|
| Thread: The internet and simulacrum |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 09, 2014 04:12 AM |
|
|
The internet and simulacrum
In my own words, the crucial difference between imitation and simulacrum, according to Baudrillard, was that while imitation tried to copy reality, simulacrum is an appearance replacing reality, not because it looks like it, but because it operates like it, except without the relevant references (content).
I was never exactly a fan of Jean Baudrillard, but sometimes when I try looking at things through his conceptualization of simulacrum, it explains a lot of contemporary phenomenon. Think of WWE for example, Hulk Hogan kind of wrestling... People who watch it know none of it is real, they are not tricked into believing a fake fight, but they still enjoy it for the same reasons they enjoy an actual boxing match.
The TV show, Lost, was also one of the times I said to myself "hats off to J.B." The show's narration exactly copied the conventions of detective fiction. We were under the impression that, we were delivered clues which were supposed to complete a bigger puzzle. The presentation, the tense background music in cliffhanger episode endings, numbers and symbols that were placed all around and supposed to lead to something... Everything indicated those were pieces of a bigger story which will eventually be revealed and make every single one of those pieces coherent. Yet, in the end, the show didn't even fail at that, it simply switched to conventions of another genre (drama) without any artistic justification and they all got together in the after-life. Most people didn't complain.
Commercials are another platform where you can observe this. Where as classical commercials usually have a direct relevance between the product they advertise and the quality they announce (a perfume making you more attractive, a car which is economical, a food which is nutritious...), modern commercials sometimes simply take a trait that has no relevance to the product and construct a relevance that is absolutely arbitrary, (a credit card that makes you adventurous, a car that makes you a lover, a food that makes you popular...) It's a simulacrum but the commercial may still work because the target audience watches the commercial ITSELF not what it announces.
So, what about the internet?
I think a lot of what we simply call trolling is just simulacrum; people appearing as or building an argument about things that "gets lost" when you dig for actual content. Let me elaborate a little, when you look at the modernist argument for example, it is based on a perspective of progression, you may agree with it or not, but modernists take progress seriously, they believe in it and they point out to this stance by saying things like "how can you STILL believe in the legend of Noah, it's the 21th Century." In 19th century, we have a lot of modernists who talks about abandoning the old myths and replacing them with scientific theories (such as evolution). And even if you think of this as a flawed justification (new does not necessarily mean better), there is a logical path to it, that has actual references in the real world. Chronologically, a myth was replaced by a new kind of information, that was based on a more sophisticated method of explanation. Now, if you look at some of the internet forums about this subject, there is a type of creationist, who "imitates" that argument, only reversing it:
- Hah, you still believe in evolution.
I have no intention of discussing evolution itself in this thread, the relevant part is, the objection of still believing in outdated things may have a substantial reference when objecting to Adam and Eve but it has absolutely no relevance to anything substantial when the subject is recent scientific data.
Another example is followers of extreme-right politics who reverse the accusations of "bigotry, close-mindedness, totalitarianism" in a finger snap and throw it right back at you with a genuine belief, that the things they are accused of also applies to you. Now, there are some who does this to complain about a new kind of "political correctness" which can indeed be close-minded. However, when you look at most of them, it's just a simple process of enacting templates of arguments which had originally worked against them, except this time their argument has no reference in reality. That is, it doesn't lead to an actual content.
Internet is a place where anybody can role play. That's not necessarily a bad thing at all, but eventually, we are faced with a platform where people build simulacrums of arguments without giving the time and energy to actually understand the method and perspective required to build them. So trolling may not always be a deliberate act of sabotage, sometimes it is an illusion of the mind and the medium, that you can be anything as long as you sound like it.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 05:21 AM |
|
|
lol. this is an semi-elaborate way of telling people you do not agree with, that they are wrong. nice try. you don't understand people, because you cannot see from their point of view.
for instance, the difference between you and i: you are a more linear thinker, and you are slow to realize simple things. for instance, when you cannot grasp what i am saying, because you think i am continuing a conversation that you just had with someone else, instead of presenting you with a new conversation about whatever topic we are discussing at the time. your argument for your misunderstanding of another in this regard, is "context". you bring that word up frequently, because you fail to see that someone is addressing their own concepts into the topic. you continually are stuck on previous conversations you've had with other people.
i, on the other hand, am a more global thinker. i can think about many different things in the span of a single minute; indeed, i have this problem so often that i lose sleep, because i cannot shut off. this is the reason you have trouble understanding me, as well. i know you think i'm an idiot, and i understand why. it is because you cannot relate.
in the end, you get so frustrated that you collapse to petty insults. which is one of the reasons i have an issue discussing anything of a more serious nature with you, because i will never reach you. the sooner that you understand everything i've said here, the better.
it will help you in your seeming quest for knowledge, regarding those unlike yourself, artu.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 05:50 AM |
|
|
Merry global thinking fred, whatever that is. But really, this is not about you, or me and you. It's just something I've been contemplating for a while and the free association part about trolling that inspired me to make a thread specifically today was the Drakon thread.
