# Culture fails.



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

In the last few months I've more and more introspective moments, where regardless of what what I'm looking at - I see in it major failures in established institutions to still play the role they think they are playing. Especially in the western hemisphere.

This is my way of sharing some of the cynicism I react with with the world. 
-

So what are culture fails?

When you start off the Oscars 2018, with a performance of "whats left of the band Queen" singing "We are the champions" to an auditorium full of people that are mostly thinking about, that you couldnt manage to get a host this year, because of virtue signaling. Also - before any of them has won something. At an awards ceremony.

First shot of the audience after they realized what was happening:







Not quite Freddy Mercury and an old man thinking about better times:






I expect this to get more political quickly, but lets start off with an easy fun one. 

This thread is supposed to also help out struggling comedians to find something apart from human interest stories to talk about.  So ideally low barrier of entry - but thoughtful in whatever gets presented in here.

edit: One more thing:

Leaving an image of Freddy Mercury up for more than ten seconds, after the performance - for no immediate reason - so people could look at a real icon, while applauding. 


Spoiler











Then giving best picture to a movie about the life of Don Shirley whose family called the film "a symphony of lies" after seeing it. Wonderful. 

Only in Hollywood.

I hope next time around they realize that the comedian host is there to give the event a moral grounding, while its going on. A sort of figure that is there to remind everyone not to take themselves too seriously.  Speaking of seriously - here is a picture of Lady Gaga faking being moved by looking at a picture of a dead Freddy Mercury within the first five minutes of this years Oscars.






Wonderful.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 25, 2019)

Dude, what?

This isn't even a political topic--it's a problem.

I can't even begin to chronicle why things are the way they are right now, but.....it is a culture fail.

What I can tell you in regards to this:



notimp said:


> *This thread is supposed to also help out struggling comedians to find something apart from human interest stories to talk about.*



a comedian who can't laugh at all this shit and wrap it up for others deserves to struggle.


My personal truth: the world is fucked up and we all failed each other.


----------



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

From another recent thread of mine. Telling everyone on national television that war propaganda is fun, because you got to visit a "secret location" - while making the most popular movies that currently get produced:



notimp said:


> Tangent:


 Its hopeless. Every american still thinks, that their feelings on this issues are important - then they'll go see a fun Disney movie - that literally tells them -

quote


> I: Vers?
> V: Intelligence.
> I: Your commander insists that you are fit to serve.
> V: I am.
> ...




To see more idiotic banter, added to this kind of propaganda, watch a few seconds of the Late Show I just clipped.

https://streamable.com/3gnzr

I'm watching stuff like this with disgust at the moment. Somehow - It still makes folks in the US laugh though.





Sorry for the repost, but this deserves more recognition.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 25, 2019)

....you live in JP. Be glad.

Unless you're a liar and you live in the USA, then this TV-related tragedy is all okay.


----------



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> a comedian who can't laugh at all this shit and wrap it up for others deserves to struggle.


Yes - hes hardly a comedian at that point. Society will have no purpose for him anymore. 

So you can leave out the role at the Oscars entirely.
Makes for a more instagramable event after all.

My next posting will probably be about Venezuela, to make this thread truly political once and for all.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What is a cultural political fail?

To raise natural oil and gas production in North America by the following quotient:




src: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=23932

To then freeze the assets of the Venezuelan state oil companies within the US and prevent them from selling into your country.
src: https://www.centellect.com/us-freezes-venezuela-7b-assets-11b-year-oil-exports/
different source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...assets-warns-more-venezuela-sanctions-n788291

Which was deemed an unlawful action in the past.
src: https://www.cnbc.com/id/23628728

Then hold speeches like the following:


While openly supporting a different political candidats claim to power in that neightbor country of yours. While its in political turmoil, because of your actions. Or this: src: https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/20/18233394/mccabe-trump-venezuela-war-oil-lawrence

Little humor in that one. But cultural failure.

If you have a hard time, bringing that in congruence with fighting against global warming - don't worry, everyone else in the world has as well.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Bank on this sentiment in peoples attitudes, to continue your actions. Sorry. Only an image this time - I know. This isn't an image board.

But they help to illustrate concepts.





Best illustration of the MAGA concept I've come across.

Its from the same speech.

Sadly its not high resolution.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



H1B1Esquire said:


> ....you live in JP. Be glad.
> 
> Unless you're a liar and you live in the USA, then this TV-related tragedy is all okay.


I actually live in the EU. The flag on the left was just a random pick years ago, when I registered for this forum.

Queen (the band the Oscars borrowed the icon symbolism from this year) was a british band by the way.


----------



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

Giving the world instagram and facebook of course.


> I Mentored Mark Zuckerberg. I Loved Facebook. But I Can't Stay Silent About What's Happening.





> The massive success of Facebook eventually led to catastrophe. The business model depends on advertising, which in turn depends on manipulating the attention of users so they see more ads. One of the best ways to manipulate attention is to appeal to outrage and fear, emotions that increase engagement. Facebook’s algorithms give users what they want, so each person’s News Feed becomes a unique reality, a filter bubble that creates the illusion that most people the user knows believe the same things. Showing users only posts they agree with was good for Facebook’s bottom line, but some research showed it also increased polarization and, as we learned, harmed democracy.


src: http://time.com/5505441/mark-zuckerberg-mentor-facebook-downfall/

Thats all talking about culture fails in current events and newsstories.

Not about past wars, the last financial crisis, the birth of turbo capitalism (google: James Tomilson Hill), all those can be bygones. Lets use this thread to represent the here and now.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yes - hes hardly a comedian at that point. Society will have no purpose for him anymore.





notimp said:


> I actually live in the EU.



....I applaud you for writing all of this, but you're better off making a youtube video about this. After that, come to America and get a first-hand experience of this fuckery.

Still confused by your thoughts of a "struggling comedian". A lot of great comedians suffer horribly, but they have the ability to laugh at their own pain. 

Basically, if you're not a struggling comedian, someone else writes "your" material.

Maybe what you meant to say was, "a comedian who can't see the forest from the trees." ? 

Think about it for a bit.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> To see more idiotic banter, added to this kind of propaganda, watch a few seconds of the Late Show I just clipped.
> 
> https://streamable.com/3gnzr


The hell is your problem with Colbert?  I really don't understand the point you're trying to make by posting a single isolated interview about Captain Marvel.  Then again, with the way you format sentences, I struggle to understand the point of anything you say.


----------



## notimp (Feb 26, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> ....I applaud you for writing all of this, but you're better off making a youtube video about this. After that, come to America and get a first-hand experience of this fuckery.
> 
> Still confused by your thoughts of a "struggling comedian". A lot of great comedians suffer horribly, but they have the ability to laugh at their own pain.
> 
> ...


Is this a joke?

How many people click links in youtube videos? How many people read source texts they got refered to in youtube videos.

