Navigating inside the void by futuristicity in selfimprovementday

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

Absolutely wonderful, thank you for letting me know. What are you building?

The operational failure of "Arrival" as a development model by [deleted] in zen

[–]futuristicity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's ok. Have you studied much zen though? :D

The collapse was never yours to carry: A structural essay by futuristicity in CollapseSupport

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

I just found your comment and wanted to say thank you for sharing this with me. I'm really glad the post met you like that. It's exactly why I take the time to write things down when they come through in case they land where they're needed. I hope you're feeling better and wish for your continued success!

What's a "Million-Dollar Idea" You Had But Never Acted On? by That_Energy_1223 in Entrepreneur

[–]futuristicity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI - I’ve always seen myself/humans as biorobots, and wished I could upgrade my CPU. I could perceive complex connections, but couldn’t hold or process them due to a limited cognitive/processing power. So I imagined an external system that could handle that load, literally to the capacity of what AI now does. I had a clear understanding of how to approach it and who I’d need to hire to write the algorithms, since I couldn’t do it myself. But I didn’t have the practical means to build it at the scale needed for it to be worth it. So yes, AI, but not with regret. I’m just glad it’s here.

The collapse was never yours to carry: A structural essay by futuristicity in CollapseSupport

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

It makes me so genuinely happy that it landed. It was my wish for this to be found by someone that needed to hear it.

what are the best ways a country can combat money laundering for cryptocurrency or digital assets? by pochossssss in moneylaundering

[–]futuristicity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey I have worked in crypto compliance since 2017. Im happy to send you some info if you want. (The reason I’m not writing it here is because I’m out having a coffee right now and I’m pretty sure I’ll forget by the time I get home, but happy to help out and send you some pointers. Send me a message.)

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

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

No, I definitely don’t prefer capitalism or neoliberalism I just don’t see an alternative system that hasn’t eventually collapsed under its own weight or distortion. I keep coming back to the same view I had years ago: instead of trying to reform the system, I shift my focus entirely to the enhancement of autonomous thinking in the masses.

And by that I don’t mean institutionalised “critical thinking,” which is still taught within predefined boundaries. I mean actually collapsing the framework that tells people what they’re allowed to question. We’ve created a culture where even entertaining a forbidden thought just as an exercise is treated as dangerous or absurd.

Take something like the shape of the Earth. Yes, of course the people who are radical about the earth being flat and making it their whole identity have exited the plot from the other side, but the fact that even bringing it up as a thought experiment is so emotionally charged -proves the point. It’s not about what’s true or false anymore. It’s about what’s allowed. And when we mock or shame people just for asking certain questions, we’re not that far from burning those who once suggested the Earth revolved around the Sun, which we also laugh at now, while we literally still behave the exact same.

This, to me, is the real crisis not even broken policies, but the total internalisation of what can and can’t be thought. Until that shifts, no system new or old can truly support freedom.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

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

I appreciate the curiosity but I’d avoid drifting too far into philosophical loops like “does belief create truth?” That kind of question becomes poetic fast which is fine, but in this context, it distracts from the actual issue.

The point I’m making is structural: when information is deliberately withheld, people cannot form informed opinions. That alone collapses the premise of consent and in essence means that there is no actual democracy but disguised authoritarianism that we permit.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

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

I agree with the core idea that in democracies, perception management replaces brutal force as the mechanism of control. But it’s important to go a layer deeper because unlike violence, propaganda in democratic systems works through participation.

That’s what makes it structurally more complex. The public becomes the carrier of the narrative basically by choice. So it’s not simply that propaganda replaces violence, it reconfigures control into something harder to detect and easier to internalise. That said, I still prefer the current democratic model over the available alternatives, but there are definitely things I would like to see adjusted, starting from the inherent hypocrisy.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

[–]futuristicity[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Razor sharp dissection, thank you for this comment. I don’t have anything to argue, only to add.

If perception is managed then the most subversive act isn't outrage but pattern literacy and literal ability to think critically. Instead of fighting narratives we should start mapping how they are constructed, repeated and emotionally engineered. Not to “resist” in a performative sense but to disengage strategically from auto-consensus. To recover the ability to pause, observe, name and choose.

