Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
Probably not worth your time - Static things — SatmBopd

And all of these are delineated by personal perspectives. Generally there isn’t anything that is ‘boring’ there is simply a preference by individuals and boring people (those who think almost everything is boring). Calling something ‘boring’ is much easier than admitting to ourselves that we’re just plain lazy, stupid or fearful.

Repetition is certainly one factor in what is boring. Some people adore repetition and others loath it.

In terms of this here political environment I think people tend to prefer to be entertained for 5 mins rather than think for 30 mins. This is a sad state of affairs, if true, and I wonder if the youth will be able to pull themselves out of a potential trap - or if they’ll even recognise it as a trap. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment is okay, but entertainment at the detriment of self-reflection and dispensing with difficult freedoms is another.

I offer a respectful rebuttal:

Firstly, I believe the categories are delineated by (more or less) objective measures. Creative, Variable things have a generative capacity. Destructive, Variable things halt or hinder the variability of other things. Harmless, Variable things have no significant generative or destructive capacity, and completely static things are more or less interchangeable with death, or nothingness, and therefore actually kind of hard to conceive (most, if not all things that exist have some measure of variability).

I think this is usually testable. I will offer an example of each category that I don't think can be debated by personal perspectives. Reproductive systems are creative and variable. Bombs are destructive and variable. A ripple in a pond is more or less harmless and variable. A white, permanently unchanging void with nothing in it is static.

You're worried about young people choosing shallow entertainment over more stimulating thought and investigation? I would argue that the danger here is precisely that their lives will become less "variable" without more dangerous, and creative investigation into a wider "variety" of ideas and concerns.

It's okay if you "prefer" certain variable things over others, in fact, it's essential to maintain the variability of preferences between individuals, which is another dimension that I do not think should be static. However, if someone is consistently avoiding lots of creative and variable things to the point where not very much is going on in their life, this is something that should be overcome no?

Essentially, I fear Nietzsche's "Last man" if that makes any sense. The word "boring" is mostly used for rhetorical effect, and I might have done well to word my argument more precisely.

I will offer an example of each category that I don't think can be debated by personal perspectives. — SatmBopd

Essentially, I fear Nietzsche's "Last man" if that makes any sense. — SatmBopd

These don't seem to fit together.

You're worried about young people choosing shallow entertainment over more stimulating thought and investigation? I would argue that the danger here is precisely that their lives will become less "variable" without more dangerous, and creative investigation into a wider "variety" of ideas and concerns. — SatmBopd

I'd say so. But I might be completely wrong about the youth today being any different to the youth from the past. The environment they live in is different enough to perhaps make a significant difference - the price for greater freedom.

These don't seem to fit together. — I like sushi

Not appealing to Nietzsche or his relativism as a whole to support my argument. It's just that the specific concept of "The Last Man" also sort of implies the gist of what I think I'm getting at. I am influenced by Nietzsche, so understanding him might help contextualize my argument.

I also very intentionally specified that the categories are "more or less" objective. I still think that there is some grey area in between them, and I am not trying to lay out a system of irrefutable moral truth, I've just picked my favourite way to act in the world and am trying to see if it is palatable to other people in the form of a logical argument.

But I guess that starts to be a whole other bag of worms about the role and nature of truth, a subject that I admittedly should probably investigate more.

Fair enough :)