The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Giving up before even starting (social and capitalistic apathy)
Posts
No, the particular problems we're talking about in this particular thread are apathy and "just not doing things".
We're not talking about stuff like living in extreme poverty or being disabled or something.
The thing people don't realize is that looking for the meaning of success and taking action are not mutually exclusive concepts; it's not like you do one or the other. You can do both.
I find it extremely silly when people sit on their ass and sweat their brains on what success really means, or something. It doesn't get anyone anywhere because it causes paralysis by analysis; you essentially start rejecting every suggestion put forth by other people (as some of you have so wonderfully demonstrated in this thread) because, hey, you haven't figured out what success is yet and you don't know for sure if following that suggestion will lead you to it! Better to figure it out first, right?
Wrong.
Because then one day you're 60 years old and you're wondering what you did in your life, besides looking for the meaning of success and happiness. You lived a life that was comfortable -- because you never went out of your comfort zone -- but you were never happy.
I know this sounds too motivation-book-like but it's true. You made the point that the biggest problem in society today is that people are unable to decide what they want and choose a direction. And what I explained above is precisely why this problem exists: because they are constantly worrying, doubting, whining, and getting lost in abstract thinking.
I define success as doing something positively remarkable.
For myself, for my friends, for my community, and/or for people in need.
So you can say that my definition of success depends on how much of a positive impact I make on how many people's lives.
I'm fairly certain that doing this will make me happy.
If it doesn't? Well, at least I tried.
edit: those billionaires who are donating money left and right; perhaps they do it because they have reached the same definition of success as I have.
You misunderstood. I put the clause out there to mean that I define failure as "not even trying in the first place."
You know, letting your pessimism overrule your reason, or getting lost in meaningless, endless discussions on the meaning of life, or some shit, and never taking any action. Never starting. Being comfortable, but not happy.
You seem to have this illusion that one still needs a shitload of capital to build something on an idea. They don't.
Look at boingboing.net. One of the most widely-read blogs on the Net, and they have 4 employees and their business was extremely cheap to start (it costs 0 dollars to start a blog). Yet what they do, what they write about, is remarkable, and they are successful.
--
Kickstart started as a simple idea, and the initial capital they needed was the money needed to buy a simple machine and sell it to a subsistence farmer in Kenya.
--
Sure, there are plenty of failures. But I refuse your claim that most people can't afford to fail, because putting an idea out there no longer costs a shit-ton like it used to. You don't need to build a traditional business, you don't need to do things the traditional way, you know, by going to venture capitalists and begging for them to loan you a couple of hundred grand.
We live in an age where the Internet is shattering the traditional forms of spreading ideas. You know this. You no longer need to be in Hollywood to make a movie and spread it. You use youtube. You no longer need to buy airtime on the radio to market your songs. You make it an mp3 and upload it on some site. You no longer need a publisher to write a book, because you can make it an eBook, or start a blog and write there.
Sure, there is a lot of junk out there, a lot of failed ideas (failed in a sense that they haven't spread), but they haven't cost the creator much, if anything, to make and try to spread.
Yes, but how much money? Does it cost $100k to host a site? No. If anything, the server fees and bandwidth costs are pretty negligible, and they are getting cheaper everyday.
I have no fucking idea what you mean here.
Covering the negligible costs that are bandwidth and hosting fees is as easy as starting to run a few ads on your page.
I mean honestly, if your idea is so shitty that you don't have any readers and followers or customers, and can't make enough money to cover server fees, then maybe you need to sit down and come up with a better idea.
It is not simple, nor is it easy.
But it's a hell of a lot simpler and easier than people (like you) think.
And it definitely doesn't justify being pessimistic and hopeless about lack of opportunities or the costs of entry.
--
I mean, ELM, look.
What I'm saying is, "compared to the past, it's fucking easy."
What you're saying is, "yes, but it still isn't easy!"
I have a feeling that you know exactly what I am talking about and you don't necessarily disagree, yet you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Don't be like VC please. :P
Have you LOOKED at myspace lately? Those are your entrepreneurs.
Ultimately, startup businesses are just a more complex form of gambling, with odds you likely can't predict.
You don't have to be an Internet company, is what I am saying.
You don't have to start a business to get your idea across.
You do if you want to profit reasonably from it.
I didn't establish a link between profit and success anywhere on this thread.
Not for the hell of it, for people who actually have the start-up capital to steal.
Oh. So for assholes.
:?:
Ege should be a Microsoft lawyer.
The ones who have received the education, but are hindered by their pessimism and apathy?
Sure they can.
That is the kind of people we're talking about, as per the OP. We're not talking about society at large.
