Bigger Brother.

[JimC]

Innate tribalism plays some role as well. We identify with our chosen on-line communities, and regard the hominid tribe over the digital hill with a somewhat jaundiced eye...

[Audley Strange]

Thanks guys.

@Pord. I get what you are saying, but I disagree that it is higher brow because it is interactive. Boxing is interactive and being whacked by a slab of living meat is not edifiying, take it from me. I think the delusion that it is higher brow comes from the fact that it is a literary medium and this tickles our egos because deep down we recognise our fundamental uselessness and impotence (in some kind of existential rather than atual way.)

and onto reV.

Well good to hear from you. To be honest I'm surprised it's not Ratskepchick now, it certainly had the same aroma of paranoia and neurosis and censorship about it while I was there, I can't imagine it got any better. Still this is not about that. I have to tell you, as someone who always found you civil even when our dicussions got heated. I find it pretty worrisome that you think that not only have you the right to shove your opinions down people's throats to "educate" them, in fact, the whole last paragraph you wrote actually reeks of someone desperate for validation.

Still as you say, you are not above using empty rhetoric, so I'll chalk it down to that. Still if you see it as a war mate, I'd say you're already on the losing side. I hope you don't find what I've said personally insulting but I think the whole "I'm FUCKING RIGHT, why won't you listen??!!!!!!" attitude is particularly the problem. Too absolute, too certain, too rigid, too easy to snap and after a certain point that's what anyone with any wits tries to do when faced with such overwhelming arrogance, they try to break them, send them into a meltdown. It becomes a bloodsport. Again it ties into the drama aspect. I've sure you've seen it many times, some smug self righteous arsehole tries to destroy discussion with long winded bollocks and charts and paragraphs only for all the comments after that to be attacks not on his or her reason but upon their character and ability.

On the net, it's your ego that's out there, raw without a net or A-T shields and people delight in destroying inflated ones for lulz. So be careful man.


@Jim. Certainly yes. I wonder if that in itself is telling. We can always look at FtB or Stormfront and think "Yup Groupthink" how easy is to do it about ourselves though? I mean certainly this place is the closest I've ever been to an actual cat herd, we're disagreeable cunts all the time, but rarely have I seen that escalate into full on bloodsport against each other, if at all.

Though it does have to be said we did baton down the hatches when that Morality Watch Website got a bit hot under the collar about a poor attempt at a joke. So perhaps we are a clique after all.

Heh.

"I made it ma, I finally made it!"

[rEvolutionist]

On the tangent... Ratskep is a different model and different goal to here. I can respect both approaches. I've had my difficulties over there lately and in fact have been pretty much waging war for the last 3 or 4 months. I've disengaged from pretty much all social activity over there, and now limit myself to commenting on administrative matters (and just recently (since my return from suspension) topics that align with my activism). I've got not doubt that some people over here who are familiar with my past aggressive and strong defense of the ratskep mods and site are finding it a bit of a delicious irony that i've snapped (somewhat) like a number of them have in the past. On that note, frikin' Gallstones had better bring me some flowers soon!

Regarding my net technique.... I guess there could be a bit of validation seeking in there, but it would be a surprise for me to find it. I'm very serious about activism these days (while hopefully still remaining a fun guy at times), and this is a "war" that needs to be won, in my opinion. But before anyone gets worried that I'm a Leninist or a Stalinist in the making, i'm more an anarchist these days, and fight very hard for true democratic processes.

But as I said, my approach to the use of the net is probably a bit unique amongst the general population, although, in places like here and ratskep, activism isn't at all a rare activity. But even more unique I suspect is this weird dissociative effect that comes over me when debating on the web. I'd really be interested to find out if others "suffer" from this as well. In a way, it would explain a lot of the incivility and arrogance on the net.

[Hermit]

Let's face it we ALL love a bit of the drama, even those who say they don't and we should all calm down.

