Selfhosted

Sure, "no man sets foot in the same river twice", but that does nothing to argue against the preservation of cultural items.

Take music, for instance. I never feel the same way the second time listening to a song as I did the first time, but that doesn't make the music less special or change anything about it at all, and it certainly does nothing to advance a hypothetical argument that music shouldn't be recorded or that the recordings of it shouldn't be preserved for future enjoyment or different audiences.

What an absolutely idiotic take. like holy shit bro this has to be the dumbest shit I've ever read, and I've come across some doozies. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read through it. I award you no up votes and may lemmy mods ban your account.

Preservation is an invasive and destructive process. Recreating the experience of watching 'The Daily Show' in the 90s or early '00s is already impossible. Language and culture mildew and rot just like leather and wood.

EDIT: People don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. Even the people who are responding in good faith seem confused. That's on me. So I thought I'd try to clarify with an example.

Take the Mona Lisa. Perhaps one of the most preserved objects in history. It's so well preserved that it's impossible to see. Sure, you can look at it, but you won't see it. Taking a picture of the painting is encouraged, but you can't get a look at it in your camera roll either.

If you saw the actual painting hanging on a friend's wall, your first thought would probably not be "what a masterpiece", but "why didn't they remove the default print that came with the frame"? If you go to Paris, you can wait in line to have the "Mona Lisa experience" but the painting you saw wasn't hanging on the wall, what you'll see is the Mona Lisa you brought with you.

(yes, I stole this example from 'were in hell' youtube channel)

Figured I'd make a copy. Who knows, the OP might change it in the future. Gotta preserve the past and all.

Even considering your edits, it's still a stupid argument. By that same logic nothing should be preserved. Watching LotR now is not the same as watching it when it first came out, which should have never been made according to you because by that time the book should have already been destroyed since you wouldn't want to preserve it for 50 years, but Tolkien shouldn't have even written it, since they were based on ideas and drafts he did during the first world war exploring how war changes men and power corrupts, which obviously is only valid in that context and nowhere else so it should be destroyed since preserving it would be invasive and destructive, no?.

Preserving something can never be destructive, it's the opposite of it. If the Mona Lisa was destroyed you wouldn't even know it existed, so how can having preserved it be destructive when the alternative is oblivion?

And I agree that the Mona Lisa is no big deal, you know who else agrees? People from that time. It's widely known that the Mona Lisa was one of Da Vinci's less famous works, and until Napoleon made a big deal out of it it was just a random painting in a random museum. So I get part of your point, that people who make a big deal out of the Mona Lisa are only there to see the famous painting, but that doesn't mean that there's no reason to preserve it, or that there are no people who go there to see the actual Mona Lisa.

Just a simple lowly troll, nothing of importance to see here

obviously a news show isn't going to feel the same rewatching it. that's not the point lol.

that would be like saying it's dumb to preserve newspapers in libraries because it's not going to feel as good rereading the "Hitler is dead" headline. people don't look at old news to have a good time.

boy was it silly of us to preserve that kind of thing and it totally never comes in handy/s

that's not even what people are upset about anyway. comedy Central mostly makes entertainment programming that isn't news based and can still be enjoyed whenever. believe it or not, comedy Central has a lot of content that will stand the test of time. especially when looking at their stand-up catalogue.

this is the destruction of a library. a digital one, but a library none the less. that's what people are mad about.

but you're right. we should just dump all of our old movies and shows. they're worthless moldy junk anyway... 🙄

I'm the genealogist of my family. There are things about what life was like when my grandmother was young that now only I know (since she's passed on). As I research through more and more of my family history, going back further and further, the less and less I know about what life was like when my ancestors were around, especially the minutiae of every day life. But I WANT to know what life was like. It's fascinating and, more importantly, we don't always know now what will be important in the future so how can we learn from the mistakes of the past if we don't even know they existed? My kids will never know directly what living life in the 90s as a teen was like. But I do. I remember. But I won't be here forever and if they ever want to have even a tiny inkling of what it was like, I need to ensure that the stories, the accounts, the events, the nuance, the opinions..... are recorded and passed on, as my grandmother did with me.

The saying, "History is written by the victor" is absolutely true. But if we had the little tiny details from the perspectives of lots of different people, the victor cannot rewrite history for their benefit and in their image. History, no matter how big or small, matters.

If you don't care. Cool for you bro. Ignore it. But for the rest of us who want to learn, recording and archiving matters. I feel nothing but honour in my obligation to ensure events and history is passed on for future generations.

This is stupid as hell.