daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

the issue that those aren’t around NOW, the issue is that they WILL inevitably disappear eventually and every shred of knowledge platformed there will be irretrievably lost to the void.

That's still not really the purpose of discord, and I think you have actually missed the point. It's not an informational archive, it's a tech support line, and oftentimes one which can be used to improve the FAQ and documentation, which is usually found on GitHub or independently hosted, and is usually light enough in weight that it can just be copy pasted anywhere or even included in software. For much of these kinds of software, creating an incredibly comprehensive and well-organized FAQ isn't as large of an up-front priority as mashing bugs. Of that use case, what strikes you as better, the app that everyone already uses, or IRC?

You know flat earth is kind of a very interesting microcosm of beliefs, specifically because of how it intersects with every other conspiracy theory, but tends to be low-yield in it's implications. It's absurd enough to be kind of a foundational belief, it's absurd enough to be believed in jest, but it also doesn't, by itself, imply a kind of fully-formed worldview. It's like believing that the moon is made of cheese, or something, it doesn't really mean anything, by itself, but it's also probably one of the more insane things you could postulate. You get a lot of diversity in the flat earth movement because of that.

You get people who are dedicated to JAQing off, basically just trolls, right. Those ones usually rely on the classic arguments about camera lenses warping everything. Then you get people who believe in a kind of extreme libertarian conspiracy theory, old school style, like, the types that really hate NASA and maybe think that CERN is doing some crazy shit, and those types tend to be a step further, and think that the photos are just faked. Then, that group has some overlap with the group of extremist fundamentalist evangelicals, who basically believe in weird warped versions of what medieval peasants believed, about the firmament and shit like that. You also get a good amount of people who believe in wacky shit like an ice wall, or just a big dome or something. Lots of misunderstanding of basic physics shit, and "common sense" solutions.

It's like an alternative version of science, for the ultra-skeptical, and for the totally faithless, but then we sort of double back to the problem of not having anything to believe, and then the empty space gets filled in by pure-vibes based science shit. Probably a lot of it has to do with people just starting out disagreeing with the aesthetics of science communication and then going from there, I'd imagine.

I dunno, it always kind of reminds me of those stan accounts on twitter that end up quitting after fixing their houses' collective gas leaks. It makes me wonder if this is just a kind of, horrible social media locus where the mentally ill are confined to their kind of online mental asylums, except instead of guards and people who try to give them medication, you just have malicious bad faith actors who are trying to drag the population around, to their own benefit.

It makes me wonder if mental illness is, in some form, actually contagious, and can be transmitted like more conventional diseases. Overall, it kind of makes me think that the top-down structure of this whole internet thing doesn't really make any sense, and should probably be governed in a more sensible way, because the libertarian-anarchist free speech for all idealist approach of the early internet seems like it's just gonna lead to situations like that, where nutters hang around with each other and feed into each other's illnesses, and kinda get to the point where nobody can really talk them out of it. But then maybe that's all putting the cart before the horse, and realistically these people just need more intervention in their physical lives, and them shitposting is just kind of a side-effect. I dunno. Probably both approaches would be fine, I'd wager.

What’s your shred of truth behind reptilians?

Oh, well that one's just true. The only falsehood is that the lizard people are evil. They're actually great and epic, and it's the humans who are bad.

i’m a paid troll.

Wait, you guys are getting paid?

cause it's cool and I like it, which should be reason enough. more practically it works for cases when you lose your remote, maybe cases where you want to change the channel on some TV in a pub somewhere, shit like that. it's fun.

Every time it comes up I must lament the switch to screens too tall to watch content, the decision to remove wired 3.5mm jacks in order to drive sales of wireless headphones, the switch to increasingly fewer physical buttons. No more IR blaster.

I have this thought a lot too when people discuss things like teaching "media literacy". I dunno. I've seen enough people completely abuse logical fallacies that I really wonder whether or not we're all logically consistent conscious beings, or if we're all just kind of flying by the emotionally charged pants seats, and making shit up later to retroactively justify it. People cry strawman, red herring, goalpost moving, when realistically people are just changing the subject to something that they think they know more on, because things aren't formalized into a rigorous debate where everything is organized and structured and we all actually know what the definitions of things are supposed to be. It's hard enough to get people to even agree on a definition, because people are so insulated to their little bubbles. Getting past that semantic difference and into the actual debate seems more to me like a structural problem, where people are arguing with the wrong people, than like, a problem you could solve with just raw education. Seems like a structural problem related to the death of the monoculture, and the rapid propagation of regional cultures, even regional cultures online.

that's definitely epic and true

What I think I've noticed about lemmy, I guess reddit as well, and maybe just the modern internet, is that people are very vulnerable to obvious bad faith bait. The classic strategy of "do not feed the troll" doesn't really seem to be one that most people are familiar with. I can sort of get behind social shaming strategies, which might require engagement, but I think the sad truth is just that most people can't help themselves when it comes to responding to a troll.