Yes, we all do. Well most of us, anyway. It's fascinating like a road accident that we might be passing by; we become rubber-necks. What we then do, however varies. Having had a good look at the scene we may just wonder about how that accident came about. We may stop to remark on why we think it came about. Perhaps we may offer our opinion on how it could have been avoided. We might go on to explicitly apportion responsibility to which party is in the wrong. Finally, when the party who we regard as being wrong asserts that it is right or someone else defends the party you deem to be in the wrong, you really become involved in the drama. Initially you may argue the case, but if you think the other party is being nonsensical, ridiculous or whatever, your line of arguing may just turn personal. Flame wars ensue, battle lines are drawn, and given a sufficient number of participants, inter-tribal conflict ensues, which, if not checked, will develop into long-lasting feuds.

Road accident scenes do not equal internet friction. They are just an analogy. HTH, though.

[Audley Strange]

On the tangent... Ratskep is a different model and different goal to here. I can respect both approaches. I've had my difficulties over there lately and in fact have been pretty much waging war for the last 3 or 4 months. I've disengaged from pretty much all social activity over there, and now limit myself to commenting on administrative matters (and just recently (since my return from suspension) topics that align with my activism). I've got not doubt that some people over here who are familiar with my past aggressive and strong defense of the ratskep mods and site are finding it a bit of a delicious irony that i've snapped (somewhat) like a number of them have in the past. On that note, frikin' Gallstones had better bring me some flowers soon!

Well I don't think it wrong to advise caution and try and explain why you think something is problematic, especially when you see it all the time. However when it gets to the stage that you're constantly discussing FUA problems with mods and admins, then you are, as you once told me, on the wrong forum.

Regarding my net technique.... I guess there could be a bit of validation seeking in there, but it would be a surprise for me to find it. I'm very serious about activism these days (while hopefully still remaining a fun guy at times), and this is a "war" that needs to be won, in my opinion. But before anyone gets worried that I'm a Leninist or a Stalinist in the making, i'm more an anarchist these days, and fight very hard for true democratic processes.

Can I suggest reality might be a better medium than the internet for such activism and that in fact the internet is exactly why political activism tends to be either extremist of ignored. Most people just want some political fine tuning, not radical overhauls, whereas extreme positions used to frame debates, they are less and less likely even to be considered part of it.

But as I said, my approach to the use of the net is probably a bit unique amongst the general population, although, in places like here and ratskep, activism isn't at all a rare activity. But even more unique I suspect is this weird dissociative effect that comes over me when debating on the web. I'd really be interested to find out if others "suffer" from this as well. In a way, it would explain a lot of the incivility and arrogance on the net.

Nah, most people have an agenda, and work on about 12 different levels of consciousness even in the simplest things they write, all of which brings this nicely to your final point and one I'm trying to find out about as well.

Cool.

[Audley Strange]

Let's face it we ALL love a bit of the drama, even those who say they don't and we should all calm down.

Yes, we all do. Well most of us, anyway. It's fascinating like a road accident that we might be passing by; we become rubber-necks. What we then do, however varies. Having had a good look at the scene we may just wonder about how that accident came about. We may stop to remark on why we think it came about. Perhaps we may offer our opinion on how it could have been avoided. We might go on to explicitly apportion responsibility to which party is in the wrong. Finally, when the party who we regard as being wrong asserts that it is right or someone else defends the party you deem to be in the wrong, you really become involved in the drama. Initially you may argue the case, but if you think the other party is being nonsensical, ridiculous or whatever, your line of arguing may just turn personal. Flame wars ensue, battle lines are drawn, and given a sufficient number of participants, inter-tribal conflict ensues, which, if not checked, will develop into long-lasting feuds.

Road accident scenes do not equal internet friction. They are just an analogy. HTH, though.

Yes, we even refer to such dramas as "Train wrecks" or "car crashes."

Good post.

However you seem to imply (though perhaps I merely infer) that certainty is the root of all war. Nice.

[Hermit]

you seem to imply (though perhaps I merely infer) that certainty is the root of all war.

You merely infer.