Then the next irritation, why does everyone have to play armchair coach on presentation? Why is written text never good enough?

Then the next irritation, I couldnt use the clipped material in a youtube video, I would be flagged by content ID, the video would be taken down and I'd have no recourse.

Then the next irritation, my aim is not to get followers - my aim is not even to make life easier for folks around here, not even for 'comedians'. That was just an attempt to illustrate, that currently I see all those moments of irritation in the cultural presentation of lets say "valued institutions", and I'd attempt to joke about it, if I'd not have lost the ability to laugh about them a long time ago. Luckily I'm not a comedian. But I still think, that some of those are important topics, that deserve more attention, than the 100th reprisal of "Donald Trump said something dumb", or "how do you feel about abortions".

Then the first reaction to all this is "if someone cant make people laugh - looking at those things" they arent very good at their job, arent they...

This is what this thread is all about:

After seeing every clickbait politics story of the day paraded in this subforum up and down. After seeing that most peoples idea of discussing political themes was to "say how they feel - and explain, that its only proper, that they feel that way".

After seeing a thread where feminists argued for also drafting women, so they'd had the chance to also die in wars.

I actually had enough of "instagramable" easy to digest but senseless virtue signaling - and I illustrated some examples of cultural institutions failing entirely - at what they are proclaiming to do.

Being open, honest, diverse, independent and informative.

None of that is happening, everyone is just chasing trends, to be able to sell out better. Or dream up another scheme how to get another countries resources faster.

There will be ample examples of this in the future - so that will make this thread go along fine.

Whatever you think, that activism does these days to give this visibility - it doesnt.

And I should bring attention to that on youtube? Why? Thats not even my scene.

(But you could be more popular, and --- ah, forget it...)

Read this instead:


> From late 2012 to 2017, Facebook perfected a new idea–growth hacking–where it experimented constantly with algorithms, new data types and small changes in design, measuring everything. Growth hacking enabled Facebook to monetize its oceans of data so effectively that growth-hacking metrics blocked out all other considerations. In the world of growth hacking, users are a metric, not people. Every action a user took gave Facebook a better understanding of that user–and of that user’s friends–enabling the company to make tiny “improvements” in the user experience every day, which is to say it got better at manipulating the attention of users. Any advertiser could buy access to that attention. [...] If civic responsibility ever came up in Facebook’s internal conversations, I can see no evidence of it.


Thats from the times article linked above. But why couldnt he have made that statement on youtube - it would have been more popular.

Here is youtube for you. 98% liked that Oscar music performance, thought it was juuuuuust perfect. Yes, play another song about "we are all champions" right before an important awards ceremony, where you cant animate the losers screens off of screen with animations fast enough, after every win announcement later on and let people applaud a dead british music icon at a film industry event - because none of what you do could even come close in importance these days. Make sure you have a shot of Gaga, trying to conjure up an emotion, looking at a still image above stage. Press like, and watch again.
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwbCfVEB5EM

Oh, and the singer was a former Americon Idol contestant. Great. Obviously. Does that get us more likes on insta?


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> Is this a joke?



No, it's a butterfly.



notimp said:


> lick links in you


I don't know if that's quantifiable. Guessing, at least 40%, depending on the Zelda.




notimp said:


> ten text never goo


Welp, welcome to the future. You had to be there to get it. Seriously, I don't even know where to start with you.......do you know how badly America has fucked over the past 35 years? Short answer: America is fucked up, that's why we don't read.



notimp said:


> tent ID


I...don't think I mentioned anything about that, but....you play video games, look for the solution to the puzzle. It'd fall under "fair use" because you plan to ____. Obviously, don't try to make money from it.




notimp said:


> This thread is supposed to also help out struggling comedians





notimp said:


> not even for 'comedians'.



Maybe I should elaborate between "struggling" and struggling--one is for those struggling to find work/make material versus those who are struggling with life. So, the ones who can't find the humor deserve to struggle to find work, while most successful comedians either struggle with life or have other people write material/steal material from those who are struggling (depression, abuse, ect,.)
Please, elaborate what you mean.

Actually, I really have no idea what you mean.
If you really think the world is ____, so I must ___, you need to meet more people....and do some drugs. Personally, I couldn't even read the rest of your reply because I have no: Facebooty, instashit, Twatter, Pisstrest,--nothing. I had an okcupid and POF, but I stopped using those two years ago.

For the fun of it: I didn't watch the Oscars. I dislike most of what people like, because I generally dislike people. I'm more negative than positive--I lived a ridiculous life and I don't want people to suffer, but I enjoy letting people hang themselves if they deserve it.


If you want to free yourself: delete all of your social media, stop chasing trends yourself, talk to people on a real level, change everything you're eating, exercise more, read more things that actually interest you (not the latest trending thing, sex article in Cosmo, useless blog about ___--actual knowledge you can utilize (maybe why America is so fucked up?)), write about your days in a sincere way (not, "OMG, great day, yey! bed now, byeeee.), express yourself creatively, study new subjects, commit random acts of kindness, get more sleep, get a new wardrobe of clothes you like (you seem to be dripping with the belief you need to please people by staying "current" and "trendy"), get your ass licked, play more games, learn new words, go take a trip, clean your house. 

Start with that and suddenly, you'll be the coolest motherfucker.

TL;DR
Wut?


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2019)

Its easy. Talking about comedians really is only a sentiment. Something that says - there is so much wrong going on currently in society - that someone ought to catch - and make fun of, or at least somehow put a spotlight on - but then mostly no one does.

I posted this in here, because I saw others mostly being busy discussing prefab political outrage narratives - that care about which social subgroup is currently 'winning'.

All those stories above - are highly problematic (imho), but uncontextualized in most of popular media.

1. The first story is about fake sentiments, that get played as highly important and meaningful, and touching - but that are borrowed just for effect, for the event. Its basically designing emotional moments, for the sake of designing emotional moments - and then sharing them on social media - for recognition, growth, ...

And if Hollywood doesnt have the icons for the time, quick - lets borrow a dead british one from the music industry.

2. The second story - really is about enemy concepts in popular media - and how story telling more and more is replaced with intercut effects, to make stuff like you are fighting against "a sprawl expansion that has threatened our civilization for centuries" and "Imposters, who silently infiltrate, and take over our planets" make some resemblance of sense - when really it is just an attempt to play with sentiments, that might subconsciously connect with left wing and right wing sectors of your audience. Its nonsense. Its the propagation of concepts that sound somewhat familiar, and building popular enemy concepts out of it.

Thats propaganda. At least bundled with the concept, that the military figure askes the all knowing AI, to give her a pre first battle prep speech, in which the AI has empathy for human emotions.

