Post: #26

(09-13-2018 03:06 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I think at some point in the future, the next generation will look back on these forms of social media the way we look back on LSD experimentation in the 1960s. They'll think "How stupid can they have been? How naive?"

I've been waiting for rap to die since 1983.

Point being that it may be wishful thinking to predict that one day people will just abandon their behaviors. We may have passed through a permanent culture-change whether we like it or not. As someone entering my late 40s, I don't think I'll ever get used to a lot of aspects of today's culture. The social media addiction is really just one part of the larger suite of generation gap sensations. And this is coming from a technophile. I've always welcomed and incorporated new tech into my life. It's how it's changed culture that makes me uneasy.

Post: #27

Here's the thing about the internet. It turns humanity into a big hive-mind.

One of the only memorable moments in Superman Returns had Brandon Routh sort of listening to the earth from the stratosphere. It was like being God, the information-overload aspect.





That's what the internet does. It provides access to everyone's chatter, and that chatter tends to be more raw id/unfiltered due to the sense of anonymity/lack-of-recourse.

In the old days as you walked down the street you never knew what somebody's politics were and there are unwritten social rules about how much to share based on how close your social relationship. It's generally rude to open a conversation with a stranger about politics because you have no way of knowing what side of the spectrum they're on. I've had cases at the gym where I've been a captive audience and there's a guy who just keeps opening these political dialogues. He's acting under certain assumptions about me and frankly I don't want to have to engage him and potentially get into a fight. People used to know these rules. They don't online, though. You get hit up with everyone's belief-systems all the time. It feels like an assault.

I started to sense this when news sites started having free-for-all comments sections at the bottom. That used to be relegated to select letters-to-the-editor. Now it's so distracting that the slugfest in the comments is really the only thing I remember, NOT the article. It has destroyed journalism to the point where only people's REACTION to news matters, not the news itself.

You see this playing out right now with #MeToo. News starts to wag the dog where it becomes all about people getting outraged over what people said ABOUT #MeToo (like Matt Damon) and then people get triggered by the triggering, and they get triggered by the triggering of the triggering, etc....



You also see this play out with GamerGate, ComicsGate and the whole SJW media controversy (Last Jedi, Ghostbusters, etc...). Next to politics, what people's likes/dislikes are in entertainment is probably the next level down in conflict. If you want to find someone with bad taste, it's never been difficult. But now this has been weaponized to the point of religious devotion. Now to some people you're a "bad person" if you like or dislike X.

Humans were designed to live in small tribal bands. We are simply incapable of managing the weight of billions of voices constantly banging out ignorant and opinionated brain-farts. The net result so far has been that it raises everyone's stress hormones as we feel constant assaulted by the opinions of those who harbor irreconcilable differences.

It was easier to feel a sense of respect for your neighbor and a sense of community when their polarizing thoughts were kept to themselves. But as it is now I think it drives people into narrow identity politics silos. I just think we've opened a Pandora's box.

Post: #28

I read this post on the Star Trek reddit of all places, bang on:

https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/commen...ract_with/

Here it is:

Quote:I've been rewatching TNG for the million-and-sixth time and I've found a recurring theme in the series that, while probably not intentional at the time, has become incredibly relevant to us today.

TNG was, of course, created in an era before personal tech was really in the mainstream - personal computers were in their infancy, cell phones were a novelty, flat screen TVs were actual science fiction, and tablets weren't even close to being around. The show's creators hadn't the slightest idea how we'd be interacting with our technology in twenty years, let alone a few hundred, so they gave it their best shot. A computer you can talk to from anywhere, electronic datapads that display information, fancy wrap-around screens and, of course, the holodeck - seriously optimistic science fiction tech. At the time it first aired, people would have been fascinated with these technologies and how they worked in the crew's daily lives - and equally amazed when similar technologies would enter their own lives a few centuries earlier than they thought - but in today's world, I see the crew and their technology in a very different light. In a day and age where you can't even get your friends to look up from their phones to talk to you when you're out to eat at the same table and people are genuinely becoming addicted to the little glass-and-metal bricks in their pockets, it's delightfully refreshing to see a future where people coexist with technology without letting it consume them.

