The fact that the model is just an idea is, moreover...

It's an accurate depiction of postmodern selfhood and the art of life. You can literally buy personas off-the-peg in clothes shops, you can pick and choose between ready-made mass produced opinions.

More evidence that poststructuralists are just crypto-Cartesians

It's actually pretty simple, behind its obscure phrasing.
Before post-modernism, there used to be a signifier and signified: the former pointed toward the later.

But post-modernism is characterized by a blurring of that simple linguistic tie. The signifier does not points toward a signified anymore, but toward another signifier - which would be a sign in the sens of Barthes (see Mythologies, they are pretty fun to read).

For example, when you see a man wearing a perfecto jacket, you are not seeing a biker anymore, but a man wearing a metonymy of biker culture, which is a stand-in for a rebellious attitude.

What used to be a sign denoting a belonging is now a commodity that denotes a sign. The sign has become a meta-sign, since it refers to another sign. It does not refer to reality anymore, and reality has now become, to quote Baudrillard, "hyperreality."

I took my example from clothing, because it is the easiest to apply IRL. See who pinpointed this idea very well.

For a perfect example of a literary application of the concept, read Sea Oak from George Saunders. It's a great short story, and it's even available online.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying that a simple linguistic tie between signifier and signified actually exists, following an Edenic conception of language - Saussure already killed that - but that such a tie is generally supposed to exist for convenience's sake.

We usually treats Language as directly referring to its objects, even though it is a system of signs chained together in an arbitrary way.

Another way to look at Baudrillard's thesis is to say that signifiers were, before post-modernism, pointing toward other signifiers, but that they are now pointing toward sign - whole system of signifiers. In other words, there is now supplementary layers of meaning between signifiers themselves. Language has become overloaded with meaning, in a way very reminiscent of a palimpsest.

And in a way, it is very much an organic evolution, which is why I love this dude so much.
Also, capitalism.

What he means by model, I think is the status quo standard, maybe even traditions, of society:

And 'personalized' he means an individual exploring and discovering and creating their unique selfhood under such a common system of ideas and behaviors

>that allows the imaginary consensus of the idea of the model to be revived.

Dont exactly know what he means about the model actually, does he mean capitalism?

I thought he was saying:
>Paradoxically, then, it is through an idea that is both vague and shared by all that everyone may come to experience himself as unique. Reciprocally, it is only continual
self-individualization on the basis of the range of serial distinctions that allows
the imaginary consensus of the idea of the model to be revived. Personalization and
integration go strictly hand in hand.

People use the system, to be and discover and become their unique selves, and by becoming different from the norm, and unique, they give something to contrast the norm off of, making the norm more secure in itself (potentially), and also making the unique difference seekers happy with themselves: and all in whole, it is the model, system, capitalism, which allows it all and promotes it all, personalization and integration go hand in hand:... by having the system that allows people to seek their uniqueness, those who do and those who do not, are still supporting, and in their ways celebrating and cherishing the system/model?

for it to be a model (or map) it has to be synthetic. baudrillard's point is that these "unique" selves are all cast from the same mould and not developed from authentic individual experience.

the model does not allow authentic experience because it can only recognise prescibed forms: like how a bar code won't scan if you take away a bar, but will scan if you fold it horizontally, there are some forms of information which can be read by the model and some that cannot.

for instance, the overall model we would be familiar with has a submodel about islam. if i were to say that model is made up of
>baklava
>turkish tobacco
>rose water
everyone would probably say where is the
>terrorist
>not all terrorist
>bombing
>towelhead
>unpronouncabl-istan somewhere near asia or one of those places idk
>trucks
>muh women and children of ayran or refugee extraction
>suicide bombers
>palestinian supporting art school scarf wearing wankers

someone who only thinks "yum baklava" and who does not recognise any of those more model things have been the usual thing indicated by the model "islam" is a greater threat to the model than someone who thinks any of those things. it doesn't matter whether you think islam is being rightfully or wronfully maligned in the political world, you know everyone's not talking about baklava and turkish delight when they say "muslim" now. you would probably insist the person who really likes baklava and good thick coffee and doesn't care what other shit the muslims are known for if it doesn't involve dessert is trolling you, lying, or maybe subnormal, and have less pre-formed arguments pro or against muslim baklava compared to if someone said
>invading sweden

the model does not allow for all types, it allows for similar castings from the same mould. some might be right facing, some might be left facing, but once they stop looking like the model, they go in the reject pile.

