(untitled)

How do you feel about more and more ironized the human expression in this new era or information exchange? Easily seen in todays meme culture compared to older memes. Is that defense mechanism the ego tries to hide itself from others? From the system at large? What will be the outcome? Where do we go from here? Will the ego break or will there be an outlash? ironic meme picture for some kind of context, I guess

;_:7 R.i.p...

>>11808 >That scene in Dragonball Paraposting from another post on another chan, so this isn't mine but I'll try to describe the idea. There's an idea of introducing a novel syntax element that implies the preceding sentence should not be taken ironically or sarcastically. It's very difficult for example to read a sentence that ends in "?" as not a question, or a sentence that ends in "!" as not surprising or assertive. Humans are effectively trained to interpret these syntax elements in such a way that they inevitably 'color' the sentence as intended by the author. The problem is that while both of these symbols are often used to convey irony or sarcasm, there isn't an element that implies non-irony. The period doesn't imply much except that the sentence has ended. This leads, in a Sapir-Whorf sort-of way, to a situation wherein everybody is lost in more and more layers of irony and sarcasm with no way out. So the proposed solution to this is to introduce a symbol that specifically represents non-irony. It goes at the end of a sentence, and simply by virtue of everyone knowing what it means, everyone is trained by it so that when they see it they take the sentence non-ironically, without any possibility that the sentence is to be interpreted otherwise.

>>12131 I will ironically use the non-inronical symbol then

isn't that just the normal behavior for the kind of society that we have? Let's make the follow assumptions: 1. We're in an island, infinite people live in this island. 2. You must work for someone on this island, otherwise you will die or be virtually removed from society (not being able to go to the same places where you will form meaningful connections). Your work is increasingly distant from any meaning you can comprehend (You don't pick coconuts to eat, you draw in the sand, someone gives you a piece of paper, and you buy coconuts from the supermarket). 3. Everybody else in the same social position you're a part of goes through the same process, all of you spend most of your time alone or at work. 4. Relationships at work or school require a certain level of superficiality. You are virtually unable to express yourself in a honest way. You need a layer above your personality, your work persona. 5. The methods of communications are all virtual. On the internet, increasingly, your online profiles reflect your chances at the job market. Now, in this society you have to spend most of your time into a persona so that your chances of survival aren't diminished. Be it at school or at work. Your meaningful connections are more and more rare. At which point your persona takes over? When do you have the chance to be you? And what happens in a few generations, when people are born directly in this society, and only interact with others through their personas? How will these people develop their own mature personalities if they have no reference to draw from besides art (of which they have no time to consume)? See the problem? We have always lived in a world of fake interactions. Most people aren't hiding from others, this is all they have, all they know. They never had to confront truths, if you fuarrrk up your relationship your partner was crazy. If you get kicked from your job, your boss didn't like you. You never *have* to confront yourself, you never *have* to deal with honest, meaningful people. But there is a silver light, we live in the freelance era, we are becoming more and more responsible for our own survival without having to build a fake work persona (even though you could argue that we're alienating yourselves anyway since we must create a work brand). The economy, worldwide, is crashing again, at a time where people can't even pay rent. We're reaching a turning point, for better or worse. And i believe we can only grow as genuine, caring humans from now on. Building your own personality is an incredible feat, it's extremely difficult and often times requires a great deal of misery (since most other contexts you would have no need for self evaluation at the level of growing a personality). People buying into the persona culture is natural and understandable, but not exclusive of our times. Sorry if this was a brainblast, i'm fuarrrked up on cocaine, drinking alone on my last paycheck. Hope this was coherent enough to make some sense though.

>>12160 This is pretty much my thoughts exactly. The process is the ultimate expression of the precession of simulacra brought on by the battle of the creative nothing and its reflection. The ship of society is wrecking on the rock of the egoist as it always has, but this time things are different, this time, society brings weapons never before seen to bear, with effects no one predicted.