Contexts don't have to be separated with strict borders, sure. I have no objection to that. In fact, if you look at some of the objections I made to Corribus regarding his sensitivities about going off-topic for example, you can clearly see that I support an approach, if necessary, jumps from subject to subject.
I think your biggest mistake is to confuse arbitrary connections you make as obvious deductions and then accusing people of not getting those deductions while they are as clear as the bright blue sky to you.
Deduction can be a really messy thing if you act too hasty. And there is a difference between intuitive coherence you may sense among things and actual proven relevance. Those two are presented with a different tone. But this thread is not about that, so can you please not start with this **** again and get over it?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 06:26 AM |
|
|
i'm not saying that this is about me and you, artu. i'm saying that this is about you. i'm addressing the reasoning behind the subject matter, which is your perceived understanding of your miscommunications between yourself and others.
let me make this as simple as possible:
you find yourself inable to understand things that are simply stated, and you are looking for answers that are external in nature, from yourself. you are where you need to start, to find a solution to your misunderstandings.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 07:11 AM |
|
|
artu, I'm not sure, whether - in this, your, context of internet trolling - we are really leaving the sector of simple rhetoric, combined with good old polemics.
(Of course, rhetoric fits into the pattern, since it's plain form, no matter content.)
Nice OP, though.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 07:28 AM |
|
|
|
If you mean, there has always been empty rhetoric and it's nothing new, that is like saying there has always been trade, so capitalism is nothing new. It's the mainframe now. The medium of internet is, in a way, where simulacrum is the currency.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 07:58 AM |
|
|
Trolling is more than rhetoric and polemics, the most important part of it is provocation - a troll tries to make people mad or at least devote energy to addressing him, all while cackling madly.
Relatedly, this reminds me of the the most "postmodern" thing I've seen on the Internet - "fake trolling". This is when someone acts like a troll, but all the regulars know he's a troll (and the troll knows that they know) and instead of being hostile or ostracizing, they act like the troll is a performer and they are the audience and occasional fellow performers. Sometimes they rate the troll's performance or give him tips on what to say to be better. It's beautiful in its own way.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 08:05 AM |
|
|
mvass said:
It's beautiful in its own way.
Why?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 08:21 AM |
|
|
Well. The more I think about it, the more I think you are reading too much into this (and the concept does as well):
A MOVIE (at least most of them) are simulacra as well - in fact, they are a prime example. In fact, WWE HH-style wrestling would seem to be the same thing: people are not watching it for the same reasons than a boxing fight, people watching it for the same reason they would watch a boxing fight AND a movie, because this is basically both at the same time, the combination of two things or a HYBRID.
The same thing is true for the second type of COMMERCIAL you mention: it's not so much COMMERCIALS anymore - it's a combination of a small movie and a commercial, making it PRODUCT PLACEMENT, with the movie part having the purpose to create the environment for the placement.
However, your post is specifically aimed towards internet and trolling, but trolling is not new: think GRAFFITI. The internet (and the social networks) are giant message boards, where everyone can post messages. It's clear that with mass comes a lot of garbage - I wouldn't have thought it possible what kind of completely useless nonsense people are posting in stuff like facebook (a consequence of people obviously having too much time on their hands and no real interests to pursue).
Considering THAT, you may want to move the idea of simulacrum to human relationships/communication: is relationship/communication VIA THE INTERNET a simulacrum (trolling or not)? Isn't the idea of INFORMATION itself in danger of being "simulacrumed" by the fact that relevant info is buried under, well, info (because everything is info). Or, to phrase it differently: isn't sense in the internet vanishing anyway, considering the triviality of a vast part of what is going on? Isn't the difference between trolling and meaningful discussion, between useful and useless info somewhat academic?
That said, it would seem that even trolling - if it's done well - may be considered an art and there may be people relishing that art. I mean - and no offense here, fred - look at fred: in my opinion, most of the time he's trolling, but on a pretty high level, made obvious by the fact that you still discuss with him.  (Again: NO OFFENSE, please.)
I think, what I want to say is, that we shouldn't take all this too seriously, anyway.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 08:28 AM |
|
|
artu said:
mvass said:
It's beautiful in its own way.
