recentpopularlog in

DasGeileNeueInternet

« earlier   
Film Critic Hulk: Don’t feed the trolls, and other hideous lies
Film Critic Hulk über den nicht vorhandenen Unterschied zwischen „Trolling“ aka Viraleffekte einkalkulierender Missbrauch aka die Vorläuferform von Stochastic Terrorism. Hervorhebungen von mir. Ich kenne ein paar Menschen, die sollten diesen Text sehr genau lesen und nur ein paar davon gelten öffentlich als Trolle.

Link: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17561768/dont-feed-the-trolls-online-harassment-abuse
The truth is that all trolling, whether we admit it or not, has a meaning and a target. You are inherently saying, “This subject is worthy of mockery,” which is exactly why John Oliver’s specific brand of trolling stunts have such laser-targeted focus. He takes on bureaucratic institutions, high-powered tyrants, homophobia, and social issues in an approach that embodies the very definition of “punch up” in comedy. It also reveals the core problem of trolling that so much of the online world wants to ignore. It is inherently an act of satire, something that comes with real targets and real responsibility. But the core intent of trolling is the opposite: it’s not just to provoke, but to <b>run away from the responsibility of the joke itself.</b>

A Twitter follower reminded me of a line in the famous parable from Bion of Borysthenes: “Boys throw stones at frogs in fun, but the frogs do not die in fun, but in earnest.” <b>Defenders of trolling insist it’s all just a joke, but if trolling is inherently designed to get a rise out of someone, then that’s what it really is. In many cases, it is designed to look and feel indistinguishable from a genuine attack. Whether you believe what you are saying or not is often immaterial because the impact is the same — and you are responsible for it, regardless of how funny you think it is.</b> It is a lesson kids learn time and time again on the playground, and yet, it is ridiculously difficult for people to accept the same basic notion in online culture, no matter their age. Why is that so? Because those are the social norms that develop when you create a culture where everything is supposed to be a joke.

It’s no accident that the corners of the internet that subscribe most deeply to this idea are also the most openly miserable. While some clearly use “joking” as a justification for abuse or even violent threats, there’s little larger comprehension or interest among huge swathes of internet culture about how satire, irony, or intent actually function, much less in the distinction between what they consider “trolling” and actual abuse.
ncn  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  Trolls  Violence 
yesterday by walt74
Laurie Penny: Peterson’s Complaint
Ich weiß weder, ob dieser Text von Laurie Penny ein Review von Petersons für mich irrelevantem Lebensratgeber sein soll, oder eine Anleitung zum Peterson-Ignore (wahrscheinlich letzteres). Aber ich finde in dem Text gemessen an seiner Länge bemerkenswert wenige tatsächliche Argumente und am Ende will sie einen Psychologie-Professor mit hunderten akademischen Zitierungen in das Reich der Fiktion verbannen.

Ein paar Punkte hat sie dann zwar doch im Mittelteil (Peterson spricht die Feels „weißer junger Männer“ an und so weiter), doch insgesamt finde ich auch hier keine wirklich valide Kritik und die Reduktion auf einen Carl-Jung-Rezitierer ist sowohl unehrlich als auch journalistisch unethisch. Hatte Laurie Penny besser in Erinnerung. Naja.

Link: https://longreads.com/2018/07/12/petersons-complaint/
nct  ncpin  JordanPeterson  DasGeileNeueInternet  Feminism 
yesterday by walt74
Quillette: I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me
Link: https://quillette.com/2018/07/14/i-was-the-mob-until-the-mob-came-for-me/

Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.

Just a few years ago, many of my friends and peers who self-identify as liberals or progressives were open fans of provocative standup comedians such as Sarah Silverman, and shows like South Park. Today, such material is seen as deeply “problematic,” or even labeled as hate speech. I went from minding my own business when people told risqué jokes to practically fainting when they used the wrong pronoun or expressed a right-of-center view. I went from making fun of the guy who took edgy jokes too seriously, to becoming that guy.

When my callouts were met with approval and admiration, I was lavished with praise: “Thank you so much for speaking out!” “You’re so brave!” “We need more men like you!”

Then one day, suddenly, I was accused of some of the very transgressions I’d called out in others. I was guilty, of course: There’s no such thing as due process in this world. And once judgment has been rendered against you, the mob starts combing through your past, looking for similar transgressions that might have been missed at the time. I was now told that I’d been creating a toxic environment for years at my workplace; that I’d been making the space around me unsafe through microaggressions and macroaggressions alike.

Social justice is a surveillance culture, a snitch culture.
nct  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  IlliberalLeft 
yesterday by walt74
Debattenkultur: Kühler Mut
Link: https://www.brandeins.de/magazine/brand-eins-wirtschaftsmagazin/2017/mut/kuehler-mut

Empörung macht alles gleich, das Falsche und das Gefährliche, die Existenzbedrohung und die Geschmacksfrage.

All das führt zu jener Überreizung, die die Grenzen immer mehr ins Irrationale verschiebt. Immer wenn die Empörungswelle abzuebben beginnt, kommt ein neuer Schub, ein neuer Anlass. Wie heißt es so schön: Nur weil ich paranoid bin, bedeutet das noch lange nicht, dass ich nicht verfolgt werde.
Alarm. Alarm.

Alle klingeln wie verrückt. Aber wer macht eigentlich die Feuerwehr? […]

Wer entscheiden will, muss Gleichmut leben. Wer richtig handeln will, muss Gelassenheit in sich tragen. „Selbst wenn die zerborstene Welt einstürzt, werden die Trümmer einen Furchtlosen treffen“, schreibt Horaz.