>>12158 can't reach the top kek

>>12160 Well, you're wrong to an extent. Like, I understand how genuine is much more desirable than fake but system doesn't really care and neither does nature or universe you know? It only cares about "what works", not whether or not people enjoy their lives or if they have fulfilling lives whilst doing what they're doing. Surely my purview might be wrong but these people will work just barely to survive in their environment, but the psychopaths and sociopaths will thrive, aside the genuine personality people. So psychopaths/sociopaths and genuine people thrive while the rest get into a smaller and smaller tight nook that system allows them to live in because they're dead weight, let's be honest. The question is what after that? What happens when psychopaths and genuine people are the only thing left? Who wins there? Do psychopaths just devour each other or do they collectively nonverbally gang up on the genuine as they see their parasitic ways can only be fully utilized against others that aren't like them? Because I have a feeling that next step in our evolution is this sociological one where we create a hierarchy of needs and wants, but the system is still building itself at this point so there is a lot of leeway still. I don't know, I felt scared about the future before but when I look at it again I think it will be beautiful because it will utilize the humanity to the peak of its potential, even though we are puffing hot air and not have really a goal collectively as a species.

>>12175 >I understand how genuine is much more desirable than fake but system doesn't really care and neither does nature or universe you know? I didn't try to imply it was intrinsically necessary for us in the metaphysical sense. It's just better for society as a whole if all of society is able to contribute to scientific and artistic progress versus a small section of this society having the freedom to progress while the rest of us has to fight to survive. > It only cares about "what works", not whether or not people enjoy their lives or if they have fulfilling lives whilst doing what they're doing The current model doesn't "work" in any way unless your definition of "work" is "at least it's not a monarchy". If more people have agency, more people contribute to progress society. If you believe hundreds of thousands of people working for google, disney or microsoft towards the progress of "ways to sell ads" is the best use of society's labor and intellect, then we see the world too differently for this conversation to be useful. >So psychopaths/sociopaths and genuine people thrive while the rest get into a smaller and smaller tight nook that system allows them to live in because they're dead weight, let's be honest. What makes you think they're dead weight? Have you interacted with genuinely poor people in any way? Have you said *hi* ever in your life to a poor person and a really rich person? Because you're giving me some shallow, naive, just-watched-death-note talk and your view of others seems informed by pop culture caricatures instead of reality. Hopsin is not a documentary and lelouch is not a historian. >The question is what after that? What happens when psychopaths and genuine people are the only thing left? Who wins there? Do psychopaths just devour each other or do they collectively nonverbally gang up on the genuine as they see their parasitic ways can only be fully utilized against others that aren't like them? At this point you're just creating fanfic completely detached from reality and i have nothing to add. Sorry if i'm a bit cranky, but i really cannot see where you're coming from, Lain. What basis is there for anything you're saying? How do you think the world works, what are you even trying to say? The assumption that only CEOs and artists will survive the incoming crisis as if we were in the mars trilogy is just... what.. >Because I have a feeling that next step in our evolution is this sociological one where we create a hierarchy of needs and wants, but the system is still building itself at this point so there is a lot of leeway still. This utilitariam wet dream has already been written by ayin rand. Luckily, it's just a badly written book with no basis in reality.

