What do you all feel about popular culture, worldview, values?

[RealityRipple]

There's nothing more intellectually or socially stagnating than interacting with those that share your opinions and values. I find no worth in such communities.

[Moonraker]

There's nothing more intellectually or socially stagnating than interacting with those that share your opinions and values. I find no worth in such communities.

Good lord you would fit right in with any uk public house where laymen are overnight "experts" on every subject imaginable.
You name it.....
the law,physics.covid.....anything and uk pubs are full of these stagnated wounded personalities where the conversation is respawned waffling tabloid crap.

Everyone has an opinion but i am damned if i have to adhere or appease such wild opinions and uneducated guesstimates on the origins of anything from mankind to global pandemics.

I myself find no WORTH in such communities.

[Tharthan]

I do not know if i'm coming from the right supposition, but it seems to me that there is a likely chance of people who are involved or supportive of open-source projects to be a bit on the outside of the majority way of life and visions.

I would put it a different way: we march to the beat of a different drummer. We aren't mindless lemmings, automatically following whatever happens to be trendy or popular.

If something becomes popular that is a good thing, then great: let's consider it on its merits, and if it seems great then let us consider adopting it. But if something becomes popular that is a terrible thing, that causes serious problems for society and for the free and open Web, then that thing deserves to be thrown in the trash can as far as I am concerned.

Heathen have always dominated the world, and most who say they believe in God are only nominal, or so drunk with society that they read its values into the gospel and thus behave as heathen

That's very true.

Also the IT sector is affected - many companies now do politics.

It has always puzzled me since it first started coming into fashion how some people thought it made sense to, rather than attempt to make one's products as appealing to as many people as is reasonably possible, instead pledge allegiance to a particular political ideology and curse the names of anyone who thinks differently.

How on Earth is that good for business? I am not talking about businesses created and developed for the purpose of catering to a select or niche audience: I am talking about businesses that used to try to appeal to pretty much everyone. Perhaps if you think that 99.999% of people buy into the ideology in question, you might think that cursing a non-negligible portion of your customer base is a good business decision (but then, in that case it would actually be a negligible percentage. I-i-in any case, you get my point!). But this simply isn't the case with the politics that some of these companies are swearing by these days. Do they perhaps think that 'Those who disagree will grumble, shake their heads, but then continue to buy our products anyway'?

Popular culture - I liked older forms of it

Indeed. There have always been good and bad to popular culture, curious trends and silly trends, etc., but one used to be able to just chuckle and say "Remember when that thing was popular?"

Now, the entire popular culture itself is almost akin to a terrible disease, and the healthier one is, the more likely that one is not paying attention to the popular culture.

didn't get really bad until Rap and Hip-Hop started becoming popular in the 2000s and later

I know that it is not going to be taken well by everyone, but I really do think that the glorification of a genre in which perhaps the vast majority of its most popular and best selling tracks boast about how great it supposedly is being a lousy human being (whether that be by committing terrible violence, or threatening to do so, or reminiscing about criminal acts, or by being a deadbeat parent, etc.) has been very bad for society.

I am biased, of course, since rap is at rock bottom in my ranking of music. But I stand by what I said. It was a net negative for our society, to say the least.

sadly now we live in a society who doesn't give a hoot about anyone but themselves

Selfishness and a lust for convenience has been one of the main factors in the past couple of decades to really get us to this point that we are at now. And the latter is one of the main factors that--on a subject directly related to Pale Moon--led people to make the personal decisions that led to Google Chrome (and its reskins) becoming the default Internet browser, the breakdown in privacy protections, etc.

[Mæstro]

.If something becomes popular that is a good thing, then great: let's consider it on its merits, and if it seems great then let us consider adopting it. But if something becomes popular that is a terrible thing, that causes serious problems for society and for the free and open Web, then that thing deserves to be thrown in the trash can as far as I am concerned.

Selfishness and a lust for convenience has been one of the main factors in the past couple of decades to really get us to this point that we are at now. And the latter is one of the main factors that--on a subject directly related to Pale Moon--led people to make the personal decisions that led to Google Chrome (and its reskins) becoming the default Internet browser, the breakdown in privacy protections, etc.

Convenience itself is the merit by which many choose. I find others seldom abstain from trying something new if it is simple enough to begin. Steam is a famous example: bundled IM and BBS are fit recompense, to many, for DRM and forced upgrades. Ereyesterday, I had talked a friend out of re-installing Steam, which he had given up a year ago, to try a free game available there.