Das ist die Gegenthese zur Wut und zum Widerstand gegen alles, was man nicht leiden kann, der sich heute so wohlfeil in allen politischen Lagern und Lebenslagen aneignen lässt. Wer glaubt, Probleme dadurch lösen zu können, indem er sich – ohne großen Aufwand – zu den moralisch Bessergestellten gesellt und dort dann mit den Wölfen heult, handelt fahrlässig und falsch.

Es ist heute weitaus mutiger, zu den Gelassenen zu gehören als zu den Empörten. Es gehört keine Courage dazu, sich aufzuregen und „Nein!“ zu rufen – und dann nichts mehr zu tun. Furchtlos sind diejenigen, die sagen: Es muss uns was Besseres einfallen. Lasst uns nachdenken. Vor allen Dingen dann, wenn die Alternative, wie heute, keineswegs so klar ist. Nüchterner Optimismus verzagt nicht an der Zukunft.
nct  ncpin  Outrage  DasGeileNeueInternet  Debattenkultur 
yesterday by walt74
Der endlose Shitstorm
Link: https://www.salonkolumnisten.com/der-endlose-shitstorm/

Es gibt die Pflicht zur Menschenrettung, zu dieser „praktischen Intelligenz“, von der Böll sprach, aber nicht zu der Politik, die daraus als moralisch alternativlos abgeleitet wird. Man kann es bei Unterstützern, Aktivisten, Shitstormern allerorten lesen: Letztendlich geht es ihnen um eine multikulturelle Gesellschaft nach ihren Vorstellungen, um Postkolonialismus, Grenzenlosigkeit, Ablehnung des Nationalstaats und den Flüchtling als neues revolutionäres Subjekt. Ob die Migranten, Asylsuchenden und Flüchtlinge alle diese Ziele teilen? Oder wollen sie nicht viel lieber in ein wohlhabendes, freies, sicheres Europa, das ihnen und ihren Familien eine Zukunft bietet und kein gesellschaftspolitisches Experiment?

Das aber wirklich Deprimierende in der heutigen Situation ist jedoch nicht so sehr, dass da, wo Moral drauf steht, Politik drin ist – nein, diese Camouflage wird ohnehin keinen Erfolg haben. Das Problem ist, dass da, wo Politik drauf steht, nichts drin ist, gar nichts bislang: kein Masterplan für Afrika, kein Wille zur europäischen Einigung über die Verteilung von Flüchtlingen, keine Initiative und kein Gesetz für legale Wege der Einwanderung. Es würde sicher einen Schub geben, wenn die Shitstormer in Zukunft nicht mehr die moralische Entrüstung als zweckhaften Hebel zur Beendigung von Diskussionen ansetzten, sondern wenn auch sie Vorschläge machten für mehrheitsfähige, also realistische politische Lösungen.
Refugees  Immigration  Journalism  Outrage  OutrageMemetics  DasGeileNeueInternet  Media  nct  ncpin 
yesterday by walt74
Complicating the Narratives: „Complexity is contagious“
Link: https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63
Researchers have a name for the kind of divide America is currently experiencing. They call this an “intractable conflict,” as social psychologist Peter T. Coleman describes in his book The Five Percent, and it’s very similar to the kind of wicked feuds that emerge in about one out of every 20 conflicts worldwide. In this dynamic, people’s encounters with the other tribe (political, religious, ethnic, racial or otherwise) become more and more charged. And the brain behaves differently in charged interactions. It’s impossible to feel curious, for example, while also feeling threatened.

In this hypervigilant state, we feel an involuntary need to defend our side and attack the other. That anxiety renders us immune to new information. In other words: no amount of investigative reporting or leaked documents will change our mind, no matter what.

Intractable conflicts feed upon themselves. The more we try to stop the conflict, the worse it gets. These feuds “seem to have a power of their own that is inexplicable and total, driving people and groups to act in ways that go against their best interests and sow the seeds of their ruin,” Coleman writes. “We often think we understand these conflicts and can choose how to react to them, that we have options. We are usually mistaken, however.”

Once we get drawn in, the conflict takes control. Complexity collapses, and the us-versus-them narrative sucks the oxygen from the room. “Over time, people grow increasingly certain of the obvious rightness of their views and increasingly baffled by what seems like unreasonable, malicious, extreme or crazy beliefs and actions of others,” according to training literature from Resetting the Table, an organization that helps people talk across profound differences in the Middle East and the U.S.

The cost of intractable conflict is also predictable. “[E]veryone loses,” writes Resetting the Table’s co-founder Eyal Rabinovitch. “Such conflicts undermine the dignity and integrity of all involved and stand as obstacles to creative thinking and wise solutions.”

There are ways to disrupt an intractable conflict, as history bears out. Over decades of work, in laboratories and on the margins of battlefields, scholars like Coleman, Rabinovitch and others have identified dozens of ways to break out of the trap, some of which are directly relevant to journalists. […]

The Conversation Whisperer

In a hard-to-find windowless room at Columbia University, there is something called a Difficult Conversations Laboratory. Coleman and colleagues use the lab to study real-life conflict in a controlled setting, inspired in part by the Love Lab in Seattle (where psychologists Julie and John Gottman have famously studied thousands of married couples for many years). […]

Over time, the researchers noticed a key difference between the terrible and non-terrible conversations: The better conversations looked like a constellation of feelings and points, rather than a tug of war. They were more complex.

But could that complexity be artificially induced? Was there a way to cultivate better conversations? To find out, the researchers started giving the participants something to read before they met — a short article on another polarizing issue. One version of the article laid out both sides of a given controversy, similar to a traditional news story — arguing the case in favor of gun rights, for example, followed by the case for gun control.

