What the fuck was his problem?

what the fuck was his problem?

Your reading comprehension

Postmodernism is a hell of a drug.

who is he?

lol is that Boudrillard or whatever?

Is that Larry David?

It's that unfunny comedian who was on a couple of episodes of QI and Mock The Week in the late 2000s

He started seeing how the "meaning" of the world was becoming fractured via television and all forms of mass media, and how the media shapes/warps the human mind/experience of "reality"

(I'm probably far off but he's a hard guy to summarize)

Thats something postulated far earlier by Marshall McLuhan.

His ideas are deeply rooted in post-structuralist ethnology and the like.

bam

and he's an easy read too

This really looks like an album cover

>stop
lmao

more like START going to disney land

did this faggot even read baudrillard? let the signs crash and die

baudrillard was not an accelerationist

There is nothing funny about Halloween. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.

>post-structuralist ethnology
what

he was an antiwhite pomo sjw

His problem was pseuds like OP

Lol

What did he mean by this

no, you are

>the west deserved islam
what did he mean by this?

Also my first thought.

McLuhan didn’t make a value judgement about whether it was bad, Baud absolutely thought it was psychotic and that the meaning of signs had evacuated our cultural consciousness and that we lived in an age of simulacra and parodic existences where signs were screaming totems unto themselves with no referrent outside of the idea of them in lunatic moderns heads. McLuhan was a faggot who didn’t have the heart to admit what was going on.

>McLuhan was a faggot who didn’t have the heart to admit what was going on
Do you mean blaming jews or something? What was going on?

Reread the first part of his post.

I did and it's still not saying much.

>In a world thoroughly dominated by one superpower, one culture and economy, what becomes of the Other, of those with radically different histories, customs, identities? They begin slowly to rebel, as cells rebel when they are invaded by pathogens. As the global system grows more hegemonic and imperial, so too does the desire to confront and destroy it: "if Islam were dominating the world," Baudrillard wrote, "terrorism would rise up against Islam. The globe itself is resistant to globalization."

Pretty sure he meant something like dat

>The globe itself is resistant to globalization

>If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity.

What dis mean brainlets

read McLuhan and watch interviews of him discussing how he feels about the new media, then read Simulacra and Simulation the collection of essays by Baud and tell me what I meant would you dear? I don't have time to explain to you the obvious and you're being obtuse for the sake of inserting an objection to a point you claim I haven't yet made. I'm not a fascist, McLuhan was a massive daddy's boy faggot. The worse kind of complacent literati, worse than Chomsky I think personally. Baud was a nihilistic broken human being, I understand why he never got up in arms over the hyper reality transformation. He merely noted exactly what it was like and used words that were never ever kind or opitmistic. Which was appropriate since any person who deserves the name "person" can tell you we're racing into a hell mouth prison none of us will ever climb out of.

>worse kind of complacent literati
projecting this hard

>wahhh the book nerd faggot who did nothing and cheered on madison avenue got called the no-no word
literati all deserve the wall, anyone who champions evil should be hung from a lamppost. Fuck McLuhan and his comfy media theory acolytes, the lot of them, disgusting complacency is worthy of more scorn than sad nihilism or hate. I'd rather have dinner with Alfred Rosenberg and Rudolf Hesse than McLuhan, Chomsky, Taleb or any other hack fraud literati academic scum faggot. The worst eels on Earth sit in giant institutes and hide behind their reputations. A bunch of really reprehensible fiendish types who prey on other grubs waiting to become fetid stinking butterflies of whatever department or institute or org. McLuhan said things others had been thinking, had some interesting ideas, is incapable of writing more than 2 pages without quoting other people and basically smiled and laughed when people like Norman Mailer were sounding the alarm in the 60's that things were falling apart culturally. A coward who had maybe two honest things to say about media and was a gigantic fraud, who hid behind word play and a misunderstanding of consciousness. Mentioning that we were constructing the anti-christ was the most remarkable thing he had to say. Lovely laconic responses you've been giving. Why is that user?