He's also the one making like 80% of the posts to that community. Kind of sad, tbh.

I also remember yutapon cubes popping up, too, as a visual trope. I dunno if you could really classify "sakuga", as like, a trope, either, or if that's more of a kind of, stylistic necessity and approach intrinsic to anime, much like the shot, reverse-shot is, but yeah.

You know this does kinda make me wonder how many examples there are of what's basically the exact same shot that aren't the akira motorcycle slide. I know there's another specific set of anime trope shots of characters getting crucified, as an homage to the many times it's happened in ultraman. There's another one of characters holding a sword with a super exaggerated perspective so the tip is close to camera and the character is farther away. Then there's the infamous "crazy" shot, where you do a kind of fish eye lens close up to the character's face.

Certainly, if you wanted to get more general and all-encompassing, you could take every form of shot reverse-shot used in a conversation as a pretty common example, though that one arises more out of necessity than anything else, I think. The coen brothers and occasionally wes anderson are a good example of how to make that actually be interesting, I suppose. I definitely think I've seen the "staring out the window" shot more than once, usually on a bus, since that's a pretty good opportunity to use it, as the protagonist isn't driving, and that's an example that's little more specific than just shot reverse-shot.

I dunno, I kinda wonder what are some other good examples of shots like that. Shots not iconic or specific enough to entail a clear reference to something, but shots that are specific enough that they don't arise solely out of necessity, but arise out of a need to illustrate a common cinematic point. Shots that exist as shorthand, basically. I think it's probably in those shots that we'd very clearly see "cinema", as an artform, as a language that communicates things to the audience. Any shots like that come to mind?

brother if that's the weeds to you then your lawn must look spotless

Thought about this a little bit, and I think my conclusions is that the thing that kills when boomers try to relate to and write the youths of today isn't necessarily that they get the slang wrong, which, I'm sure is the case as well a lot of the time, but it's mostly that they dial up the intensity to 11, so it ends up sounding like a parody, rather than a legitimate attempt. That's probably not the point about 95% of the time, because the olds would rather portray like, their kids, basically, as moronic incomprehensible idiots, instead of making a minor attempt to understand them and how they communicate and the world they're raise in, but I guess that's just kinda what lead poisoning does.

I dunno, I find it kind of funny, because the youths will be milling about, minding their own business, but then you post like "uhhh skibidi toilet rizzler gyat that monocolored sweater is so preppy" and then all their boomers laugh their ass off, lose their minds, and are like "this is SO true I'm SO old hoo lee". The zoomers aren't the ones laughing at the garbled nonsense speak, bro. If that's not an indication that the elderly are completely cooked, I dunno what is.

Kinda like that, yeah, but, I think, less when it's politically convenient, and more just, that it's like a fundamental character flaw. They wear the coat of free speech, but then they aren't actually capable of engaging in what I see as legitimate speech or communication, and they're not capable of engaging with or internalizing outside ideas. They're not capable of actually using it, basically.

It's sort of like how, you know, you can support free speech, but then also, most people would end up blocking commercial spam, or like, very blatant trolling. Only the stupidest people would see that as a kind of hypocrisy, because their definition of "speech" doesn't encompass spam and blatant trolling. Most people would kind of leave it there, but I also think it's potentially a good idea to block out (hard to distinguish as it is) bad faith communication, under the guise that it's not actually communication. At least, if not to block it outright, then to ignore it, or maybe, take a different approach to it. Logical fallacies are like intellectual spam, disguised as real thought, to make it harder to distinguish and boost engagement. I don't qualify that as being like, real speech, basically. So I find it mildly amusing that people who are so vested in free speech are not really capable of using it, basically.