I would be interested in any formal surveys or other systematic bids to reconstruct the Second Browser War. We have a folk understanding, landmarks like the 2010 browser choice ruling and national usage shares over time, but I would like to know what someone in 2013 was thinking when he had chosen Chrome over Firefox. (I suspect that, like Microsoft before, Google’s victory came less through active choice, but through agreements with computer merchants to be installed by default.) The results might be telling.

Do they perhaps think that 'Those who disagree will grumble, shake their heads, but then continue to buy our products anyway'?

I think this likely. They are neutral to the matter itself: see how the rainbow flags come everywhere but the Near Eastern branch. Expressing hollow, popular (if disputed) views makes a firm seem like in-group members to the sympathetic. It is also why, as I have seen studying there, US firms put their flag everywhere: playing nationalist pleases more of the market than it offends, while the rest of us just mutter about Yanks being Yanks again.

There have always been good and bad to popular culture, curious trends and silly trends, etc., but one used to be able to just chuckle and say "Remember when that thing was popular?"

The literature uses ‘popular’ to mean that it is the folk’s culture, against the élite. The phrase is from the mid-XIX^th century (source), when the press was the only mass medium.

[mr tribute]

Prophecy from 2015:

Modern Educayshun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

[Eduardo Lucas]

I would be interested in any formal surveys or other systematic bids to reconstruct the Second Browser War. We have a folk understanding, landmarks like the 2010 browser choice ruling and national usage shares over time, but I would like to know what someone in 2013 was thinking when he had chosen Chrome over Firefox. (I suspect that, like Microsoft before, Google’s victory came less through active choice, but through agreements with computer merchants to be installed by default.) The results might be telling.

I think most did change back in the day because of speed advantages in milliseconds due to chrome doing the dirty job by its 12912892812 processes and picking the easy way out of the increased complex media/applications rich web, and i think it was a very stupid decision that i (very) regret, especially because i was way benefited from classic firefox ways and XUL addons. Luckily there is pale moon today and i could bring those advantages back with along with a very different and (to me and you others) way more advanced architecture + engine than all browsers and resource usage.


I have been following all replies. I could go very further into replies and expose my points about current popular culture and how people are becoming less of individuals and more almost like mental clones of themselves, but i have been too recent overwhelmed in life to actually do this in a satisfactory way to the insightful level of all replies i got on this topic, but i will keep following as i think it went well into the purpose i opened this discussion in the first place. Thank you all for the attentive remarks and detailed personal views, this is very rich and it easily comes close to my own perspectives, i will keep watching further discussion on the post as of now.

[Tharthan]

I could go very further into replies and expose my points about current popular culture and how people are becoming less of individuals and more almost like mental clones

Increasing homogeneity with regard to belief, values, and viewpoints is especially striking coming from a world with societies that are so much more varied and differing in other ways than they have ever been previously.

Of course, it becomes much less surprising when you consider that heavy cultural globalisation--as in, the increasing development of a sort of 'whole-world' pop culture, 'whole-world' prevailing trends and attitudes, etc. as opposed to any time before now when those things were much more localised to the different countries and cultures of the world--appears to necessarily lead to less diversity in viewpoints, values, etc. And that is not a good thing. The way that this could be combatted would be for people from different nations, cultures, communities, etc. to actually take pride in the fact that they come from a different perspective, a different set of values, than, say, the average person you might bump into in a megacity in the United States or Canada. That way, although we could continue to have and continue to better trade and co-operation between the countries of the world as the years go on, the genuine cultural, lingual, attitudinal, value-related, belief, differences would continue to strongly persist.

But, although some people do do that, so many more people choose to become, as you just phrased it Mr. Lucas, "mental clones". In part also because so, so many people now have their faces within half an inch of a smartphone at all times (might as well glue the tips of their noses to the blasted things at this point, I think), viewing all of the same social media posts from many of the same ideologue 'influencers' as people hundreds and hundreds of miles away from them.

Perhaps more importantly, loads and loads (perhaps a majority in some places) of younger people are not growing up in the communities that they actually physically live in. They live on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. That is their home, and that is where they derive all of their culture and values. They meet someone in real life that holds views that are different from that? No problem! Because even when they happen to have a conversation with that person, within a tenth of a second after that conversation has ended they once again have their noses within less than half of an inch of the smartphone scrolling through anything that they might have missed after not viewing posts in the echo chamber for five minutes.

You cannot really expect any better given that, can you? I hardly think that we can expect a more widespread diversity of culture, views, and values than in previous periods, given the circumstances. We would need some serious changes and positive developments that would foster variety, for the situation to improve.