Why?
I'd imagine it's similar to what people feel when they watch a dance or some other kind of performance art. (I don't know because I don't get anything out of watching dances.) It's especially like that if the performance art seems dangerous - something like a knife-thrower, maybe. It takes skill and understanding of how to say things. Perhaps it's the written-word equivalent of watching a staged swordfight, except sometimes you get to participate too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 09:27 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:31, 09 May 2014.
|
@JJ
A movie is fiction. Fiction changes things. Of course, we have works that "confess" they are fiction by directly narrating that they are so or by addressing the medium they are presented in (like an actor directly looking into the camera and talking to the audience) but fiction would still fall under the category of imitation (not in a pejorative way, fictional stories direct us to valid references, they may be metaphorical or adjusted but they are not empty rhetoric). Fiction relies on content that we relate to real concepts in our life.
On second thought, the WWE may be a flawed example, because it can be considered as fiction. Think of stuff like The Blair Witch Project, "we're walking around with a handycam" is a special effect no different than a fake gun shot, in WWE, the whole presentation can be thought as a similar special effect.
But this is quite beside the point because
Quote:
Considering THAT, you may want to move the idea of simulacrum to human relationships/communication: is relationship/communication VIA THE INTERNET a simulacrum (trolling or not)? Isn't the idea of INFORMATION itself in danger of being "simulacrumed" by the fact that relevant info is buried under, well, info (because everything is info). Or, to phrase it differently: isn't sense in the internet vanishing anyway, considering the triviality of a vast part of what is going on? Isn't the difference between trolling spam and meaningful discussion, between useful and useless info somewhat academic?
Trolling is not spam. The reason I relate it to simulacrum (and I use both terms in a negative fashion, unlike spam which can be nice every once in a while) is because they copy contentful rhetoric to mask lack of content. It feels like a hoax. (And fred would be a wrong example, that's just about my compulsion to reply to everything, especially if I'm addressed.)
Do I take this so seriously? Well, I don't lose my sleep over simulacra. I have empty time nowadays, so I opened a thread by writing a few paragraphs. One happens to be hanging around and things come and go. This time, content is the message:
Woody Allen and Marshall McLuhan
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 10:32 AM |
|
|
About movies and fiction:
There is a difference between a fictitious story that might actually happen that way (say, a movie about a relationship between any number of persons) - imitation - and a story that is IMPOSSIBLE to happen that way (think of any action thriller of late and consider what the characters are actually doing, how impossible the things are and that they are done with stunts and computer animated graphics and so on).
Anyway, imo, trolling is just a special or more elaborate form of spam. You may probably call it a form of simulacrum - but why bother in the first place?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 10:37 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I mean - and no offense here, fred - look at fred: in my opinion, most of the time he's trolling, but on a pretty high level, made obvious by the fact that you still discuss with him. (Again: NO OFFENSE, please.)
I think, what I want to say is, that we shouldn't take all this too seriously, anyway.
no offense taken. i think that, a very large reason it is so difficult(especially on the internet), to sort through the actual trolls, and someone just stating a point of view that you don't understand, is because there are trolls on the internet(and people who feel like trolling from time to time(see nearly everyone at hc vs herry).
but more often, i think that the "troll" label is used, when people do not understand the reasoning behind the person stating their views on the internet. take dd or mvass, for example. most people here at hc thought that dd was trolling by how he started developing an un-biased appreciation for the nazis, or communists; when really, he was just stating a burgeoning point of view. people couldn't understand that, so they labeled him a troll.
same with mvass. i labeled him a troll, because i couldn't accept that his views of humanity and their habitual destruction of natural things were legit. i couldn't fathom anyone truly thinking that way(and still can't, to be honest).
same with me. some people here think that i am trolling, by stating my points of view, because they simply do not understand them, or me. make no mistake, i am trolling no more than mvass or dd(which is needless to say, that i'm not). or, come to think of it, anyone else who has an opinion that seems to run counter to popular opinion, a simple train of thought, or that is more elaborate than some people might be able to grasp.
when i am trying to explain to artu that he doesn't understand me, and the reasons thereof, i am being sincere. i've seen a developing pattern, with his communications with me. i'm sure he thinks(and some others might, as well) that i am trying to upset him; nothing could be further from the truth. i am genuinely trying to help him, so that he can understand me, and others, better. so that, he can get past issues that he has with understanding, so he and others can carry on a decent conversation that actually goes somewhere.
it looks like it isn't just him that i should be attempting to reach, though.