The alternate version contained all the same information — written in a different way. That article emphasized the complexity of the gun debate, rather than describing it as a binary issue. So the author explained many different points of view, with more nuance and compassion. It read less like a lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes.

After reading the article, the two participants met to discuss Middle East peace — or another unrelated controversy. It turns out that the pre-conversation reading mattered: in the difficult conversations that followed, people who had read the more simplistic article tended to get stuck in negativity. But those who had read the more complex articles did not. They asked more questions, proposed higher quality ideas and left the lab more satisfied with their conversations. “They don’t solve the debate,” Coleman says, “but they do have a more nuanced understanding and more willingness to continue the conversation.” Complexity is contagious, it turns out, which is wonderful news for humanity. […]

The idea is to revive complexity in a time of false simplicity. “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete,” novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie says in her mesmerizing TED Talk “A Single Story.” “[I]t’s impossible to engage properly with a place or a person without engaging with all of the stories of that place and that person.”

Usually, reporters do the opposite. We cut the quotes that don’t fit our narrative. Or our editor cuts them for us. We look for coherence, which is tidy — and natural. The problem is that, in a time of high conflict, coherence is bad journalism, bordering on malpractice.

In the midst of conflict, our audiences are profoundly uncomfortable, and they want to feel better. “The natural human tendency is to reduce that tension,” Coleman writes, “by seeking coherence through simplification.” Tidy narratives succumb to this urge to simplify, gently warping reality until one side looks good and the other looks evil. We soothe ourselves with the knowledge that all Republicans are racist rednecks — or all Democrats are precious snowflakes who hate America.

Complexity counters this craving, restoring the cracks and inconsistencies that had been air-brushed out of the picture. It’s less comforting, yes. But it’s also more interesting — and true.
nct  ncpin  Outrage  OutrageMemetics  Complexity  Journalism  Media  Storytelling  DasGeileNeueInternet 
6 days ago by walt74
Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University
Link: https://quillette.com/2018/07/02/through-the-looking-glass-at-concordia-university/

What I am providing here are small glimpses into what my existence at Concordia was like. My first, grueling year of graduate school was not marked by a solitary dramatic event. It was a sequence, a pattern, what I eventually realized was an epidemic. In almost every class, I found myself brushing up against what I had come to think of as the moral gatekeepers of the academy. By acting, or failing to act, by sustaining an arena where students—young, unformed, knowing not what they do—were encouraged to run wild and roughshod over all standards of fairness, openness, and intellectual inquiry, the professors had allowed the institution to transform into something of a madhouse. Select identities, authors, voices, words, and thoughts were permitted at the table; the rest were cast out or barred, without question, as though everything had already been decided. Any pursuit of truth, or dialectic of ideas, was cut off at the knees before it even got started, as the participants expended their energies policing language and asserting their moral virtue. It didn’t even matter if the students making the complaints were in the minority—all it took was one. Instead of a widening of horizons at university, I experienced there a strange sort of thinning, a constriction of the known world and all of reality into a single, narrow, idiosyncratic and firmly imposed set of perceptions and thoughts, an orthodoxy, a faith.

The academy, it seems to me now, has reverted in some ways to its old role as a religious institute, as in the days before Newton, a place of enforced consensus and theological purity. Percy Shelley was famously expelled from Oxford for atheism, for daring to question the orthodoxy of the University, and I see no evidence that he would fare much better today.

For readers, Alice’s journey in Wonderland is amusing. But to be Alice is something altogether different. The experience is hard to pin down with words. With few exceptions, no one on campus is officially censored. But the culture itself exerts power. One feels constantly judged. One is always on-edge. To perceive nuance, to be skeptical, to ask questions, gets one quickly accused of moral deficiency. The students are zealous, the professors often unprepared, fearful, or complicit.
nct  ncpin  CampusPolitics  IlliberalLeft  PoliticalCorrectness  DasGeileNeueInternet 
7 days ago by walt74
We Are All Public Figures Now
Ella Dawson über eine der creepiest Viral-Storys 2018: https://elladawson.com/2018/07/08/we-are-all-public-figures-now/

Gibts auch als Sort-Of-Kurzversion in <a href="https://twitter.com/MinovskyArticle/status/1014584128530997249">diesem Twitter-Thread</a>: „This is being shared around like it’s cute, but in reality it’s the kind of invasive nightmare that makes you want to become a hermit.“
The woman on the plane is unaware that the woman sitting in the row behind her is watching and recording her every move. Rosey Blair, the stranger she helped sit beside her boyfriend, is projecting a story on top of her interactions that soon takes the internet by storm. Her detailed breakdown of their conversation and body language racks up hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. Blair herself begins to accumulate thousands of new Twitter followers.

Not long after the plane touches down in Texas, the hordes of strangers following Blair’s tweets are eager to discover the identities of the personal trainers from Dallas. A hunt begins to find her Instagram account. Later the man, her seatmate Euan Holden, participates in the growing media circus because he also gains a ton of twitter followers, or because it helps his career, or because it’s fun, or because it’s just too late to go back to the anonymity of before. […]

the media industry wants to broaden our definition of the public so that it will be fair game for discussion and content creation, meaning they can create more articles and videos, meaning they can sell more ads. The tech industry wants everything to be public because coding for privacy is difficult, and because our data, if public, is something they can sell. Our policy makers have failed to define what’s public in this digital age because, well, they don’t understand it and wouldn’t know where to begin. And also, because lobbyists don’t want them to.