>>12177 >If you believe hundreds of thousands of people working for google, disney or microsoft towards the progress of "ways to sell ads" is the best use of society's labor and intellect well you didn't understand what I meant by "it works". I wouldn't say that it's "good" or "bad" by any sense of subjective perception of it being good or bad, although I think its bad myself.... but that the wheel is churning and running, not just standing. Those geniuses that make countless scientific papers on neural networks that are workin for Google? Yea, they don't care as long as they get payed and they do what they like to do. No moral qualm in their hearts about "the system" because TO THEM the system "works" (by the sense of word you tried to use it by). But overall I would say it works, not that its good or bad, or even best functionally, but its like that prototype of eventual invention that oughta work. >What makes you think they're dead weight? They aren't proactively contributing to the system. Whether system is good or not isn't the question atm, but that system isn't going to reward these people which will make them at advantage. >Have you interacted with genuinely poor people in any way? I think you misunderstood my point. These people I was talking about aren't "poor" or "rich". They have enough money for comfortable living and don't push forward because they don't need to. They don't want to. >Because you're giving me some shallow, naive, just-watched-death-note talk and your view of others seems informed by pop culture caricatures instead of reality. Hopsin is not a documentary and lelouch is not a historian More of an emotionally charged comment than logical one I would note, but you missed my point really hard it would seem. >but i really cannot see where you're coming from I was talking about how system would react to those people you described as "genuine" and my imposed chategory of those people that are so "fake" they are psychopathic and without personality. And then those people who are in neither in those groups. The "normal people" or the "cattle". People who live their lives day by day and not caring about anything in particular. >What basis is there for anything you're saying? I went down logical road that made me say what I said. There was logic and structure behind it. Sorry if I jumped around a bit but I think it was concise in a way I described the future world. >CEOs and artists Not EXACTLY, but somewhat. Surely the cannon fodder group will get smaller and smaller, but "artists" and "CEOs" are wrong categories. See how Google is? A bunch of autist geniuses and few corporate overlords... and obviously there is cannon fodder too, but much less in comparison to the autist geniuses. >no basis in reality. look at how money transfers in the world and how that money transfers are changing the environment there is nothing more I need to say than that

>>12179 >But overall I would say it works, not that its good or bad, or even best functionally, but its like that prototype of eventual invention that oughta work. Define "works", what are your parameters? Can't this same justification be applied to any society at any point in history? "I'm not saying the mayans are particularly good, but you can't say they don't work". Is existing your base parameter of a working society? And if it is, what is even your point, what are you going for? >They aren't proactively contributing to the system. Whether system is good or not isn't the question atm, but that system isn't going to reward these people which will make them at advantage. What do you mean it isn't a question atm, this is the whole point of the post you replied to. Yes, the system will reward a royal lineage for centuries and turn a good portion of humanity into borderline slaves. This is bad and doesn't contribute to the progress of society as a whole, that is the entire point of the post you're replying to. >They have enough money for comfortable living and don't push forward because they don't need to. They don't want to. Who are these people, who are you talking about? What motivates them not to do anything? How can they afford comfortable living? What are they doing all day, vegetating? Specifics, man, otherwise we might as well use different languages over here. Talk about real people not caricatures in your head; i'm not there. >I was talking about how system would react to those people you described as "genuine" and my imposed chategory of those people that are so "fake" they are psychopathic and without personality. The difference between genuine and fake people has nothing to do with psychopathy in any imaginable way. The context of our society doesn't have enough room for people to grow, so they remain in an abstraction of society; simulacra, as the first post i've made said. Where did you take psychopathy from? What does it have to do with *anything*? >The "normal people" or the "cattle". People who live their lives day by day and not caring about anything in particular. This is the whole point of the post you replied to... That there's no such thing as "cattle", but a context in society that requires a level of abstraction that is hard to break from. It's like you had an argument in your head and midway self-argumentation you posted here expecting me to get where you're coming from. It ain't working. I have no idea what you're trying to say and how this correlates to anything i've said. >See how Google is? A bunch of autist geniuses and few corporate overlords Where did you get the idea that google is a bunch of autist geniuses? That's not how.. anything works, that's just pop culture view of a specialized market. What you're saying is the equivalent of a medieval citizen viewing people who can read as "geniuses". Executing a skill doesn't require exceptional qualities, it requires theory and practice, an 80 year old is lumberjack is perfectly capable of learning and improving to the level of a google employee. Would that turn him into a genius, or just a normal person with access to education? See man... this is just.. tiresome, it's like you're trying to convey knowledge that you've absorbed through osmosis and you're expecting me to buy it. Pop culture caricatures are hardly an object of argumentation. >look at how money transfers in the world and how that money transfers are changing the environment You're describing the geometric shapes in your head as if everybody was seeing it. If you're not describing a problem and a logical progression to your point, this isn't much of a discussion.