[jangdonggun1234]

There's people who are too rich, and people who are too poor, like Elon Musk.
Also the population is very worrisome, at this rate nothing can prevent Earth destruction because huge population causes huge pollution, up to this point every summer is total nightmare, never ever I hate summer than now because it's so hot to the point of unbearable.

Currently, nothing can prevent human extinction.

[daemonspudguy]

sadly now we live in a society who doesn't give a hoot about anyone but themselves and this became abundantly clear in the past 3 years.

Welcome to late capitalism!

[Mæstro]

take pride in the fact that they come from a different perspective

A newborn child does not come from any culture. It has no folk. If its parents forsake it and a foreign couple adopts it, it will learn another folk’s values as its own instead. Upbringing is a default, but there is no more pride to be had in this than in browsing with Chrome, for it came installed on one’s computer. Pride is logical for the views one has chosen for oneself, not geographical accident.

But, although some people do do that, so many more people choose to become, as you just phrased it Mr. Lucas, "mental clones".

These can coincide. Some choose to embrace their upbringing, having removed themselves from historical accident and tried to study alternatives coolly. Most are not nearly so aware of what they are doing. They are their physical neighbours’ mental clones. The difference between that and what you describe is whether the object of imitation is five or five thousand kilometres away, and the interacting medium.

Perhaps more importantly, loads and loads (perhaps a majority in some places) of younger people are not growing up in the communities that they actually physically live in. They live on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. That is their home, and that is where they derive all of their culture and values. They meet someone in real life that holds views that are different from that? No problem!

I welcome this in itself. (Data mining, manipulation or addiction and other problems unique to SNS are beside my point.) While you mean it as sarcastic, I see the no problem! as genuine. Disparate cultures can share territory without strife. They tolerate each other in the purest sense: both sides insulate themselves and go their own ways.

The internet enables, far more than the press or any past invention, anyone willing to find the company that he prefers, even if it is not one his town of residence likes. One can access, up to language, perspectives common 10 000 km away but unattested where one lives. One can choose to embrace them over the local default if one chooses, and even carry all one’s voluntary social life there instead. I think this allows genuine cultural heterogeneity to survive and flourish, where in the XX^th century or before, one could only conform, flee or starve socially. Diversity becomes individual and voluntary, not regional and imitative.

[daemonspudguy]

The internet enables, far more than the press or any past invention, anyone willing to find the company that he prefers, even if it is not one his town of residence likes. One can access, up to language, perspectives common 10 000 km away but unattested where one lives. One can choose to embrace them over the local default if one chooses, and even carry all one’s voluntary social life there instead. I think this allows genuine cultural heterogeneity to survive and flourish, where in the XX^th century or before, one could only conform, flee or starve socially. Diversity becomes individual and voluntary, not regional and imitative.

As an autistic non-binary progressive in the most conservative part of Ohio, this is pretty much how things have ended up going. I have nothing in common with a lot of the people in my area, and often more in common with people I meet through various social networking sites. If I didn't have that possibility, my life would be a whole lot more miserable. This experience is why I have such a disdain for the "when I was your age" bullshit. Why would I want to live in a world where autistic people are sent to mental asylums and non-binary folk were considered to be evil and infected by Satan?

[Mæstro]

I was thinking at a much more mundane level. Were I alive in 1988, it would have been impossible for me, a Saxon, to access anime at all, even if we assume anachronistically that the art style I like existed then. The state restricted distributing matter from bourgeois states like Japan, and illegal broadcasts from West Germany would not have it, for the owners saw anime as cheap, oriental drivel. Censors also in western Europe would suppress anime in other ways, and even in the USA, only a few university clubs and clandestine dealers would offer it. Local standards governing what one can see have lost their old influence; VPN can evade an ISP’s limits. Place no longer narrows one’s choices, and I revel in it.

[Tharthan]

If its parents forsake it and a foreign couple adopts it, it will learn another folk’s values as its own instead. Upbringing is a default, but there is no more pride to be had in this

I am not suggesting that a particular person is obliged to act and believe as they were raised, or obliged to associate strongly with their local culture.

What I am trying to say is that it is not beneficial that so many cultures, languages, and the like may be heading in the direction of moribundity in the not too distant future due to what I referred to earlier as "cultural globalisation". I believe that the presence of different perspectives and different attitudes, and the flourishing of different cultures, are vital for mankind to thrive, prosper, and move in a positive direction. And, as they say, variety is the spice of life.