Thats shorthand for 'stories matter' and thats a cheap method to tell one. Thats caught by the late night presenter, he contextualizes it (subtext: " Thats pretty silly") - but the resolve is more banter, on how fun it was to visit a secret location on shooting the movie - which is just another PR line. Then everybody laughs.

Most popular Hollywood movies that currently are made.

3. The third story is about selective framing and US foreign policy.
This one is truly political. And pretty palpable on the surface level. You read the articles - you understand it.

Its also about how dishonest populist speeches are in context. Because its hard to believe that the guy who apparently openly told his staff, that they should invade Venezuala "because they have all that oil" - in a speech the other day talks about how sad it is, that their government, cant manage an internal revolt caused by US foreign and economic politics.

4. The fourth story is about building a world wide business, that used growth hacking (the hacking part here stands for social and psychological engineering) as the solution to all its growth problems - and ended up being a business, thats routinely abused by other actors, and that refuses to take on real responsibility when it gets to concepts like building in user sovereignty, or not freely sharing very detailed data, with every third party - if it benefits their bottom line. On a meta level its about a company shedding any social responsibility - and replacing it with CSR (the marketing equivalent).

Theres also a story buried in there about this ( https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/...-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona ) where in public facebook is promising to layer in controls "with AI" when currently they are paying people to categorize their training sets at little above minimum wage - causing permanent trauma, thats externalized from the actual corporate culture, or even society - on which behalf they are supposed to work. While facebook users are supposed to think, that thats flagging and AI stuff. But here we are layering in further concepts. So if you want it simple - just look at the first paragraph.


All of this is me not acting as a 'comedian', because I'm literally spelling out the outlines of every story here. Giving it circumstantial context - by talking about - that all of this is basically society failing - with no one looking at it - because they are too busy looking at another rehash of the abortion debate, or 'what silly stuff Trump said today'.

A good comedian now would take those stories, find a way to underline the opposing narrative structures within each story - and make a proper joke about it.

I cant.  So I pitched this thread as being a material collection for people who might be better in that regard.

But it really wasnt - It was largely about me struggling to look at all this, and having lost all humor about it.

I hope things are a little clearer now. 

Then someone said "I would have cared, if you made a youtube video". And I thought to myself - yeah, thats really the times we are living in.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> Then someone said "I would have cared, if you made a youtube video".


 Do you mean:



H1B1Esquire said:


> ....I applaud you for writing all of this, but you're better off making a youtube video about this.



because if someone else told that to you, you should do it. 

People don't have time (on a gaming-related website) to read about things they may not even be exposed to, and if going by what you're saying, why in the hell would they want to subject themselves to it in the first place? 


Ideally, you should try to reach an audience that suits this thread. Think of it like this: you're selling boxes of agave sugar to diabetics.

A fun fact that you seem to negate:
people don't want to get roasted by the public for an opinion--look at all the blacklisted celebs.

Either way, I'm sure someone who you probably never heard of, is cracking jokes about the Oscars, the government, and things you haven't been exposed to.

I could rip the shit out of the Oscars, but you know what? I don't care. I just don't give a shit. Do you know what I did? I found something that interests me and I watched it.

I chose to better myself, rather than wallow in the shit the modern world covered itself in. I advise you do the same.

For fun, I'm going to guess you're between 16 and 23.
Here's a video about skateboarding; try it, you might like it.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2019)

Yes, people dont have time.

But strangely enough, I'm still not writing threads with my audience in mind all the time. Because in my mind, thats actually part of the issue. People are so busy optimizing for audiences, that they fail to identify  issues.

If it doesnt work on insta, it almost might not even exist. Too long for a 280 character tweet? Too bad, your opinion doesnt get heard. Cant be liked. Doesnt matter.

Thats what this thread is actually about, that society currently fails to have any correctives for those things. That its still easier to have people up in arms about an issue with a "face", than to have them recognize any of the structural issues that are around at the same time.

Its hard to coat them in any of the five primal emotions.

(Late night talk show hosts caring more about their twitter compatibility than about pretty much everything else, is a fail as well. Not necessary directed at Colbert above, but in general. Thats part of 2.)


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 27, 2019)

Wut? I think I have a disconnect.


notimp said:


> If it doesnt work on insta,



I don't have any social media. The closest it gets is 'temp for me.
I simply can't get behind what you're trying to accomplish...you say you want to help comedians by giving them material, but then you say it's not for the comedians, but then it's material for comedians....Iamsolost.wuthefuk.

I guess I should put it to you like this:
If you saw a hummingbird take a shit, would you care? I'd hope you have better things to do and it wouldn't scar you for life.

Right now, it looks like you're scarred from American television. Like you're in absolute shock and awe that actors......can fake emotions ....you seem to not understand how fake people act and just how "produced" America is.

This is why I tell you what I tell you. 
You choose to listen to the TV and get angry, rather than listen to me and free yourself of the chains you wrapped yourself in.

Maybe you need this:



I won't pay for you to come to the NE coast of America, but if you do, PM me.


----------



## notimp (Feb 28, 2019)

I don't see many comedians around here...  The resolve is, that the first one was almost used as a dark joke.

More like a sentiment of what 'flair' I wanted this thread to have, because thats where I was coming from, than a literal "lets help all them comedians out".

Good comedy can be a catalyst to hint at societal issues. That was the implied connection.


----------



## notimp (Feb 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The hell is your problem with Colbert?  I really don't understand the point you're trying to make by posting a single isolated interview about Captain Marvel.  Then again, with the way you format sentences, I struggle to understand the point of anything you say.


I think that Colbert has become a late night host, who basically laughs about things, because he likes to fit in. In interviews mainly - he likes "being accepted" by the guest. He never turned out a great interviewer.

(edit: Here is slate making the point better than me: https://slate.com/culture/2015/12/t...rt-s-interviewing-style.html?via=gdpr-consent )

But thats really a trend of the time. (It takes quite something, to have to admit, that Jimmy Kimmel has become the "edgy" one..  )

Colbert tried public alcoholism for a wile to foster the gambit of a "situated gentleman", but that kind of didn't work - but he struck gold criticizing Trump and with his impressions of Trump mannerisms.

I still watch, and I still like the "formerly known as" WORD segments - but for political, or satirical commentary of anything beside Trump he is quite shallow. He's often quicker to agree to a guests statement, than to find the contradictions or humor in it.

He even likes to start interviews with "how did you feel, when Trump said x ...hmmm" *nudgenudge*. Often. (When he thinks that a guest is 'political'.) Thats kind of his thing.

His writing staff is still on point, and overall he's still one of the best amongst the bunch.

In terms of the thread, hes really just the late nite host (could have been any one) that smiles into the camera knowing, that what he has to show isn't "quality", but saying nothing about it.