According to my googling Benjamin Noys says otherwise:
>"In my critical account, accelerationism >originates as an explicit theory in the early 1970s in three main works [listed below]. The common >origin lies in the recognition that capitalism forms >the dominant horizon, subsuming not only forms >of life but also strategies of opposition," (from his >June 2013 interview). "[These three texts] reply >to Marx’s contention that ‘[t]he real barrier of >capitalist production is capital itself’, by arguing >that we must crash through this barrier by >turning capitalism against itself. They are an >exotic variant of la politique du pire: if capitalism >generates its own forces of dissolution then the >necessity is to radicalise capitalism itself: the >worse the better. We can call this tendency >accelerationism."

Three referenced texts are:
symbol exchange + death
anti-oedipus
libidinal economy

Which is why I never confessed to anyone.

kek

>Mentioning that we were constructing the anti-christ was the most remarkable thing he had to say
>McLuhan did not make a value judgment about whether it was bad
your anger is entertaining, even when you are contradicting yourself

Dude, calm down.

Better explain how Baudrillards postulates about hyperreality and simulations have any effect on our day-to-day lives, since I fail to see that.

Oui, living my life the same way right now breh. Need to rethink my approach, I think

Lol what a faggot, the fact that McLuhan did not moralize or make value judgements is what made him so much superior to Baudrillard and other thinkers. Plus, if you actually knew anything, then you would have read that McLuhan was strongly opposed to electronic media in his personal life, he asked his son to restrict the amount of time his grandchildren spent watching television, he called it a "vile drug".

He was absolutely not accelerationist - he thought the catastrophe has already happened. Read "After the Orgy" (from Transparency of Evil):
>If I were asked to characterize the present state of affairs, I would describe it as 'after the orgy' . The orgy in question was the moment when modernity exploded upon us, the moment of liberation in every sphere. Political liberation, sexual liberation, liberation of the forces of production, liberation of the forces of destruction, women's liberation, children's liberation, liberation of unconscious drives, liberation of art. The assumption of all models of representation, as of all models of anti-representation. This was a total orgy an orgy of the real, the rational, the sexual, of criticism as of anti-criticism, of development as of the crisis of development. We have pursued every avenue in the production and effective overproduction of objects, signs, messages, ideologies and satisfactions. Now everything has been liberated, the chips are down, and we find ourselves faced collectively with the big question: WHAT DO WE DO NOW THE ORGY IS OVER?
>Now all we can do is simulate the orgy, simulate liberation. We may pretend to carry on in the same direction, accelerating, but in reality we are accelerating in a void, because all the goals of liberation are already behind us, and because what haunts and obsesses us is being thus ahead of all the results - the very availability of all the signs, all the forms, all the desires that we had been pursuing. But what can we do? This is the state of simulation, a state in which we are obliged to replay all scenarios precisely because they have all taken place already, whether actually or potentially. The state of utopia realized, of all utopias realized, wherein paradoxically we must continue to live as though they had not been. But since they have, and since we can no longer, therefore, nourish the hope of realizing them, we can only 'hyper-realize' them through interminable simulation. We live amid the interminable reproduction of ideals, phantasies, images and dreams which are now behind us, yet which we must continue to reproduce in a sort of inescapable indifference.

So is the answer to become repressive maniacs instead?

This is dead of the end, we have no answers anymore, according to his last work

We are left to play with dem "forms" boyo, according to SEP:
>Baudrillard also argues that the world is without >meaning and that affirming meaninglessness is >liberating: “If we could accept this >meaninglessness of the world, then we could >play with forms, appearances and our impulses, >without worrying about their ultimate >destination… As Cioran says, we are not failures >until we believe life has a meaning – and from >that point on we are failures, because it hasn’t”

Sounds like you're just mad that anyone has ever thought differently than you. Surely they must all be in league together!