←back to thread

430 points mhb | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
venturecruelty ◴[] No.46177867[source]
No, the past was not "cute", but it also wasn't entirely a Dickensian disaster, either. There are parts about the past we can miss: shared public spaces, authenticity, quality goods and services, ritual, deeper connectedness to each other. Why does it have to be this dichotomy? Why can't we have both now? In fact, we ought to have both. It's not like it's impossible. We just have to user the power we have to build that world. It won't be easy, but it isn't a choice between "Little House on the Prairie" and "Bladerunner".
replies(7): >>46178794 #>>46178910 #>>46179209 #>>46179722 #>>46179760 #>>46181459 #>>46185673 #
donkeybeer ◴[] No.46181459[source]
Deeper connectedness is Karenism. There are still countries and societies today that are "deeper connected" and you can see the cost of it.
replies(1): >>46181842 #
1. RealityVoid ◴[] No.46181842[source]
> Deeper connectedness is Karenism.

I am utterly confused by this statement. Karen as in... "let me speak with your manager" meme Karen? What are you trying to say here?

replies(2): >>46185953 #>>46189695 #
2. ◴[] No.46185953[source]
3. donkeybeer ◴[] No.46189695[source]
Karen as in excessive nosiness and controlling behaviour