Tell me if this is related to what you are saying, because this is what came to mind as a search for an example when I read OP:

girl who dyes hair and gets piercing: The idea of the model, is that: There are similarities between us, under the model together, using the model together, but we dont, or some of us, dont want to be identical, personalityless, uniquenessless, so those people use the model to explore themselves, their differences from all others: some collect toy trains, some collect watches, some make watches, some watch birds, some hunt birds, some taxidermy dead birds, some collect those, some make t shirts, some hate t shirts, some dye their hair colors and get piercings:

All the ways in which people attempt to discover and create their own identity, uses the system, so at the same time supports the Commonality, while allowing the Differences to manifest: and maybe even certain things like dying hair and piercing and tattoos and flamboyant gayatry strengthens the bonds of those who (at least appear, assumed to) prefer a more standard, not so extremely unique or different from a large 'quite similar common'

But I also see what is meant by the 'safe differences': Ok you dont want to wear a nice tucked in shirt and tie everyday, but you can still be an accepted member of society if you buy this style now for only 3 easy payments of $19.99 which is Different™ from the Norm™.

You can be different and make up your own rules (as long as they ultimately abide by The Models Rule/s)

>girl who dyes hair and gets piercing:
you see, i know you don't mean, gets piercing for pearl earrings like every good future wife of the republican senator when you say this. you don't mean "gets piercing" in the real sense, you mean within the sense of the model "gets abnormal piercing". within the model the simple studs in your ears like a modest girl piercing doesn't register as "gets piercing".
the type of submodel you mean not only defines what "gets piercing means" but also makes it never mean "the kind that any virgin debutante of a christian patriarch could get and still be pure". the submodel says the "dyes hair and gets piercing" is unique, to such a point that "gets piercing" could never define "normal" earrings, which are also part of the model and create another submodel of future senators wives who would "never get a piercing" but have their ears pierced.
what is unique is as manufactured as what is "mainstream": they are both branches from each other. the future republican first lady and the gothic stringy haired demiqueer both know "get a piercing" means "special snowflake who defines themselves by not getting piercings that define them as mainstream", but equally, the senator's wife only having high quality studs in her ears defines her as "uniquely" first lady material, just like every other girl in her WASP finishing school.
the tribal piercing you got to show people you never want a job is not more uniquely defining than the standard earrings or never getting your ears pierced. they all form the same model, and if you lived somewhere where getting your lip pierced was for everyone who wanted to succeed to office, it would not be the hot topic snowflakes who got it in that society.

the idea of a norm separates the future senator's wife (who is probably more rare than goths) as normal, because the snowflake crowd are so insistent their now more common piercings make them "more unique". they don't, or at least any more than wearing diamond studs instead of pearls made one WASP heiress different from the other.

the model works because people preceive one as "more unique". they're both parts of the same model. to break the model, you would need to do something all of them would find weird. that the senator's wife and the snowflake six piercings girl would think, wtf are you doing. to think outside that model, next time you see either kind of piercing, start polishing it for them like they were ancient silverware or museum artifact piercings with a fleshbag attached to prevent robbery.

the "norm" is as much based in difference (i.e. "look i'm wearing all the normal suburban things, i am not a snowflake suburbanite") as the opposite. the model has normal, and less normal, but all of them think it is uniquely them. none of them are unique at all, they are all slight differences, based in the same model (in this example: some piercings are normal, some are weird is our model of piercings)

very nice response and helped me understand some of this, I almost feel unworthy to attempt to respond

>they all form the same model
And that model being 'possibilities under capitalism'?

and your example of attempting to be truly different (weirding out the normals, and those who think they are unique by being different than them), makes me think to ask, what is the point of that, trying to escape all systems and bounds and predictability, for its own sake? Wanting to be different for its own sake? What is the source of that desire, to not fit in? Or is it a true feeling that one does not fit in, so then one explores the ways in which they do not fit in?

And yes, in some african tribe face piercing and tattoos are the norm. And all this stems from their being no apparent universal norms, universal model of being and self identity and expression? Or at least it is founded on utility?

>the "norm" is as much based in difference..as the opposite

I dont think this is to say the norm needs freaks to say: we are right in being the norm, because those freaks are freaks: I think if there was no non norm the norm would still be self satisfied with itself:

Are you suggesting, everything allowed to exist under capitalism is 'the norm'? (ignoring percentages of demographics and characteristics, size and shape of the puzzle pieces that make up 'the norm'?)

And then, if there wasn't the system, the model, or whatever: how might self expression be, the search for uniqueness? Isn't the system quite natural in that sense, the progression: would you say it has allowed the most search and finding of uniqueness and self identity and expression (as far as we can think and tell)? And then we ask, what is even the meaning of that, or value of that? Is that a major point, he main point of existing?

Are people that dont crave a unique identity weird, are people that do, are? Is weird weird?

Was it theoretically possible for goth to be the norm? Or do you think there is some inherent natural good reason why the general norm is the way it is: and it would be difficult without the general, small identity, smally unique self expressive, norm, for all the difference seekers, unique identiters, to most highly seek their self perception and expression?