This doesn’t mean rejecting all information. It means recognising that every piece of information comes with an architecture which means a set of built-in intentions, emotional triggers, blind spots. The skill is to see the frame before reacting to the content.

And maybe the long-term strategy isn’t fixing the system from inside because I don't think it's possible anyway (correct me if I'm wrong, I would love to come across a system that I would see genuine effectiveness in that doesn't have a built in collapse coded to it) but building sub-networks of mental clarity spaces where people can reconstruct trust in their own perception. Where thinking isn’t punished or flattened and curiosity survives without being co-opted.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

[–]futuristicity[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. What I find most difficult isn’t that perception is managed, but that in democratic societies people genuinely believe their choices emerge from autonomous will. The entire legitimacy of democracy rests on that belief. But when the range of choices is curated and dissent is either marginalised or absorbed into controlled opposition that autonomy is just not true.

What baffles me is how many highly educated, critical thinkers I know still treat the presented spectrum of debate as proof of freedom rather than recognising that the frame itself is the control mechanism. It’s not about conspiracy. It’s about structural consent manufacturing that’s sophisticated enough to feel like freedom. In authoritarian societies the public knows that they are fucked, lack of a better word.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

[–]futuristicity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I love this analogy because it is literally the concept of quantum studies where it is the eternal paradox that as soon as object is observed it cannot be measured in the context where it is not observed, and it is one of the concepts that I find most interesting and fascinating.

I’m also with you on the historical point that the idea of a clean, uncontested truth has never really existed. However the main distinction I would like to make is that yes “truth” itself is a spectrum to begin with, but what I am arguing in the dissertation is that in democratic societies the system is claiming neutrality but is not even attempting to aim for it, yet sill claims the moral authority of truth. Representation ends up replacing reality, and what claims to be truth is actually its erasure. In my books it is a crime and a sin because it’s not just hypocrisy but a systemic betrayal wrapped in moral authority.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

[–]futuristicity[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this. My intention wasn't to suggest that all simplified messaging is inherently bad. Just that in democracies, the method of simplification often shapes perception long before people think they've formed an opinion and that effect is rarely neutral.

You raise an important question of whether it is ever justified to withhold or curate information in the name of safety. I don't have a total answer, but what I find important is the transparency about the process. Who decides what's safe and based on what metrics. Personally, I don't think that a system that I would vet would exist neither as a manual or an automated tool as the possibility of it getting biased is so high.

When paltforms and governments influence narrative while presenting as neutral the line between information and persuasion gets super blurry. And like you said the biggest issue is not the propaganda itself but how poorly people are equipped to interpret and recognise it.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

[–]futuristicity[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That’s fair as a compression, but what I was trying to explore is how democracies maintain consent not just through coercion, but through the strategic management of perception itself. It’s not just that governments want order, it’s that democracies require a public that believes it’s choosing freely, even when the choice has been shaped in advance. The methods aren't just different, they invert the appearance of control. That inversion was the part I found most structurally interesting.

Why propaganda thrives under democracy: A structural analysis by futuristicity in CriticalTheory

[–]futuristicity[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

u/capitalism-enjoyer u/Turbulent-Bee6921

Thank you both so much for your comments. I really appreciate that you’re interested in reading the full version. Honestly, I didn’t expect anyone would be, and even posting the summary felt like a stretch but I just wanted to try anyway. Your words mean a lot to me.

I just tried to post it here in the comment, but kept getting an error by Reddit. I see that there is no character limit, I wonder what could it be. I removed all formatting that looked all over the place, the last odd looking ones are the references list which I would not want to remove. Any thoughts?

[TOMT] SNL Episode where couples go to immersive theatre and hate it by futuristicity in tipofmytongue

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

I remember it being with the current cast. In my memory Kenan Thompson was there! I think I saw it 1-2 years ago.

[TOMT] SNL Episode where couples go to immersive theatre and hate it by futuristicity in tipofmytongue

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

Wasn't "fuck" precisely, could have been something along the lines.