[rEvolutionist]

Can I suggest reality might be a better medium than the internet for such activism and that in fact the internet is exactly why political activism tends to be either extremist of ignored.

I don't actually subscribe to the "reality-cyberworld" distinction anymore. I think the internet is the 'new reality', so to speak. Or more correctly, it's nearly fully integrated in with 'normal regular run-of-the-mill' reality, IMO. In fact, for grassroots activism, it is the wonder tool of all tools!

Most people just want some political fine tuning, not radical overhauls, whereas extreme positions used to frame debates, they are less and less likely even to be considered part of it.

This is true, and I certainly change my approach to debate depending on what forum I am in.

[Audley Strange]

So I've been pondering this a bit more after I had a bit of an epiphany, satori, revelation, conversation with my HGA or whatever you wish to call it after reading something by the very wonderful Film Crit Hulk.

Check out his site if you are interested http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/

Anyway. Hulk makes a point that Spiderman 3 was a disaster but when most people point to why they point to things like the Emo Peter parker bits or the fact there were two villians or even the dancing. Hulk says that while these are what people recognise as the problem, they are only the manifestations of a bigger problem, to wit, the film has no coherent story, it has plot plot plot, but nothing much to weave all that together as a central idea that is emotionally satisfying.

He claims that this is because of corporate interference with Raimi's original intent, which was to have Sandman as a sympathetic tragic villain but that the studio thought it to sombre and got someone in to write lots of stuff for Venom (since venom was popular in the comics). However the effect was jarring and since then they had two stories that didn't fit together, they just had lots of little component sequences barely tied together with any sense of continuity of character.

He may or may not be right. However when I was reading it I head the following words in my head, cold words from a reptile that once ruled the U.K. "There is no such thing as society."

It occurred to me that this is where our problem lies. In our rush to get rid of Gods, Sun Kings, High Priests and Monarchs, National Pride, we have in short reduced our sociological status to a bunch of self contained Raymond Carver style sketches. We have no functioning societies because the central stories that we told ourselves in which we are part of something bigger has been dismissed in favour of subjective interested narrative plot points.

In his trilogy "Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares and The Trap" and Adam Curtis points out this out again and again, convincingly I think even if his political points are often a bit simplistic. When we have no central story to our society, we have no society, we do only have groups of individuals who are only interested in themselves, because they have nothing better to grasp onto. Ego has replaced God. "Fuck you buddy" has been the increasing mantra as we become more and more individualised and more and more distant from each other in real life. We offer up sacrifices and totems to placate this selfish greedy god and the worst of it all is that it is being pandered to by Corporatism.

You cannot on one hand say that consumers make rational choices and then ignore that the entirety of marketing is to cut through the rational directly to the emotive. Things are not sold as function but as lifestyle. "Buy this car... it's fucking green and we've got a handsome gay guy dancing on it. So buy it." For example.

This actually goes further. Self interest has polluted the establishments we used to rely on to define our stories and in the U.K. recently this has been shown to a catastrophic degree. The journalists are corrupted, the Parliament is corrupted, the Police are corrupted, our markets (not marketing) are corrupted. All for short term selfish gain. This is the problem with the corporate state. It can only provide "stuff", not any central ideology that people can and need to rally behind.

I think we have lost the very thing that makes a society a society, a central narrative, leaving us, like Film Crit Hulk suggests, confused and unsatisfied with all the little plot-lines that don't quite join together, leaving us to cobble together our own beliefs, most of which seem to be entirely based on totally unenlightened self interest.

I am aware this might all be utter horseshit of course, but I wonder if it is not worth thinking about.

As the skeptic movement rolls along tearing down the imagined edifices of belief I do wonder if that is not part of the problem. What are we replacing it with exactly? As I continually say, skepticism should NOT be a political movement, but does that stop us from pondering just what it is we are tearing apart and is it not then our responsibility to reconstruct? Because if not we will find that others, more pernicious and exploitative will step up with their easy narratives that do not rely on self-responsibility and reason, but submission to the will of others.

