De-cluttering

[kengr]

I've had occasion to think about "clutter" recently.

And it strikes me that the currently populatr definitions are *horribly* biased and flawed.

Yes, there are folks who hold on to everything, and need to quit doing so. But the "suggested" guidelines are utter nonsense.

For xample "get rid of anything you haven't used in the last six months". Right. There go the winter (and summer) clothes depending on when you do it.

That also gets into the elitism aspects. It's assumed that if you get rid of something and then *do* wind up needing it later, that replacing it will be no big deal.

Sorry, but for people on fixed incomes it *is* a big dreal. Heck,.I'd have been offline for *months* many times if I didn't hold onto my older computers. They still work, and are usable, if a bit clumsy. Also, they serve as a source of *free* spare parts.

Now we come to another bias (due to thesuperficiality of the folks pushing these rules). They assume that you *can* replace the item if you ever need it again. Ask anybody who has needed to retreive data from an old 5.25" floppy about how easy it is to find those. Or my current concern,m a "LapLink" parallel cable. For some reason mine didn't get stored with the serial cablres. And this is a problem, because I have a computer I need to do some stuff with and it doesn't have an ethernet port.Windows did support parellel port "networking" (though finding it in the help files was a major chore). Serial port networking could be done too, but is's considerably slower.

And now we come to the *really* stupid part. According to these sorts of idiots, I shouldn't have my huge collection of books. "You can get them from the library".

No, actually I can't. Library collections are throwing away countless books, bnased on them not getting checked out "often enough" (and we are olosing vast amounts of cultural info by doing this. Even popular fiction has info that future scholars to be aghast at our discarding)

And that's assuming they had the books in the first place.

Same sort of thing goes for tapes, CDs and DVDs "you can rent them". Aside from the continuing costs, there is (again) the issue of availibility.

While I've ripped most of my CDs, I haven't gotten around to setting up to do it for thre tpes (splitting out tracks is a bit more invvolved, even with the short cuts Audacity allows). Also there are storage issues, as I want to re-rip them in a lossless format. That's one of the reasons I'll eventually be getting more large, networked drives.


But I'm firmly of the oopinion that the folks putting forh these rules are not "merely" severe "neat freaks" but elitists (see coments above about costs of replacing or renting thoings) and likely aliterate (due to the bias against havimng lots of books. With similar biases against large collections of music or video.

Mind you, I'd be the last to claim that I *hsaven't* kept dsome things that "might be useful" long past when they should have been discarded, but even so the "rules" are really stupid

Comments

[xander-opal.livejournal.com]

I'd say a more sensible rule of thumb is five years, for what I classify as gadgets. Kitchen devices, for example.

I agree regarding older technology. Older programs and data formats often just do not work on recently built machines. Important information and records are lost when the machines that can use them are thrown out or given away.

Books, I do not consider disposable either. Hardcopy goes out of print, not everything is on the internet. Libraries have limited budget and shelf space; private collections often have books that even a large network of libraries lack.

That is even more true when it comes to technology. A collection of manuals, how-to guides, and magazines on computing stretching back forty years is a wealth of information. I still see 555s used in the newest of prototype circuit boards; electrons still behave like electrons.

There's also a good chunk of Americans who look at someone like they're stupid for re-reading or re-watching books and videos. I don't know too many like that, for I'd much rather hang out with people who enjoy revisiting thoughts, ideas, and worlds.

As long as things are reasonably tidy and accessible, what matters how long you've had it?

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

As to books, I would be like "Riiight. The library is really gonna have things like 'Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left-Hand Path.' Or 'Out of the Shadows: An Exploration of Dark Paganism.' Etc. Etc. Pagan books are one of those things that libraries don't buy much of to begin with, and then they tend to disappear, either because of Abrahamic nutballs who think that they have a right to destroy "evil" books, or pagans who have so strong a need for a book, and so little money, that they 'liberate' it from the library. (A despicable thing to do in both cases). Then too, pagan books are like reference books; you can't just read it and toss it aside, you have to keep going back to it, looking through it for certain things, like a kind of dictionary or encyclopedia of arcanum."

What's more, to a bookie, books are like children. We let them go reluctantly, if at all, to good homes, and hope that their journey is as rich for them as it was for us.

Also, my books are right here with me. Go to the library? That involves tracking down if they even have it, and which branch it's in, is it currently in

Then there are all the children's books they're destroying because of a *slight* possibility of them having lead in them. Books that are often out of print and will never be seen again. Like the ones I rescued a year or so back.

And get rid of hard copies of CDs? If someone tells you that again, remind them that having ripped CDs without keeping the CDs to prove you bought it, is illegal, and then ask them if they're going to pay your legal bills and fines and go to jail for you if you comply with their ridiculous rule. Same goes for DVDs.

I get the feeling that the kind of people who have the definition of clutter you mentioned, have those sterile, over-clean houses/apartments that looks as though nobody really lives there and is only there for show. Like the apartment of the second landlady of my last apartment building; I had to go into her apartment a couple times, and it looked like an unfinished display room display at Ikea, but less cozy and lived-in. There was hardly any furniture, very little decor, and no sign at all other than that, that a human being lived there. I would not have been the least bit surprised to find her opening her bedroom closet door to go to sleep in her giant cocoon that was stuck to the inside of the door.

Oh yeah, and that "haven't used it in 6 months rule," so they're advocating you destroy tax records and bank records and other important documents? And you know, by that logic, I could be like, "Well in that case you won't mind if I get rid of the smoke detectors? There hasn't been a fire here in at least 6 months, so those won't be necessary anymore. And the door to this bedroom, it's been open for the last six months, maybe I should just remove it from the frame and throw it away." Sheesh, what maroons!

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

I think that if they reduced "anything" to "anything on your desk," it would be closer to accurate. This does assume that "sitting on the desk" isn't the standard pile-up for bank statements or other things, but goodness knows that if they really meant "anything," I'd lose a lot of stuff that I need to keep.

And there should be room for exceptions; I have an emergency flashlight sitting on my desk.