"the marxist as an accidental form of neurosis" that i suggested earlier in this thread is maybe better off formulated as "the marxist as a maladaptive coping mechanism." i've said elsewhere on this forum that this was me: "(i had convinced myself that it was "capitalism" causing my decline -- this was a reproduction of the extremely selfish politics typical for a first worlder.)"
clearly this is also you: "I would not be a communist without it" (it's great that you are a communist of course). the thing is that you don't need lacan or marx or an internet community of marxists or whatever. imo it has nothing to do with the argument about text being misleading. it has to do with the fact that books and posts will never truly hold you close and assure you that you are safe and loved. there's just no substitute for undiluted humanity. the tragedy is that we don't need our parents anymore but we think we do. we're adults now and we can be our own parents and we can seek out community if only we could accept the situation
graphicalUSSRinterface posted:pogfan1996 posted:I hope you find what you're looking for
This isn't very nice but I guess I shouldn't expect engagement with my ideas from anyone here at this point.
this crosses a line imo. pogfan was being sincere afaik when he said that but your response says a lot about how you're choosing to engage with this place - ignoring the insights we offer and barreling ahead with mindless posts about how you feel about every little thing in the moment you type the post.
and the way you post IS a choice, despite your disavowal of any responsibility for it because of the brain issues you keep going on and on about. we get it, you have struggles. newsflash: we all do. it's all relative, and your struggles are no doubt harder than a lot of other posters' struggles, but that doesn't negate anyone else's situation, and those of us who have been posting here for years need this place to function properly more than we need new posters coming in here to shit all over everything. sorry but, against my better judgement, i agree with swampman (that's a little posting humour there, in that i have had disagreements with swampy in the past!!): regular posters were too nice to you at first, myself included, and it was a mistake.
lurk the fuck more or go away. this forum isn't your personal brain toilet.
Petrol posted:this crosses a line imo. pogfan was being sincere afaik when he said that but your response says a lot about how you're choosing to engage with this place - ignoring the insights we offer and barreling ahead with mindless posts about how you feel about every little thing in the moment you type the post.
it came across to me and to others i asked for clarification on, before i even made the reply, as passive-aggressive and insincere and i dont think id be wrong to read it that way as i did, especially considering the lack of further elaboration past that. you know every time ive misread something i immediately take back what i said. i post impulsively sometimes. i feel like pogfan and i post very differently in general and i frequently feel misread and/or misinterpreted by him, not that thats anyones fault, because we have very different posting styles and im new anyways so itd be understandable regardless. and my reply indicates that i was ignoring his insights? really? i feel like i offered a thorough response outlining my differences on that point. i believe in online communities in a very sincere kind of way and i feel ive demonstrated that to an extreme degree my entire time posting here, i talk about it all the time. if anything i read pogfan's reply as a passive-aggressive way of stating his unwillingness to take online relationships seriously in a very dismissive manner, which is why i said what i did lol, in addition to feeling like my posts are overlooked generally and feeling isolated here which i have put a ton of thought into elaborating in depth, which swampman did not seem to want to engage in good faith with whatsoever
Petrol posted:and the way you post IS a choice, despite your disavowal of any responsibility for it because of the brain issues you keep going on and on about. we get it, you have struggles. newsflash: we all do. it's all relative, and your struggles are no doubt harder than a lot of other posters' struggles, but that doesn't negate anyone else's situation, and those of us who have been posting here for years need this place to function properly more than we need new posters coming in here to shit all over everything. sorry but, against my better judgement, i agree with swampman (that's a little posting humour there, in that i have had disagreements with swampy in the past!!): regular posters were too nice to you at first, myself included, and it was a mistake.
i get that sincere sadposting shitting up all the threads is obnoxious, i hate that shit too. my reasons for it dont make it okay i guess but its very hard to reach out to people at first in a friendly way about whatever, because i was here for having a hard time in the first place with the loss of a community and in particular one poster i had been close with for a decade, and their solution is a temporary ifap or suggesting i get irl friends instead, and none of my feelings are in any way engaged with, which is what ive been griping about increasingly desperately over time. everyone on here is weirdly distant and will not engage with my posts really. shitty sadposts or not. i think the most i recall is bhpn and possibly cars on that initial effortpost i made about PA when i started posting here again and i only made that out of pressure to defend myself from skepticism and hostility. i did it to prove myself lmfao because i felt i had to. i dunno dude.
--------///-----------
while you work through this it's probably best to restrict your posting on the main forum as it doesn't seem to be doing you any favours.
you can still message other posters individually and unload posts freely in your own thread in ifap which will get autodeleted when you are released.
you're welcome to come back to contribute on the main forum once you feel the spiraling and impulsivity subside.