>>12180 > Can't this same justification be applied to any society at any point in history? surely todays system allowed for bigger expansion of the system itself and for faster growth, so I would say that todays system works much better than yesterdays.... and that is without even looking into the bias of libertarian capitalism argument of personal freedom of any particular individual within the system, I think that aspect is trivial and unimportant to the working of the system >this is the whole point of the post you replied to And I think that point is superfluous and unimportant to question of existance and self-propagation of the system. Whether or not it is "bad" which lets face it, morality is subjective and has no objective reality will not make it last longer or die sooner. We are talking about future of the system and people within it. Talking about whether something is bad or not is like hearing children bicker about whos turn it is to play on the playstation. Irrelevant and annoying. >Specifics, man This is how I see that you have no real interest in civilized discussion. You throw question after question on topic I already explained. Not only in the same post you are responding (little bit further down the post) but also post before it. I would assume that you just read this line on my comment and thought to yourself "aha, I got him, he used the 'They' instead of explaining who they are, I might just throw him a line of questions he already answered and make him answer them and explain himself". In all honesty we can stay here until day after tommorow just me answering your questions but can you honestly call that a discussion? Pathetic. >has nothing to do with psychopathy in any imaginable way Well I was taking the "fake" aspect to the extreme aspect of it. Psychopaths are just "fakest" people there are. They have no inner "them" so they fake everything. >The context of our society doesn't have enough room for people to grow That is the worldview of the cannon fodder I was talking about, which you (I assume by your last post about poor people) seem to empathize with. I assume that is because you associate yourself with them or at least see yourself as one of them? See, the genuine people and psychopaths, they succeed by doing whatever they want and always finding a ways to get to their goals. That is the only thing that seperates them from the cannon fodder. >so they remain in an abstraction of society; simulacra The "untrustworthy copy" is partially fake, psychopaths are total fakes. I would say that most of these partial fake people are just scared of repercussions of the world rejecting them than actually not having anything to contribute that is original. But that is just my assumption. Like last few assumptions I made. >but a context in society that requires a level of abstraction that is hard to break from I was taking the initial topic and applying it to direct applied aspect of "what makes that abstracted irony and personality OF?". Basically I argued that there are people who have genuine personality that don't need to be abstract irony of mainstream culture and there are people on the other side of the spectrum, said psychopaths. The cattle in the middle need to suck it up and "partially" fake it. Or as we said it, make it more abstract from their current way of feeling and thinking. However I think their position in this world is getting imposed by the two diametrically opposed sides and that is shown by the need to "suck it up". >That's not how.. anything works, that's just pop culture view of a specialized market >What you're saying is the equivalent of a medieval citizen viewing people who can read as "geniuses". Well maybe, but I would seem to think that Google employs only the best of the best seeing how they have track record of spewing out hundreds of scientific papers on neural networks and machine learning, something the academy is envious of and is baffled by their efficiency, how Google and their employees can do such a magnificent feat in one year what it took for whole of academia to do in 5. And that is not just out of my words, that is out of people who work in said fields. >See man... this is just.. tiresome Yea, it is as if you are trying to logically argue how an 80 year old lumberjack is perfectly capable of learning and improving to the level of a google employee. Something that can't possibly be logically argued which is because it is an argument coming from emotional standpoint and not any "basis in reality" as you would put it. Skill? Surely you can't believe that is all it takes to be the cream of the crop? Even so, to say that 80 year old ANYTHING let alone lumberjack is capable of learning and improving to the level of ambitious 20 something techie with high hopes and dreams is absurd. >Pop culture caricatures are hardly an object of argumentation. To a person like you? No. To anyone else they are proven to be more than a caricature and they see them as a successful things with track record of success. Whether or not they are "caricatures", that is secondary. I would say that Google did that just out of PR, but even then you can't possibly deny that people who work for them aren't smarter than average person. For gods sake, Google is just a silly example I gave. I could have mentioned how UPS saved millions of dollars in gas just by simply removing ALL of left turns in their routes for package delivery, no? Just a silly example, but why the fuarrrk anybody never think of that? No? Nothing? I would assume so, can't get a fuarrrking answer from you to save your fuarrrking life. >this isn't much of a discussion Yea, it's tiresome talking to someone who, as they themselves put it, "put arguments that have no basis in reality". I would assume that is because they didn't test their ideas and arguments with reality to begin with, or didn't find examples and objective proof of their arguments working in reality so they satisfy themselves with JUST THE IDEA of some 80 year old lumberjack learning to the point of becoming a good coder to the level of Google employee. But that is what you have to do right? Believe in this make belief scenarios to make the harsh reality that more palpable. I guess its more of an ego thing. Don't want to get yourself hurt. Pain is bad mkay? Especially emotional pain. Seeing yourself fail is the worst. Nobody wants to see their hard work and sweat get crushed like that just because they test themselves against the world. It's much easier to live in your own delusion of grandeur and believe that everything is possible.

