Social media

[Sangoma]

I was listening to one of the latest Joe Rogan's podcasts, with couple of officials from Twitter and one angry journalist who accused them of leftism. At some stage he was even throwing "American people!" shtick in there. For the life of me I fail to understand the problem. Twitter is a private company who are free to make up any rules they want. If you don't like it - don't post there and leave it to the angry transsexuals, feminists, ultra left and whoever else wants to use it.

Twitter (as well as any other social media platform, as well as media in general) is noise. Take recent storm over Covington school pupils. He stared down the elder, no, some black dudes insulted them first, no the Indian dude walked to the pupils and beat his drum, no they said it first, but everyone is a dick and if you see whoever you must punch them, no they are all good... Ok, ban these people from Smiggle, Doonfer and HashFuck. What the fuck is this shit about? A week of wasted time, many words, and is there any meaning to it? Why are people replacing real lives with virtual reality? Social justice versus social media justice.

[nafod]

Twitter is like an electronic Oiuja board of idiots

[Fat Cat]

Social media is garbage. I deleted Facebook, IG, etc. and never looked back. Occasionally I miss hearing about concerts or other things in my area, but it's well worth it not to be burdened by the ocean of ignorance, superficiality, polemic, and desperate attention-seeking that it represents. Then again, anyone who can listen to Rogan's voice for long is soulless and vile.

Everyone needs to go outside and get some sun and steel in their lives.

[Sangoma]

I am glad I'm not the only one thinking that. Your last phrase is the best summary: get outside, get sun and whatever else. Views of nature beat TV hands down.

[Bram]

I wanted to confirm, so I googled the meaning of social media:

so·cial me·di·a

websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

Sounds like this website, no?

[Turdacious]

Twitter is like an electronic Oiuja board of idiots

Twitter's great when you filter out the bullshit. I've got mine limited to professional interests, local news (especially for traffic and weather related issues), and humor (David Burge and Super 70's Sports are great).

[Fat Cat]

I wanted to confirm, so I googled the meaning of social media:

so·cial me·di·a

websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

Sounds like this website, no?

That's one possible definition, hardly the only one, but it's a fair point. I think that forums like this are basically an obsolete artifact and on their way out. Our inability to get people to participate here, one of the few un-moderated social spaces on the planet, is proof of it. That said, I don't think that IGX is representative of social media in its full bloom. And, point in fact, I stopped coming to IGX when I shut down all my other social media profiles and stayed away for 5 years. My hope in coming back was to share information with like-minded people interested in sports and lifting, and to have a place to post an exercise log. I've been back for ~year now and am still on the fence as to whether its worth it.

[Fat Cat]

I am glad I'm not the only one thinking that. Your last phrase is the best summary: get outside, get sun and whatever else. Views of nature beat TV hands down.

Sun and Steel by Yukio Mishima, on art, action, and ritual death.



It's what the world needs now.

[seeahill]

IGx. I think many of us started, what, 15 years ago, on a forum discussing (God help us) CattleBalls and training. When we expressed opinions at odds with one another we were censored. And we frowned upon that.

So this forum came to be. Basically, it was a locker room full of guys snapping towels at one another. (And a few women who could snap right back.)

But shit happens and stuff changes. Now, my FB feed is full of angry rants from people who are full of self-righteous rage. I mean, these folks are always furious. It's boring and it's tiresome.

So it's odd that this towel snapping forum is where I now come to read intelligent comments.

And, yeah, we still snap towels. But at least when I'm when I'm insulted here it's done with some intelligence and humor. I'm not always happy about it, but, really, I'm mostly amused.

So yeah, I'm having trouble with most social media right now.

And where is Burrito Jimmy?

[nafod]

Twitter is like an electronic Oiuja board of idiots

Twitter's great when you filter out the bullshit. I've got mine limited to professional interests, local news (especially for traffic and weather related issues), and humor (David Burge and Super 70's Sports are great).

OK, I do follow weather twitter during hurricane season, and space twitter for space news when space stuff is going down.