Are special snowflakes trancendent entities, the cream of the crop, wheat from the chaff productions of the boring, identityless norm? Are the differences more and/or less valuable? Is it all, just is? Sometimes both are good, sometimes the norm is bad, sometimes a difference is bad...says who, how, why?

.

>possibilities under capitalism
sortof. it's like consumable units. people who hate starbucks will buy locally roasted coffees (or ones marketed that way) and buy it in bulk if it's vegan superfoods ersatz coffee, in case it goes out of style.

it's not just the weirding out normals. there are consumers, who, for whatever reason, can always be the first person to buy a product destined to be a failure. they have a knack for picking the kitkat flavour even japan doeesn't like, and if you work in advertising and sales, knowing if they like your product tells you how many to make.
there are also people who drive the market as first purchasers: then the opposite happens, and whichever games console/dvd technology/media system which plays the most porn will always win, because those people will pay $$$money$$$ for a VR experience with their 2d gf, despite being a very small market when the market is being shaped.

identity used be formed by tribalism and community and real life experience, and which could not be paid for. if you tried to pay money to appear as x role of social identity in a tribal setting, it means nothing except you think bribery will get around social taboos. if you wear tattoos or piercings or clothes you are not entitled to in your social role as understood by the tribe, they take them off you.

baudrillard is talking about how now people buying objects is as good as passing a social test: you have blue hair and piercings, and everyone can tell who you voted for, and you would not buy starbucks but locally roasted if only you weren't also somehow poor every month lol.
even dropping out of society is commodified, with thousands of tiny house videos and survivalists on youtube of all fucking places.

youtube=google=probably worse than the KGB taking an interest in you during the russian purges is half of those channels' message too.

the reason why fedoras as well as blue hairs and other meme personalities are showing up IRL is because the model works well: they have been sold that as unique and enlightened and they need to buy a new one at least every three months, or they don't fit in. capitalism wants you to pay money regularly, and more each time, so these identities need a lot of upkeep and incremental payments. we suspect the worst are paying for an identity, but we still recognise the identity involved. that's the model. they're all just paying extra because they think the red/blue/purple one really is more "me" (post focus group, orange rarely makes it).

.

..

>you have blue hair and piercings, and everyone can tell who you voted for, and you would not buy starbucks but locally roasted
Interesting. This just gets me to wonder: why is everyone so different (I mean I understand how), but the more interesting part you were getting at: how differences from the norm can show up in groups, subcultures, etc. It all comes down to: how many different possibiliteis there are in the world, how complex the human mind and body is, and the substance of earth; how large it is and how much time there is: to develop all these variations and differences: and then in comparison to all else, people attempt to find their way with their understandings and ignorances developing their style of behavior, attitude, belief, opinion, hobbies and interests, and association groups.

I mean there was a time, relatively not too long ago, where so much stuff that now exists did not exist, we wouldnt even be talking about that "type of person", but maybe that type of person existed in different ways, but just couldnt express themselves as such then.

But still, the meaning behind it is interesting: it is possible for someone to genuinely not like starbucks coffee, the price or (maybe... taste) business practice, you dont have to assume everyone who doesnt like starbucks is solely doing it because its cool:

What is actually cool, or is it a fuzzy ouji board partly pushed by the players, partly pushed by the players of that past, and partly pushed by nature: majoritily the latters? How much is the world shaped by cool, the desire to be cool?

>even dropping out of society is commodified, with thousands of tiny house videos and survivalists on youtube of all fucking places.

Why is that so surprising though, and I dont even mean in a 'what did you expect from these consumerist pansy hacks' but a 'humankind has been attached at the hip and mouth and teet and tip for thousands of years to commodities and the market place, the need to consume to live: many intricate tasks to even survive most basically:

I think dropping out of society is extremely difficult regardless, just for a random person to do it, the amish have a lot of momentum in what they do.

>well: they have been sold that as unique and enlightened and they need to buy a new one at least every three months, or they don't fit in. capitalism wants you to pay money regularly

Good bread.

While I agree to an extent, obviously capitalism wants money: I think its also possible, regardless of any of that, a human can of their own accord desire to play with style, or what have you. When I was a kid I was quite into clothes, not quite into, but wanted to look fashionable and like crisp new clothes, and having more and more, pants and shirts, cool features, it made me feel cool and special, I really related to those clothes, and they genuinely just made me happy wearing, maybe partly because before that leading up my mom would buy my clothes and dress me, in dorky outfits, and now I was exploring style on my own.

Anyway, over time I cared less and less, until I became quite minimalist. It partly has to do with not having a lot of money, but I strongly think even if money was not an option, I would have a small wardrobe, thats just me, it is fun dressing up though, it is fun wearing costumes: look at kids who wear costumes in public, do you think the blue hair stuff may just be related to that, the desire to dress up, be free: combating a past uber care of peoples perception, getting over that by saying Idgaf what you think, this is fun and play time and pretend and expressive and flair and unique and I am sims character in the real world and I get bored of perfect structure order so I want to mix things up every now and then by wearing funky shoes or jnco pants

.