>>12182 >surely todays system allowed for bigger expansion of the system itself and for faster growth Expansion towards what, growth of what. Specify, stop speaking as if i was inside your brain. >We are talking about future of the system and people within it. Which is exactly what i've said in my first post. At this point i'm unsure if you're intentionally being obtuse or truly incapable of understanding how a conversation with another human being outside of your own head works. > Talking about whether something is bad or not is like hearing children bicker about whos turn it is to play on the playstation. Irrelevant and annoying. A qualitative is necessary for a discussion. If all is equally good, decision is irrelevant. If you disagree with anyone's point in history, that means their definition of good is different from yours; so you create arguments to reach a conclusion. I will not keep holding your hand towards making sense of your own thoughts. You've derailed this thread enough at this point. >This is how I see that you have no real interest in civilized discussion. Human beings have different concepts in their own heads. If they hope to have a discussion with a different human being, they must first explain what they mean, give the definitions they have and how they differ from someone else's. You have not done that, thus, you're expecting me to guess what's in your head. I am not your mother. >Well I was taking the "fake" aspect to the extreme aspect of it This is the first time in this thread you have ever explained any of the definitions inside your head. And that is extremely innacurate, psychopathy doesn't imply in a lack of inner personality, just in a certain inability to deal with reality in the same manner as other people. Once again, pop culture is not reality, psychopathy doesn't imply in hannibal lecter. >See, the genuine people and psychopaths, they succeed by doing whatever they want and always finding a ways to get to their goals. That is the only thing that seperates them from the cannon fodder. There is no data in the real world to back that up. Hundreds of artists died poor, scientific discoveries were buried and discovered years later, brands steal from small independent artists on a daily basis, brilliant programmers work for 40k/year and get little to no credit for it. On the other hand, being born in a rich family is enough to hierarchically succeed in any field, as the families of politicians throughout the planet can prove. You're either too young or too uninformed, this is not a 4chan discussion where you can just say common sense pop culture bullsoykaf with no basis in history or reality and expect anyone to buy it. The real world is not a cheap teenager movie. >The "untrustworthy copy" is partially fake, psychopaths are total fakes. Inform yourself on what a psychopath is before trying to make an argument based on nothing. Even if your definition had any attachment to reality, psychopathy is a rare phenomenon that is barely documented, not enough human beings have those characteristics. Life is not a movie. This is not 4chan. For more obvious information that you should know about before trying to argue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy >The cattle in the middle need to suck it up and "partially" fake it. Or as we said it, make it more abstract from their current way of feeling and thinking. You're missing the point, being genuine or "faking it" is a necessary aspect of living in society. Some people have a genuine personality behind it, others haven't developed that personality. But it's not a dichotomy, you can have a fake personality and a real core. >However I think their position in this world is getting imposed by the two diametrically opposed sides and that is shown by the need to "suck it up". What two sides, genuine people and psychopaths? Psychopaths who barely exist in society? Where the fuarrrk did you get that soykaf from. >Well maybe, but I would seem to think that Google employs only the best of the best seeing how they have track record of spewing out hundreds of scientific papers on neural networks and machine learning They employ anyone good enough to execute a job. There is nothing special about it, open source software development has advanced AI more than google ever could. You're talking about a subject you have no understanding of, can't you see how fuarrrking frustrating it is to argue with someone like that? You're basically inventing information that is not real. >something the academy is envious of and is baffled by their efficiency, how Google and their employees can do such a magnificent feat in one year what it took for whole of academia to do in 5. And that is not just out of my words, that is out of people who work in said fields. I work in said field. Academia is decadent because they can't hire thousands of qualified employees. Academia isn't "baffled by their efficiency", it's just the obvious and expected outcome of having enough funding to hire enough qualified workers. Like any other field of knowledge on planet earth since scientific pursuit exists. >Yea, it is as if you are trying to logically argue how an 80 year old lumberjack is perfectly capable of learning and improving to the level of a google employee. Something that can't possibly be logically argued which is because it is an argument coming from emotional standpoint and not any "basis in reality" as you would put it. I'm a computer scientist for over 10 years. A child is capable of developing computer vision software and building robots. Knowledge is not magic, it doesn't require any particular talent. I know for a fact an 80 year old man is capable of learning computer science to a professional and highly skilled level because it's not some magical knowledge. Advanced computer science is less complex than college math. >Skill? Surely you can't believe that is all it takes to be the cream of the crop? Even so, to say that 80 year old ANYTHING let alone lumberjack is capable of learning and improving to the level of ambitious 20 something techie with high hopes and dreams is absurd. I give up. This entire discussion is an effort to try to make you make any sense, while you take your osmosis ass they-told-me-so as facts. Look for google employees on the internet, research their contribution history, see what they've done. Now do the same for any prolific open source contributor, look what they've done in life. You'll get your parameter of skill then and hopefully stop spouting baseless information. This is unbeliavably tiresome and i've never had a conversation with anyone so uninformed in lainchan since /civ/ was a thing.