it is always easier to decry someone's genuineness, than to consider that what they say is actually their point of view. i understand, that people might find certain things i or others say, hard to process. the issue is, because people tend to more easily devalue someone's point of view; they end up devaluing the person themselves. it is an easy thing to call "troll", instead of trying to actually understand and absorb an individual's point of view.
when you say, jj, that "we shouldn't take all this too seriously", what exactly do you mean? because if you mean a person who actually is trolling, i agree. but if it is someone who is actually stating their point of view(however hard it may be to accept), then i would disagree.
i have said time and again, that i would rather be honest, if given the choice, because people do not like brutal honesty; they shy away from it, because it threatens their ego, and their views of the world(or "safety bubble", is how i choose to refer to it). i wonder, when that will sink in.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 11:26 AM |
|
|
Fred, I can rather easily pinpoint why I think you are a troll:
IN MY OPINION, you are a little too keen on expressing non-standard, provoking opinions - and point to the fact; leading to the conclusion, that it's not the actual thing expressed that is in your focus, but it's the shock and provoke potential.
For me, that's trolling. Or maybe it's an immature desire to distinguish yourself or something.
In any case, discussions with you don't make sense for me, because I seriously doubt the points you make are really yours; my gut says, you are putting up a front here.
That's all I have to say about it.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 12:41 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 12:54, 09 May 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
Fred, I can rather easily pinpoint why I think you are a troll:
IN MY OPINION, you are a little too keen on expressing non-standard, provoking opinions - and point to the fact; leading to the conclusion, that it's not the actual thing expressed that is in your focus, but it's the shock and provoke potential.
For me, that's trolling. Or maybe it's an immature desire to distinguish yourself or something.
In any case, discussions with you don't make sense for me, because I seriously doubt the points you make are really yours; my gut says, you are putting up a front here.
That's all I have to say about it.
i can see how you would misunderstand me, because the things i joke about(and my pov in discussions) tend to be a little off-the-beaten path. but jj, that is where you are missing the essence of who i am: my entire personality is off-the-beaten-path. what shocks others is commonplace for me. like i've said, and always will say, i've been down roads that most people i come across wouldn't even dream of going down. i live my life in a manner that would terrify most people. the things that have happened in my life, have made me the very person who you negate by thinking that i'm going for shock value alone. i kid around with things that others find serious, because i AM that person.
LOL, an immature desire to distinguish myself? REALLY? LOOOLLLL!!!! jj, you made my morning with that one. if you find me to be distinguished(or having an immature desire to do so, LOL), then i think it would be hilarious to find out who your real-life heroes are(not that any of them would offend me. others, quite possibly).
but(lol), that ridiculousness aside, you thinking that i am keen on something doesn't make it so. when you think that i am saying something merely for shock value, you are devaluing who i am. my personality might be shocking for some, but i thought that they would find it more humorous than anything else. i guess that i am alone on that one. among other things, i have(what you might refer to as) a very dark sense of humor, jj. of course, i find many different things humorous, not just anything considered "dark".
i would've thought that my love for many different kinds of music would be more telling. i am a great many things, jj, to different people. none of those are a troll. i entertain myself by saying things that might shock people(not for shock value's sake); it entertains me, because i am being honest, and people think that i'm kidding(i very rarely am kidding. i thought you guys would know the difference by now).
and finally, the only "front" i put up, is when i try to appear like everyone else. the reality is, i am so far beyond what is considered "commonplace", that it leaves me very alone, in real life. finding people like myself, is a very rare thing indeed. it was very depressing in my earlier years, to know that i am so unlike most everyone around me. i have only met a few people, in my 35 years, that could relate to me, and i to them, on a much more personal level. i no longer feel so alone, because i find little ways that i can relate to people. and i cherish those connections. they keep me attached to people; they help me to love them.
i can find some traits that i have within myself, in others(and get along with and befriend others, as well), but the entirety of who i am is drastically unlike most people you will ever "know", jj.
but i can understand why you think i'm a troll, and i can't really hold you accountable for that. i can understand, and relate to that, very much. 
----
lol, i just realized that this is still on-topic. that's funny. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 01:18 PM |
|
|
Fred, if you WERE the person you claim to be, you wouldn't waste your time in the internet, trying to explain people you don't know - and who might be 14-year-olds - what an off-the-beaten-path kind of guy you are, how you've been down all these strange roads and how terrifying your life has been.
Because wasting your time like this is NOTHING of that - and if you WERE that guy, heck, what has BECOME of you? Trying to provoke and shock little boys on the www? Bit incongruous, don't you think?