>While I agree to an extent, obviously capitalism wants money: I think its also possible, regardless of any of that, a human can of their own accord desire to play with style, or what have you.
They can, but not with mass produced culture. The point of Baudrillard's "unique" is that it is not unique: it is mass produced.
>into clothes
Those clothes were mass produced and not constructed as they would have been in the 1700s if you were "really into clothes" then, right? People of your status have only been able to afford to be into clothes since the industrial revolution made mass production of cloth and clothes possible, and fast fashion and thrift shops full of new clothes every week can only happen under mass produced models.
>small wardrobe
>partly has to do with not having a lot of money
And that is another choice under mass production. Baudrillard's point is that a lot of other people are making that "choice" which is largely based in capitalist mass production, and think it is a personal rather than mass produced choice.

Even if you chose to weave your own and sew your own, and collect your own raw materials from wild flax and hedgerows, that would be a reaction against mass production, and not a natural choice as it would have been under feudalism. There would not be the range of choice to spend your money, nor the opportunities we have.

You're very much within the normal and legible range of the model. Most humans do not want to be unique. They want to fit in and find community. That is why the "most unique" people all look alike, shop the same way, and even tend to buy the same foods as each other.

>look at kids who wear costumes in public
Look at their parents who buy all that shit for them.

sorry forgot to bump, force of habit

>But still, the meaning behind it is interesting: it is possible for someone to genuinely not like starbucks coffee, the price or (maybe... taste) business practice, you dont have to assume everyone who doesnt like starbucks is solely doing it because its cool:
That Starbucks exists for them as the big evil is a sign they are reading the model. The model doesn't care about that half as much as someone who thinks you're talking about whale hunting not coffee when you say Starbuck. The person who hates Starbucks will get almost as many anti Starbucks articles from a google search as pro Starbucks advertising. That all fits within the model where "Starbucks" = coffee sellers.
Now, if you try to google Starbuck the character from Moby Dick, you need to add search terms or you are getting coffee based websites. That is what I mean by sticking within the model: being pro or anti Starbucks because of their assets like "taste" "business practice" or "value" or "evironmentalism" are all parts of the model. What is outside the model is hating Starbucks because it makes your Moby Dick essay hard. When's the last time that came up in the model, and does it come up more often than "bad business practices"? It's rarer and harder to read in the model, and also the closest that conversation about Starbucks will ever come to truly unique human experiences like "art".

The ideas of "cool" and "hip" also didn't exist before a lot of this commercialisation. Curioisity used to creep into the homes of the unfortunate under the guise of duty and pity, but now advertising does that, and tells you you should feel bad about Starbucks because of x practice.

How many of those "type of people" learnt about Starbucks' fucked up work practices from the person who gave them coffee, who was not a competitor, who was not shilling the alternative, who was not shilling something? The information of whether you buy A or ¬A isn't coming from a person, it's coming from the model. The model's also trying to sell you, those people definitely didn't buy their uniqueness that's why your unique purchases are totally you babe.

>humankind has been attached at the hip and mouth...to commoditites
No. Mass production and public transportation changed humanity's way of life. The reason you have been to the next town over, have a closet, and a computer is not because we're bespoke making each and every one of those trips, objects and services for you like was the case before the Modern age. Dropping in to the town over used be more difficult than now, and being kicked out of society was much easier. Paying for either used be the domain of the people who owned demesnes.
>The Amish
They still use money, most communities now allow phones and machinery to keep up production of clothes and farm goods with modern standards. They pay more money into the capitalist system than they do the state system, but that doesn't prove anything re: paying to the capitalist system being avoidable.

How da fuck I understand what is Baudrillard saying? Do I need to read another book from him?

.

burnks

ploops

This is wrong.

bump

I don't know dude. He wrote The Matrix didn't he? That was a great movie. Anyone know if the book version is any good?

>They can, but not with mass produced culture. The point of Baudrillard's "unique" is that it is not unique: it is mass produced.
But lets say the individual 'who may want to play with their style, who may want to seek individuality and self expression' was born in an era without any mass production: as a native american, or eskimo, or african tribesman, or ancient roman. Wouldnt you think they would be limited in their options? Dont you think because much has changed since those times, in terms of available items and visions and theories and comforts, that a person has more information and options to take in?

All of those uniquenesses are unique compared to the options they would have had in primitive scenarios. And they can always seek primitive scenarios (live in the woods, travel to a primitive tribe) in the current mass produced era.

Just because there has been a piling on of abilities and creations and organizations and genres and boxs of style, doesnt mean the source of the desire to create all that, was not self unique self expression; and that an individual born in the world, can not come to choose that out of all the options, they resonate with one or more of the options, and say 'that is just like me, the essence of the style was in me, and if this mass produced thing didnt exist, there would be a longing in me for it, and because other people had that same longing, and sought to create it, I have some deepish bond with those other people'.