I think a lot about us, the normal ones, the average citizens. The idea that our privacy is in jeopardy is a relatively new concept, born from the 2016 election and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. There’s growing awareness of just how much of our private lives we’ve ceded to Facebook. But even now, most of us feel safe online, because what do we have to hide? Who would care what we have to say? Who is watching us? What’s the worst that could happen? […]

A woman boarded a plane in New York and stepped off that plane in Dallas. She chatted with a stranger, showed him some family photos, brushed his elbow with her own. She wore a baseball cap over her face and followed him back on Instagram. At no point did she agree to participate in the story Rosey Blair was telling. After the fact, when the hunt began and the woman took no part in encouraging it the way Holden did, Blair tweeted a video in which she drawled, “We don’t have the gal’s permish yet, not yet y’all, but I’m sure you guys are sneaky, you guys might…”

Blair’s followers were sneaky. They did as they were told and immediately replied with screenshots of the woman’s Instagram account. They shared links.

When people called Blair out for this blatant invasion of privacy, she blocked them. Because she, apparently, could control her own boundaries. Later she tweeted about wanting a job at BuzzFeed.

I don’t know what the woman on the plane is thinking or feeling. I don’t know if she’s afraid or angry or mildly amused but inconvenienced. But I know how it feels to see strangers scrawling obscenities in a space you once considered safe, commenting alongside your friends and family members. I know the sour humiliation of knowing everyone in your life can see that strangers have written about you—your parents, your coworkers, your exes.

Even when the attention is positive, it is overwhelming and frightening. Your mind reels at the possibility of what they could find: your address, if your voting records are logged online; your cellphone number, if you accidentally included it on a form somewhere; your unflattering selfies at the beginning of your Facebook photo archive. There are hundreds of Facebook friend requests, press requests from journalists in your Instagram inbox, even people contacting your employer when they can’t reach you directly. This story you didn’t choose becomes the main story of your life. It replaces who you really are as the narrative someone else has written is tattooed onto your skin.

There is no opting-in, no consent form, no opportunity to take it all back. It feels like you are drowning as everyone on the beach applauds your swimming prowess. You are relevant, and that is the best thing you can be in this new world. What do you have to complain about? Why wouldn’t you want this?

What Blair did and continues to do as she stokes the flames of this story despite knowing this woman wants no part of it goes beyond intrusive. It is selfish, disrespectful harassment. The violation of this woman’s privacy is less important than Blair’s growing platform and ambition. It is not a romantic comedy for the digital age, it is an act of dehumanization. It is a taking of someone else’s identity and privacy for your own purposes. That this is happening online makes it more, not less serious—its impact is instant, and anyone can join in the fun.
nct  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  Privacy  Memetics  Viral 
7 days ago by walt74
The Left's Mischaracterizations of Jordan Peterson Will Make His Followers Turn Right
Link: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/07/09/28930684/the-lefts-mischaracterizations-of-jordan-peterson-will-make-his-followers-turn-right

This morning, for instance, I was engaged in a stupid Twitter fight with a media person in LA, who claims that Peterson is racist. When I asked for evidence, she sent me a link to a 2016 tweet that was taken wildly out of context. She also sent a screenshot of a Vox article that said Peterson “referred to developing nations as 'pits of catastrophe' in a speech to a Dutch far-right group.” In fact, the Dutch “far-right group” he was speaking to was actually a conference in which both conservatives and progressives were invited to attend and debate immigration and Dutch culture, although apparently not many progressives actually showed up.

At the conference, Peterson said: “When we insist that the immigrants who come to our countries, to become beneficiaries of the game that we're playing, follow the rules, we are not merely saying; 'we have a culture, you have a culture, you're in our culture, so you should follow our rules', what we're saying instead is: 'We have inherited a culture and it seems to work. It works well enough so that we're happy to be here, and many people would like to be, and if you want to come to our culture and be a beneficiary of the game, then you have to abide by the rules that produce the game. We're not saying that you have to do it because it's ours, or because we're proud of it, or because in some sense we're right as individuals, or even as a culture. We're saying it because we've been fortunate enough to observe what the rules that make a functioning society actually are, and sensible enough, thank God, most of the time, to follow them well enough so that there are a few countries on the planet that aren't absolute pits of catastrophe.'"

Referring to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” may be insensitive at best, Trumpian at worst, but it’s also true that developing nations do have more than their fair share of “catastrophe,” both natural and man-made (including from colonialism and Western intervention itself). Peterson’s statement may be pro-assimilation, but he’s not saying that any one culture or society is inherently better than any other. He’s saying, if you join a new community, play by that community’s rules because they probably work. Is that really grounds to scream “racist”? In 2018, I suppose, yes.
IlliberalLeft  JordanPeterson  nct  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet 
7 days ago by walt74
Douglas Rushkoff: Survival of the Richest
Link: https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
Last year, I got invited to a super-deluxe private resort to deliver a keynote speech to what I assumed would be a hundred or so investment bankers. It was by far the largest fee I had ever been offered for a talk — about half my annual professor’s salary — all to deliver some insight on the subject of “the future of technology.” […] After I arrived, I was ushered into what I thought was the green room. But instead of being wired with a microphone or taken to a stage, I just sat there at a plain round table as my audience was brought to me: five super-wealthy guys — yes, all men — from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world. After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology. They had come with questions of their own. […]

“How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”

The Event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down.

This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.

That’s when it hit me: At least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology. Taking their cue from Elon Musk colonizing Mars, Peter Thiel reversing the aging process, or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had a whole lot less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether and insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape. […]

Digital futures became understood more like stock futures or cotton futures — something to predict and make bets on. So nearly every speech, article, study, documentary, or white paper was seen as relevant only insofar as it pointed to a ticker symbol. The future became less a thing we create through our present-day choices or hopes for humankind than a predestined scenario we bet on with our venture capital but arrive at passively.

