don't see the connection. "If you like summer camp then you suck at thinking for yourself" just sounds like a logical fallacy, that's all.

I do not know much about your summer camps, but I liked camping (as in: sleeping in a small tent) when I was a child with a group called "Naturfreundejugend Deutschlands" which is still organizing vacations for children (ages 7 to 18) without their parents. And I assure you, it has nothing to do with being a "poster children for human herd behavior" or "excellent prison guards". I am all in for thinking for myself.

Just because things are (or have been) a certain way, doesn't mean they should be that way. We all get a choice.

I do believe though that most social norms are good, not because they're social norms, but because they actually serve people and as such became social norms. But some social norms (as history has shown: slavery, etc.) are accepted by a lot of people not because they make sense, but simply because they are social norms. It's up to each of us to challenge social norms, the right ones will stand up to the challenge, the wrong one's wont.

There are also plenty of social norms that are harmless but still insipid. For instance, here in Sweden, every other male between 20-30 seems to be some kind of ironic lumberjack judging from their clothes. Which I just find to be utterly ridiculous, albeit harmless to all but my aesthetic sense.

That's right, a sizeable portion of Sweden's population would fit right in on this blog: http://hipsterorlumberjack.tumblr.com/

> but there's something wrong with people liking camp because they're supposed to like camp.

You can say that about anything, "But there's something wrong with people liking grapes because they're supposed to like grapes.

Re: Stallman's statement - Maybe you don't like grapes, but calling it a mass-conspiracy to manipulate / document genetic information is a far cry.

> there's something wrong with people liking camp because they're supposed to like camp

It is very easy as an outside observer to decide that someone must like something you dislike because they feel they are "supposed" to.

Kind of like sushi. If you're grossed out by it, you've probably watched people eating it and having fun while saying to yourself "well, they only like it because they're supposed to...it's trendy right now, that's all".

> Some people just like camp

And that, my friend, is the tyranny of the majority. It is the people who just like things the way they are who opt willfully to take the side of the-way-is. You attacked, wrote a comment, preserving the status quo simply because you happen to find yourself with that preference, rather than considering the much more existential plight of the minority.

I don't think there is any existential plight in not signing up for Facebook. You just don't sign up for it. Also, sharing your opinion about whether or not something is a problem is not an "attack".

I don't think I understood what you are saying. But, would you suggest that by using (and enjoying) fb, I am oppressing people who don't want to use it?

I don't want to speak for niels_olson, but in short, yes. Especially if you do any of the following:

-use a smart phone w/ friends' contact info entered and the FB app installed

- talk about those friends on FB

- or upload pictures with them in-frame

Out there, somebody just doesn't like the internet, and you are making him sad by participating.

My point was that your comment illustrates how the tyranny of the majority works. Most people in any majority simply have that position coincidentally, but when faced with the possibility of movement, are willing to attack ferociously out of the underlying instinct to stand your ground. The idea of walking a mile in the minority's shoes never even in makes into their thought process, let alone do they actually walk that mile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com