←back to thread

395 points url | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
SamJordison ◴[] No.43802157[source]
Author here. Noticed a lot of traffic from this post - so thanks. Thanks especially for all these thoughtful comments. Just dropping in to say I appreciate the attention - and am grateful that most posters here don't seem to mind that I'm unable to draw hard conclusions in my original article. I also like the posts here that point towards the fact that atomisation maybe has had something to do with things (as well as the hardening of inequalities and etc.) Interesting! Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now? (The concept that jokes either punch up or punch down seems an indication of that... Feels quite recent to me. And What if the intention isn't to hit anyone, really, just to make each other laugh?)

Anyway, to respond to a couple of other things on here. I'm not really a comedian. Sorry! I do work in the publishing industry, so while I can't prove my ideas about publishers being nervous, I would hope I have a reasonable insight and instinct.

replies(4): >>43802198 #>>43806125 #>>43806674 #>>43812577 #
codeulike ◴[] No.43806674[source]
Perhaps it was more possible to share jokes in 2003 than it is now

Its much more possible for people who are the target of jokes to reply now, compared to pre-social-media 2003

replies(1): >>43810917 #
K0balt ◴[] No.43810917[source]
Taking offense when none was tendered is a special kind of social malfeasance that has gained popularity among the idle and boorish class of recent years. I appreciate it as a facile outward indication of low character and questionable intellect.
replies(1): >>43812196 #
codeulike ◴[] No.43812196{3}[source]
Well that may be. But I'm talking more about differences between 2003 and now. Regardless of cancel culture etc, there is a physical possibility of reply/response now, that did not exist in 2003. Perhaps the two things are related?
replies(1): >>43812661 #
1. K0balt ◴[] No.43812661{4}[source]
I suspect you are right, both in the voice and in the causal nature of the new memosphere validating the valueless.