>Those clothes were mass produced and not constructed as they would have been in the 1700s if you were "really into clothes"
You are right if you mean I was not really into clothes in a deep sense, or creator sense, or history sense, and intimate sense: more a very vivid imagination sense, and the colors and textures and subtle designs would full my experience with extra flair and fluff of aesthetic, and comparing that time period of my perception to my current in regards to clothes, personally, comparatively was 'really into them'.

>You're very much within the normal and legible range of the model. Most humans do not want to be unique.
I could imagine you are saying this broadly, but if you are solely using my childhood and current clothe relation example to make that statement, I dont know if you can make it without knowing everything else about me, or if your thesis is 'it is impossible to be "truly" ""unique"", at all.

>look at kids who wear costumes in public
>Look at their parents who buy all that shit for them.
Do you think the parents or kids are wrong? If you had a kid that wanted to wear spiderman costume to the store would you let him?

>How many of those "type of people" learnt about Starbucks' fucked up work practices from the person who gave them coffee, who was not a competitor, who was not shilling the alternative, who was not shilling something?
That says nothing about whether Starbucks work practices are actually truly fucked up, but you seem to be implying you know they are not?

And you are saying 'there is no real unique, or its hard to be real unique', because every person takes from whats available from the system. But even still there can still be unique in comparison then: those who take more from whats available and work it in ways noone else has. the question is just, what could be the possible purposes, or values of being unique: and the answer would likely depend on what the individual thinks and feels and why:

You may be suggesting, or you dont believe, the average individual is cognizant, smart enough, knows themself and reality truly enough, to make accurate, real decisions, about their nature and drives and motives and values and purposes for uniqueness. Artists for instance, abstract, modernist, sculptures, interpretative dance, fashion designers? Or may artists be the closest to the exception of your rule

>Sea Oak from George Saunders

Just read Sea Oak on your recommendation. I don't quite see the connection to sign/signifier? Do you mean the way in which he uses language to point to other things?

I think he's implying it's interesting that any Starbucks protester in any country will give you the same lines about Starbucks' work practices, and they are not the same things that a Starbucks protesting employee talks about being shit.

and seem to both think they're in an argument with Baudrillard himself where he's just going to say "u guyz r right, authentic being isn't a thing in postmodern philosophies and that's why nobody can heidegger"

>You may be suggesting, or you dont believe, the average individual is cognizant, smart enough
in particular seems to think that because someone is explaining babby's first Baudrillard to people that their whole life philosophy is babby's first Baudrillard. He's not giving you a personal statement of beliefs to you, you could read the book for Baudrillard's view on how the system changes people.

That you're arguing against him as though he's given you his personal religion is a sign you're not probably cognizant enough to cope with someone babbying up Baudrillard, let alone Baudrillard tbph.

>You may be suggesting, or you dont believe, the average individual is cognizant, smart enough, knows themself and reality truly enough, to make accurate, real decisions, about their nature and drives and motives and values and purposes for uniqueness.
He probably saying something closer to a simulacrum of an art object is indistinguishable to most people as different to the original art object. (Or even preferable because the Mona Lisa is a mess compared to reproductions). While daVinci slaved for years over one Mona Lisa, it is not the Mona Lisa most people have seen. Most people have seen a production, which is why the Louvre is always filled with people saying "Why is it so small?", "Why is it so blurry?", "Did we wait two fucking hours for *this*?"

That is why there are art authentication, because most people couldn't tell the unique Mona Lisa from one printed off in China. It's the same with most unique, not mass produced, objects. Mass produced objects can be sourced, and you can work out which press in China printed the Mona Lisa in which run of prints, but you'd be hard pressed to do that without printing codes. When the simulacrum becomes equivalent to the object, then you're in the hyperreal, and each Mona Lisa is as unique as the last, and the original could be considered a poor copy of itself.

He *is* probably
That is why there *is*

ESL, apologies.

>But lets say the individual 'who may want to play with their style, who may want to seek individuality and self expression' was born in an era without any mass production: as a native american, or eskimo, or african tribesman, or ancient roman. Wouldnt you think they would be limited in their options? Dont you think because much has changed since those times, in terms of available items and visions and theories and comforts, that a person has more information and options to take in?
>more options = more unique
Nononon
They still form tribal groups, that is why you can recognize tropes like dyed hair or fedora wearers. Greater commodified choice does not mean that we have surpassed our tribalism; it means that our tribal instincts are more greatly commodified.

