3 ms·

I want people to finally get mad enough that they do something about it instead of sitting here with half ass solutions and just bitching about it. Humans do n

I want people to finally get mad enough that they do something about it instead of sitting here with half ass solutions and just bitching about it. Humans do not and have never proactively solved existential threats, it’s just does not exist in the history of humanity. Humans are exclusively reactionary when it comes to major existential threats. So something needs to happen to cause the reaction and all the frogs are already half cooked

iamnothere 10mo ago
Didn’t expect a reply, so thanks for replying. Getting people active may be your intent, but it comes off like a demoralization campaign. I don’t know who is involved in it or why (although I can guess), but there is a lot of intentional demoralization in these surveillance and privacy threads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare) If you really want people to fight, it’s better to use fighting words, to cheer on allies who are fighting, or to give examples of how you have successfully fought back. This also counters attempts at demoralization.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
  Comfortable people don’t start, maintain or complete revolutions. Shit’s gonna have to get really really bad really really quickly for anybody to actually seriously mobilize against the reality of the insanity that you live inside. It’s just so fundamentally corrupt and broken at every possible level Anyone suggesting that we need some kind of relatively small skin procedure when the patient has stage four skin cancer is still living in a dream world
  - iamnothere 10mo ago
    There is a difference between agitation and demoralization. Demoralization often has the opposite of the intended effect. People shut down and stop resisting, they defect to the other team, they abuse substances or in extreme cases they self-harm, all because they are convinced that resistance is impossible. None of this advances your revolutionary goals. Demoralization is collaboration with the enemy.
    - AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
      I reject this concept that there’s some kind of intentional demoralization happening here If people feel demoralized it’s because they can’t generate the rage necessary to turn information into physical action If someone is overwhelmed by it then that is a indictment that should give people pause and ask “why is my response to fear to freeze fawn or flight instead of fight” Ultimately if the plurality of humans roll over and die when encountered with overwhelming force, then so be it and that’s the result, and they will go the way of Neanderthal If people are not enraged then they are being intentionally ignorant and ultimately theres nothing to save
      - iamnothere 10mo ago
        Your very competent opponents have studied this problem and found that people can be manipulated through careful application of psychological warfare techniques. Ultimately your position boils down to “I would rather lose than alter my tactics because humans don’t behave as I’d like them to.” Your opponents will happily oblige you.
        AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
        I think you seem to be missing the point that the citizenry is the problem To quote carlin: The public sucks If the citizen is so devoid of capabilities that it can be manipulated into killing itself then the citizen does not have what it takes to survive
        iamnothere 10mo ago
        You claim that you’re trying to wake people up. I think you should be more honest with yourself. You’re mocking the people for their own failures as they go under.
        AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
        I’m not a screen so stop projecting My hope is that people wake up but I do not have any confidence that that is actually going to happen, as I stated You use the word “mocking” but it’s inappropriate here - a better word to use would be “challenging” or “agitating.” Ultimately if my life is surrounded by a bunch of robots who can do all the things that are necessary in order to move the epistemological foundations of reality forward that’s more than I could say for any collection of humans. After over 40 years of experience as a human I can tell you definitively the humans are the number one problem in the world.
duskdozer 10mo ago
I think the reaction to COVID in which we not only haven't improved our behavior regarding the problem of infectious disease but have regressed even further has shown that accelerationism is not a viable strategy for dealing with long-term problems whose effects are often not immediately and directly visible and which require inconvenience to solve.
- AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
  Well we know that education didn’t work so that’s not a solution We know that command economies don’t work so that’s not a solution We know that formal hierarchies don’t work so that’s not a solution Have any solutions? Humans can only really coherently plan at the global scale required on the order of months into the future However our activities, even at the individual level (burning a tire for example) have extreme impacts and costs on extant populations globally and future populations. It’s like we completely stopped talking about climate change and how the ecological collapse is about to punch everybody in the throat. This is a mathematical formula that does not have a solution The only possible solution is to change the properties of the atomic unit which is individual human actor Since we cannot change the foundational biology of humanity then there is a impossible to solve problem here if there is a desire to retain the human element in the future. I stopped desiring a human future about 30 years ago because it makes no sense. The biological limitations of the human species is now the single weakest link of all possible futures. That was not true before (insert your preferred period, upper paleolithic, neolithic, industrial revolution etc…) but has only been accelerating since. Unless some absolutely foundational things change, like the foundational functioning of human systems, then we will continue this cycle of destruction forever.

iamnothere 10mo ago

Didn’t expect a reply, so thanks for replying. Getting people active may be your intent, but it comes off like a demoralization campaign. I don’t know who is involved in it or why (although I can guess), but there is a lot of intentional demoralization in these surveillance and privacy threads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare) If you really want people to fight, it’s better to use fighting words, to cheer on allies who are fighting, or to give examples of how you have successfully fought back. This also counters attempts at demoralization.

AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
Comfortable people don’t start, maintain or complete revolutions. Shit’s gonna have to get really really bad really really quickly for anybody to actually seriously mobilize against the reality of the insanity that you live inside. It’s just so fundamentally corrupt and broken at every possible level Anyone suggesting that we need some kind of relatively small skin procedure when the patient has stage four skin cancer is still living in a dream world
- iamnothere 10mo ago
  There is a difference between agitation and demoralization. Demoralization often has the opposite of the intended effect. People shut down and stop resisting, they defect to the other team, they abuse substances or in extreme cases they self-harm, all because they are convinced that resistance is impossible. None of this advances your revolutionary goals. Demoralization is collaboration with the enemy.
  - AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
    I reject this concept that there’s some kind of intentional demoralization happening here If people feel demoralized it’s because they can’t generate the rage necessary to turn information into physical action If someone is overwhelmed by it then that is a indictment that should give people pause and ask “why is my response to fear to freeze fawn or flight instead of fight” Ultimately if the plurality of humans roll over and die when encountered with overwhelming force, then so be it and that’s the result, and they will go the way of Neanderthal If people are not enraged then they are being intentionally ignorant and ultimately theres nothing to save
    - iamnothere 10mo ago
      Your very competent opponents have studied this problem and found that people can be manipulated through careful application of psychological warfare techniques. Ultimately your position boils down to “I would rather lose than alter my tactics because humans don’t behave as I’d like them to.” Your opponents will happily oblige you.
      - AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
        I think you seem to be missing the point that the citizenry is the problem To quote carlin: The public sucks If the citizen is so devoid of capabilities that it can be manipulated into killing itself then the citizen does not have what it takes to survive
        iamnothere 10mo ago
        You claim that you’re trying to wake people up. I think you should be more honest with yourself. You’re mocking the people for their own failures as they go under.
        AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
        I’m not a screen so stop projecting My hope is that people wake up but I do not have any confidence that that is actually going to happen, as I stated You use the word “mocking” but it’s inappropriate here - a better word to use would be “challenging” or “agitating.” Ultimately if my life is surrounded by a bunch of robots who can do all the things that are necessary in order to move the epistemological foundations of reality forward that’s more than I could say for any collection of humans. After over 40 years of experience as a human I can tell you definitively the humans are the number one problem in the world.

duskdozer 10mo ago

I think the reaction to COVID in which we not only haven't improved our behavior regarding the problem of infectious disease but have regressed even further has shown that accelerationism is not a viable strategy for dealing with long-term problems whose effects are often not immediately and directly visible and which require inconvenience to solve.

AndrewKemendo 10mo ago
Well we know that education didn’t work so that’s not a solution We know that command economies don’t work so that’s not a solution We know that formal hierarchies don’t work so that’s not a solution Have any solutions? Humans can only really coherently plan at the global scale required on the order of months into the future However our activities, even at the individual level (burning a tire for example) have extreme impacts and costs on extant populations globally and future populations. It’s like we completely stopped talking about climate change and how the ecological collapse is about to punch everybody in the throat. This is a mathematical formula that does not have a solution The only possible solution is to change the properties of the atomic unit which is individual human actor Since we cannot change the foundational biology of humanity then there is a impossible to solve problem here if there is a desire to retain the human element in the future. I stopped desiring a human future about 30 years ago because it makes no sense. The biological limitations of the human species is now the single weakest link of all possible futures. That was not true before (insert your preferred period, upper paleolithic, neolithic, industrial revolution etc…) but has only been accelerating since. Unless some absolutely foundational things change, like the foundational functioning of human systems, then we will continue this cycle of destruction forever.