-------///------------
Edited by Gssh ()
graphicalUSSRinterface posted:how the hell was i pulling 19 upvotes two years ago for doing the same fucking shit but worse.
graphicalUSSRinterface posted:everyone on here is weirdly distant
its an irony thing
chickeon posted:Parasociality involves completely assymetrical 'interactions' with a single participant and no actual communication taking place. On twitter or whatever it would only exist in cases of fake accounts, or whjen where someone without as many twitter points follows someone with a ton of twitter poitns and the first person sees the second one in their twitter feed and the second one doesn't see them much less interact with them, and with the first person considering that person their friend. What you're talking about is something more complicated than just parasocial, "parasocial spaces" only exist in the minds of the respective subject of a given parasocial interaction.
True, which brings me to a point that I don't think those who are too young to know a world without social media will grasp:
McLuhan's analysis of mediums is just as apt in all of this. Twitter bears little difference from television and radio. As the accurately stated above, people with lots of Twitter points reach a broad audience, and people with comparatively little Twitter points reach no one by comparison. So there's no difference in a Twitter account with a million followers and a cable TV opinion show host. The big Twitter point people are telling the audience their thing, and the audience can take it or leave it but not push back against it individually; it's a one-way dialogue that places power entirely on one half of the conversation. People by and large don't grasp that change in social dynamic reflected in the medium itself. This is evidenced by the fact that someone would come to this completely different medium of a forum, which is designed to facilitate replies rather than discrete posts, and posts constant spam as they would post on Twitter, and then completely miss the boat by analysing their success or failure based on how many people clicked the green button versus how many people quoted and replied to their posts.
The redeeming quality of Twitter is it does grant the ability for the masses to collectively harass professional journos, so there's that, but that requires those people to know each other outside of Twitter somehow. As of today on the left there's the podcast circuit that allows such a thing, but that's not a thing exclusive to the left. It's just as well (if not more) represented on the far right. I question whether this dynamic of people organized away from social media harassing people on social media will last, though. Every year there's a new plan floated from Twitter's management to implement a feature which will allow a protected class of users to censor the unwashed masses who gang up on them. These have been short lived only because Twitter and Facebook see the decline in points that such measures create, and the social media companies are as bound to the notion of Twitter points to sell advertising as the users are bound to the notion of Twitter points as a means of keeping score. As time goes on the social media companies will find newer and more creative ways to generate fake Twitter points which aren't derived from the previous metrics created by television, print, and radio. The new Twitter points will be easier to manipulate behind the scenes, and they'll be able to roll out fully protected classes on their platforms as they wish they could do now.
Just in the last couple of days Twitter applied their fist use of a warning flag that told users a video was "manipulated." It was posted by one of Trump's digital comms lackeys and had a clip of Biden stammering through one of his dementia-laced speeches only to wind up accidentally saying "we can only re-elect Trump." The video wasn't manipulated at all, it was only cropped to fit the frame it was placed in and audio-normalized with the background music. The instant backlash from the entire Twitter political spectrum caused them to quickly recant and remove the flag from the video, but it seems pretty obvious to me that they are already building tools to allow a protected class to not only monopolize information but also tell the audience how they must interpret it. Facebook is fully mask-off in all of this. They've given a far-right media company that has published neo-Nazis the ability to "fact-check" content on their platform and flag anything they disagree with for all users.
WebAssembly is the coup-de-grace. I don't see how it can represent anything except turning anything that connects to the internet back into a television, in which the user has only a menial facade of interaction, and is instead of a user more like a fool sat on a couch to consume the ads foisted upon him/her through the device they are looking at.
Edited by Over9000ft ()
chickeon posted:Parasociality involves completely assymetrical 'interactions' with a single participant and no actual communication taking place. On twitter or whatever it would only exist in cases of fake accounts, or whjen where someone without as many twitter points follows someone with a ton of twitter poitns and the first person sees the second one in their twitter feed and the second one doesn't see them much less interact with them, and with the first person considering that person their friend.
i feel like parasocial is expanding in context from the original coined psych term (the perceived relationship to a specific personality) to encompass the other ways that illusory placebo sociality manifests online, and the term is probably still the best fit?
Over9000ft posted:WebAssembly is the coup-de-grace. I don't see how it can represent anything except turning anything that connects to the internet back into a television, in which the user has only a menial facade of interaction, and is instead of a user more like a fool sat on a couch to consume the ads foisted upon him/her through the device they are looking at.
i think it's worse than this, because there's that intoxicating feeling of participation.
thousands of people dogpiling in on some big political gaffe tweet that'll be forgotten by tomorrow to dunk in with their own personal prepackaged reaction image, or to try counting coup on someone doing the above or whatever, and there's no actual interaction taking place. aside from maybe a little emotional catharsis, some high fives, nothing is accomplished. no one has communicated, no one has done anything to manifest a material change in reality, but they feel like they have. an enclave of dozens of posters reminding each other that donald trump is orange 300 times a day because they're afraid and need to vent begin to feel like they're making a difference, because they're hungry for that feeling. they grow attached to feeling like they've done something, they encyst themselves and withdraw from any possibility of actually accomplishing anything, sometimes they even get furiously defensive if that illusion of participation is challenged.