This freed everyone from the moral implications of their activities. Technology development became less a story of collective flourishing than personal survival. Worse, as I learned, to call attention to any of this was to unintentionally cast oneself as an enemy of the market or an anti-technology curmudgeon. […]

Our movies and television shows play out these fantasies for us. Zombie shows depict a post-apocalypse where people are no better than the undead — and seem to know it. Worse, these shows invite viewers to imagine the future as a zero-sum battle between the remaining humans, where one group’s survival is dependent on another one’s demise. Even Westworld — based on a science-fiction novel where robots run amok — ended its second season with the ultimate reveal: Human beings are simpler and more predictable than the artificial intelligences we create. The robots learn that each of us can be reduced to just a few lines of code, and that we’re incapable of making any willful choices. Heck, even the robots in that show want to escape the confines of their bodies and spend their rest of their lives in a computer simulation.

The mental gymnastics required for such a profound role reversal between humans and machines all depend on the underlying assumption that humans suck. Let’s either change them or get away from them, forever.

Thus, we get tech billionaires launching electric cars into space — as if this symbolizes something more than one billionaire’s capacity for corporate promotion. And if a few people do reach escape velocity and somehow survive in a bubble on Mars — despite our inability to maintain such a bubble even here on Earth in either of two multibillion-dollar Biosphere trials — the result will be less a continuation of the human diaspora than a lifeboat for the elite.

When the hedge funders asked me the best way to maintain authority over their security forces after “the event,” I suggested that their best bet would be to treat those people really well, right now. They should be engaging with their security staffs as if they were members of their own family. And the more they can expand this ethos of inclusivity to the rest of their business practices, supply chain management, sustainability efforts, and wealth distribution, the less chance there will be of an “event” in the first place. All this technological wizardry could be applied toward less romantic but entirely more collective interests right now.

They were amused by my optimism, but they didn’t really buy it. They were not interested in how to avoid a calamity; they’re convinced we are too far gone. For all their wealth and power, they don’t believe they can affect the future. They are simply accepting the darkest of all scenarios and then bringing whatever money and technology they can employ to insulate themselves — especially if they can’t get a seat on the rocket to Mars.

Luckily, those of us without the funding to consider disowning our own humanity have much better options available to us. We don’t have to use technology in such antisocial, atomizing ways. We can become the individual consumers and profiles that our devices and platforms want us to be, or we can remember that the truly evolved human doesn’t go it alone.

Being human is not about individual survival or escape. It’s a team sport. Whatever future humans have, it will be together.
nct  ncpin  Psychology  Economy  Finance  Bankster  DasGeileNeueInternet  Luxury 
11 days ago by walt74
Diskriminierungen: Die Politisierung der Tränendrüse
Im Kontext struktureller Gewalt bedeutet Schuld nicht, Privilegien innezuhaben, sondern diese nicht zu reflektieren. Ein weißer Mann, wie er auch von Neft angeführt wird, ist selbstverständlich nicht sofort Täter oder Mittäter, nur weil er ein weißer Mann ist. Hört er aber jenen, die keine weißen Männer sind, nicht zu, und denkt nicht darüber nach, was es wohl gesellschaftlich bedeutet, ein weißer Mann zu sein, stabilisiert er ein System, das anderen schadet. Kein einzelner Mensch trägt kausale Schuld an systemischem und strukturellem Unrecht. Wer sich aber weigert, sich als Teil einer historisch gewachsenen gesellschaftlichen Struktur zu sehen, die eben nicht von Gott oder der Natur gegeben ist, der trägt die moralische Schuld, Unrecht nicht anerkannt und nichts dagegen getan zu haben. […]

Nicht der Kampf gegen Pluralismus, sondern eine solidarische Haltung auch mit Menschen, die man als anders wahrnimmt, stärkt eine Gesellschaft. Man kann natürlich beweinen, dass es nicht ausreicht, für andere zu sprechen, auch wenn man noch so gute Absichten hat. Menschen möchten explizit mitwirken und für sich selbst sprechen – was bedeutet, dass man gewisse überkommene Strukturen schlicht loslassen und sich selbst auch mal zurücknehmen muss. Nur, weil strukturell Privilegierte die medienwirksame Politisierung der Tränendrüse für sich entdeckt haben, bedeutet das nicht, dass damit nun alle Individuen und Gruppen marginalisiert sind.


Link: https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2018-06/diskriminierungen-opfer-taeter-politisierung-opferkultur-gewalt/komplettansicht
DasGeileNeueInternet  nct  ncpin  IdentityPolitics  Feminism  Left 
12 days ago by walt74
Ukip's new guard: web agitators threaten to swamp struggling party
Die Mitterechts-Youtube-Prominenz und 1 Troll wollen UKIP „übernehmen“. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/29/ukips-new-guard-web-agitators-threaten-to-swamp-struggling-party
The best-known new arrival is Paul Joseph Watson, who has 1.2m YouTube subscribers. Calling himself a small-government libertarian, Watson works for Infowars, the US conspiracy theory website that has claimed the Sandy Hook primary school shooting was a hoax.

Another is Carl Benjamin, who posts videos as Sargon of Akkad and has attracted condemnation for alleged misogyny – he described some of Harvey Weinstein’s victims as “gold-digging whores” – and taunts about rape on Twitter, from which he is banned.

Finally there is Mark Meechan, on YouTube as Count Dankula. A self-styled comedian, he is best known for being fined £800 after he posted a video of his girlfriend’s pug raising its paw in response to comments such as “gas the Jews”.

Ukip has confirmed all three have been accepted into the party. Another online activist, the , has applied for membership but it remains unknown if this will be approved.

