undefined | Better HN

0 pointssomenameforme4y ago0 comments

Imagine you were tasked with deciding the greatest film of all time. And after some opaque process over which you have no meaningful influence, you were presented with your choices, the "sides:" "Generic Superhero Movie #1" or "Generic Superhero Movie #2".

Of course you are right that one may be objectively better than the other, but I'm also right in that such a choice ought be rejected on principle because neither deserves the validation of participation in such a charade.

0 comments

jjoonathan4y ago

...and then audiences stop reading your opinion, because snobbery isn't useful for picking which movie to see on Friday night, and then producers and directors stop paying attention to you because you have no audience, and now you have traded away your ability to effect change for the self-indulgent fantasy of being above the fray.

> neither deserves the validation

Huffing your own farts is poor debate strategy.

somenameformeOP4y ago

Look to the media. They sold any and all principles they once held in pursuit of "effecting change". And what happened? Everybody knows everything they say is worthless, they're further than ever from affecting, let alone effecting, anything and now they struggle, with no small degree of contempt and jealousy, to attract the viewership of a mid-tier YouTuber.

And this tale of modern media is not some new one. History and humanity endlessly repeats the same stories over and over, with little more than technological improvement offering a change in scenery. This is where the countless parables analogous to selling your soul to the devil come from: observing humanity. The moral being that it doesn't end quite like how you might have imagined.