[Sangoma]

Bram, Igx sure falls under social media. However, this place has matured somewhat since the beginning of its existence. You joined later and probably are not aware of fights that used to take place here. Lately though everything cooled down, hence such low activity on the forum. Sure, we can get fired up about illegal immigrants or Ukraine from time to time, but generally the fuck given is pretty low intensity.

Twitter, on the other hand, seems to get hotter by the day, probably due to its sheer size, and mostly about things that are sheer bullshit.

[Turdacious]

Bram, Igx sure falls under social media. However, this place has matured somewhat since the beginning of its existence. You joined later and probably are not aware of fights that used to take place here.

Jeek v. G$rm, GayDoughBoy, Lisa Shaffer v. Garm, Bats v. Cleaner, SPELLS v. everyone, etc...-- those were the salad days of IGx.

[Mickey O'neil]

I don't post here as much as I used to, but I still like this place a lot. I talk a bunch of shit about FB but never seem to be able to delete it. I do like Instagram.

[Shapecharge]

I listened to a good bit of it. The guy Sarcoma is talking about is Tim Pool...journalist, political commentator etc. I'm not familiar with him. So here's a couple of points he was trying to make. Regardless of your personal feelings toward Twitter, it is an enormously influential platform...maybe not for you but whatever it's there. He was pointing out what appears to be a leftist leaning bias relative to political commentary whereby conservative points of view get banned/removed and the other seemingly not at all. It was mentioned there are "foreign operators" sowing discontent on both sides of the political spectrum that seem to move seamlessly through the platform that avoid getting banned and if they do who cares...however an American citizen who posts something, primarily relative to a conservative viewpoint and they most likely will have the post removed and a "time out" given. Pool discussed the platform having some "higher" standard of behavior relative to free speech i.e. banning of "hate speech" which is protected constitutionally but enforced haphazardly across the platform. Examples were given. The CEO and the...her title escapes me but she was like the platform's legal consul...were flabbergasted that a tweet was still up from Sept/Oct of last year that "doxed" i.e. posted the names and addresses of ICE agents. It was also mentioned how Kathy Griffin demanded that Sandman kid and everyone else from that school be doxed but the platform did nothing. There was another example where a whole group was banned based on false information

Basically what was all about really is how powerful twitter has become in "influencing" things particularly politics and there seems to be a clear bias in the organization towards the left and examples were given. If you'd watched/listened they were both surprised maybe even stunned at some of the discussion and there was recognition that the platform has an influence that was somewhat beyond expectations.

[Fat Cat]

I listened to a good bit of it. The guy Sarcoma is talking about is Tim Pool...journalist, political commentator etc. I'm not familiar with him. So here's a couple of points he was trying to make. Regardless of your personal feelings toward Twitter, it is an enormously influential platform...maybe not for you but whatever it's there. He was pointing out what appears to be a leftist leaning bias relative to political commentary whereby conservative points of view get banned/removed and the other seemingly not at all. It was mentioned there are "foreign operators" sowing discontent on both sides of the political spectrum that seem to move seamlessly through the platform that avoid getting banned and if they do who cares...however an American citizen who posts something, primarily relative to a conservative viewpoint and they most likely will have the post removed and a "time out" given. Pool discussed the platform having some "higher" standard of behavior relative to free speech i.e. banning of "hate speech" which is protected constitutionally but enforced haphazardly across the platform. Examples were given. The CEO and the...her title escapes me but she was like the platform's legal consul...were flabbergasted that a tweet was still up from Sept/Oct of last year that "doxed" i.e. posted the names and addresses of ICE agents. It was also mentioned how Kathy Griffin demanded that Sandman kid and everyone else from that school be doxed but the platform did nothing. There was another example where a whole group was banned based on false information

Basically what was all about really is how powerful twitter has become in "influencing" things particularly politics and there seems to be a clear bias in the organization towards the left and examples were given. If you'd watched/listened they were both surprised maybe even stunned at some of the discussion and there was recognition that the platform has an influence that was somewhat beyond expectations.