"parasocial space" seems pretty apt to me to describe that kind of futile pseudocommunity.
even in our own pedigreed traditions of posting, gotta be aware of the limitations of a space like ours. I've had my words to say in the past about how people shouldn't look to this site as a transformative political force. this place is important to me! and it's not useless. i'm proud of a lot of things people here have written and done. but this irony forum fundamentally resides at a lower valence than actual organized political work. this is ok! we should all just be mindful not to fall into that counterproductive trap of confusing the two.
tears posted:you are all brain poisoned. none of you are free of social media brain poisoning.
The people were ASTONISHED at her doctrine.
Over9000ft posted:WebAssembly is the coup-de-grace.
i don't mean to drag out technical details if they're not really relevant but what in tarnation are you trying to say about webassembly?
chickeon posted:What would it take to physically destroy the twitter websight? do they have a really big computer somewhere... is it too distributed to drive a truck through?
It's not feasible.
Such big sites services are distributed across multiple locations around the world. There is no single physical place to attack. Even if you manage to attack one, the others would automatically pick up the slack in less than 10 seconds. The users wouldn't even notice a hiccup if you blew up a whole datacenter.
nearlyoctober posted:i don't mean to drag out technical details if they're not really relevant but what in tarnation are you trying to say about webassembly?
As of right now, over half of the WebAssembly code in the wild is used for malware, the overwhelming number of that subset being stealing the user's electricity for crypto mining. Javascript already went too far, particularly in terms of uglifiers. Giving the javascript sandbox lower-level access to devices and the ability to call pre-compiled code will not benefit users nearly as much as it will benefit nefarious corporations and governments in a capitalist world. WebAssembly's obvious purpose is to further separate internet users from control of what they see, and give that control to corporate media and advertising companies. A side benefit for those tech conglomerates will be enhanced surveillance capability for their FBI and CIA contracts.
Edited by Over9000ft ()
chickeon posted:What would it take to physically destroy the twitter websight? do they have a really big computer somewhere... is it too distributed to drive a truck through?
maybe this article from a few years ago is relevant here, it's about how someone could theoretically destroy the internet's physical infrastructure: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/07/how-to-destroy-the-internet-but-please-dont/
Populares posted:This is beginning to sound a lot like a shitty book and equally shitty movie.
a small price to pay for a world without twitter
Petrol posted:after much deliberation the official rhizzone position is: no movies. still pictures only
like I'm grateful for your work making pages load, but Absolutely No we are not "ready to declare" as an entire Web site some cable news United $nakkke$ electoral betting pool proclamation.
tears posted:like I'm grateful for your work making pages load, but Absolutely No we are not "ready to declare" as an entire Web site some cable news United $nakkke$ electoral betting pool proclamation.
another catchphrase..... my posting power grows...
dimashq posted:this forum's apprehension of social media is tv tropes-tier and over the last several years, the posts have become reddit-ish in concept and energy.
nearlyoctober posted:i almost finished typing out 2 paragraphs to argue in defense of webassembly on the rhizzone but i deleted it. i believe i may be overcoming brain poisoning. either way thanks for the food for thought. i think a real possibility is that webassembly opens the door for developers to leverage existing computer vision and other such high-performance data libraries for in-browser villainy. there probably are or will soon be brazen cases of facebook moving their costly facial interpretation modules or whatever to the browser. perhaps a more palatable kkkonspiracy is that software shops are excited for webassembly so they don't have to pay to port code from javascript and for other such opportunities.
I get that knee-jerk condemnations of WebAssembly are usually wrong, and have been guilty of the same myself, but I think you have to consider intent and the flow of a request.
The defense is that "oh you can still see the code with dev tools," great... but I can't intercept it, can I? At least not nearly as easy as say... current ad-blockers do. So "you can still see the code" comes with the caveat that (as I understand it) you can only see the code after it's been foisted upon you and executed unless you want to create and run some sort of middleware which will make performance an order of magnitude worse than current un-compiled javascript implementations.
As for intent, Facebook's intent is to listen to and transcribe my phone calls and give that data to Peter Thiel so he can sell it to the NSA/CIA, I have no doubt of that.
If I'm wrong about my criticism of WebAssembly above I'd happily hear why if you use it, btw. My understanding is simply from reading the spec, I have not used it myself.
