We're both concerned about what's currently going on – implicitly and explicitly – on the internet, including SocMed, news sites, and basically everything that goes through the tubes. There's covert censorship, social engineering, hate mobs, narrative control, omnipresent surveillance, war on privacy... the list goes on. You're concerned because you think this is all happening for the benefit of an international progressive agenda seeking to silence dissent, destroy free speech, promote destructive multiculturalism, undermine national sovereignty, and upset the status quo for whatever occult reason. On the other hand, I'm concerned because I think this is all happening for the purpose of
maintaining the status quo, at the behest of Capital, on behalf of Capital, for the benefit of Capital, because:
? –––>
Profit! Note that your theory of the PC agenda is conspicuously lacking this all-important golden incentive.
It's funny how strongly these troll-outrage articles corroborate the theory that SocJus media wars are all about the
clicks, clicks, clicks and the
biz, biz, biz, and politics is really nothing but an afterthought, if it's given any consideration at all. Do you think, for example, that Fluffpo is dutifully furthering the progressive agenda for the sake of progressiveness, even though there seems to be nothing in it for them? What if they
aren't actually floppy SocJus hippies, but utterly cynical corporate shills with hearts of stone and minds of money? Let's look at that Fluffpo article you linked:
Should Twitter take additional action to sustain an environment where public figures and brands feel more comfortable interacting with fans? Or, should Twitter continue to rely on its users and third parties to report content or accounts that violate the laws and rules?
Yeah, it's really, really terrible that women and vulnerable minorities cannot exist on the internet without facing constant harass–
wait, what? Let's see that again:
Should Twitter take additional action to sustain an environment where public figures and brands feel more comfortable interacting with fans? Or, should Twitter continue to rely on its users and third parties to report content or accounts that violate the laws and rules?
Jesus Fuck! I thought this was supposed to be about social
justice, but turns out it's all about marketing on social
media! The article just talks about some useless turd of a celebrity on twitter and then ties it into harassment and freedom of speech by some inexplicable brand of non-logic. Feel free to criticize anyone and anything, but
don't you dare criticize the stars of our gossip articles or the brands of our affiliate-sponsor-advertisers! According to Huffpo's worldview, the ultimate
lèse majesté is to attack a poor, innocent
brand trying to innocently interact with its consumer-slaves! (God, this really makes me sick to my stomach.)
And it's all about the
brands, of course it is! Human beings are worthless unless they are exhaustively profiled for the purposes of targeted advertising. You are
nothing unless you have your very own personal brand to proudly display on social media, and your very being in this digital society of ours is determined by
how your brand relates to other brands, personal and commercial. (Being branded is pretty much the same thing as being owned, but don't tell that to the slaves!) I'm not even joking, this is what Marx and Coca-Cola and the Interbuttz have done to us: Brands (and identities) are more important than people, and attacking a real person
in person is a lesser crime than symbolically attacking their brand/identity: Compare "White Man was stabbed in a supermarket" with "White Man was criticized for being a privileged white shitlord in a supermarket[!!z0mg!1]." (This is because your
personality belongs to you and you only, but your
identity as a Coca-Cola-drinker belongs to Coca-Cola Company!) If the content of her site is anything to go by, Arianna Huff is totally not some harmless SJW hippie lady – she's a fucking stone-cold capitalist psychopath.
If you scratch the surface for a bit, it becomes apparent that "censorship" is always on the side of stable profits and against disruptive and unprofitable
change. The current thing about Capital and the "SocJus agenda" is that their goals merely happen to coincide for the moment, but this state of affairs is neither necessary, nor permanent. Tolerant neoliberalism is useful for programming complacent and compliant consumers and content-producers for the Matrix, and Kulturkampf/social-justice-struggle stuff is useful for indefinitely staving off the class struggle by keeping the proles at each others' throats over inane clickbait articles. Likewise, Capital in Europe is
currently in favour of mass immigration because it's a net cost to society but a net benefit to business: it lowers labour costs and weakens social security, and thereby makes the workforce more pliable and easier to exploit. But if things ever get to the point where the social unrest associated with immigration starts to
seriously threaten the interests of Capital, then it's the curtains for namby-pamby multiculturalism – say hello to the neofascist police state. Remember that neoliberalism is just classical liberalism with a paper-thin veneer of civil-rights progressivism: the only "human right" that really matters is the right of private ownership, which is to be protected by any means necessary, at whatever human cost. I'm certain that Europe's ideological make-up would look oh-so-much-less-progressive if the terrorists were exclusively targeting banks and stock exchanges – I wonder why they don't do that, by the way? Too tight security, I guess.
There's really nothing to it except the Profits; the biggest conspiracy of post-modern capitalism is that
there is no conspiracy. Everything is written in plain sight in mile-high neon letters: You
must want more and more shit. You
must want others to want you for your shit. You
must consume and be consumed by the omnipresent consumerist apparatus. You
must expose yourself and be exposed to more and more omniscient marketing. Capitalism is the
neutral way of equality, democracy, and personal well-being. You Have No Choice. Choose Capitalism.
Poll
21 (27.3%)
Author
Topic: Does the Internet discourage intellectual discussion and debate? (Read 30336 times)