In regards to that Disney clip, I really dont have much more to say, than what I've already said.

edit: I decided to spell it out a bit more:

A longlasting threat of a sprawl expansion with imposters that secretly infiltrate - may make sense because the terms seem familiar, but in itself its nonsense. You see the moment, when the heroes internal motivation is set up, and it is intercut by swoosh effects not to have peoples analytical thinking kicking in for too long. Then its a motivation speech prior to a battle. Again. Then its done by a personified AI, who shows empathy with human emotionality. When in the real world we try to get people to understand, that AI is anything but. Its another rehashing of the myth of "the military knows everything (the AI is called 'intelligence'), is empathic, has the best tech (VR), fights the right fight, has heroes acting for them, decides for you better ('and things you havent known')" - its complete nonsense, propaganda even.

"But people dont watch marvel movies to learn something." "But still those are the stories that stick".

And Colbert even catches, that what he shows is garbage, but he says nothing. Thats the moment captured in the screenshot above.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> sues. That was the imp



I guess, but I'll still tell you, you're going to get a better response doing it yourself.

In fact, if a comedian did use your "material" you probably wouldn't know about it. I mean, if you wrote a full script and it was Carlos'd, okay, but you're talking about something quite public, in a non-specific way.

I could have wrote something about how, "I hate the Oscars", but I chose not to. Why? I didn't watch them in the first place.

Even if I did, I highly doubt anyone could benefit from detailing my disdain for an overproduced award show. I know my time would be better spent assisting someone with the knowledge I have and know brings a positive impact.

What I can say is funny (not trying to be offensive, just getting a cheap laugh), a guy who lives in the EU gives a shit about an award show in the US and made a thread about it on a gaming site.


----------



## notimp (Feb 28, 2019)

Its fine...  It was just something that was on my mind.

- Hollywood having to do throwbacks to the british music scene of the eighties, to get their "left liberal gay icon" to have people applaud for.
- Late Night shows being tame to the point of the host almost self censoring on camera.
- No one really telling the economic story about the Venezuela crisis (neither side, because Venezuela should have seen it coming)
- Zuckyboys former mentor being another sole voice that speaks out regarding facebook having become an issue. Then the "who does facebook housekeeping" story vanishing into nothingness again - not major news...

It may be the same as it always was - but for some reason, the idea of the Oscars championing themselves this year for having shed a comedian host, then rocking out to "we are the champions" triggered me to write this stuff.

I actually enjoyed spelling out the stories in detail, it made me think about them a bit more.


----------



## notimp (Mar 4, 2019)

Facebook was caught engaging in a global campaign to lobby against privacy laws:
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...campaign-against-data-privacy-laws-investment

Should have seen that one coming.

"Threaten to withhold funding from countries unless they pass facebook friendly laws..."

Its a follow up to things hinted on in this thread, so I'll post it here.


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2019)

Bob Dylan recently played in Vienna (Konzerthaus) where the following took place.


> The love of his audience could have meant serious harm to Bob Dylan on his first evening in the Konzerhaus: At the first encore, "Blowing in the wind", fans rushed up front, many of them readying their smartphone cameras, and filming. Dylan, who can't stand this, became enraged and stumbled. He only was able to just catch himself between the drums and his base player, then stood up furiously on the ramp, and hissed: "We can either play or pose. It's your decision!"





> The Band went silent, mirrored Dylans behavior and stared into the audience with a dead eye look.
> 
> More or less discretely the mobile phones vanished. The show could go on. A rudely spooled off "It takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry" still followed, before Dylan left the place of adversity ...


Translated from a german src at: https://diepresse.com/home/kultur/5614164/Die-Wiener-haetten-Bob-Dylan-beinahe-zu-Fall-gebracht

Ah, always lovely to see a real performer in action. 

But I need it for my ista reputation! And think of all the spotify cents, when people click your song, after watching my cam video! -- F*ck you.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Apr 17, 2019)

I don't watched an Oscar and the political because they are drama, fake smile, and feel wealth. Disgusting. Most of all, the political is a corruption anyway.


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2019)

You mean the "Hollywood foreign press"?  Thats an in joke in the industry already. Read up on it.


----------



## notimp (May 13, 2019)

Voting in a man to be president of the United States of America, because of his 'business acumen'. ("You're fired!")

Then glancing over, that what is public information in regards to their tax filings shows - that between 1985 and 1994 they lost more money, than any other human being in the US - resulting in 2 cents out of every dollar lost by all businesses during every one of those years - and an accumulated total of 1.17 billion USD lost. And doing so in hotels and casinos - two businesses with the tendency to hardly ever fail, because the risks are kind of stacked in your favor.
src: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tax-expe...ounted-2-cents-out-every-dollar-business-loss

Then explaining that away with the following statement:


> You can’t lose over a billion dollars if you don’t have over a billion dollars to begin with. You can do things that _cause_ over a billion dollars in losses, but you can’t bear them yourself — other parties, such as business partners and lenders and vendors, get stuck holding much of the bag. Therefore, while we have now learned that Donald Trump reported over a billion dollars in losses over a decade on his tax returns, I object to the widespread characterization of him having “lost” that much money himself. The math just doesn’t add up.


src: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...nald-trump-actually-lost-usd1-17-billion.html

Which kind of amounts to "dont worry, its not his fault - its just that he alway found dummies who trusted him with valuables. Like money. Or a country..."

Which kind of underlines the point.

- of: America, a country where you can be born rich, then loose all/much of your money (see Born Rich (2003) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342143/ ), then still graft your way to the presidency, by selling to people that you are a great business man. The greatest, in fact. Because culture fails.

Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered “tax shelter,” ......— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2019

- a.k.a. the most actively buildingest man in history.

(Now what Trump actually did is to buy up failing businesses, and then trying to scalp them of remaining value, before writing them off. The thing is, he even failed at that, because he always ended up in lenders debt, for which he was personally responsible. So in his later years, Banks - would keep him around for his "brand value" only, which they sold to other business men around the worlds (who were opening up "Trump resorts"), leaving the man only with a small part of the royalties, keeping the rest as compensation for his previous losses. Renting him out to make TV Shows and stuff. Because, that man - could sh*t talk. see: f.e.: https://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/trump-organization-value-plummets-by-90-dangers-of-branding.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump )

edit: I'm diving into this one a little more (personal net worth vs. business ventures that went bust). Reading The Economist articles from 2016.  I'll report back. 