You can still make a positive impact without giving out your idea, or making a profit on it.
You're thinking in extremely narrow terms. Broaden your perspective a little.
So the article in the OP is only talking about a slim percentage of people? What's all the fuss then?
But Aethel! There are People out there, who aren't Doing Enough! They are just Getting By! We must Panic!!
:roll:
Reading comprehension is severely lacking in the Cat department, I see.
Ah, okay.
Charity.
You're advocating invention charity.
That's adorable.
I didn't know boingboint.net was a charity. Or any other great blog.
Is D&D a charity?
I mean look, you're just looking for an excuse to disagree and it's getting close to trolling. You know I'm not advocating charity, so why would you claim that?
Oh, please. You've been veering all over the place in here, backtracking from the original article, claiming that you're not hating on people who don't subscribe to your ideals of success and then claiming that everyone should be running a startup or they suck and are stupidheads, etc etc. I already made a post in here backing what I thought was actually a coherent thesis from you. Apparently I shouldn't have wasted my time.
No, the FSF invented that, though theirs is more charity at gunpoint (Don't you dare make your gift un-free) :P
I never said everyone should be running a startup. I also didn't call anyone stupid.
You disappoint me.
edit: basically my argument is about people who throw the "but happiness is relative!" line every time someone out there throws out a suggestion.
"hey, if you have this idea, why don't you look into starting a business on it? talk to some people, buy some books and teach yourself maybe?"
they typically respond with a strawman:
"yes, because money leads to happiness!"
"yeah, everyone who has an idea should start a business and then when that business fails, end up with debt up to their eyeballs!"
At no point is any thought given to the merit of the actual, original suggestion. People are busy disagreeing, rather than discussing. It's fucking frustrating, and disappointing coming from a forum that is allegedly full of intelligent people.
Is it that they don't want to be a bigshot (however you define that word; I define it as "being best at what you do", which doesn't necessarily mean ending up like Bill Gates or something), or is it that their pessimism, their existential crisis, and/or the illusion of disillusionment under which they live -- you know, about the state of the economy, about feeling powerless, about thinking The Man is in control, etc. -- is causing them to think they don't have what it takes, and as a result they don't want to take the leap (or, in many cases, the tiny step)?
I think this is the fundamental point on which we disagree.
But I don't think it's about obligation. It's about the sheer irrationality of not taking advantage of what you have.
If that won't ultimately lead one to happiness, what will?
There's a reason Spider-Man is usually crying when he says "with great power comes great responsibility".
That doesn't go against what I said. On the contrary.
Right.
But the bigger problem is to let that fear determine what you want and what you don't want.
You know, the sour grapes mentality. Convincing yourself that you don't want something because you think you don't have what it takes to attain it, and eventually developing an unhealthy, condescending attitude towards those who have it.
Perhaps if they hadn't been convinced that they should want to be bling-blingin' and that if they don't achieve that they're failures as people.
You know, the part that has to happen first before the sour grapes mentality materializes. Listening to idiots who keep trying to convince you that you want something you don't that's unreasonable to expect to be able to attain just because they think everyone wants what they want.
Of course I'm wasting my time because next you're going to be all "no that's not what I meant, what I meant is this that has nothing to do with my last post" and then someone will respond to that and the cycle will continue because you don't actually have any single coherent point so much as you're floating around grasping at straws that aren't even vaguely connected to eachother.
The only coherent thing I'm getting out of this is "People should work hard to achieve the goals they have."
Which is fine, I guess. I think that most people do that anyways. Usually when you think they aren't, it's because you're actually thinking of your goals, not theirs.
Sure thing, sweetie.
And we're all wasting our time, aren't we? I know I'm not going to convince any of you to subscribe to my views, and you won't convince me to subscribe to yours.
Did you, like, not read your own quote above?
"Positive impact" without "making a profit on it" is charity.
And if you don't give your idea out, then you have to do the work yourself.
So, yes, Ege, you ARE advocating charity.
No. That ultimately leads to owning more stuff and being emotionally tied to more things.
That's not necessarily happiness, and there are a lot of folks out there that don't highly value the desire that motivates the lifestyle you advocate.
There is something to accepting what you can and can't do. Something to living modestly or focusing your energies on things you find rewarding, regardless how that effects your personal resources.
there is no magically path to happiness. It's just a freaking chemical reaction, and one which can have many causes. Constantly striving to measure up to some imaginary standard, pretty surely is not the simplest or most reliable.
I'm not trying to get you to subscribe to any views, and you're not espousing any actual view. That's what makes it a waste of time. Case in point, you just shot down one of your own examples. Nice work, you must really be on something. I mean on to something.