So what specifically am I talking about? Well, this beautifully nuanced interaction takes many forms throughout the show, including the computer's voiced, screenless interface allowing crew members to access information without being cooped up behind a screen and the PADD's use as more of an electronic keeper of finite information rather than an inexhaustible resource of the combined knowledge of civilization (plus lots of fun games), but the part that really strikes me is how little the crew utilize technology in their personal time. We never, not even in the new-age Discovery, see a crew member cramped up in their quarters watching Netflix or constantly conversing with friends on their home planet in a group chat. Instead, we see crew members using their free time to spend quality time with their crewmates (think Ten Forward or TNG poker nights), engaging and experiencing the arts (concerts performed throughout the series), learning or honing skills (Data's painting or Worf's martial arts), or just generally seeking out quality experiences aboard ship. Now, one could explain this as a parallel to modern naval ships where communication with the outside is limited and access to media is scarce, but this is the 24th century where the ship's computer is vastly more powerful than anything we have today and communication technology is far more advanced. Sure, it could be that, but I prefer to look at it as yet another optimistic vision of the future - where people use technology to enhance their work and lives but ultimately value more genuine personal experiences over fleeting ones gained through a screen.

Post: #29

(09-12-2018 07:25 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Right now we are living in the age of the social media bubble. It's not different than any of the aforementioned bubbles...that being it's actual value is nowhere near what people think it's value is.

The primary function of social media seems to be, that it's a vehicle for male thirst and resources to be allocated to women. The flip side of that coin is men on the far right side of the bell curve of money/status/lifestyle to showcase that value on a global scale. (Dan Bilz).

The social media bubble you're describing seems very much linked to the misandry bubble that pervades western culture; women are praised as god-like, men are seen as disposable except for the value we can provide women. In this regard, dating apps like Tinder are undeniably bubbles, with Instagram somewhat but in my view less so. So I think the dating app bubble is somewhat distinct from the bubble that is social media in general, and so one bursting won't necessarily mean the other will.

The problem with assuming the IG bubble is liable to burst is that social media does have a lot of utility value beyond turning male thirst into resources for women. Ex. I follow a couple hundred IG accounts, only a handful of which are hot women. I unfollow women I know who post excessive skin pics or selfies. I follow personalities and companies who bring me some sort of value. I also use it to keep in touch with people I'm not close enough with to email or text. Not saying it's the best way of communicating/receiving contact and ideas, but for now it is a good way, and I don't see a better one coming along any time soon.

(09-12-2018 07:25 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  So what value does instagram have for the average Joe if he gets nothing out of it?

What value do video games, porn and mainstream entertainment in value offer the average man? Cheap and easy dopamine. Notably I think we are moving toward a redpilling that will lessen the grip these things have over the average man, but they're not going anywhere anytime soon.

(09-12-2018 07:25 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Eventually he will realize this.

Just as the average beta shlub eventually realized feminism is bullshit. (Look at the comments of any video discussing feminism, whether for or against).

Anyone who's been in this corner of the web remembers when comments sections started to shift more towards a redpilled perspective, this trend has continued and as such, feminism continues to lose popular support, #metoo notwithstanding.

The average beta shlub has not realized this. Of the men I know in real life I can count on two hands the number who are redpilled re: femmunism. The number of redpilled are growing but we are nowhere near a tipping point. Things are going to have to get much, much worse before the ABS realizes what a shitty deal he's getting, and even then he may be too defeated to even think about doing anything about it.

(09-12-2018 07:25 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  In recent years we've seen the Facebook platform lose a large percentage of its users. The same for Twitter and Snapchat. I'm of the opinion that the recent facebook scandals have not had as much impact as some might think. Their userbase was on its way down before Zuck sat on his booster chair before congress and had his feet held to the fire.

The only platform that seems to be going strong is Instagram. I don't think it's an accident that the only picture-based posting platform drives the most thirst...

This is trend chasing and nothing more...in ten years it will be as useless as having an emo-themed myspace page would be today.

Yes, FB has lost a lot of users, but still has over two billion worldwide. Twitter's censorship has lost them a lot of users but I'm sure it will keep its progressive base.

(09-12-2018 07:25 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  In Game, Roosh comments on this, and it stuck out to me. You are far better off building lasting value than trend-based value.

Now i'm not saying you shouldn't adapt. Quite the opposite. By trying to play the rigged game of tinder, IG, ect, you are not embracing a long term strategy that will pay off in the long run. You're essentially buying into the frame of the social media culture. You'll never benefit for long by chasing trends.

When will the tipping point of social media be hit, and what will be the cause? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say when women can no longer use it to manipulate men into giving them attention.

In the case of Tinder/other dating apps, I think Roosh is correct in that we're approaching a tipping point whereby a man needs to be a 9-10 just to get a woman who is a 7+. Men such as myself have largely given up on these apps: because the juice is no longer worth the squeeze, i.e. the results you get are not worth the amount of effort/time/energy/money you need to invest. This decision is purely economical, in my view, and is unique to the dating apps as opposed to all of social media.

My main point is that other social media are too low-investment to produce levels of frustration high enough to make the majority of men delete them, plus they are driven by more factors than pure male thirst.