The Economist 20-26 February 2016 excerpts:
From the Tower to the White House - Analysing Trump Inc.

```
Which version is right? A review of Mr Trump’s career, his filings with
regulators and third-party estimates of his wealth, suggests four
conclusions. First, his fortune is in the billions of dollars. Second,
his attempt to shift away from debt-heavy property and to create a
global brand has been a limited success. About 93% of his wealth sits in
America and 80% is in real estate (including golf courses). Third, Mr
Trump’s performance has been mediocre compared with the stockmarket and
property in New York. Lastly, his clannish management style suggests he
might be out of his depth if he ran a larger organisation. “I’ve been
through cycles, I’ve been through a lot,” admits Mr Trump. His career
can be split into three stages. The era of debt-fuelled expansion was in
1975-90. Mr Trump’s big break was the renovation of a site at Grand
Central Station, which is now occupied by the Hyatt Hotel. He raised
cash, found a tenant, secured permits and completed a complex building
job, according to his biographer, Michael D’Antonio. Buoyed by success
he went on a long spree, buying buildings in a depressed Manhattan
(including the site ofTrump Tower), expanding into casinos in Atlantic
City and picking up a small airline. His investments over this period
were worth perhaps$5 billion in today’s money, with four-fifths of that
debt-financed. The era of humiliation came in the 1990s, as the casino
business faltered and two of his gambling entities defaulted (two other
related casino enterprises defaulted in 2004 and 2009). This
destabilised the whole of Mr Trump’s operation, which may have had as
much as $6 billion of debt in today’s prices. Through asset sales,
defaults and forbearance from his creditors, Mr Trump clung on and
avoided personal bankruptcy. As property prices in Manhattan rose he
recovered his poise, and by the early 2000s he was doing small deals
again, for example buying the Hotel Delmonico on New York’s Upper East
Side. The final stage, of celebrity, came with his starring role in the
The Apprentice in 2004. The success of the TV show, which had 28m
viewers at its peak and ran until 2015, led MrTrump to create a flurry
of ventures to cash in on his enhanced fame. He is now involved with 487
companies, up from 136 in 2004. They span hotel licensing in Azerbaijan
and energy drinks in Israel. At face value Mr Trump has turned his name
into a global brand that prints cash.
```


```
In the New York property world Mr Trump is perceived to have gone off
the boil in the past decade—“He’s been distracted,” says one broker—with
other developers doing bolder projects, such as the Fisher and Durst
families, and Gary Barnett. But there is not too much disagreement about
the value of Mr Trump’s existing buildings and golf-resorts. The
contentious bit is his branding operation. According to his FEC filings,
this generated about $68m ofincome in 2014. Valued on a multiple of ten
to reflect the fact contracts are finite, this is worth $680m. Based on
a composite of figures from the FEC, his estimates, real-estate brokers
and Forbes, Mr Trump is worth $4.3 billion.
```

So take the contested part of personal brand inflation out of it, and he is still 'worth' 3.4 billion in mostly real estate assets as of 2016. (If all debts are accounted for, so to the best of The Economits estimations.)

The key part to put that into context is that his fathers stated net worth of 100 million USD in 1978, would have reached 6 billion USD in 2016 with an annual appreciation rate of 10.5% which is how US pension funds usually performed according to the Wiki entry. To end up at 3 billion, annual effective interest would have had to be around 9%.

In 1976 Trump boasted to a NYT reporter, that he already was worth 200 million. Which he wasnt, because at this time, it still was his fathers fortune. But lets say - that for once, he spoke the truth about the amount in that one instance - then the annual rate of return to end up at 3 billion in 2016 would have had to be 7%. 

edit: The economist has a neat graph. 






This is the "brand value is contested" part:

```
Of his wealth, only an estimated 7% is outside America and 66% is made
in New York. Only about 22% of his worth is derived from assets that he
actively created after 2004, when he became a reality TV star. Some 64%
is from conventional property and a further 17% from resorts and golf
clubs. His biggest recent deal has been in real estate: buying the Doral
hotel in 2012 out of bankruptcy. Only 11 of the licensing and branding
companies created since 2004 make more than $1m of income. Mr Trump says
there are 38 more deals in the pipeline but it is hard to know their
worth.
```
2004 was when his brand was at high fame, during "The Apprentice".


----------



## notimp (Jun 22, 2019)

US suicide rates just spiked to the highest levels since WW2.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/suicide-rate-us-highest-ww2-indigenous


And there are still more child cages and neglect cases at the US Mexican border:


> “In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of inhumanity,” said Holly Cooper, who co-directs University of California, Davis’ Immigration Law Clinic and represents detained youth.


https://www.apnews.com/46da2dbe04f54adbb875cfbc06bbc615

Not mainstream news, ey? America confirmed great again.


----------



## notimp (Jun 28, 2019)

NYT to stop printing caricatures in their paper.

Cause: Not PC enough for millennials.


----------



## Viri (Jul 3, 2019)

I never watched the Oscars or any award shows, because why the fuck would I want to watch a bunch of millionaires circle jerk each other for a few hours? I never gave a shit about any of those awards.

The only award show I watched, was the video game awards, and that was only because they had surprise announcement for new games. If it wasn't for that surprise announcement, I'd skip that too. I don't give a shit about what game wins GOTY, they all slap that label on their games anyway, when they re-release it.


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2019)

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49151042


----------



## Alexander1970 (Jul 31, 2019)

notimp said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49151042




What a mendacious and false human society.......

Thank you for sharing this.


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2019)

All angles are so wonderfully wrong on this story - its a smorgasburg of humanity - and everything that we would call corruption if it happened in the political sphere.

Lets list them.


Basic rundown:
Social Media streaming celebrity used facial filters to attract more followers, then filters failed. Now society is trying to laugh it off.

Specifics:

Follower count was 100.000 plus - for the societal function of --


> The blogger [...] is believed to have used a filter on her face during her appearances, and had been renowned for her "sweet and healing voice".


Wait, what?

Followers where mostly male and -



> China's Global Times said she had been "worshipped" as a "cute goddess" by some members of her loyal audience with some fans even giving her more than 100,000 yuan ($14,533, £11,950).



Thats an issue thats commonplace since social media platforms have gained popularity. F.e. british page three (Is it page three? named after the page in yellow press papers, where the nudie pictures where printed since the 60s) models even made it to their own BBC documentary about online grafting. 

But good on her then, idiot suckers - those men are, who are parting with their money for an internet fantasy - right, well...



> The Global Times reports that all was as normal and that her fans urged her to show her face and remove her filter but she refused, instead apparently saying: "I can't show my face until I receive gifts worth 100,000 yuan ($11,950). After all, I'm a good-looking host."
> 
> Followers began to send her donations with the largest reported to be 40,000 yuan ($5,813, £4,780) during the session.


F*ck, so she really grafted actively, huh? 



> However, at some point, it seems the filter being used by the vlogger stopped working and her real face became visible to her viewers.
> 
> She is reported to have noticed only when people who had signed up to her VIP access room started exiting en masse.


So it is mostly about looks then, huh? How odd... 



> Some users are more sympathetic, asking people not to judge her by her appearance, noting that her popularity came from her voice, and that she might have to seek therapy after the backlash.


No, no, no - this is an active attempt at defrauding people and soliciting money payments for tokens of sympathy - this is not something that society is sympathetic to. So sorry. 



