Yesterday I said I would let it go but all of today thus far it has been on my mind. There was a thread yesterday:
which directed people to a video in which Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza went on a radio show to talk about a story which afterward left the radioman speechless.
Basically the story was detailing the life of a civilized chimp named Travis who ended up lashing out one day after tolerating the oppression no longer and made a point to say that the chimp, our closest relative, isn't that much different from humans and is comparable to a handicapped teenager, which tangentially lead to the conclusion that civilization is unnatural and only causes misery and a stupor-induced state.
The part that has bothered me is how I've tried saying this exact thesis in arguments on 4chan, or in real life, only to be bombarded with hatred and accusations of retardation and idiocy. Why is it that most people seem to take in the message of someone who they find influential, say, someone who shoots up a school, and remark his intelligence, but when I say the same thing (without a story to re-enforce it; it only needs to be said it is so visually and conceptually obvious), everyone looks the other way and calls me retarded? Which is it people? Retardation or Intelligence?
There is something hazy happening here--a phenomenon that actually deserves its own name. Your decision of what message you take in seems to be based primarily on what a person has done rather than the message they are putting forth.
For once I want people to just listen what I have to say, but it is nearly impossible to get through to you? Can you not admit that the person you are speaking to is intelligent? What is it? Please tell me. This effect is obvious and known as what Lanza said. Don't laugh this one off and wait until someone else who shoots up a school says it.
Oh. You mean the part where you say:
>Your decision of what message you take in seems to be based primarily on what a person has done rather than the message they are putting forth.
This is basically along the lines of an ad hominem fallacy.
I'm afraid that's how society is. People are simpleminded and think material things and prior accomplishments make you what you are. It's pretty depressing. There's really nothing else to say about it, other than it's definitely a real thing.
As for your situation, if you truly got something right then praise yourself for it. Who needs the approval of normies?
Then how else can you explain this phenomenon? Two people give the same messages to different people, one person gets the cold shoulder, the other gets an attentive audience and considers this thing they hadn't thought about prior to its mention as the result of remarkable intelligence.
The only possible conclusion is that the message told must be person-based. And what has one person done that the other hasn't? Shooting up a school after putting themselves on the radio to tell a story.
This is where my reasoning comes from--not the ad hominem fallacy you resort to when the person saying it to you has no influential background.
People don't listen to you because you don't know how to refine a point and make your argument appealing to somebody who might not be willing to dissect your garbled, unrefined mess of "Our society is unnatural for humanity and it causes problems and I'm annoyed that people call me retarded about talking about this because it's annoying is it retardation or intelligence?", it's just an ugly mess.
I don't really see what your "reasoning" is, there's not much to consider truth-apt. Are you talking about cognitive dissonance? A phenomenon in people's minds where they feel pain when confronted with information that contradicts their phenomenological perception of reality? I don't get exactly what you're trying to say.
If you're talking about modern global capitalistic society conflicting with human nature, it's kind of a no brainer for anyone with a decent level of education, mainly given that humans(ish) have more or less been around for a few million years and we've only lived like this for a couple hundred, and similar to this for a few thousand. It obviously causes a lot of suffering. But there's no evidence that it's inherently "bad" for humans. Nor is there any evidence that it's inherently "good". It just, "is". Make the best of it, or sperg out and shoot up a school it's up to you.
Our society is geared up to reward people quite a bit who climb upwards in it through one way or another. We have these exchangeable power units and you can use them to get pretty much whatever you want as long as you have a lot of them, so quit bitching and figure out how to get some, you'll stop being an "angry chimp".
I've refined my point to a few simple examples of related instances but not to an elaborate story (which would probably be TL;DR anyway).
I don't agree with these "power tokens" at all. Just listen to what a person has to say and use /your/ brain to make sense of it rationally. Is this difficult for most of society to do?
If someone says something irrational there isn't any way to comprehend it rationally. All I take from what you're saying is "Being a human in modern society OBJECTIVELY sucks" and "People call me retarded for saying this".
So you don't use money?
The key part you left out is the immediate comparison between "Being a human in modern society OBJECTIVELY sucks" and "People call me retarded for saying this" AND "Being a human in modern society OBJECTIVELY sucks" and "People call me intelligent for saying this" in a mostly unanimous fashion between two different people. I mostly want a reason for why this effect happens.