TL;DR.

As Alan Moore said "I Believe that our culture is turning to steam."

[Hermit]

Yes, worth thinking about, but I'm afraid your exposition is horseshit. Scepticism has not destroyed social cohesion. That is the achievement of capitalism, as exemplified by the lizard you mentioned. Adam Smith's autonomous individual has never consumed as voraciously, mindlessly and emotionally motivatedly as between the early 1950s and mid 60s, well before scepticism even began to take a foothold in popular consciousness. The illusions scepticism is only just now beginning to undermine on a noticeable scale did nothing to stem the tide of rampant individualism. Nor were institutions such as parliament any less corrupt in periods of social cohesion than they are now. Are you seriously suggesting that getting rid of Gods, Sun Kings, High Priests and Monarchs, National Pride amounts to a net loss? My suggestion is that you let go of nostalgia. It ain't what it used to be anyway. The alternative to all the illusions that allegedly made for social cohesion beckons. It's called "humanism", and it is growing in scope and influence. It's infused in environmentalism, social activism, democratic socialism and even social democracy.

[Audley Strange]

Yes, worth thinking about, but I'm afraid your exposition is horseshit. Scepticism has not destroyed social cohesion. That is the achievement of capitalism, as exemplified by the lizard you mentioned. Adam Smith's autonomous individual has never consumed as voraciously, mindlessly and emotionally motivatedly as between the early 1950s and mid 60s, well before scepticism even began to take a foothold in popular consciousness. The illusions scepticism is only just now beginning to undermine on a noticeable scale did nothing to stem the tide of rampant individualism. Nor were institutions such as parliament any less corrupt in periods of social cohesion than they are now. Are you seriously suggesting that getting rid of Gods, Sun Kings, High Priests and Monarchs, National Pride amounts to a net loss? My suggestion is that you let go of nostalgia. It ain't what it used to be anyway. The alternative to all the illusions that allegedly made for social cohesion beckons. It's called "humanism", and it is growing in scope and influence. It's infused in environmentalism, social activism, democratic socialism and even social democracy.

Well I don't think I said skepticism destroyed social cohesion, I was saying that I didn't see it providing any narrative. Nor was I saying we were better living with narratives that befitted the few over the many. However I don't agree that the established institutions were as overtly corrupted by corporatism (which could be a logical conclusion of capitalism, however I think it something else, I consider it Plutocracy) in the 50's and 60's because those engaged still stood by a central left wing right wing narrative. All over Europe and the States there was still a sense of identity in nation and in establishment which as far as I can see is utterly gone.

Humanism, yes, well I admit I totally forgot about that however I'm not as confident as you that it is growing that much in scope and influence. Certainly I don't see any effect of it culturally or politically especially as those who are in charge of both seem less interested in it than filling their pockets.

Mind you they are children of the 50's and 60's. So perhaps you are onto something and that the generations approaching adulthood now will grab the bull by the horns. Time will tell.

Also. Nostalgia is for dead minds. I'm not nostaligic for the past. I grew up in the shithole 70's and 80's to see that social cohesion crumble. It's obvious, all you have to do is look at those decades to see hundreds of thousands of people out on the streets protesting and striking almost perpetually against what they saw as the destruction of those establishments and the social narratives they lived by. The Lizard and her ilk utterly destroyed that, which is why after the biggest rolling financial heist in history we get a few tents outside St Paul's rather than a parade of dead plutocrats hanging from lamp-posts.

I'm not saying society was better, I'm saying it was a society. Now it's just lots of groups of disparate individuals left in the aftermath.

[Hermit]

Well I don't think I said skepticism destroyed social cohesion, I was saying that I didn't see it providing any narrative.

In that case I misunderstood you. I took your use of the word "narrative" to mean some narrative thread that particular societies adhere to through acceptance of the values that led the past to their presence. Now that I know I was mistaken, I don't disagree with your post any more because I don't even understand what you are getting at.