I don't necessarily think it's like, bad, that they defend free speech, at least conceptually, right, but I do think it's terribly ironic that they'll defend everyone's ability to do something, but then they have no capacity to engage with it or really use it themselves. My cynical tendency is that they're realistically not defending real free speech, when they say they're "supportive of free speech", but they're really just defending their own ability to suck down bad faith arguments, conspiracies, bro-culture grindset shit, and maybe even hate speech, from their information pipes.

So, that's kind of a long-winded way to say that you're correct, yeah.

“having intellectual curiosity” while also being a stand-in for the average college dorm bro.

I think these are kind of one in the same. College dorm bros, ime, and just your general kind of like libertarian white dude, are pretty vulnerable to JAQing off unintentionally, engaging in a lot of logical fallacies, and priding themselves on a kind of half-baked intellectual curiosity that really just serves to reaffirm their own worldview. It's how they can square the circle of supporting free speech, and it's uses, right, while not actually being intellectually curious enough to dig themselves out of their holes through legitimate means. The college dorm bro is closely related to the debate pervert, is basically what I'm saying.

I don't think it'll get you looked at funny in public, most places, at least, I really hope so, for half my closet's sake, right. But it's definitely become associated with the proud boys and "boogaloo boys". The boogaloo being a word used to describe a highly racialized civil war, purge, day of the rope, what have you, which is coming any day now, rapture style. I think mostly derived from stuff like the turner diaries. A lot of them end up wearing hawaiian shirts because it goes along with their post-ironic fashwave aesthetic. So, probably don't wear a hawaiian shirt to your protest, but, you should've probably been going in black bloc stuff anyways.

God damn, I have terminal online brainrot, huh?

By this same logic we will trick gay people into being attracted to women! No! The gay utopian future is slowly closing!

I mean I would sort of agree that most of the time it doesn't really add to the story that much, or, isn't that valuable, because mostly, from what I've seen, people would much rather have their own stories with their own heroes and role models that are natively written to be their same race. I.e. people like miles morales, people care much less about the little mermaid. It's less valuable, you're kind of, partially right to decry it as being surface level, pandering stuff.

At the same time, I would say that the upside people see generally about these stories is really just that they can see and associate themselves with the role models. This is especially important for kids, who are going to be more prone to relating with things on a surface level, I think, but I think it's probably important, in general, to be able to see role models of a variety of skin tones, cultures, whatever, in your media. If I'm remembering, there are actually studies on this sort of thing, that increased diversity in media consumption can decrease racism, though, I'm not sure to what extent that's correlational. I think it was pretty directly causal in the studies I'd seen, but I could be misremembering, I don't really know shit, I'm just a dude.

I think my main disagreement with your point is that I don't really think it's taking away anything from the story to do a race swap. It's pretty much strictly neutral, to possibly good. I think this is outweighed by the quality and disadvantages of doing a stupid live-action adaptation of a previously existing work in general, though, at least as far as artistic merit goes. I straight up don't think I understand the position that, say, changing the little mermaid to be black, implies that black people are, say, better than ginger people, or something to that extent? That ginger people are nonexistent? Hear ye on this theory: Perhaps it is the case that, when adaptations of common works are remade, side characters tend to be ginger specifically because they are side characters. Gingers with obviously freckled faces tend to get slotted into side-roles because they don't conform to the classical standards of "whiteness" as much. Obviously, if I were to do a very cheap, stupid re-adaptation of that work, I'd race-swap the side characters, over the main character. This isn't really true of the little mermaid, but you can see that this logic holds for a lot of other works that people tend to complain about, when they complain about race-swapping. It's possible that it's not so much a specific decision, as a kind of, cynical marketing decision. I mean, you can even see this straight up just in the idea of re-adapting existing works, rather than creating new works that just involve black writers, or what have you.

You jest, but this is literally how some 4chan "culture" was conceived, how they take ground. They just kind of, passively associate otherwise innocuous things with their in group, such as, getting a bowl cut, wearing a hawaiian shirt, drinking milk, using the OK symbol. Having a shaved head, using image macros of a frog from a somewhat decent indie comic, stuff like that. Then, over time, people notice these symbols, begin to associate them with the group, and then the in-group can use the out-group's "ridiculous" reaction as internal propaganda, in order to make their opposition appear ridiculous, and appeal more to moderates who just see the surface level aesthetics of some people getting mad and some people goofing off with something innocuous. This is a legitimate political tactic that has been used and abused quite thoroughly. Generally, though, yes, you would want to use something more innocuous and stupid, rather than something blatantly disagreeable, like kicking puppies.