A "unique" role as you are describing is a sense of self, which was not sold to you before mass production, but given to you. It could be earned or revoked or denoted by clothes, but buying it was rare and corrupt (such as buying a praetorship was seen in Rome).
Now, to have that sense of self, you must purchase the related paraphernalia. You must voice the right sort of opinion, as opinions are great commodities, and people will pay a lot to have people hear the right sort of opinion about the parts of the model they like or dislike.

The idea of being unique is itself commodifying identity: do you think the Romans were less unique human individuals? Do you think a tribal society is less so? No, they managed to be unique and find their different social boxes very well. When SJWs talk about being ostracized by other SJWs or the right or the patriarchy, they are unconsciously referring to a process of kicking out upper class citizens from ancient Attic democracy and banishing them from the city. Sometimes that plays well in Sparta.

At the moment you find a lot of people who are desperate for that kind of unique self, and it is not being filled by 12 bottles of blue hair dye a month, though that will have decided many political and other choices for them, including where all their money goes, and what type of job they don't find "soul-crushing" on instagram. The idea their need for uniqueness is better solved by a conveyor belt of similarly modelled choices of mass produced commodities, than by something which provides both less anxiety of choice and more direct empirical authentication from close communities, by providing less chance to avoid social roles or opt for social roles through capitalism, and greater impetus to model these roles on direct experience and human relationships, just isn't apparent. The people who fall for such commodified tropes and roles are usually the first to admit that it's not fulfilling their basic human needs for love/community. That's why they're willing to pay for a fedora and kekfrog tshirt.
>very vivid imagination sense
Many people say they are very into x, but it usually amounts to only imagination & dollars spent, not work/social product

>That says nothing about whether Starbucks work practices are actually truly fucked up, but you seem to be implying you know they are not?
No they are fucked up, but the list of reasons why they are fucked up that come up from the people who define themselves as "anti Starbucks" is an organized group and standardized list.
There are more reasons which don't make that list about why they are fucked up, and some of the reasons against the anti Starbuck lobby are as bizarrely fucked up as what they are critiquing.
Don't mistake a lobby group for an organic system that doesn't have any objective. The people who are against Starbucks for instance tend to also like Fairtrade, which is a brandname and lobby group and doesn't lobby for coffee workers to have the standard of living, or better than, a western coffee drinker has. They argue for a still lower standard of living but an "improvement". They tend to praise people for choosing their brandnamed packets and would never say to their customers that it's nicer slavery they're hoping for. They tend to attack Starbucks the system, but not the customers who could become their customers, or, at least never with the same vigor.
(You also rarely see staff complaints about the customers as a feature of their campaigns against the company. You, the coffee buying public, might not support someone who you've already been a dick to but might also be uncomfortable with anyone who points out that fact.)

You do seem to be hoping that my personal beliefs are tainting things as says and that by hoping that I have a poor view of humans or like Starbucks that you can "gotcha" Baudrillard.

Humans can think they're doing something great with their lobby group (Occupy Wall Street; MAGA) and what they're actually doing is not a pragmatic way to go about their stated goals or implied goals (buying McDonalds and Subway for a camp full of NEETs who don't want to feed nearby homeless; making some baseball cap manufacturer in China filthy filthy rich, respectively). That doesn't mean they don't feel they are doing something unique and meaningful. They're just doing it in a very commodified way, which generally doesn't achieve their goals.

burrrumpsss

I want to read this thread later, burumpa pa pum pumm, bump a pum pum, burrrumpa pumm pumm

Pseuds think of themselves too smart to read Aristotle.

Pseuds read Baudrillard and think of themselves as intellectual giants after managing his masturbatory writing.

Pseuds wont ever know they just read Aristotle filtered through thesaurus.

>not pointing out aristotle was scribed in the first place
pseud

>needing to point something out a non pseud would know
pseud^2

>was scribed in the first place
>I am sincerely speaking for myself without mockery when I say this in honest confusion what is the importance of this in relation to what is being talked about

>being this butthurt you didn't know why one of the ethics was called nicomachean
>2018 GMT

>why one of the ethics was called nicomachean
lol you just outted yourself and I bet you don't even know why

>has to imagine my calm logical reasoning as equalling butthurt to deflect away from the calm logical reasoned point/s

bamp

oh its just another pan-capital determinism thread. curious its not land this time.

yeah go buy ur semiotextes to enter the model and gtfo

will try to respond to those posts in a bit, waiting for the stars to allign

the signified represents the bastion of illusitivity, the epiphenomenon of transcendental configuration of the bi-dilectic ontologic numeral transpiring epilogue perpetuated betwixt a barely fragile chasm of semi pseudo quasi perpetuity. The doman of the tangibly intangible coheres with the never present past transponding towards the never never absolute, which relayed to the opposite of the reflection of the representation of the other other, in the others other other, negated, becomes a negative positivity, multiplied by the tangential frame of anti-space and anti-time, the disillusionment with real non-illusionary illusions metaphorically copulates bilaterally down the n domain of the primary essence of the last conceptual essence of essence, that is the birth of the pre essence is contained in the last breath of the dying conception of anti essence, lacking the velocity of matter-of-fact vis a vis qua 'abstract pre frontal lobe' self interrogation, by the Big Other called the society of secret mind, the individual is left holding the bag, and if we are to believe what it has been believed nature has told us, handed down from the, yes, cringe, translations, as we have yet to crack the code on natures true tongue, thus far it at least phenomenologically appears her majesty begs us to place it over our heads, and celebrate the phallus.

