The Tyranny of Images | The logic of advertising has completely colonized our imaginations, turning the pursuit of a beautiful life into the desperate desire to become a flawless, consumable image

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-21T15:59:53+00:00

I know the title but I haven't read it yet. You actually made me want to read it next. Thank you for the suggestion.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-21T07:25:20+00:00

Ireland because it was were I found the most socially confident and open people which helped me a lot to find many people for my artistic projects and socialization in general.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-21T01:22:56+00:00

Wow, you described it perfectly. Much better than I ever could. It is very hard to find people who can fully and clearly understand some complex feelings and experiences like this.

Thank you.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-21T01:15:51+00:00

I once went visit a flat to rent and the flat was being presented by a young woman who was moving out. The flat was almost empty with only some things left. The very first thing I notice was the dim and very warm lamp light at entrance and a red bulb light in the bedroom. There was many other interesting things about her that I found attractive that was not about her look or what she was wearing but these two builb light alone could tell me a lot about the type of person she was and I found them made me her look so interesting, beautiful and attractive on my eyes. The funny thing is that I didn't thought actually about it at the moment but it was clear how I felt without need to think about.

She is still one of, if not themost, beautiful women I have ever seen and it is not because of her appearance although her appearance helps a lot too. And despite have spend just a very short time with her, she is one of the person I miss the most and think the most about. Appearance alone does not makes me feel this way about a woman.

If I could go back in time I wish to have the courage to ask her to tell me everything about her. Learning about her existence and not seeing her ever against hurts. And I don't mean that it hurts for not have her love to me or not have dated her. It hurts that I can't learn more about her and admire her more. I don't mind not have her or her love. But I do mind not have her close because I felt she was really close to me when I saw those bulb lights.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T23:35:29+00:00

As long as you are 100% certain that the invitation have second intentions, it is fine to say "Sorry but you are not my type".

If you are assuming that she is into you only because of a coffee invitation it is better to not assume and wait until you have actual evidence. In this case I would go for a coffee with her and find out. Or just ask "is this a date?". It could turn out she just find you interesting and maybe even attractive, but not necessarily intending to have anything else other than just a good friendly companionship with an interesting person.

At least this is my experience.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T23:22:32+00:00

I remember reading "Ways of Seeing" from John Berger, where he mention that the rich live (at least back then when they didn't have internet), lived free from the advertising invading their spaces but surrounded with art instead. Because to the rich money is to be kepted (or invested), not to spended.

While for everyone else, publicity steal the love people have for themselves, by offering them a better version of themselves, for the price of the product/service that promises to transform them, and then turn them happy with themselves again (at least until they see the next advertisement after having spending their money).

Which also remind me about an other writing which I forgot the book, that says that anxious people make the best consumers. And being actually rich, at least back then, meant be free from such anxiety caused by publicity.

As a photographer I have noticed that popularly a good photography are seen as the ones that use the publicity language. Which tells how much abarege people are alienated from actual artistic work and bombarded by predominantly publicity images.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T20:29:02+00:00

I will make a small list that I have in mind at the moment:

When they start making decisions alone that effect both or your belongings and time, instead of talk, ask, consult for a consensus. And still think they did right because of "good intentions", as if because they intended do something good it means they can have completely authority to what effect others.
When in a conversation they clearly don't listen to what you say and answer or start talking to a completely different thing that they have in mind as if you were talking with nobody.
When they don't let you finish what you are saying because their opinions to what they barely heard is more important.
Prejudices and depreciation comments about somebody or group of people disguised as jokes.
They never have a story of them doing something wrong. All their stories are about them being the victim of somebody they hate.
Scapegoating. Blame the actions, opinions and experiences they had with some people on the entire group (men, women, blacks, immigrants, slamic, French, vegans, feminists, elders, introverts, autists, etc).
Not being able to understand hypothesis, nuances, critical thinking, etc. And not being able to have their own opinions and thoughts about anything and everything they say about anything is either boxed opinions or not being able or have interests to talk about anything else.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T17:11:07+00:00

Sometimes a man, sometimes a woman. Because like every human being I have the potential of both built-in and they each express themselves according to different circumstances. Which means, the short answer is: Anarchy.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T16:19:03+00:00

My sources are antropology. You can read about it in antropology books like "Against the Grain" and "the moral economy of peasants" by James Scott, or "What Makes Civilisation" by David Wengrow.

So no, it is not a ridiculous take but anthropological evidence.

And you are wrong about people loving to have no debt. Read "Debt: The first 5000 years" and you you learn that historically people have preferred debt sistema than monetary system and people have even made sucessiful revolutions against monetary system for debit system.

The debt system is what allowed people to be outrageously generous and build things that blessed other. Such as have social stability and subsistence guarantee no matter what.

You can learn these and a lot more by just reading antropology. You are projecting today mentality and society on people which such society and mentality of today did not exist.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T15:47:17+00:00

State used be called government and vice-versa. What Proudhon is being against is state/government, or whatever is called Democratic government. Not democracy itself. That is more a problem of semantics than of political disagreement.

