Subnostr

Help me with some thoughts I'm having. I saw a video of a blue haired youth making statements about their identity. The content of their beliefs are neither here or there for me but the delivery, the foot stamping conviction, the we are victims of an oppressive system and those not with us are our enemy were what stood out. The comments were a chorus of rallying round. Then I started to think that we see that too amongst bitcoiners, gold bugs, economists and then, frankly, a whole range of other groups. Narratives are taken as fact. Now I have no problem with having conviction about ones own beliefs but is it the technical/digital aspect of communication on social media that has spawned this sound bite style radical interaction? I have lived with a socialist/communist society my whole life and I've only ever seen that type of sloganeering and state sanctioning of that psychology in people in that context so I'm also thinking about whether this resent/spite is also being encouraged by certain groups. The "FengQiao JingYan" is worth considering as an example of the supposed logic of mobilising the masses to maintain order against the "enemies". There were always state trusted leaders assigned to sway the groups and in turn groups would be totally willing to rally round those influencers with those emotions encouraged by narratives to fuel the fire. Keeping your head down, and as my father in law used to say "Just smile, nod and try to move along", becomes almost the focus of daily life, at risk of being accused and being on the receiving end of the anger of the mob. Given that in the west it is not only socialist influenced groups who exhibit this stance, I find it unsettling to see. The social mob, especially in the Anglosphere, seems to show so much of this when someone gets called out for a "transgression" and it's that mob that pushes for the transgressor to lose a job or be de-platformed etc, and not necessarily the government/state that implements that punishment.

I'm also willing to consider that as a Gen X I think too much.

😎

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mrclownworld 2y ago

Interesting question. I think the powerful elites at the very top in the anglosophere (think Skull & Bones, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers) study Hegel and thus are adamant about dividing the mob into two opposing forces that are both *wrong*. This prevents the mob from recognizing their true enemy (the elites who farm them like tax cattle) and uniting against them.

I would not say most bitcoiners are like your blue haired example, because Bitcoiners typically reject the Hegelian dialectic and have chosen to opt-out through early adoption of a radical technology. This is much more practical approach to changing circumstances than demanding social change.

Yes, bitcoiners may call for “Ending the Fed” but in the end, we’ll end it with a superior technology, not by winning hearts and minds to the perceived morality of our cause.

In other words, the morality of the cause is incidental. It is the superiority of the technology that is inevitable.

Anchorite 2y ago

It's a function that serves a legitimate purpose. What's worse is to have no conviction or direction at all, or to just smile and nod, boxed into a corner and living a coward's life. At least when you're wrong, you will know it, and be able to move on to a new life, figuratively or literally, once you have the conviction to stand for your beliefs.

The legitimate purpose is the same as white blood cells: to avoid infection and death. Try living as a slave, getting abused and exploited your whole life. Try seeing your family starve in the street because of politicians you've never met. There are legitimate reasons to exclude bad and dangerous things and ideas from your group.

nextwave 2y ago

My take: It's not a natural phenomenon we're witnessing, it's an effect of the commodification and sale of aggregated personal data. There is a point at which enough kinds of it are out on the market, new forms of analysis, derivatives, that new opportunities form. Not just collection for the sake of understanding people's desires in order to serve them, but instead actively targeting and manipulating them into serving the interests of political movements. Something that has been a constant throughout history, but began to be perfected in the early 20th century with the advent of public relations. It's a dangerous weapon that may only get worse as AI lowers the marginal cost of its use and tunes the effectiveness of new campaigns.

I'll pull the flash-light away from my face now.

nextwave 2y ago

Maybe a more serious take would be that these platforms are designed to be addictive, and outrage is the most addictive thing the algos can find to keep retention rates up, and that's starting to spill over into the real world.