uno momento por favor

yeah i really loved the chapter about the meaning of gear shafts being shoved through womens cunts in a car crash, so masterful user, i nearly came from the literary beauty

midwit pseudo faggot had a grain of good idea and buried it in bullshit such as above

>What the fuck does this paragraph MEAN?
yeah exactly. stop reading him. the notches arent worth it believe me

.

tomorow

is now today

Simulacra and Simulation is excellent.

>who was completely ostracized and disparaged by the sociological and philosophical communities in France

yes because he wasn't a complete degenerate who used subjectivity as an excuse to push his ideological agenda

good post

>That you're arguing against him
Yo. Calm down, you are responding as if there was attack, violence, anger, threatening....we were having a socratic dialogue.

>They still form tribal groups, that is why you can recognize tropes like dyed hair or fedora wearers. Greater commodified choice does not mean that we have surpassed our tribalism; it means that our tribal instincts are more greatly commodified.
Differences in people exist, tastes, and desires for expression: are you pressuming or stating there is something wrong with 'tribalism' in the sense of: we like baseball over here, we like rock and roll over there, we like hot dogs here, we like sushi, these people like aquariums, these people over here are in the middle of the venn diagram liking all that, these people here have mohawks, these people over her like classical literature, these people here only read literature from the 19th century: etc.

Are you saying there is anything wrong with groupings of like mindedness? Are you suggesting the true being, the true state and desire of a true legit being, would be to understand all possible groups? And want to belong to them all? Or belittle the ones that are objectively expressibly ludicrous out of existence?

>it means that our tribal instincts are more greatly commodified.
What I was trying to say with my examples of ancient humans: And I have only gotten to this first paragraph so dont know what you say in the rest of post yet, but will respond after, just need to focus on this point first:

You believe, or know, there is something wrong with commodification? What does commodification mean? Item/object/idea for sale? 3000 years ago an indian selling a seashell necklace to a little girl? You are suggesting a persons truest self should not need anything beyond their person? Or they should know that anything they do or put on their person (superficially) is meaningless, worthless, and they are only doing it because they want to appear to others a certain way, a way in which they may be mistaken about?

>A "unique" role as you are describing is a sense of self, which was not sold to you before mass production, but given to you. It could be earned or revoked or denoted by clothes, but buying it was rare and corrupt (such as buying a praetorship was seen in Rome).
Now, to have that sense of self, you must purchase the related paraphernalia. You must voice the right sort of opinion, as opinions are great commodities, and people will pay a lot to have people hear the right sort of opinion about the parts of the model they like or dislike.

This reads to me, as if you are disappointed that individuals/citizens are so equally accepted, that they have so much freedom to think and feel and dress and express as they believe, without experiencing the criticisms, and pressures of others, that there is not enough initiation, passing tests to feel privileged as a worthy member? In the tribe days, yeah you come hunting with us, you collect wood, cut stone, get fish, sew clothes, help make the stew, and you are a welcome member of the family, but now: you can be a neet and walk proudly down the street wearing your designer clothes? If I see a parent with a child dressed in a firemans outfit in burger king the right thing to do would be go up to the child and parent and say "quit playing pretend kid, your life is a lie you little faggot, take that shit off and wear more formal wear, you have not earned the badge of that garb".

>The idea of being unique is itself commodifying identity: do you think the Romans were less unique human individuals? Do you think a tribal society is less so?
I get the sense, and I see people argue from this direction, that you dont truly comprehend the extreme difference in human potential and experience (well you do, but it is how you 'valueize it' (in a non commodified way..but a .. I have air conditioning, and a car, and internet way); The romans were unique individuals, and there are people alive today who in ways are similar to them, in body and spirit, but the romans did not have Amazon, or Lamburghinis, or space stations: Maybe if we went back in time to the romans and brought them to the future now, and got them totally acquainted with everything about it, they would prefer to go back and live in their time and ways (but that would just like be their opinion...and what is their opinion worth in relation to the most monumental march of human technological progression (yes please attack that point, it may be one of our cruxes): and: noone is stopping people right now to find some place on earth they can live as the ancient romans did.

We get to, in our discussion: What is important, what is most important, what most matters, and then what next matters, and next?