The group’s motives remain unclear, and are partly based on a joke. Meechan began the process by pledging to join if a tweet was retweeted 10,000 times, while Benjamin posted a video saying he was doing so “for the bantz”. But they have pledged to take the party over, with 1,000 new members arriving in their wake, according to Ukip sources.
ncpin  nct  DasGeileNeueInternet  Youtube  SocialMedia  Trolls  Politics  Right  AltRight  Brexit 
13 days ago by walt74
Meedia: Die Probleme mit dem Echtzeit-Journalismus: Was Medien aus der CSU-Chaosnacht lernen können
Medien behelfen sich bei der Berichterstattung über ungelegte Eier gerne und immer häufiger mit Rückversicherungs-Begriffen wie “offenbar”, “mutmaßlich” oder Konjunktiv-Konstruktionen (s.o.). Bei allem, was man nicht genau weiß oder was noch gar nicht klar sein kann, wird ein “offenbar” eingestreut und schon ist man als Berichterstatter vermeintlich aus dem Schneider: “Seehofer offenbar zurückgetreten”. Tritt er dann doch nicht zurück, kann man sagen: Ich hatte ja “offenbar” gesagt. Das “offenbar” wird hier im Sinne von “angeblich” verwendet und soll bedeuten, dass man es nicht so genau weiß, sondern lediglich gehört oder woanders gelesen hat. “Offenbar” ist eines der augenfälligsten Symptome des grassierenden Hörensagen-Journalismus. Dabei ist “offenbar” vom Wortsinn her eigentlich ein Synonym für “offensichtlich”, wird aber in den Medien in diesem eigentlichen Sinn kaum verwendet. Eine ähnlich fatale Karriere, vielleicht sogar eine noch fatalere, hat das Wort “mutmaßlich” gemacht. Der “mutmaßliche” Mörder, der “mutmaßliche” Attentäter. Das “mutmaßlich” wird vom Publikum in der Regel überlesen oder nicht für voll genommen. Das mag auch daran liegen, dass Redaktionen wie die Bild bei ihrer Titelgestaltung das “mutmaßlich” so winzig klein in die große “Mörder”-Zeile reinquetschen, dass man es leicht übersehen kann. Es scheint eine unausgesprochene Übereinkunft zwischen einigen Medien und Teilen des Publikums zu geben: Das “mutmaßlich” und “offenbar” schreiben wir zwar rein, aber richtig ernst nehmen muss man es nicht. Wird schon stimmen. Hinterher – falls es doch nicht gestimmt hat – kann man sich dann aber damit rechtfertigen: Wir hatten ja “mutmaßlich” geschrieben. […]

Bei den beschriebenen Phänomenen machen die Medien und Journalisten nichts falsch. Es werden keine “Fake-News” verbreitet oder handwerkliche Fehler gemacht. Die Probleme sind sozusagen die natürlichen Auswirkungen der Möglichkeiten von Internet und vor allem von Social Media auf den Journalismus. […]

Man kann den einzelnen Journalisten dabei aber keine Vorwürfe machen, dass sie “heiße News” direkt aus der Vorstandssitzung via Twitter direkt weitergeben. Ebenso wollen Journalisten schnell auch eine Meinung, eine Einordnung liefern. Dass dies im Getümmel der sich noch entwickelnden Lage schlicht kaum möglich ist, ist im Mediensystem (noch) nicht vorgesehen. Die Redaktionsleitung, das Publikum, das eigene Selbstverständnis bringen Journalisten dazu zu handeln, wie sie es gewohnt sind.

Und wenn man selbst die Werkzeuge für den Instant-Journalismus nicht nutzen würde – die Konkurrenz würde es tun. Nicht zu berichten, wäre also auch keine Lösung.


Link: https://meedia.de/2018/07/02/die-probleme-mit-dem-echtzeit-journalismus-was-medien-aus-der-csu-chaosnacht-lernen-koennen/
nct  ncpin  Journalism  Media  DasGeileNeueInternet 
14 days ago by walt74
Studie: Radikale Islamisten sind gemäßigter als Nazis
Welt.de: <a href="https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article178494258/Radikalisierung-Studie-entdeckt-Gemeinsamkeiten-zwischen-Islamisten-und-Neonazis.html">Studie entdeckt Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Islamisten und Neonazis</a>: „Für eine Studie wurden zwischen 2013 und 2017 mehr als 10.000 extremistische Posts in sozialen Medien untersucht. Das Ergebnis: Islamisten und Neonazis haben viel gemeinsam. Allerdings sei die Rhetorik der Islamisten 'deutlich gemäßigter'.“

Hier die Studie: <a href="http://www.ufuq.de/hassliebe-muslimfeindlichkeit-islamismus-und-die-spirale-gesellschaftlicher-polarisierung/">Hassliebe: Muslimfeindlichkeit, Islamismus und die Spirale gesellschaftlicher Polarisierung</a> (Forschungsbericht des Instituts für Demokratie und Zivilgesellschaft und dem Institute for Strategic Dialogue // Maik Fielitz, Julia Ebner, Jakob Guhl, Matthias Quent, Jena/London/Berlin 2018)
ncn  ncpin  Nazis  Islam  Outrage  DasGeileNeueInternet 
15 days ago by walt74
Jordan Peterson: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6H2HmKDbZA

From the Aspen Ideas Festival, recorded Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Jordan Peterson, author of the best-selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, may be one of the most famous intellectuals in North America today. He also may be among the most misunderstood. His fans say that he’s saved their lives, and detractors say that he’s the gateway drug to the alt-right. Who is this psychologist-philosopher whom so many of us had never heard of two years ago, and what does he really believe?