Very good post Shape, no homo. I would actually go a bit further and argue that not only do these social media platforms have a progressive-left slant, but that it's not by happenstance, that they are intended to shape public discourse in that direction and that is why there is uneven treatment of controversial posts. The entire effect of social media platforms is to create a collectivist hive-mind which squelches independent and individualistic viewpoints.

[Shapecharge]

Thanks my Hawaiian brother. And your point is the point that Tim Pool was trying to make...it's not haphazard but appears to be the product of intent. The discussion on the "Proud Boys" was particularly interesting. I had heard of them before but really didn't know what they were about. Depending on who's doing the talking they're a neo-fascist organization that uses/promotes political violence or an anti-SJW/antifa group that promotes a conservative agenda. Well, Twitter permanently banned the whole lot of them based on false information provided by a SJW group who just made it up. Pool was critical that there didn't seem to be any methodology other than if it's flagged negatively and it pro-Trump/republican/conservative it gets the lotion.

[Fat Cat]

That's interesting.

Obviously, I didn't listen to the podcast but I think that many people imagine that the biases of "big technology" simply reflect their developers' and users' natural biases. For a long time that was my assumption. After all, they tend to be educated people, and in my opinion, educated people tend to be more likely to be progressive-collectivists...but at the same time, also tend to be the most gullible, sheltered, illogical, and uncritical consumerist zombies of all.

Having gone through many years of higher education, it is intended to foster a false sense of knowledge based on a homogenized and pasteurized feeling of entitled credentialism, while in fact turning out useful batteries for the matrix.

[Sangoma]

Basically what was all about really is how powerful twitter has become in "influencing" things particularly politics and there seems to be a clear bias in the organization towards the left and examples were given. If you'd watched/listened they were both surprised maybe even stunned at some of the discussion and there was recognition that the platform has an influence that was somewhat beyond expectations.

Twitter is a private organisation and should be able to do as they please, as long as it is legal. Sure, it is a large platform with enormous following and therefore anybody can achieve a serious influence, by sheer numbers. However, the idea of imposing special rules because of their power is by definition left-wing.

I can understand issue of foreign powers influencing American politics, but again, there isn't much one can do about it. This is the price of free speech. Pool's throwing in "American People" meme when his other arguments were countered was a cheap trick as well. Nevertheless, the moment you want to regulate speech you lean towards the left. As they mentioned, 75% of Twitter's audience is foreign, and so - as they mentioned - politics of other countries can be influenced as well. Anything worthwhile can and will always be manipulated for someone's benefit. Not to forget that policing forum so large is difficult, and some violations will go unnoticed. I think the left could find plenty of examples where illegal right wing tweets went unpunished.

The problem for Twitter and other private operators is that the "minorities" (the left) are much more active in their pursuit of justice. You can get away with rude jokes about lawyers and doctors, but try the same with homosexuals or or ethnic minorities. I am yet to see American Medical Association react to the insinuation that all doctors are greedy and only want your money, the fashionable adage of the last couple of decades. The right are financially powerful, why don't they sue Twitter for every post they find offensive?

My point: freedom of any kind is a trade off. You want free speech - prepare for downsides. Pool can go crazy writing about the evils of Twitter in every newspaper he can get into, on his Youtube channel and blog. But as soon as he starts demanding Twitter police - especially on terms he thinks fair - he loses by default.

[Fat Cat]

Twitter is a private organisation and should be able to do as they please, as long as it is legal. Sure, it is a large platform with enormous following and therefore anybody can achieve a serious influence, by sheer numbers. However, the idea of imposing special rules because of their power is by definition left-wing.

Completely agree that corporations should be allowed to conduct their business as they see fit. However, we do require corporations to be honest about the products they purvey, and that's the problem here. They do not acknowledge that they curate the discourse to limit the expression of conservative and reactionary viewpoints.