I unfortunately use money, but money (or lack of) doesn't justify conceptual things like happiness much like h ow power tokens (or lack of) don't justify conceptual things like truth
It's called ethos you stupid faggot. A school shooter isn't a reliable source. If you present this idea to other people, present it as something to be discussed, not something you sympathize with. You're freaking people out.
Varying levels of education/socio-political awareness? Pretty obviously so.
That's some pretty poetry with some bold philosophical claims you've got there. Too bad comparing money to "happiness" and "truth" is an arbitrary comparison. You can equally compare grape juice to pine needles and mashed potatoes. You could say money can cause happiness and make people lie but grape juice can make pine needles taste better and mashed potatoes taste worse, so like, *hands in the air* you're not really making a good or clear case for whatever you're trying to say.
Global capitalist society is centered around the dollar and you can play along if you want, that's what I'm doing with my life, it's pretty comfy if you accept it at face value instead of fight it. If you don't like it, there are plenty of communes, hippie communities and national forests you can go live in. People defect to North Korea occasionally, give it a shot. You don't have to play the money game if you don't want to, that's your decision.
>you're not really making a good or clear case for whatever you're trying to say.
But the two units are based on two entirely different currencies, the 2 currencies at hand are arbitrarily different form each other (does money buy you truth? Well if you buy a research centre but even then--good luck finding truth), so the comparison must also be arbitrary. Thus, two conceptual things in those two currencies aren't justified at all.
Do you understand my point? Or do I need to shoot up a school first?
>conclusion that civilization is unnatural and only causes misery and a stupor-induced state.
OP, have you read Ted Kaczynski's manifesto? He talks about a similar theory in great detail. His theory is that technology and modern society are suppressing human autonomy and happiness.
It was quite a good read, in my opinion. It was written 20+ years ago but I've found it still heavily applies to modern events.
You legitimately are ranting in a way that doesn't actually make any sense and I'm sorry to be the bearer of that news. You're talking about two currencies now and how money can buy truth but it also can't or something and that means it's arbitrary, you are not very good at refining a point. Not even trying to bully, I'm showing you what your writing looks like and why people might be calling you autistic.
I recommend doing some reading. Off the top of my head, "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe and "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn talk about what you're on about in an easy to understand way, and reading how they depict their messages might help you with depicting your own. They're short books. I could care less if you shoot up a school, it'd be an interesting read in the news for a day.
lanza presented his point in a concise and eloquent fashion
if your post is any indication of how you presented your argument, people probably called you a retard because your typing style reads like it was put through google translate from some other language
OK, let's go back. Maybe if I walk you through how I think you will understand.
I originally said
>I don't agree with these "power tokens" at all.
You originally said
>So you don't use money?
Which is a bit strange to ask given that I don't agree with the idea behind the credibility and usefulness of "power tokens"
I then said
>money (or lack of) doesn't justify conceptual things like happiness much like how power tokens (or lack of) don't justify conceptual things like truth
I only base the usefulness of money on how much pleasure I receive from the things I can get with it, for that is why we all spend money and want more after.
I only base the usefulness of power tokens if they bear truth. And sadly, they do not. I'm a living example of this with a story to tell about it.
You then said
>Too bad comparing money to "happiness" and "truth" is an arbitrary comparison. You can equally compare grape juice to pine needles and mashed potatoes.
"Money", in the sense you originally said, referred to the coinage, virtual or physical, which can buy you physical goods.
"Power tokens" in the sense you originally said, referred to the ability to influence the minds of other people.
These are two entirely different currencies, so to respond to the question "You don't use money?", well, maybe coinage which grants me material goods because that's what civilization has dictated the right way, but the conceptual comparison of the value of both are not justified.
Do you understand now?
Listening to the Adam Lanza video linked in OP's archived thread.
Lanza refers to "surrogate activities", which is also a term used in Kaczynski's manifesto. Searching the term on google primarily brings up links to the manifesto or references to Kaczynski.
Interesting. Wonder if Lanza also read the manifesto.
I don't know. But it seems that Americans find them admirable, since they take anything the shooters write or say and interpret it as the holy grail of truth, when someone else of fewer "power tokens" says the same thing, it means nothing to them. The most confusing phenomenon I can imagine. This is how Hitler managed to gather however many Nazis to kill millions of Jews.