> And some are praising the other live-streamer, Qingzi, who showed no reaction to Qiao Biluo's face being revealed.


And you know for sure, that she did so, because she didn't want to adress the elephant in the room, because she wasnt sure of the social repercussions at that moment. Thats the exact opposite of brave -
so people got even that wrong...


Do I get more takers now for the argument, that services like the Amazon owned Twitch, are solely about developing fake parasocial relationships, and exploiting them monetarily through gamification? Its 'buy a big brother' or 'your online idol' the businessmodel.

No - still not? Well society is just too dumb then. Cant be helped. 

But then, in Japan you can even rent your own fake family in RL. Apparently.. 

edit: Wait - I forgot the biggest one. 



> The revelation has led to discussions about standards of beauty across the country's social media platforms.



Yeah, right.

F*ck off.

This is the embodyment of the SJW ethos to me btw. hypocrites to the point of self-denial. So far out in space you cant even see them anymore - because of their unreflected, ballooned self egos, and enthusiasm for a form of social model - thats great and all, but just doesnt work with humans.

Or if you need that spelled out. Beautiful people are more successful in life. Statistically (beauty measured as some metric someone came up with, probably facial symmetry. ). Nothing to be done about that. Just is.


----------



## mesakagi (Jul 31, 2019)

what are your thoughts on the consolidation of the internet and/or the mass scale commercialization of it? Has this affected accessibility of information? as well as the truthfulness and accuracy of information? Do we as a collective society have a right to it and if so to what extent? And if not why not?


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2019)

Wikipedia is a bigger issue thats largely 'fixed' by self governing structures currently - where you have people with a personal motivation to 'get their contributions right' and for others not to continue them in a 'wrong' manner. Thats how you solve most of that. You also seem to need hirarchies, and the problem seemingly gets bigger, if people have less stakes in 'their work being used' - because for example 'the bulk of articles already has been written'.

Aside from that, there apparently is a movement back into more 'exclusive' secluded spaces (subgroups), where people can be acting more in loose friendship kind of structures, than in constant "deal with all the public" "on all the things" configurations.

I dont want to be naive about it - if you give everyone a say - and incentivize by popularity - you get an outcome probably similar to what we have today.

I'm not necessarily 'sad' about it, and I never really thought about how you could reverse it. Make cool more exclusive clubs - I guess. But then, always attend to the public needs as well.

The issue becomes rather, where the public would be willing to act against their lets say long term interest, by trying to game some of the new 'potentials' 'too well'. I think, that for that you'd need some form of regulation. And at that point it starts to become very complex, because you want it to be impartial. (So you need separation of power, and...)

edit: For the immediate problem of defrauding parasocial relationships with "filtered" webcam images. Thats probably mostly "get people somewhat educated, that this is an issue". And then thats it. Its not a huge problem, I imagine.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 31, 2019)

You can be anti-Trump, you can be anti-PC, but if you're trying to push both, you're gonna end up with a very small coalition.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 31, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> You can be anti-Trump, you can be anti-PC, but if you're trying to push both, you're gonna end up with a very small coalition.


Don't be so divisive. Life and politics are very complex, it would be foolish to adopt a black-and-white perspective.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 31, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Don't be so divisive. Life and politics are very complex, it would be foolish to adopt a black-and-white perspective.


I stand by my statement, you're not gonna find many people who are both anti-pc and anti-Trump.  It doesn't add up.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 31, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> It doesn't add up.


You have a very simplistic view of politics.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 31, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> You can be anti-Trump, you can be anti-PC, but if you're trying to push both, you're gonna end up with a very small coalition.


There's more than  Republican and Democrat (and their equivalents around the world). You're forgetting about Libertarians, anarchists, socialists, communists, fascists, and many others who may be for or against many different ideas, even within each individual following.


----------



## arcanine (Jul 31, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> I stand by my statement, you're not gonna find many people who are both anti-pc and anti-Trump.  It doesn't add up.


I don't know why I'm even bothering to say this, but I am. I think that both political correctness and Donald Trump have gone too far. Did you know that there are more than two political viewpoints? Or do you actually believe that there is just "left" and "right" on a "political spectrum"


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> I stand by my statement, you're not gonna find many people who are both anti-pc and anti-Trump.  It doesn't add up.


Only in your gerneration. 

Remember - you are the ones that started to optimize yourselves for facebook and instagram likes, the same as your parents did, at the time - while thinking it was youth culture.

You never rebelled against important positions in your lives - because it would have cost you followers. You made SJWs a thing, because it allowed you to rebell against injustice that nobody cared about - so your follower counts werent affected.

You learned how to fake smiles, identities, interest, loyalty, importance, ...

Isn't that what PC is all about?

Isnt that why its so marketing compatible - and everyone can sell products these days - even Snookie?

I'm asking, because David Spade has now a show that is trying to rebrand Instagram as a place - thats also where edgy comedians could hang out - in an effort to make social media a place that doesnt ruin mental health.

(Just saw the first two episodes, its still at the top of my mind.)

Its even working in concept.

I like it, because its edgy. 90% of your generation like, it because he comes into the venue live streaming, shareing the experience - that is, his own Comedy Central show...


You know Comedy Central, the place that booked Jon Stewart for 16 years.

Also, do you know Southpark? Do you think Trey Parker and Matt Stone are political? Because they invented a Charakter called PC principal - that kind of says stuff, and then fails to keep the act up throughout his actions, does the entire opposite, but doesnt see the irony in that - because he is focused solely on his self image to others.

Everyone is trying to tell younger generations something that goes a little bit like that.

Stop being so conformist. Stop crusading for stuff that doesnt matter to the vast majority of people - just because it ensures that you can act socially caring - but also not raffle any feathers in general.

Take a stance for something for once in your life - and don't poll yourself to happiness through followernumbers.

You are being socially manipulated, to become the oldest generation that ever was - at age 14+

And its so effing socially compatible - because thas all you care about.

Not issues - likes and followers. And feels. And celebrity. And.. Thats all. 

Now - this isn't PC, but its the freaking truth. (To me.  )

Now lets all have elite festivals, where we tell each other everyone should be taught how to get 2000 followers, and all of this will work out, forever.

Again: https://alpbach.apa-ots-video.at/video/5333013067a14a6eb3013067a17a6ef3
(I'm not quite over that one yet.  )


----------



## arcanine (Jul 31, 2019)

@notimp 
That is actually very perceptive


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2019)

Boy, you must have hated - whoever produced that (marketing) message in 1997. 



Didn't he have Facebook, back then? 


edit: Might have to explain why PC culture to me is connected with (marketing compatible) self censorship and whitewashing.

First, because thats what pays on the internet (through the ad economy) these days. (Current sociodemographic backdrop. (Historians would need to know that in the future.  ))

Second, because you have two ways of dealing with more 'extreme' opinions, if you are resorting to PC. The first one is taking the high road, with doesnt work in popular social settings, the second one is 'social shunning'. That then removes certain viewpoints entirely from view.