(09-12-2018 07:25 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Male thirst has always existed (and in abundance) but there was never such an easy, low-risk way for the thirst to be expressed on a mass scale at any other time in human history. As we know, this has given women complete price discovery.

So the question may then be, how to resolve the issue of male thirst.

Yes, this is the main question, and it is as complex as western civilization itself. And I do think the dating apps bubble bursting will be a step in this direction. I just think it's overly optimistic to say social media itself is going away anytime soon

Post: #30

Coming late to this discussion but I think I am able to offer a perspective you may not have come across in the past. Ever heard of the Gartner Hype Cycle? Let me first answer your question and then I follow up with a basic outline of what it means:



So Gartner claims that social media rolled over last year and is steadily heading into a bearish phase. This will probably last about three to five years (personal estimate) during which many of the existing top dogs are going to find out the hard way that fucking with half your potential audience and censoring purported 'hate speech' is really bad for business as they're effectively penalizing their own product (which is us). With a bit of luck five years from now the likes of Fuckbook, Twiddler, Slutchat, Insta-attention-whore, etc. will be relics of the past.

Quote:Gartner Hype Cycle

Interpreting technology hype
When new technologies make bold promises, how do you discern the hype from what’s commercially viable? And when will such claims pay off, if at all? Gartner Hype Cycles provide a graphic representation of the maturity and adoption of technologies and applications, and how they are potentially relevant to solving real business problems and exploiting new opportunities. Gartner Hype Cycle methodology gives you a view of how a technology or application will evolve over time, providing a sound source of insight to manage its deployment within the context of your specific business goals.

How do you use Hype Cycles?

Clients use Hype Cycles to get educated about the promise of an emerging technology within the context of their industry and individual appetite for risk.

Should you make an early move? If you’re willing to combine risk-taking with an understanding that risky investments don’t always pay off, you could reap the rewards of early adoption.

Is a moderate approach appropriate? Executives who are more moderate understand the argument for an early investment but will also insist on a sound cost/benefit analysis when new ways of doing things are not yet fully proven.

Should you wait for further maturation? If there are too many unanswered questions around the commercial viability of an emerging technology, it may be better to wait until others have been able to deliver tangible value.

How do Hype Cycles work?

Each Hype Cycle drills down into the five key phases of a technology’s life cycle.

Innovation Trigger: A potential technology breakthrough kicks things off. Early proof-of-concept stories and media interest trigger significant publicity. Often no usable products exist and commercial viability is unproven.

Peak of Inflated Expectations: Early publicity produces a number of success stories — often accompanied by scores of failures. Some companies take action; many do not.

Trough of Disillusionment: Interest wanes as experiments and implementations fail to deliver. Producers of the technology shake out or fail. Investments continue only if the surviving providers improve their products to the satisfaction of early adopters.

Slope of Enlightenment: More instances of how the technology can benefit the enterprise start to crystallize and become more widely understood. Second- and third-generation products appear from technology providers. More enterprises fund pilots; conservative companies remain cautious.

Plateau of Productivity: Mainstream adoption starts to take off. Criteria for assessing provider viability are more clearly defined. The technology's broad market applicability and relevance are clearly paying off.

Hype Cycles help you:

* Separate hype from the real drivers of a technology’s commercial promise
* Reduce the risk of your technology investment decisions
* Compare your understanding of a technology’s business value with the objectivity of experienced IT analysts.

Post: #31

(09-14-2018 10:08 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 03:06 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I think at some point in the future, the next generation will look back on these forms of social media the way we look back on LSD experimentation in the 1960s. They'll think "How stupid can they have been? How naive?"

I've been waiting for rap to die since 1983.

Point being that it may be wishful thinking to predict that one day people will just abandon their behaviors. We may have passed through a permanent culture-change whether we like it or not. As someone entering my late 40s, I don't think I'll ever get used to a lot of aspects of today's culture. The social media addiction is really just one part of the larger suite of generation gap sensations. And this is coming from a technophile. I've always welcomed and incorporated new tech into my life. It's how it's changed culture that makes me uneasy.

You may just be right about that. I forgot that to teenagers it's all new.

To continue your rap analogy, I might be bored with the rap on the radio now, but the things rappers are saying now are a revelation to kids who never heard NWA, Biz Markie, or Kool Mo Dee.


***

All that said, how could you dismiss rap after 1983? The classic period was probably 1983-1993. There were scads of great albums and hits then. I still listen to some of it.

By the way, Slick Rick's "Treat Her Like a Prostitute" was probably my introduction to Red Pill thinking. At the time, you didn't get viewpoints like that anywhere else. It's from '88 and I still have the vinyl LP with the black DefJam label!