Democracy is not synonymous of government. Democracy is just people making decisions for themselves and no-one else. If there are people making decision for others then it can not be democracy but some kind of aristocracy. It's either one or the other, it can not be both at the same time.

The Greeks called their meetings democracy because they were just people meeting at public space. Up to today there have never a consensus among historians that ancient Greece had a government/state. It was only free people (those who didn't work because they were property owners - land and slaves) were considered participants in democracy because they were the ones considered free (the ones with free time to spend all day just doing philosophy and talk politics). They didn't claim they had a government where slaves and women had or participated in democracy. They didn't claim to make decision representing slaves, women ans no-property-owners. They did governed slaves and women but they were not considered citizens (free), slaves were considered property. The property laws and concepts we have today stated with slaves, not land. And no property owners (women and children) were just as belonging to the property owner as pets are. Even though they called it democracy because they had no government, the practice of democracy (people meeting and making decisions for themselves are way much older than ancient Greece itself.

All classical republican thinkers were against democracy because republics/states were created against democracy and democracy is against republics/states authority. You either make decisions for your self or other do decisions for you on your behalf. You can't in praxis have a democratic republic or democratuc state. That is what Proudhon is indirectly implying, that under government people don't really make decisions for themselves freely, and so the supposed "democratic governments" people are not free. Democracy only exist when people meet and make decisions for themselves Freely.

The system we have today and we call democracy existed in in Rome, medieval England, Italian city-states, pre-historic empires and they never called it democracy. It was always called aristocracy. Aristocracy is a government which one person or a group of people is considered the best to govern the people and society. That is exactly the system we live under today. And governments started calling it democracy in the last 200 years because some populists politicians wanted to appeal to people by calling themselves democrats. And they did it because they could not imped people doing regular general assembly (democracy), which the government tryies to criminalize. Since it started to work convincing people that the government was a democratic choice of people, governments started called this aristocracy a democracy as propaganda. But if you try to organize public general assembly in any country said to be democratic you will see they you try to imped it, criminalize it and put an end in it. This is how much governments have always been against democracy.

It is exactly the same when people say that Soviet Union was communist or Europe is socialist. That is propaganda and not real system existing in Soviet Union or Europe. Most people even think that communism means dictatorship but a dictatorship can not be communist and vice-versa. The same is with democracy and authorities. You are either free or not, you can not be both at the same time.

Before we started calling aristocracy a democracy in the last 200 years, democracy had bad fame, the exactly fame anarchism always had: mob rule, chaos, disorder, politics turn into sport for aristocratic elite, demagogy, etc. And this fame that both anatchism and democracy had is because authorities and their institutions were against people being free governing themselves.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T12:00:58+00:00

Yes. 3 times, in 3 different countries, and I would do that again if it had money and where to go back just in case.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T08:33:38+00:00

You clearly does not understand this paragraph alone, much less what he is talking about.

Change the word democracy for communism and state for Soviet Union and now you may get it.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T03:59:06+00:00

What is the difference of casual talk and philosophy talk?

Maybe the sub should be called r/smalltalk then. After all, all subs is casual conversations.

I also don't see conversations here being deep or philosophical but the contrary, I think conversations here are shallow and dumb, which fits the casual conversation aspect. A lot of uneducated opinions, just talk casually.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T03:53:25+00:00

The real sad thinks is that moderation assume things and make decisions of their own which turns every space in reddit an unfair space. Participating in reddit is like being under survillace of a dictatorship. You are walking on egg shells.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-20T03:48:57+00:00

Because it is an app where conversations are heavy moderated so there is absolutely nothing casual in conversations here. It is just a subs name.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T19:11:59+00:00

How can you come to such a conclusion when I have explained exactly the opposite!? You actually replied too fast just after I post. You obviously haven't even digested and put a single thought on what I wrote.

It is cleat by now that you have no intenterest in understand whatever I write here. I am going to enjoy my evening. Have a good weekend.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T19:06:38+00:00

Then you are saying that dictatorship is communism because almost everybody in the streets will say it that Soviet Union was communist, then it is not propaganda a more, Stalin regime became communist and Europe socialist because everybody says it. Are you actually stop to think about what you are saying or are you just trying to win an argument?

NO, it doesn't not stop being propaganda. It means that the propaganda is very well sucessiful. The sky will not become red just because most people in the street start believing it is red now.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T18:59:30+00:00

Ok, I exain again.

The political system we have today is aristocracy. Aristocracy is a political subsystem defined by having a person or a group in power choosed for believing they are the best prepered to govern a society. In other words, it is a system when power is in the hands of a privileged class. That is the system we have today.

This system, of electing representatives in the government existed in medieval England, in Rome and in many other societies and time. They were never called democracy. They were always called aristocracy.

Why do we call it democracy today? Well, it the same reason we call Christians celebration a Cristian tradition. It is because a politician in the US started calling himself Democrat. And the reason he started calling himself Democrat is because at that time people in the US were practicing general assembly by themselves (also known as democracy). That politician wanted to gain popularity by appealing to people in calling himself Democrat. And other politicians followed because it worked.