Now - there is a place and time for PC language (diplomacy, news, science (although I wouldnt call it PC there), ...), but then - the most effective way to deal with 'non PC language arguments' is to address them on all possible levels. And if a non PC outburst transports emotion, address that emotion as well - don't just say its wrong or unwanted. People certainly don't talk with PC filters on when they are in private and conversing with their friends - so in day to day use it would now become a filter you are demanding that everyone uses - which is also not that great, or healthy. Now - I'm not advertising cultural blindness, or to simply say what you are thinking regardless of social setting, but if you insist on it - and it results in social shunning, what have you really gained?

Basically I'm saying - the way to handle trolling is not to just 'block it out' entirely and act as if it doesnt exist. Adress causes, not language. Limit social taboos only to the really problematic stuff. Not base language used in daily life.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

Update on what the filter work makes possible, thanks to the "South China Morning Post".



Looking at this, it might actually have become somewhat of a minor societal problem in china, as more than one person is using it for online grifting. It already kind of looks like its become a trend.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 1, 2019)

Hhh ?! What?! This is a problem.. Not interesting.. Why ? Because this is drama. SMH. Sighing.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Hhh ?! What?! This is a problem.. Not interesting.. Why ? Because this is drama. SMH. Sighing.


I was not interested in the trend initially (didn't know it even was a trend), just found it interesting how society could fail so much in confronting one person that did this to make money through gift requests (online grifting).

You literally had people that failed like six, seven times in a row to interpret the situation, based on the presumable facts - because they were so emotionally involved.

The video now, I just posted as a follow up, because the South Chinese Morning post did some 'research' in the field.

It might be kind of interesting, as we in the west have had similar cases as well (bathwater ring a bell - ? ) that recently were in circulation and public discussion.

Its also interesting, because those are some really 'mainstream' versions of optimized online personas, used for online grifting (money solicitation, basically), paid chatroom 'girlfriend experiences', or simply - Amazons Twitch business model - a little optimized. 

Its interesting as well, because those filter users use contrast makeup so their filters model them with artificially large eyes, or narrow jawbones - which
triggers "kindchenschema" emotions (cuteness perception on infants) -






which is a hardcoded emotional response. Just to get more followers, and thereby money. Acting like a little schoolgirl, just underlines, that everyone knows, what they are doing. 

Full circle on optimizing for the internet economy.. 

I'm not outraged by this (I'm none of their potential customers.  ), I'm actually fascinated by it.

This is social deception, exploitation, through human emotions, with technical means. This is (social) hacking. 

And with 100.000 followers for one of the miner 'celebs' in this industry - it seams to scale quite well.

If you think I posted the video because of the link baity title, nope - it actually was linked in a (semi-) quality german newspaper by now - where I copy pasted it from this time.  ( https://www.derstandard.at/story/20...en-streamerin-verjuengte-sich-mit-live-filter )


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

Also - as a callback to the Forum Alpbach podium idea of "if - we only can teach everyone how to get 2000 followers online - then all the mental health issues sorrounding social media will be solved" - hey, I found a way. Face filters!

For everyone!

The issue with social media is, that there can be no moderation of any kind. Structurally. Its impossible. (Far too many users, worth too little to the company. Not interested to form self regulated communities.) Then you combine that with hiring 5000 social studies majors and psychologist through out the industry that optimize for "get yourself glued to your newsfeed", then promote at elite events, that perceived self worth is directly related to follower count, and that this is a great thing, that more people should be tought how to participate in (because it doesnt cost that much, what assholes actually). Then refuse to act on the notion, that social networks should be regulated politically - because politicians like them for campaign mobilization purposes. Then found a 'virtual girlfriend' industry that prays on hardcoded emotional responses - and has people contour their faces until they look like zombies in real life - just so their AI face filter cheats on contouring - so they get more followers (dont forget, they produce for these platforms, and it only works, because you can scale to 100.000 followers quickly)--

and you end up with...

Topic of this thread.

Also, as most future economies will be service based (because you can't afford humans to own stuff anymore), I'm very interested in future avenues to exploit human programming on scale. In ways that can scale beyond 100.000 users in a short time. 

I mean, as there never will be any meaningfull regulation, and everything should be solved cheaply through 'earlier education' (doesnt work), those are the goldrush opportunities of the future.

And you all thought that "creating an app for that" was a sustainable economy? My dear friends - you dont sell people on apps anymore if you want them to to be successful - you sell them on tailored experiences.. 

Nobody cares about people here...  They really dont. So why should I care about a little personalized drama?  Lets think about this structurally. Think big. Those are future economies, those are your chances to make it big.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

notimp said:


> You learned how to fake smiles, identities, interest, loyalty, importance, ...
> 
> Isn't that what PC is all about?


I forgot fake faces - of course. Only a natural development.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 1, 2019)

I dunno, if people want to throw away their money to some online personality, I say let 'em. It's their money, whatever makes them happy.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

But they dont want to, thats the point. They feel 'tricked' and get angry at themselves for being exploited, and when we talk about exploiting hard coded emotional ersponses in people --

no, of course no one needs to regulate social media - let people have what they (don't really) want.

Do we need to protect them? Do we need to shut down those business models?

No, says Jeff Bezos, and buys another Twitch, which does the same (still a little less outrageous - but also 'selling the 'my big brother/my idol fake online girlfriend' experiences to the shut ins).

The question is always - when is all of it too much.

And the answer currently is -- never. Because you cant solve those issues structurally you dont have the incentives, or the money for it.

Bullshit scales highly efficiently, because facebook (as well as the chinese social networks, by the looks of it (Emperess?)) optimizes for emotional payoff - not caring about anything other than your time spent on instagram.

You make them so little money, that they cant hire someone that would act as a fact checker, moderator, judge, and have that as part of their business models -- you are only worth a few dollars to them. But then there is very many of you out there.

Everyone that wants to exploit a human characteristic in mass - loves social media plattforms. Including politicians.

The solution thats currently proposed is 'algorithms' (we deleted 200 accounts today) - which proves nothing (nobody can look at them, nobody can look at their results within the network - all proprietary) -- and 'earlier education' of people. Which doesnt work, when we are now into exploiting human personality flaws. It just doest.

Again, there are multiple people now on record, saying outright, that social media platforms like facebook are exploiting the worst aspects of humanity. Thats not just a high fellutant statement, thats actually what they are doing.

(Here have some girlfriend experience porn, outrage bait, bubble comfort, no counterspeech, ...)

And the public sentiment is still - 'let the idiots hang themselves'. How much longer.

Again - they will never be regulated in a meaningful fashion, because its not economically viable for them to 'start caring' about their users. You cant even get a phone call with them. Or an email exchange with a department lead. You simply arent worth it, as far as how much time it costs them to do something about it.

