zlacker

>>NotInO+(OP)
Where I think that pieces like this fall short at are identifying what they think people should "care" about and why these things matter.

For example,

* Who cares that those newspapers ran AI-generated reading lists when the actual people who represent the newspapers wouldn't actually be the ones recommending the books anyway?

(People who make things that you read aren't reading themselves.)

* Why should people care to fund or listen to audio deep-dives into the Multiverse or a middle-aged man's memoir about when he was 12 and he heard songs?

* Why shouldn't people submit boilerplate responses to boilerplate questions that are an artificial barrier between them and what is contemporarily accepted as a socioeconomic exchange?

I wonder if there's anything that the author can draw from their experiences in punk culture to round out the answers the questions like this.

We are flailing in the middle of a long-running vacuum of meaning and purpose.

I worry about the sort of people who are set at ease by the vague quasi-institutional appeals that conclude this post.

>>tolera+8i
I think that's only part of the story. Another part is what are you caring about or doing instead. People don't have to care about those things, but what are they doing with their time instead? "Funny fails" videos and getting french fries delivered? Part of the point is that you have to do something with your time, it's just that now people spend their time doing stuff they don't care about, which is sad. You don't have to care about those particular things, but if you're not caring about anything I think it indicates something is out joint.

>>BrenBa+dW1
We are flailing in the middle of a long-running vacuum of meaning and purpose.

And the worst-kept secret is that people have to be told what to care about.