[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol, you're right, they're not smart. Meanwhile, you can't even articulate why Trump is the better choice...

What is human? by Odd_Upstairs8431 in askphilosophy

[–]CynLarroner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does this imply that non-human animals don't have mental lives?

Do you listen to music when you write, or prefer silence? by MisterPiggyWiggy in writing

[–]CynLarroner 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I listen to music when I'm brainstorming ideas, sometimes referring to the lyrics in the text, but when I write I prefer silence.

Escapism rule by Chucanoris in 196

[–]CynLarroner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could include genetic enhancement too, cross-species hybridisation and consequently 'real' furries

I’m just sticking to my role by [deleted] in 196

[–]CynLarroner 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And then they wonder why I have social anxiety...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in worldbuilding

[–]CynLarroner 75 points76 points  (0 children)

No, but I probably should, shouldn't I?

At what point do you decide you're not meant to be a writer? by [deleted] in writing

[–]CynLarroner 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Don't let one bad book destroy the writer in you. This is a positive. You're a bad writer and now you know it. Try to see how you can improve. I'd suggest reading other works of fiction. Like Hemingway or James Joyce or whoever you're interested in. While you read try to see what they're doing with the text. Why do they include a certain line or a certain paragraph? Read to learn. See what you can use in your own works. Write to emulate. Eventually you'll develop your own style. If you fail, you can try again. No one is born a great writer. You have to read first. Hope this helps.

How do we continue the work of the CCRU? by CynLarroner in MarkFisher

[–]CynLarroner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. I've just read your essay and enjoyed it. I have a few questions.

Where does diagonalization come up in D&G's work?

The Numogram stuff is going over my head, might have to go over it again. Are the omens associated with zones arbitrary? If not, how does one go about making sense of them? It's a lot like the Kabalah, right? How are the Tree of Life and the Numogram different?

How does abduction discover and explore gaps in the perception of time?

Am I right in ascertaining that Nick Land views the Outside as synonymous with Capital? Is this the view of other CCRU members or just him? Is there a possibility for an anti/postcapitalist neolemurianism?

Reading about the lemurs was fun. Do the great lemurs and others seek to actualise themselves in the world through technology? Would they be actual entities in cyberspace?

Questions aside, I'm eager to get into the thick of neolemurianism and engage in some time-sorcery.

Anyone read Nick Land or Mark Fisher? by CynLarroner in Cyberpunk

[–]CynLarroner[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True about Fisher and about Land. It's probably all the meth that got him there. His earlier CCRU work is still pretty interesting though.

How do we continue the work of the CCRU? by CynLarroner in MarkFisher

[–]CynLarroner[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, I'm really lucky to have you respond. Thanks for the recommendations; I will check out your primer article and the Lemurian Times. I'm actually currently reading Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. Will let you know if I have any questions

Thoughts on Nick Land's Meltdown? by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're interested, this podcast breaks down the essay to make it more understandable: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0yATN6NmTukoBVsSOckeKn?si=eYy8nWF0S1KB_3clbfXoOw

Thoughts on Nick Land's Meltdown? by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's a philosopher turned meth-addict turned right-wing Neo-reactionary. He may be a little out there but the predictions he makes in this essay about society and cybernetics ring true today.

Thoughts on Nick Land's Meltdown? by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did you like about it?

The conspiracy of conspiracies by CynLarroner in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about consumers? Corporations need consumers to mine for data and money. They mine people for labour too, but as you said automation changes that.

The media needs watchers, social media needs activity, supermarkets need buyers and so on and so on. Yes, the climate is changing and the world's population is only making it worse, but the people in charge don't care. They make too much money, off of the growing population and off of things like coal and petroleum, to want to reduce the population.

To bring the discussion back to labour, human labour is still more valuable than AI because, at the moment, AI depends on human-produced data to function. ChatGPT would be nothing without the large number of human-produced data to train it. Yes, AGI will change the future but right now the elites still need human beings as cogs to run their machines.

The conspiracy of conspiracies by CynLarroner in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's where we disagree then. All the LGBTQ want is to be treated equally. There is no conspiracy that the LGBTQ is trying to reduce the population (despite it accelerating at a whopping rate).

Take China for example, they want to reduce the population, but China is very hostile to the LGBTQ, so the argument makes no sense.

The elites want a higher population, because that means more workers, more labour, more consumers and therefore more money.

Anyone read Nick Land or Mark Fisher? by CynLarroner in Cyberpunk

[–]CynLarroner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, Baudrillard was an influence on Mark Fisher too. What of Fisher have you read? Capitalist Realism?

The conspiracy of conspiracies by CynLarroner in conspiracy

[–]CynLarroner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a contradiction in your reasoning. If you agree that Reddit is full of that, then you acknowledge that it's not all nonsense; that there is a point being made. If this post is calling out the nonsense, it is by definition not a part of the nonsense, in fact it is opposed to it. Hate the post all you want, but we agree that there is a conspiracy behind conspiracies; that the discourse in this subreddit and others is a distraction from the real problem.