“And the only way to reboot history is to figure out new beings to be. Because that’s ultimately what beefing is about: a way to avoid being, without allowing time itself to end.”
@vgr on forgetting the internet culture war by remembering purpose:https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/ …
-
-
Peter’s analysis seems “subcultural” and Venkat’s “atomized.” Subcultural conflict is interesting & potentially productive, thus arguably more important; but quantitatively it’s dwarfed by atomized conflict. Rebooting meaningfulness: probably required.https://meaningness.com/meaningness-history …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Might be a function of our respective ages/cynicism about sincerely held ideologies (I think sincerity = cluelessness 90% of time). I wouldn't say my model is atomized, though it's clearly not subcultural. Mine might be something closer to
@johnrobb open-source insurrection idea -
While the leading, most effective knights are almost all insincere grifters, I specifically do not suggest that nobody has genuine commitments. My point is that those with genuine commitments and no grift are largely clueless about what's going on. Most mooks, some knights.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. That was the frame of CW2.0 but I also wrote about the "outrage porno" which is similar to Venkats: "You have now not only become a viewer of outrage porn, but have contributed to the production of the pervasive outrage porno which surrounds us."https://areomagazine.com/2019/07/09/hippocratic-oath-for-the-culture-war/ …
-
"Unfortunately for us viewers, we are all potential performers in the outrage porno, nervously waiting on the casting couch. We are increasingly aware of the fact that the slightest misstep can put us on the receiving end. All it takes is an iPhone, a narrative and a mistake."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is silly. How many times do we have to do this before we realize humans being social—even beefing—is always interesting to humans?pic.twitter.com/nKKG5ganxS
-
Always interesting, yes, but not always enjoyable or productive. We can make choices, as individuals and as societies, about how to compete for status. Good choices produce the best humans are capable of; bad choices produce the worst. https://vividness.live/2015/10/05/buddhist-ethics-is-advertising/ …pic.twitter.com/Ozvq8sxmve
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.