Many people often do not know what they have until it is lost. And as such, many people will—with little thought to the consequences—be willing to give up that spice (so to speak) in pursuit of a position of influence, out of a desire to fit in, or out of a desire to please.

If it is just one person who does it, it is no concern. If it is a small percentage of people who do it, it is still no concern. But when the majority does it, then that spice can come to be lost. And since we live in a global, interconnected world, the resulting damage is on a global scale. Perhaps their culture might have provided some wisdom or an unconsidered perspective that could have helped to bring an end to a terrible war in the world, or something like that.

There will be plenty of people who come to later conclude, years and years afterwards, that they had made a mistake in giving it up, and say that if they had had the chance to do it over again would have chosen differently. Too bad, though. Because by that point it is already lost.

Most are not nearly so aware of what they are doing.

And that is a problem. Because although we can naturally appreciate when someone—following serious contemplation and study—chooses for themselves to accept or to reject their culture, language, or whatnot; it is entirely different when it happens rashly and thoughtlessly on a massive scale.

The difference between that and what you describe is whether the object of imitation is five or five thousand kilometres away, and the interacting medium.

As I said earlier in this post, since we live in a global, interconnected world, any resulting damage that could come from that is on a global scale.

And even if the worst doesn't end up resulting from that, it at the very least does seem to lead to more and more homogeneity, which makes things infinitely more boring. Picture if something like that happened with, say, food. Wouldn't that be incredibly boring, and a great loss? It is no different if it happens not to food, but to other cultural elements. It is still a loss, and it still ends up making things blander.

Place no longer narrows one’s choices, and I revel in it.

I have always seen great value in the Internet, but as I believe I have said on this forum in the past, I have also always believed in a distinction between "online" and "offline". And on this subject, I think that that plays a significant part. At least when one had to go over to a desktop computer—or take out one's laptop computer from a laptop case—and be in the vicinity of a Wi-Fi hotspot or wired connection in order to access the Internet in any meaningful way, there was at least a sort of check in existence against excesses. But in the world we live today, that check is long gone.

[Mæstro]

I am not suggesting that a particular person is obliged to act and believe as they were raised, or obliged to associate strongly with their local culture. What I am trying to say is that it is not beneficial that so many cultures, languages, and the like may be heading in the direction of moribundity in the not too distant future due to what I referred to earlier as "cultural globalisation".

If it is just one person who does it, it is no concern. If it is a small percentage of people who do it, it is still no concern. But when the majority does it, then that spice can come to be lost.

I think this issue has two parts: whether this is a bad thing and whether, if so, one could stop it without social or other compulsion. Language is the most concrete example you name, so I shall direct myself to that. While I do not accuse you of suggesting one should be obliged, I do not see how one could guarantee your goal without directing the majority, whence my comment. Irish is the most intuitive, modern example: pupils in the schools are taught the moribund Gaelic and that it is part of their culture. Without outside influence, local dialects sometimes survive on their own, as in Switzerland, but they can vanish as their speakers mingle with others, as in northern Germany.

I tolerate diglossia, but I welcome the world’s marginal dialects dying off, replaced by national tongues, through free mixture. Among other things, I see language barriers as isolating and choking culture’s spread. They reduce whom and what one can access. Literature and any explicit communication must pass through translation’s bottleneck. I deny the Italian saying translation is treason, and I reject Whorf: I believe that any thought, verse or prose, can be set into any tongue. When a better known tongue swallows a smaller one, the same matter will appear instead such that more can enjoy it.

And as such, many people will—with little thought to the consequences—be willing to give up that spice (so to speak) in pursuit of a position of influence, out of a desire to fit in, or out of a desire to please.

And that is a problem. Because although we can naturally appreciate when someone—following serious contemplation and study—chooses for themselves to accept or to reject their culture, language, or whatnot; it is entirely different when it happens rashly and thoughtlessly on a massive scale.

Aye, these reasons are poor. The weight of conformity is far too heavy. Maybe I am biased, for I have chosen outright to use standard German always instead of Saxon when at home, and have kept to British norms while studying in the USA. I like neutrality and explicit, universal, artificial, well defined standards.

I believe that the presence of different perspectives and different attitudes, and the flourishing of different cultures, are vital for mankind to thrive, prosper, and move in a positive direction.

There will be plenty of people who come to later conclude, years and years afterwards, that they had made a mistake in giving it up, and say that if they had had the chance to do it over again would have chosen differently. Too bad, though. Because by that point it is already lost.