So for me: attitude.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 01:57 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Because wasting your time like this is NOTHING of that
i'm explaining myself, because i want you to understand, jj. people having misconceptions about me(especially when they are negative and INCORRECT)that lead to arguments, or someone discrediting my character and/or not taking my discussions seriously, are things i feel the weird urge to address? notice how i put "weird" in italics? that's because it ISN'T weird of me to defend myself against an(while understandable) accusation. what is NOT understandable, is you continuing arguing with me. i made myself CRYSTAL CLEAR in my last post. thinking i am LYING is a bit of an insult.
how i "waste" my time is my own business. besides, everyone is just killing time until their death, jj. i am no different in that aspect.
JollyJoker said:
if you WERE that guy, heck, what has BECOME of you? Trying to provoke and shock little boys on the www? Bit incongruous, don't you think?
So for me: attitude.
what has become of me? lol, are you trying to take my "drama queen" crown? 
and, where did you get "trying to provoke and shock little boys on the www" from, jj? because i never wrote anything like that in the post you responded to, where i was EXPLAINING MYSELF.
you, apparently, are going to believe what you want to believe, even after given the truth. reminds me of how elodin acted. didn't you have a problem with the way he thought? it seems you are more like him than you know, jj.
all of your ridiculousness aside, you really should reconsider your stance, here. i'm being brutally honest with you. you don't believe me, i think, because you might not want to consider the possibility of the kind of person you are actually talking to.
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 02:49 PM |
|
|
The problem with simulacrum is that after the greater public starts to get used to it, TV execs think it's a good idea to "increase the dosage". The problem isn't with pro wrestling anymore, which, despite its scripted nature, doesn't come without its risks.
In fact, the real problem with simulacrum these days is dramatic reality, or dramality as it has become to be called. Pretty much every "Real Housewives of Insert Place Name Here" or "Two of the Kardashian Sisters Take Some Major U.S. City" looks real but is in fact scripted purely as a ploy to get ratings.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 02:54 PM |
|
|
Trogdor said:
In fact, the real problem with simulacrum these days is dramatic reality, or dramality as it has become to be called. Pretty much every "Real Housewives of Insert Place Name Here" or "Two of the Kardashian Sisters Take Some Major U.S. City" looks real but is in fact scripted purely as a ploy to get ratings.
same with all reality t.v. that's why i hate it all, it's outright lies, packaged as more than just entertainment. that's called "false advertising" anywhere else, and people sue for it.
but then, nearly all t.v. in general is getting to be the same way. all distraction, no substance. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 09, 2014 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
when i am trying to explain to artu that he doesn't understand me, and the reasons thereof, i am being sincere. i've seen a developing pattern, with his communications with me. i'm sure he thinks(and some others might, as well) that i am trying to upset him; nothing could be further from the truth. i am genuinely trying to help him, so that he can understand me, and others, better. so that, he can get past issues that he has with understanding, so he and others can carry on a decent conversation that actually goes somewhere.
Who did I have a problem with until now? You, Drakon and Elodin. Does that list tell you something about me or does it tell you something about yourself?
You mistake arbitrary connection with deduction. It's not that I don't understand you sometimes, I think your reasons for arriving at some conclusions are unjustified, you are simply way over your head. That has nothing to do with me not understanding people, I can do just fine when they make sense, no matter what their opinion. It has something to do with you being smug over things you shouldn't be, because your opinions are not flawless or truth revealing as you imagine them to be, they are not even close. The only reason you are having this confrontation with me is, while others even don't bother to tell you that and ignore you, I tried to explain to you why your way of looking at things has serious logical flaws. But you don't listen, (and when I say listen, I don't suggest you would completely agree with me on everything if you did), you get defensive and when you do that you apply to smugness and sarcasm as a shield (which is the worst time to use sarcasm) and then it simply gets on my nerve and it turns into a you said/I said quarrel. I am not a person who holds a grudge over such things and I'm really bored and tired discussing about this. Do not address me on such issues, please.
@JJ
Long before CGI, fiction consisted of impossible things. Think of any folk tale or myth. The content not being realistic doesn't mean it doesn't refer to real life problems, feelings or situations. Fiction and simulacrum are totally different concepts, they can even be considered opposites in a way, one functions on content that gets its juice from real life, real opinions, real problems, real feelings and is considered worthy when it manages to capture us based on that. The other simply starts out by imitating a shell but transforms into something more than that, the shell becomes the entity. And it would be practical to realize trolling is simularca, since it's a way of looking at it more analytical. Not as in sitting down and analyzing it, but as in seeing it for how it comes out to be.
|
| |
|
|