>>12183 Do me and everyone a favor and don't call yourself "computer scientist". You have nothing to do with computers and your profession has nothing to do with science. Call yourself what you are, a software engineer, or better yet, seeing how you boast about your time spent in front of computer, a code monkey. And to try and argue that Google employee working on machine learning has comparable resume as that of open source contributor. Bah. Fat huffer. Probably contributed few hundred lines of code to some no name soykafty collab. Boastful, brave. Go on, get tired, hide yourself behind those one liners of yours. You know you can't do anything but huff and puff in front of a screen.

>>12175 Genuine vs fake are not only unimportant but also hard to tell apart. Sometimes having a single "genuine" personality can be easier, but many times people thrive for expressions incompatible with each other. If these tensions are strong enough, different personalities get developed to "house" the needs that can't be catered for in a single personality. This is really prevalent by the different personalities when socializing with different groups of people. Psycopaths or sociopaths are not important in the greater scheme of things. They are not happier or more successful. It's just their time: in a world where marketing is the number one revenue, it is to be expected that they are on top. But that accounts only if you want to be successful in the way society demands, if not there are other ways.

>>12184 >And to try and argue that Google employee working on machine learning has comparable resume as that of open source contributor. I believe >>12183 has a much better idea of what kind of work is involved in machine learning than you. It's unfair to compare Google's research output to a single software developer. Even if it was, most papers are ridiculously niche, poor explanations of one facet of a good idea, or masturbation. Not to say that Google doesn't do effective work, but most of their papers won't hold up to time. Also, for many of the papers, only a subset of the authors are Google researchers. The idea that Google is some peerless machine learning center is simply not true. IBM, Amazon, academia, or your military research department of choice could give them a run for their money. Now getting an 80 year old lumberjack or a 10 year old child to do state of the art research is unlikely, but they could definitely do applied machine learning to some effect.