I believe in preserving ideas and records for their own sake, and deny that culture can ever become obsolete. Nevertheless, I think historical study is enough, without promoting their active use. We must not think and live like Tully, or use his Latin ourselves, to read his words. As Hebrew shows, we can always refurbish the old if we think it needful.

Picture if something like that happened with, say, food. Wouldn't that be incredibly boring, and a great loss? It is no different if it happens not to food, but to other cultural elements. It is still a loss, and it still ends up making things blander.

With food, variety beyond nutritional need is important because not all of us like the same kinds of food. It is, literally, a matter of taste. I like pasta and ice cream and other things from beyond the Alps, and am addicted to bananas and coffee, both of which were notoriously unavailable when state policy was nutritional adequacy and not much else. All ought to be free to choose what they like, whatever the local custom might be, and I think this holds beyond food.

Off-topic:
Moreover, I would defend European food standards against US/Canadian influence for health. Genetic engineering, maize syrup, vegetable oils and the rest have no place in the diet. My biggest worry for the UK after they left us has been, in fact, that English cuisine could thus be made even worse.

I have always seen great value in the Internet, but as I believe I have said on this forum in the past, I have also always believed in a distinction between "online" and "offline". And on this subject, I think that that plays a significant part.

The irony is that I have such an iron wall in my own life. I have said before that I do not own a smartphone. Setting aside privacy questions, I do not like touchscreens, mobile Web design or the ability to be productive when I am going to the shops. I prefer to visit the net from home. Nevertheless, I think the influence you claim is less than you think. Suppose I am on the train, sitting between two others. I am reading idol manga. The man at my left is reading the local newspaper. The woman at my right is scrolling through baby pictures on her smartphone. All three of us are looking at the kinds of things we like and ignoring the others. I do not see the technical medium as influencing much, but that she has an easier time finding something new to see.

[athenian200]

I tolerate diglossia, but I welcome the world’s marginal dialects dying off, replaced by national tongues, through free mixture. Among other things, I see language barriers as isolating and choking culture’s spread. They reduce whom and what one can access. Literature and any explicit communication must pass through translation’s bottleneck. I deny the Italian saying translation is treason, and I reject Whorf: I believe that any thought, verse or prose, can be set into any tongue. When a better known tongue swallows a smaller one, the same matter will appear instead such that more can enjoy it.

Wouldn't the logical conclusion of this sort of mentality be that the entire world should speak one language, probably English or Spanish? I don't see how one can see national languages as having more justification in existing than dialects within those countries. Different languages do constitute a barrier to communication regardless of whether they are connected with national boundaries or not. And the concept of a dialect is rather subjective anyway... you could argue that all the Romance languages are just dialects of Latin if you wanted to. China regards totally separate languages within its borders that have more differences from each other than Romance languages do as dialects of Chinese. I subscribe to the saying that "A language is a dialect with an army."

I'm not saying you don't have a point, certainly having a global standard for communication does improve the exchange ideas for each individual. But the eventual result of universal standards being applied to everyone is that no one can ever escape from those standards if they become harmful, at some point there would be no other point of reference other than the global standard.

It seems like it's a trade-off... more freedom for each individual within a society, but less freedom for groups to break off from that powerful global collective to do anything significantly different or to have their own standards, because the world has stood as one and declared that this is how things will be, and now if you stand against that, you're against the whole world. That might not seem negative when the things the global community wants are good, but what happens in those cases where the world is wrong and there is simply too much pressure to conform to global society for any group or individual to break off and do their own thing?

[Mæstro]

I do not think so. Moribund languages tend either to relate to the local, dominant language and give way to the standard (so Italian is displacing Sicilian and Lombard; I am a lumper, not a splitter, so choose ‘dialect’ over ‘language’ for these cases), or are dying as national minorities become less isolated (so young Ashkenazim learn Hebrew or English, not their grandparents’ Yiddish). National languages are safe from these processes. They are codified and entrenched enough that they can be taught as, indeed, the Irish are trying to do. (I doubt their success more because English has already mostly replaced Irish, and the whole affair stinks of resentment for perfidious Albion.)

I think that technology like machine translation almost are, and should soon be strong enough that barriers between national languages are no longer the hindrances they have long been. I can already request fan art from a Japanese artist using DeepL to translate, that the artist understands my specific needs and draws what I want. These twin processes will, in a century or two, most likely yield ultimately dozens or even hundreds of languages in which one could have anything one wishes. This strikes me as a happy balance.