I can understand issue of foreign powers influencing American politics, but again, there isn't much one can do about it. This is the price of free speech. Pool's throwing in "American People" meme when his other arguments were countered was a cheap trick as well. Nevertheless, the moment you want to regulate speech you lean towards the left. As they mentioned, 75% of Twitter's audience is foreign, and so - as they mentioned - politics of other countries can be influenced as well. Anything worthwhile can and will always be manipulated for someone's benefit. Not to forget that policing forum so large is difficult, and some violations will go unnoticed. I think the left could find plenty of examples where illegal right wing tweets went unpunished.

Pretty sure that foreigners expressing opinions, openly or in veiled ways, is not a problem. There's very little solid data to suggest that foreign viewpoints are forcing any course of action in the USA, and if so, they're doing it as part of the marketplace of ideas. Not all foreign influence is bad, it's how democracy and pasteurization came to the Americas.

The problem for Twitter and other private operators is that the "minorities" (the left) are much more active in their pursuit of justice. You can get away with rude jokes about lawyers and doctors, but try the same with homosexuals or or ethnic minorities. I am yet to see American Medical Association react to the insinuation that all doctors are greedy and only want your money, the fashionable adage of the last couple of decades. The right are financially powerful, why don't they sue Twitter for every post they find offensive?

This gets to the Bio-Leninism posts I made a while back. The REAL currency of humans isn't money or power, it's status. The other things are simply means to an end. For the Left, and the ersatz world they've created, status is gained in two ways: (i) claiming oppressed status; an (ii) vilifying oppressor group. The straight, white, male has as a consequence become the scapegoat for the sins of us all. In service of this basic model, all facts are optional and only considered where convenient. Whites aren't a majority on earth. There are more women than men on earth. Homosexuals are objectively disordered. Does any of that matter anymore? No. And as a corporation, why would Twitter care about the truth, when what they really want is market share captured by Bio-Leninist appeal to political correctness?

My point: freedom of any kind is a trade off. You want free speech - prepare for downsides. Pool can go crazy writing about the evils of Twitter in every newspaper he can get into, on his Youtube channel and blog. But as soon as he starts demanding Twitter police - especially on terms he thinks fair - he loses by default.

It is known.


Also I made all your words pink because you're gay.

[Sangoma]

Who is better to know about my gayness than you, baby!

I still think that Bio-Leninism is an idea pulled out of the ass. Humans are not that different from other animals, and most of our behaviour is driven by procreation. In this sense status and power overlap, and at the end of the day it's all about domination and getting females if you're a male, and attracting males best genes for your offspring if you're a girl.

One of the definitions of power I came across is "control over critical resources — that is, outcome control". That's what left is about, controlling the outcome (current definition of left it is). Status - "an index of individual worth that others ascribe to an individual" - goes in parallel with power most of the time. I can borrow a flashy Rolex and a thick golden chain for the evening and impress a few girls at a night club, but it will become pretty obvious that I don't have the underlying power of wealth behind it if the girl in question spends a little time with me beyond one night stand. What I am saying is that status without power doesn't matter. On the other hand, a secretary has no status to speak of, but has the power to limit access to her boss and the potential to block serious business deal. I know of couple of cases first hand.

Lenin was a leader of a political party that seized power by a coup. It was all about power. Once they got it they banned all political parties and any dissent from any class was suppressed with maximal cruelty. For some reason it has been forgotten that Bolsheviks dished out death penalty to labourers and peasants as easily as they did to the former aristocracy. On the other hand, the status and respect of old time professionals would persist for couple of decades, but they had no power and were eventually phased out of reality.

[Fat Cat]

You are still stuck on the "Leninism" thing. It's simply describing the dynamic, don't get so wound up about it. What "Leninism" means to a Western audience undoubtedly has a different connotation than to a Russian one.

In this instance, he's simply using it to describe in a single moniker what you talk about in your final paragraph: the violent, intolerant, fanatical aspect of the process which will happily silence, liquidate, destroy anything that stands in its way. Leninism wasn't the inventor of Marxism, obviously, but he was the inventor of widely applied Marxism, of Marxism-in-practice. And he did it by offering status to the vast multitude of low-class people in the Russian Empire and then mobilizing them to destroy everything else in its path.