Featuring Jordan Peterson in conversation with Bari Weiss. Hosted in the St. Regis Hotel Ballroom, Aspen, Colorado.
ncpin  ncv  JordanPeterson  DasGeileNeueInternet  IlliberalLeft  Psychology  Lectures 
15 days ago by walt74
Droht uns die postfaktische Demokratie? Vincent Hendricks auf der Phil.Cologne
"Fake News" – spätestens seit Trump ist klar, dass wir um dieses Phänomen nicht mehr herumkommen. Aber was unterscheidet digitale Fake News von klassischen Falschnachrichten? Und was bedeutet ihre Ausbreitung für die Demokratie? Diesen Fragen geht der dänische Philosoph Vincent F. Hendricks nach, der sich dezidiert als engagierter Intellektueller versteht und letzte Woche auf der "phil.cologne" in Köln zu Gast war. Andrej Klahn stellt ihn uns vor.

MP3: https://podcast-mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2018/06/10/droht_uns_die_postfaktische_demokratie_vincent_hendricks_drk_20180610_1345_70e7d1f7.mp3

[audio src="https://podcast-mp3.dradio.de/podcast/2018/06/10/droht_uns_die_postfaktische_demokratie_vincent_hendricks_drk_20180610_1345_70e7d1f7.mp3"]
nca  ncpin  Podcasts  PostTruth  Media  Philosophy  DasGeileNeueInternet 
16 days ago by walt74
Understanding Victimhood Culture: An Interview with Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning
In dignity cultures, there is a low sensitivity to slight. People are more tolerant of insult and disagreement. Children might be taught some variant of “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” It’s good to have “thick skin,” and people might be criticized for being too touchy and overreacting to slights. If the issue in the conflict is something more than a slight or insult — say, a violent assault — you’re to handle the matter through appeal to authorities such as the legal system. Taking the law into your own hands with violent vengeance is itself a serious crime and generally looked down upon.

In honor cultures, there’s a much greater sensitivity to slight. Insults demand a serious response, and even accidental slights might provoke severe conflict. Having a low tolerance for offense is more likely to be seen as a virtue than a vice. Letting yourself be slighted without seeking justice is shameful. And seeking justice is more likely to take the form of violent vengeance. Appealing to authorities is more stigmatized than taking matters into your own hands.

These two kinds of cultures emphasize different sources of moral status or worth. Honor is one’s status in the eyes of other people. It depends on reputation. And while a lot of things might go into making this reputation, the core of classical honor is physical bravery. Tolerating slights is shameful because you let someone put you down without defending your reputation by force. It suggests cowardice. Appealing to the authorities is shameful for the same reason. Virtue means being bold and forceful, aggressively defending your reputation against any challenges, and being vigilant for signs that someone else is probing you for weakness.

Dignity is a kind of inherent and inalienable moral worth. It doesn’t depend on your standing in the eyes of other people. A dignity culture emphasizes that all people have this sort of worth, which can’t be taken away. It’s why an insult can’t devalue you. If anything, overreacting to an offense is unseemly because it suggests you’re not confident in your worth and need to take other people’s opinions so seriously. Virtue isn’t being bold, touchy, and aggressive, but restrained, prudent, and quietly self-assured.

What we call victimhood culture combines some aspects of honor and dignity. People in a victimhood culture are like the honorable in having a high sensitivity to slight. They’re quite touchy, and always vigilant for offenses. Insults are serious business, and even unintentional slights might provoke a severe conflict. But, as in a dignity culture, people generally eschew violent vengeance in favor of relying on some authority figure or other third party. They complain to the law, to the human resources department at their corporation, to the administration at their university, or — possibly as a strategy of getting attention from one of the former — to the public at large.

The combination of high sensitivity with dependence on others encourages people to emphasize or exaggerate the severity of offenses. There’s a corresponding tendency to emphasize one’s degree of victimization, one’s vulnerability to harm, and one’s need for assistance and protection. People who air grievances are likely to appeal to such concepts as disadvantage, marginality, or trauma, while casting the conflict as a matter of oppression.

The result is that this culture also emphasizes a particular source of moral worth: victimhood. Victim identities are deserving of special care and deference. Contrariwise, the privileged are morally suspect if not deserving of outright contempt. Privilege is to victimhood as cowardice is to honor.


Link: https://quillette.com/2018/05/17/understanding-victimhood-culture-interview-bradley-campbell-jason-manning/
nct  ncpin  VictimhoodCulture  OppressionOlympics  Feminism  IlliberalLeft  DasGeileNeueInternet  Soziologie 
16 days ago by walt74
The Evils of Cultural Appropriation
One might make the case that while complaints about cultural appropriation are annoying, they are ultimately harmless. What is the harm in showing deference to peoples who have historically been the victims of exploitation, discrimination, and unfair treatment? What is the harm in showing respect and compliance with these new rules—isn’t it a way of making up for past sins?

The short answer to these questions is, no. The notion that a person can be held as responsible for actions that he or she did not commit strikes at the very heart of our conception of human rights and justice.

We used to take calls for collective punishment much more seriously. In the 1949 Geneva Convention it was determined that: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.” Collective punishment was seen as a tactic designed to intimidate and subdue an entire population. The drafters of the Geneva Convention clearly had in mind the atrocities committed in WWI and WWII where entire villages and communities suffered mass retribution for the resistance activities of a few. In their commentary on the outlawing of collective punishment the International Red Cross stated: “A great step forward has been taken. Responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons who have themselves not committed the acts complained of.”