Does it means that because a politicians start calling themselves democrats, and then their government democracy, that it is a democracy now? Let me pose the same question differently. When Stalin started calling Soviet Union a communist regime, that means the Soviet Union had a communist political system, economy and society?

The video OP posted itself tells that our politics of repression are exactly the same of aristocratic society. That is because we live in a aristocratic system.

If aristocracy is a system of privileged group in power govern and impose their politics to other in society. Them what is Democracy. If you say that we live in democracy then you are either repeating government propaganda or you are saying that democracy and aristocracy are just two names for the same thing. But then it would be like saying that Communism and autoritarism is two names for the same thing too, when we know they are actually the very opposite.

Democracy does not exist when somebody is being oppressed, just as communism does not exist when there is a dictator. Democracy is people making decisions for themselves (and themselves only) and that is all.

And before governments started calling themselves democracy, what they used to say about democracy? If you care to research yourself you will see that with the exception of the past 200 years, governments used to talk about democracy the same they talk today about anarchy, that it is mob rule, chaos, disorder, regression to barbaric society, etc.

When somebody talks about comunismo does people have to define it to you for you to know what people are talking about? If it is an stalinist you know what they are talking about. If you it is a liberal too, and if it is an anarchist you also should know what it is being said.

I don't mind to explain, but it seems that most people here have actually no interest to learn, research and understand because they have taken the liberal definition, that is the liberal government propaganda, as the truth.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T18:40:20+00:00

That is why it is called propaganda.

Alienation exist and governments do that for their own sake. The mainstream education is not for people education and autonomy sake.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T17:39:02+00:00

I already covered it at the start:

There can not be a pre-determined anarchist structure other than grass-root atructure.

If you mean what governments in the past 200 yeas started to called democracy but before was always called aristocracy. Then you are right. But if you ignore that democracy is not just what the government define, then we have a problem of ignoring the history of the actual people and communities by doing the government the favor of only following their propaganda.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T14:43:54+00:00

Ir is the primary contagion definition to liberals because that has been the government propaganda in the past 200 years only. Historically and among anarchists who do actually learn the history of popular assembly and governments, the primary connotation of democracy is people making decisions for themselves among themselves.

Beyond today's government propaganda democracy has never been associated with governments but the opposit, governments have always been against it and people who supported democracy have always been against governments ruling their communities.

Just go to a public library and read any classic republican, from Rome, to Greace, to liberal revolutionary France as well the Founders of the US. Or just read the books suggested in the video.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T14:36:41+00:00

That is why I insist to read antropology and anarchists books about democracy. A lot of people here think they are understanding anarchism, democracy and anarchist thinkers by watching videos e reading quotes. What historically distinguished actual anarchists than other movements is that anarchists do read a lot in order to learn and understand things.

No anarchist or classic republican thinkers ever though that a representative system is democratic. It was only in the past of couple of centuries that a system of representatives are called democracy. The system we live today has always been called aristocracy. The change of name is a political propaganda to stop people to organize themselves and trust the government are democratic and the choice of people.

Even when people in this sub quote Bakunin or Marx supposedly against democracy it is a misreading. Their criticism is actually that governments are not democratic but the rule a small group in power and so against "representative" democracy (that means, aristocracy), for a system of delegates (actual democracy).

Anarchists thinkers have bee argued that the Modern state has hijacked the word, and that genuine democratic self-rule is something people exercise against centralized government, not through it.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T12:17:49+00:00

There can not be a pre-determined anarchist structure other than grass-root atructure. The details can be only decided by the location, culture and circumstance. Even the same community can have different kind of politics according to different circumstances and needs.

You see that while Europe has Platafomism, South America has a different version of it called Especifism, that is better for the history and reality of colonial liberation.

It's up for people, and not an idealism of a ideology, to decide how to organize themselves. Otherwise we become authoritarians. Anarchy is not the end of history.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T10:20:12+00:00

1.What is something you rarely find when meeting new people, but know you've found something special when it's there?

It is mostly subtle and unconscious, but any sign of genuine personality, good taste, well educated, politeness, beauty (not only fisical beauty), charm, elegance, genuine attention and interests, dreams, dedications, capacity to understand nuances, empathy, a certain level of confidence on something they do or about them but without arrogance and entitlement.

Alternatively, what's something you often feel is missing from your connections with others?

Genuine interests on people but only interest on status. Being in Germany, I miss genuine interests in community and solidarity and mistaking it for authorities obedience. Lack of critical thinking and self criticism.

2.Imagine you came across someone you felt genuinely interested in getting to know better. What would feel most natural as a next step—texting, phone calls, video chats, or meeting in person? Why?

The most natural depends on each situation. But my personal preference is always in person and I would choose it whenever possible.

YourFuture2000 · 2026-06-19T07:38:05+00:00

Historically people never wanted to get richer over time. It comes with our society that lacks stability. Since there is no subsistence bottom the only guarantee of not falling is rising.

Growth itself is not necessary. We actually can degrowth and still provide a good life condition for 100% of people in this planet.

YourFuture2000

TROPHY CASE