That is why "bio-Leninism" is as appropriate a moniker as any. It mobilizes and weaponizes the innate, biological human need for status, leveraging the fringes against the middle. That's how you can have all the other dregs of humanity team up against "whypipo".

(edited for disrespectful language)

[Sangoma]

I am not too wound up on that. But since he coined bio-Leninism I guess I am stuck with Leninism. But you are right, the dynamic is universal, though I still disagree that status is the primary driver. But then I am happy to leave this at a disagreement anyway.

Off topic, one fact that's always missed is that Prols are fucked ether way. I am referring to Orwell's 1984. Revolutions, coups and other uprisings get one thing: high class swaps places with the middle. Bot engage Prols, the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, for their goals, and the status of the later never changes. That's what happened in Soviet Russia, the promise of paradise for the labour and peasantry, yet both got enslaved. Especially peasants: do you know that until the 1960s peasants didn't have passports and were not allowed to leave their villages? Straightforwards slavery. That's one thing Stalin's fans forget; they say he started with the plow and ended with the space rocket. In reality, he started with feudal state and turned it into a slave run establishment. To his credit, he never considered selling natural resources, something that keeps Russia afloat now.

Status or power, the way major social perturbations happen fascinate me. Especially the fact - in plain sight - that we don't learn from the past. It is one thing when power is seized by force and you have to obey in order to survive. It's quite another when we get fooled and willingly give away a lot for someone's benefit. Monkey brain is a powerful thing, and none of us have fool control of it.

[Fat Cat]

I am not too wound up on that. But since he coined bio-Leninism I guess I am stuck with Leninism. But you are right, the dynamic is universal, though I still disagree that status is the primary driver. But then I am happy to leave this at a disagreement anyway.

Off topic, one fact that's always missed is that Prols are fucked ether way. I am referring to Orwell's 1984. Revolutions, coups and other uprisings get one thing: high class swaps places with the middle. Bot engage Prols, the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, for their goals, and the status of the later never changes. That's what happened in Soviet Russia, the promise of paradise for the labour and peasantry, yet both got enslaved. Especially peasants: do you know that until the 1960s peasants didn't have passports and were not allowed to leave their villages? Straightforwards slavery.

Status or power, the way major social perturbations happen fascinate me. Especially the fact - in plain sight - that we don't learn from the past. It is one thing when power is seized by force and you have to obey in order to survive. It's quite another when we get fooled and willingly give away a lot for someone's benefit. Monkey brain is a powerful thing, and none of us have fool control of it.

You know better than I that the Russian revolution was never intended to benefit the Russian peasant. It was a fiat by a certain, uh, (((vanguard))), nothing more. I believe Solzhenitsyn touched on this.

Also, it's fine to disagree with me or the idea, but at least understand it first: status is the "currency" meaning that it is the means by which ends are purchased. Yes, you need power or material to do things, but the way that is achieved in society begins and almost ends with social standing.

[Sangoma]

On paper it was! One of the central slogans: Власть народу, земля крестьянам! (power to the people, land to the peasants).

Status vs. power is an interesting subject with many facets. Status can be a currency of power, it's manifestation or a side effect. Some manifest status without power (those folk driving expensive cars they can barely afford, or Asian girls starving in order to save the money for the latest Louis Voitton bag). Some have power and don't give a shit about status, even though they get it by default. I've seen a very wealthy guy, one of the owners of a very large abattoir in Dubbo, a small town in Australia, who drives Toyota Hilux and is dressed like a bum. He was buying grilled chicken from a local shop. Some get out of their way to make sure their status is clear to everyone.

The dichotomy of to be versus to seem to be. Fake it until you make it. Or fake it until they figure you out.

[Fat Cat]

Agreed. It's worthwhile to consider as a thought exercise anytime you are evaluating social dynamics. Going back to the original topic, consider how it plays out in social media you see on a day to day basis.