/lit/ - Literature

>>17252032

You fail to see the problem, and ironically Ted did and one of the guys who inspired him as well (Jacques Ellul).

You see, if you want to go by the values of classical Western society, then the rule of law is what keeps deviations from "virtuous coexistence" in check. This should be and is pretty obvious - as per Hume we need a third party to settle two-way conflicts because otherwise personal interests would overweight the balance when compared to the aforementioned rule of law. This is what a justice system is for with its many branches.

One such role involved in keeping virtuous coexistence under Western society is the gatekeeping of information. Ideally, you would have many independent parties able to evaluate and relay different fluxes of information from their source to the general populace. For instance, you'd want someone who is NOT involved in government to report government news, and on the other hand it wouldn't hurt to have a government agency taking a peek into private companies and overlooking their actions.

The situation we have today, however, is far from that. For the sake of mere optimization of technological development we are concentrating more and more "gatekeeping power" into the hands of single all-encompassing entities, i.e, it happens automatically as technology develops, no one is planning this alone. For instance, back in the 60's Fox, CNN and BBC would be held accountable for spreading lies because other independent parties would be able to verify that their gatekeeping is fraudulent. Nowadays how many truly independent from one another news channels are there? Most of them work under a greater conglomerate aimed at optimization of flow and spread, with a human context of monopoly surrounding its development (but make no mistake, this is purely a technical occurrence).

The same happens with even more strength, ironically, for the case of the internet. Zuckerberg has unparalleled and previously unheard of power of gatekeeping information because Facebook is no longer an independent party for the relaying of information but has instead become the very space of public discourse itself. Except it's not public at all! They can decide to slowly but surely convey ideas in however manner and shape they want, which is exactly opposite to what you're thinking of. This is extremely fast to do, very optimal gatekeeping, but extremely concentrated and ironically twisted from what we would expect the internet to be.

So, to be sure, someone being so seriously harmful through lying on the internet should be stopped but, they should be held accountable by the RULE OF LAW, i.e, legally prosecuted by a party that is independent of the very platform that acts as the site of public discourse itself. Otherwise the entire thing is compromised (protip it already is) and the very notion of trust in information gatekeepers has completely eroded. Actually I'd even say shit like this is exactly why we'll get more Trumps soon.

>>12703135

The only similarities among book, game and movie are the overarching themes of humans facing the unfathomable and contrasting inner desires with hopelessness, and all three are otherwise profoundly different in both style and execution. Note that all three are very worth it anyways.

>>10677826

Physicist here. Contemporary quantum mechanics is widely instrumentalist (i.e "shut up and calculate") and does not concern itself with trying to explain whether it is epistemic or ontic. The Copenhagen interpretation which you are holding is by no means the only one, neither it is the most popular among my peers. I'd say the many-worlds interpretation of regarding the superposition of states as something grounded in reality is the most common thing nowadays. But really, don't use quantum mechanics to try and justify your idealism, most of us don't really care one way or the other.

>>10612500

Assertion is not necessarily absence of insecurity, and might as well showcase it even more than not being active in a conversation. It also fades away the "mystery" factor which, in spite of being meme'd to death by PUA, is something women and I'd say even a lot of guys are attracted to.

Also there is a special class of women who get their panties dripping wet when they meet actually schizoids who purposefully avoid eye contact and have to be pressured to talk about their hobbies (talking while facing a general direction and you're just there to listen to it, of course). Needless to say this special class is basically composed of psychos and turbo wenches with an amazingly common sense of 'adventure' and a propensity for panic attacks/bouts of faux depression.

>>10442421

>Anyone
>Understanding Hegel

Yeah I disagree with anyone who thinks that

>>10408164

I agree with that line of thought somewhat. In spite of a rising tide, there are still waves taking trends up and down, and currently we are heading towards a valley in general hookup culture. There are many more articles going about the troubles that come with casual dating than ones stating it's "liberating" by any means.

Besides, I know everyone is sick of marxist shit, but capital has kind of amassed this immense power to leverage its way into turning everything to markets, and hookup culture has all the same became a market (thanks to the tinders and okcupids around, just like you say); this market currently has so much more supply than demand that its commodity (people in general) has become cheap and undesirable for exchanges. Only "problem" if it's even a problem, is that millennials did not inherit much knowledge of how to establish and endure a relationship, neither can they mimic the boomers and greatests, because the wealth required for their lifestyle is simply not circulating anymore. In my humble opinion I think we're more or less screwed so far because society has cultivated habits (whilst forgetting the previously established ones rather than adapting them), that we are now collectively finding out are not healthy and do not lead to joy in the end.

Why is this satire thread so accurate?

>>9802151

>Bump a topic to point out a spook

>>9782390

I'm not sure culture should be the only factor responsible for that gap (which is a whole order of magnitude so it's quite something). I would also put automation into that equation. Some of our duties and responsibilities DID go extinct, and no individual [inside the most modern and developed societies so far] is held accountable for things he or she would be even 50 years ago. "City people", for lack of a better word, are roaming around and they never had to worry about the most basic things like heating, bathing, farming, and even city things in themselves, like solving technical house problems are going out of the equation.

We are being handed much more to us than during any other time before, and I believe social justice is a mere environmental consequence of this. And some of it is not even being handed out by other people: we are just being granted laziness by our own technology. Grammar is one quintessential example, does anybody still write without automatic spell checking?

So it's not only culture of narcissism lowering notions of accountability, but also technology fueling complete absence of anything to be accountable for to begin with. Whatever duty we still have, it is heavily supported and noted by machines reminding us of it all the time; we do not have to take these things into mind ourselves, we can worry about abstract and naive ideas of "freedom", about how someone else is having it better than us, and so on and so on.

>>9589314

Is it even possible to conceive of any thought without referencing Plato anyway?

>>9580729

Zizek wants nothing to do with the modern Left. His claims on everything are mild compared to the schizophrenic dellusions of the people actually "leading the movement". If the OP wants to know what the left used to be, he can start with Marx instead of Zizek, whereas he has interesting ideas in his own rights but will definitely not put OP in synch with the modern left.

Rent is a real deal alright, but that book is a standard Left-is-right-haha-I-mean-correct-guys treatment of it, and yes I have no need to read it fully to see that.

Alas, it is obviously bait not even trying to hide itself as driven by ideology: why would anyone want the OP to actually become a leftist?

>>9535707

>>9535662 here,

I suppose >>9535686 would be justified in claiming Jews are very bad at running things if they do run the show. Wealth inequality is reaching the breaking point where it cannot be explained away by any merit and rent-seeking is driving innovation and development down to pre-war levels. Not to mention the cultural breakdown of values (regardless if moved by the capital or by Jews) that both conventional Left and Right acknowledge, one going in its direction and another opposing it.

Frankly I definitely have to read more in order to be able to grasp at how people can shape cultures from inside out without themselves being affected by this movement. But I won't rule it out either.

>>9477478

I don't think Evolafags and such are still going strong in the neoreactionary movement. Last I saw everyone started to worship the lovecraftian tentacle rape embodiment of capitalism or something.