👁️ autosurveillant 👁️ @pee_zombie@schelling.pt
behold @chaosprime, the whimsical kafkatrap
---
RT @pee_zombie
@eggprophet sounds exactly like what a GNOME would say
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1400548427243610121?s=19
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1400548580943929344
we need some kind of catchy slogan, akin to the hippocratic oath, to represent a positive vision of opt-in capitalism
something like "First, deliver surplus value;"
the pendulum of the zeitgeist has swung too far from the Protestant work ethic; we need to bring that energy back
wtf i love DEI now 4 new days off a year for bullshit holidays fuck ye
first of all that's a hawk
secondly perhaps just universe is true
---
RT @ClemStalDim
WHAT THE FUCK NOOOOO
https://twitter.com/ClemStalDim/status/1399916533770379265
could one of you catgirl whisperers pls ask the feline bacchanal in my yard to take it down w notch, I'm trying to sleep
time will show us which epistemic system has greater utility; at the point where you rub against reality, being delusional will quite literally hurt you
in the meantime, what else can we do but build our own evidence-based consensus and stand strong against the times?
perhaps this explains the extreme politicization of science, the need to control the results which are allowed to be discussed, the questions which can be asked
in their view, science has no more claim on the Truth than they do, its but a power struggle
---
RT @pee_zombie
in their worldview, reasoning is merely a tool to be used to advance the correct agenda, that of social justice; as all else, it is subject to bias & power relations…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1399422522920259584
in that case, is it perhaps their "post-truth" non-materialism which is behind their rhetorical excesses, the desires for comprehensive social control, policing of thought & language? if there is no deeper truth but belief, then through language you can literally control reality
this is a fascinating pattern imo, which implies a human psychological need for a sort of "conservation of certainty"; the question is where it lies. if one believe in a deterministic, comprehensible universe, there is no need to artificially strengthen your statements.
contrast this linguistic mode w/ that of the scientifically-minded: "i believe that", "the evidence indicates"...
where a belief in an objective physical reality generates subjective speech, the belief in no objective reality generates objective speech!
---
RT @pee_zombie
this commonality stems from a belief in a knowable moral absolute, motivated by the perceived impossibility of a physical one
if there is no physical truth, social …
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1399422517366906881
ignoring the object-level content, consider the form of the language used: "has been changed", "okay to use", "safe"
this is very much in line with the general pattern of the far left viewing truth as wholly socially-constructed, allowing them to treat their consensus as fact
---
RT @RiverTamYDN
wut
https://twitter.com/RiverTamYDN/status/1399710744866852868
you are like little baby. watch this *teaches you deconstruction w/o checking your philosophical grounding*
---
RT @chaosprime
@NLRG_ what level of infohazard waiver are you at again
https://twitter.com/chaosprime/status/1399891371738161153
if I was walking in a minefield I would simply be very careful
---
RT @reduct_rs
‘Tech is A Merictocracy,’ Says Man Who Thinks You Can Write Safe C if You ‘Just Don't Write Bad Code’
https://twitter.com/reduct_rs/status/1399835185718435848
it's the little life in things (animism)
---
RT @sadalsvvd
it's the little things in life (viruses)
https://twitter.com/sadalsvvd/status/1399851180872843267
if you find this hard to believe, consider that there is an isomorphism between the dualistic models of code/data and agent/object, both of which lie at the heart of their fields' respective challenges. dualism is a useful but deeply flawed model, no matter where it is applied.
that was a bit unfair, but forgive me, I couldn't resist; I do so love mocking dualists. it's one of my many vices.
there are ways to avoid this failure mode, but instead of explaining, I'll direct you to the software architecture canon. it addressees this very problem in depth.
ofc, unless they've actively sought out the root causes (often cultural issues), they naturally replicate the same assumptions, ontological pathologies, & blind spots in the design of the shiny new cruft pile. and so, Cartesian dualism was inevitable for a Christian scholar.
one might compare his approach to the Big Rewrite antipattern infamous to software engineers, wherein a team, frustrated with the legacy pile of machinery they have inherited, effectively ragequit to build a shiny new pile, swearing to not make the mistakes of their forebearers
clearly, his project succeeded, leaving behind a rich intellectual legacy, but it was a rather... extreme approach. a binary one, splitting the world in two. a sort of dualism, one might say, even. you wouldn't be remiss to suggest his conclusions were a function of his process.
he built a sort of cognitive lean-to on this ground, to temporarily inhabit until such a time that he had reconstructed the cathedral of his mind brick by grounded brick; an axiom, a few simple logical rules, & the evidence of his senses; all thats needed to carry out his project