In times of peace, collective punishment may come in the form of social media dust-ups over sombrero hats or Chinese dresses. Gradual softening on the taboo of collective punishment does not bode well for the health of liberal democracies. Which is also why it is important for us all to remember that social-justice activists who complain about cultural appropriation only represent themselves, and not the minority groups to which they belong.


Link: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/263933/cultural-appropriation
DasGeileNeueInternet  CulturalAppropriation  ncpin  nct  CollectiveGuilt  GuiltByAssociation  IlliberalLeft 
16 days ago by walt74
James Bridle on Known Unknowns
Another excerpt from Sam Bridles book <em>New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future</em> about „Known Unknowns“: https://harpers.org/archive/2018/07/known-unknowns/
Amazon-Partnerlink: https://amzn.to/2tSJnve
Machines are reaching further into their own imaginary spaces, to places we cannot follow. After the activation of Google Translate’s neural network, researchers realized that the system was capable of translating not merely between languages but across them. For example, a network trained on Japanese–En­glish and En­glish–Korean text is capable of generating Japanese–Korean translations without ever passing through En­glish. This is called zero-shot translation, and it implies the existence of an interlingual representation: a metalanguage known only to the computer.

In 2016 a pair of researchers at Google Brain decided to see whether neural networks could develop cryptography. Their experiment was modeled on the use of an adversary, an increasingly common component of neural network designs wherein two competing elements attempt to outperform and outguess each other, driving further improvement. The researchers set up three networks called, in the tradition of cryptographic experiments, Alice, Bob, and Eve. Their task was to learn how to encrypt information. Alice and Bob both knew a number—a key, in cryptographic terms—that was unknown to Eve. Alice would perform some operation on a string of text and send it to Bob and Eve. If Bob could decode the message, Alice’s score increased, but if Eve could also decode it, Alice’s score decreased. Over thousands of iterations, Alice and Bob learned to communicate without Eve cracking their code; they developed a private form of encryption like that used in emails today. But as with the other neural networks we’ve seen, we can’t fully understand how this encryption works. What is hidden from Eve is also hidden from us. The machines are learning to keep their secrets.

Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics, formulated in the Forties, state that a robot may not injure a human being or allow a human being to come to harm, that a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, and that a robot must protect its own existence. To these we might consider adding a fourth: a robot—or any intelligent machine—must be able to explain itself to humans. Such a law must intervene before the others. Given that it has, by our own design, already been broken, so will the others. We face a world, not in the future but today, where we do not understand our own creations. The result of such opacity is always and inevitably violence.
ncn  ncpin  DasGeileNeueInternet  AI  Tech  Books 
16 days ago by walt74
Inquisitorischer Wahn / Greiser Horizont
Jürgen Roth über die Entlassung des Karikaturisten Hanitzsch: https://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/inquisitorischer-wahn
Satire, Komik, gelungene, auch „das Stiefkind unserer Kultur, die komische Zeichnung“ (Gernhardt), ist dann lustig, wenn sie Lust erregt. Die Lust speist sich aus der Verzerrung, Übertreibung, Maßlosigkeit, Bodenlosigkeit, Blasphemie, Renitenz. Sie ist realitätstranszendierend triebhaft und daher antiautoritär, ab und an, wie es Gernhardt anhand von Wilhelm Busch erläuterte, herzlos und kaltblütig und boshaft. Sie ist asozial, weil normverletzend, abstoßend, weil in den Augen der Status-quo-Bewahrer schmutzig, subversiv. Der SZ-Feuilletonchef Andrian Kreye soll gefordert haben, bei „Karikaturen künftig ganz auf das Stilmittel der Überzeichnung zu verzichten, um solche rassistischen Stereotype zu vermeiden“, liest man nach den Hanitzsch-Turbulenzen. Nähme man Kreye beim Wort, wäre die komische Kunst in jeglicher Spielart aus der Welt, für immer.


Sophie Passmann über dasselbe Thema: https://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/greiser-horizont
Satiriker dürfen heutzutage immer noch genauso viel sagen, belächeln und bewitzeln wie früher, die Menge an anständigen Aussagen ist gleich groß geblieben. Aussagen, die heute unanständig sind, waren es auch früher schon, nur wurden die, die unter der Anstandlosigkeit litten, damals schlicht nicht beachtet. Wer Angst hat, Witze zu machen, weil er anderen auf die Füße treten könnte, leidet nicht unter den Füßen der anderen, sondern unter der eigenen Tollpatschigkeit. Man darf alles sagen in Deutschland, die einzige Frage ist, ob man es sagen will.


Beide Texte treffen ihr Ziel durchaus, auch wenn das meines Erachtens eigentliche Problem der Illiberalen Linken mit Kunstfreiheit vor allem mit einer Überbewertung von Repräsentation und Abwertung von Abstraktion zu liegen scheint: Intersektionalität, also die addierende Diskriminierung aufgrund von Identitätsmerkmalen und die daraus folgende Rücksichtnahme, landet am Ende immer beim Individuum, der kleinstmöglichen Identitätseinheit, die nicht weiter abstrahiert werden kann.

Das Ergebnis dieses Prozesses sind dann beispielsweise ernsthaft Diskussionen über die „unnatürliche“ Körperhaltung von Spider-Woman in Comics oder eben Diskussionen um überzeichnete Präsidenten von Israel. Die Illiberale Linke trifft in ihrem Wahn, jedes Individuum einen Repräsentationsrahmen zu schaffen, auf die Grenzen der Abstraktion und Kategorisierung, womit wir dann auch bei elementarsten Denkprozessen landen sowie Sprache und Grammatik selbst.
nct  ncpin  IlliberalLeft  Art  FreeSpeech  Left  Media  DasGeileNeueInternet 
16 days ago by walt74

Copy this bookmark:





to read