So. And at some point we have to ask ourselves, we try to help people that suffer from gambling addiction, but for those 100.000 followers in that fake avatars chatroom, that is telling them to give her money, so they get more affection from her - we have... nothing.

And thats not the only issue here.


The bigger problem is, that "data analytics" is still seen as one of the very few future growth markets. So you still allow those industries to do anything they like - just so they can establish market leader positions. Generate new economies. Thats a political decision.

You dont care about peoples wellbeing. Nobody does.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 2, 2019)

@notimp ever hear of the term "Gish Gallop" ROFLMAO


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 2, 2019)

notimp said:


> Update on what the filter work makes possible, thanks to the "South China Morning Post".
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at this, it might actually have become somewhat of a minor societal problem in china, as more than one person is using it for online grifting. It already kind of looks like its become a trend.




Full disclosure: I am not Chinese, but my (fairly large) lab during my 6 years of grad school was almost entirely Chinese, so I will comment on this based on my anecdotal experiences. I fully acknowledge that this will be painting with a wide brush, individual results may vary, etc.

This is a HUGE cultural problem in China. Girls basically use these face filter apps 100% of the time. I can't comment on why, but my guess is it is due to some level of societal pressure (the cultural mentality in China is still extremely sexist, at least by western standards), which has likely been exacerbated by modern social media. A decent number of the Chinese girls I have interacted with refuse to post pictures of themselves without doctoring them at least a little bit. The running joke is that the face filter is one of the greatest inventions of the 21st century. And that's really sad.

That being said, I've noticed similar things with younger Americans. I knew a girl last summer who ended up having plastic surgery because she so strongly disliked like the way she looked. She was 21 at the time, and already very pretty. No need for that. Just really sad all around.

Hope all these girls can move past this.


----------



## notimp (Aug 2, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> @notimp ever hear of the term "Gish Gallop" ROFLMAO


Nope, but i read up on it with interest.  The thing is, that I'm not doing this to win an argument, but that I actually believe, that there is something seriously wrong with how social media is set up to work within society today. So - f.e. I believe, that micro targeting voters for election advertisment purposes, ruins democracy. I really do.

(The candidate that can be 501 different things to different people. But targeted.)

The debate about online grifting is just me having another crack at it. I get that this one is only of small importance in comparison (100.000 grifting marks in china with one lady alone though, thats something, that scales...  ). But its interesting to me nevertheless. 

I dont believe I tried to flood with useless hard to refute arguments in here, because the bigger point I'm making (culture/society fails) is not something that has to be argued. It just does - all the time. 

And then it doesnt. 

I just have a direct emotional reaction when I read stories, where it does - and this is when I'm posting in here..


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 2, 2019)

notimp said:


> Nope, but i read up on it with interest.  The thing is, that I'm not doing this to win an argument, but that I actually believe, that there is something seriously wrong with how social media is set up to work within society today. So - f.e. I believe, that micro targeting voters for election advertisment purposes, ruins democracy. I really do.
> 
> (The candidate that can be 501 different things to different people. But targeted.)
> 
> ...


You WERE arguing with me, I took the position that there isn't much crossover between the anti-pc message and anti-Trump message, and you responded with a wall of text about how I'm being manipulated, how I stand for nothing, how all I care about is social standing, how I fake loyalty????  Holy crap I must be a mess ROFLMAO


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2019)

Neh, not you personally.  Also - on the fake loyalty point. Good job for pointing that out - because, its something that wouldnt hold as an argument.  (people probably didnt get less loyal in the past century.. ).

What you did was to engage a little too much in the "painting people as shmucks, that follow stories/concepts to the very end, because they are from one camp, or another. Without thinking or feeling. 

I know that I do that as well. (Faked loyalty point. ) But I do it usually - when lamenting about people not changing behavior, because of emotional payoffs. So my argument (almost) always goes, people are dumb and not cared for, because they are easily emotionally exploited, and then very willing to turn that around and get something out of it, when they see a change to benefit from that as well.

This is my 'fixed' (for better or worse..  ) image of society - 'when it fails'.

Your idea of 'dems/liberals (?) usually love PC language' and 'but you also are anti Trump' - and 'those two don't go together'. Also are specific images of people in society. But they are so granular - that they decide between 'them people who follow that person', and 'them people who shout that message' - that when you then assume, that this could never change, or that all people in one such group would be holding an opinion down to the point of caricature ('All dems/liberals talk in PC language'), it kind of doest work.

The reason why I think that those archetypes kind of stick - is because they are what 'replicates best' in a social media environment. (Outrage on the one side, and 'faked concern' that doesnt really affect many people in outcome on the other).

That was actually a rather complex argument to make. 

Hence wall of text.  But I don't think I'm 'winning' that one - the answer wasn't catchy enough..


----------



## notimp (Aug 28, 2019)

*drumroll, please*

A Palestinian Harvard Student Said He Was Deported Because Of His Friend's Social Media Posts
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/palestinian-harvard-student-deported-social-media


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 28, 2019)

Hey, word of advice @notimp, take it or leave it; don't use the Enter key so much. Make more bigger paragraphs and separate them by point and such.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

This one is kind of 'not decided yet' in terms of potential outcome - but interesting regardless.



China has implemented an algorithmic scoring system for corporate market actors.

edit: Moved to a separate thread:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-chinese-corporate-social-credit-system.547033/


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> *drumroll, please*
> 
> A Palestinian Harvard Student Said He Was Deported Because Of His Friend's Social Media Posts
> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/palestinian-harvard-student-deported-social-media


Well that's what you get when you use one of the largest data harvesting platforms in the world. C'mon people, stop using personally identifiable information on the internet.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Via fefe (german blog) -

The economist on the issue of free speech (in current times):


> Meanwhile, in mature democracies, support for free speech is ebbing, especially among the young, and outright hostility to it is growing. Nowhere is this more striking than in universities in the United States. In a Gallup poll published last year, 61% of American students said that their campus climate prevented people from saying what they believe, up from 54% the previous year. Other data from the same poll may explain why. Fully 37% said it was “acceptable” to shout down speakers they disapproved of to prevent them from being heard, and an incredible 10% approved of using violence to silence them.





> Many students justify this by arguing that some speakers are racist, homophobic or hostile to other disadvantaged groups. This is sometimes true. But the targets of campus outrage have often been reputable, serious thinkers. Heather Mac Donald, for example, who argues that “Black Lives Matter” protests prompted police to pull back from high-crime neighbourhoods, and that this allowed the murder rate to spike, had to be evacuated from Claremont McKenna College in California in a police car. Furious protesters argued that letting her speak was an act of “violence” that denied “the right of black people to exist”.


src: https://www.economist.com/internati...lobalgagonfreespeechistighteningthenewcensors


----------