Lanza was really articulate and calm when he gave his little radio talk, so the talk show host listened.
If you sound/look like a sperg when you say something, no one will ever listen to you. That's just a fact of life that you have to accept.
I personally hate retards. If a sperg speaks, my brain shuts off. If I ever sound like a sperg myself when I speak, I cringe at myself and I stfu while contemplating suicide. This is natural.
Retards should be shot desu senpai.
So what defines "retard" then? Because the way I am communicating to you, and this post
is how I normally talk to people, and yet I'm still called retarded. I have a sound argument to bring forth. Articulately written, calm, all of it.
It has to only the effect of power tokens obtained through the actions one does. My brain is tying in knots at the thought of how irrational this is.
>So what defines "retard" then?
Spergy. For example, if I don't sleep enough or if I drink too much coffee, I avoid people because I know I'll sound like an autist around them.
Either learn to be a good speaker and conversationalist or keep quiet.
you're in good company friend, have faith because your justification is here whether it makes itself evident or not. you don't have to say it, but if you want to that's fine. it's not communicably understood
But I /am/ a good speaker. I get my points across in the same manner that Lanza does. There is something else going on here. It's more than just being "spergy".
At least now I have a concrete story about the phenomenon to tell about.
the internet moves at a quick pace and doesnt wait for you to ask for permission, put out what you want to put out and if you're not patient enough to wait for an answer then youre a hypocrite desu family
OK. So when I said
>I unfortunately use money, but money (or lack of) doesn't justify conceptual things like happiness much like h ow power tokens (or lack of) don't justify conceptual things like truth.
Should I have at first asked "What relevance does this have on not agreeing with "power tokens"?", rather than jumping to
"I unfortunately use money, but money (or lack of) doesn't justify conceptual things like happiness much like h ow power tokens (or lack of) don't justify conceptual things like truth." ?
And if he responded with any relevance, should I begin from square one, however long it may take, and work my way up to conclude something? For example:
>"So you don't use money?"
>"What relevance does this have on my dissent of power tokens?"
>[Can't even think of one]
>Ok, so I still don't understand what you mean by this, but here's what I'll tell you. The value of money is based on the pleasure you receive from the things you can buy with it. The value of power tokens is based on the ability to influence the belief or decision of somebody.` These are two entirely different currencies, so while I may agree with the authenticity of the value (pleasure; happiness) of one (money) because that is what civilization has dictated to be the right way, it doesn't mean I have to agree with the authenticity of the value (truth) of the other (power tokens).
You should've ended the conversation because nobody cares about abstract things like "power tokens" in day to day life. If you try speaking like an intellectual to people, they'll stop listening so just keep it casual.
>>"So you don't use money?"
I don't know the context of the conversation, but it sounds like you're trying to sounds smart and the other guy doesn't take this seriously at all.
Sorry, I don't want you to think that by saying "...while I may agree with the authenticity of the value (pleasure...." That I do, I should have say, "may or may not". In that I was trying to emphasize total independence between the two currencies.
I'm not trying to sound smart at all. This is very important in my day-to-day communication to people. I want to do away with this "power token" currency that is so subtle but is very real in their minds. Most people probably don't even know that they have a currency/assessment of this.
When I discuss something with someone, I want people to listen to me and take me seriously, and consider the authenticity of the things I say without taking into account my background or my power-token wealth. So that when either Lanza or I say the same message but in different words, people will listen, think about it, weigh the facts, be rational, and argue appropriately rather than base it on whether or not I shot up a school and put myself on air with a story to tell. Do you know what I mean?
>Most people probably don't even know that they have a currency/assessment of this.
And they probably don't care either.
You're never gonna get rid of "power tokens" because this stuff is hardwired in our brains. When you see someone, you judge them. If they look like a retard, of course you're not gonna listen to what they say.
I understand, but even on 4chan this effect happens when I'm composed, articulated, calm, and discuss rationally. Someone in this thread said "Having a conversation on the internet is much different than in person. Not much else to say." I'll just accept this since it's not adding up.
Shit, just accept that people aren't always going to be rational. Frankly, if Lanza sounded like a full blown autist, I would've refused to listen to anything he had to say just to avoid cringing at him.