>>more options = more unique
What is the value of unique? could having more options be more valuable than being unique? depend on a person? Anyway to scientifically test this other than asking every human in history what time period they would prefer to live in (while considering a person living now could live like a primitive if they wanted)? And then even still... people can be dumb? change their minds? crazy?

>When SJWs talk about being ostracized by other SJWs or the right or the patriarchy, they are unconsciously referring to a process of kicking out upper class citizens from ancient Attic democracy and banishing them from the city.

This is interesting but I dont fully understand what you mean: the sjws are the upper class citizens being kicked out (the kicking out being their ostracized, or the patriarchies reaction to their reactions? Or the sjws with their critiques are performing the process of kicking out upper class citizens from 'attic' democracy, as in 'these old geezers in the senate are senile, the times are changing'?

Reminder: Baudrillard and Logic nerd bait threads are the only acceptable bait threads

>At the moment you find a lot of people who are desperate for that kind of unique self, and it is not being filled by 12 bottles of blue hair dye a month
Ok, and now I think I see your point here: It could be that a person simply for any reason wants to dye their hair blue and it could actually make them feel good or better and they could be right: but its possible they, dont need that to feel the way they want to feel and are trying to feel: they may not need to pay such a high price for results, or the best results may come at a non monetary price?

>Yo. Calm down, you are responding as if there was attack, violence, anger, threatening....we were having a socratic dialogue.
No, you're getting spoonfed by someone who knows stuff, so you don't have to argue against Baudrillard by reading him.

Both tell these try to tell me what I believe, when I've been trying to explicate Baudrillard to you
>This reads to me, as if you are disappointed that individuals/citizens are so equally accepted

This projects further assumptions of my feelings, and disregards what I said was not about feelings, and also disregards what I said was about Baudrillard, not me.

So, let's do the Socratic method: if those things are true or false, you will have to pay me more than the average salary in your area this year to find out in one word answers. If you want to be spoonfed, you can pay me double the first amount.
Buying the book will probably be cheaper for you, and easier to strawman.

You could have been polite and responded to what I actually said, but now your tumblrtier thoughts will just have to be fantasy where you believe you're a mindreader and that's how you got your "gotcha" Socrates moment. We're not having a discussion anymore, you're just making assumptions about my character and comprehension, and making no effort to engage with the text at hand or what I said. Learn how to argue a book/speak to people.

>Many people say they are very into x, but it usually amounts to only imagination & dollars spent, not work/social product
What are some examples of what you mean by work/social product? The passionate creators of blue hair dye?

>Both tell these try to tell me what I believe
Socratic dialogue, I am the one in ignorance, did you notice all the question marks? And asking? Giving my understanding and interpretation of what you are saying, and politely asking if that is a correct understanding and interpretation?

Where's my money?

>No, you're getting spoonfed by someone who knows stuff, so you don't have to argue against Baudrillard by reading him.
Well if this was only about me strapping my self in a chair with blindfold on and consuming words, I dont know if I would have wanted to start. I am very thankful for the smart, creative, interesting person I have been speaking to: but I am always looking for conversation, deepest understanding, possible disagreement. I didnt know you were not looking to actually discuss the ideas being discussed. To me it always goes hand in hand, the consuming of 'ancient' texts, and the, deconstructing, of them, to see what they mean, what may be right or wrong about them, their possible values, in relation to the world. etc.

The model has determined the wisdom I have offered in our exchange to be of a greater commodity value, so you actually owe me, I am sorry to say.

Hey, that wasn't me.

>This projects further assumptions of my feelings, and disregards what I said was not about feelings, and also disregards what I said was about Baudrillard, not me.
Yea, well then I was trying to understand what baudrillard was saying: If I say:

"This reads to me, as if you are disappointed that individuals/citizens are so equally accepted"

Then take it as: this reads to me as if; the words you are parting forth as baudrillards words:

No need to take it so personal, this is anonymous, I dont care if your views are or are not represented: only that I was experiencing information put forth which may or may not have been done so under the belief it was related to truth/Truth and so I performed my mode of dealing with such

kekekek
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-P2qL3qkzk
The singer from that found out there was more money in treating autism than being a pop star.

>not about feels
>disappointed
user, even /r9k/bots can tell you that is a feel

I was asking, look at all my question marks.

user 1: This is what baudrillard says about the world

user 2: Am I correct in understanding the words just put forth representing baurdilradds view of the world: are that he is disappointed that....

>The singer from that found out there was more money in treating autism than being a pop star.
for you

he says not about feels, then you say sounds like feels. i'm not saying user hasn't said it's not about feels and it has turned out to be about feels.

but he did say not about feels and you respond with what if it's baurdilradds feels? feels are still feels, bro, you can't get around that.

*the model stands tall and still....we wait to see how it reacts.....and.....and......it does not laugh.....not a single kek given....we carry on*
>he says not about feels, then you say sounds like feels.
He says his not about his own feels: he can and baudrilard can say his descriptions of reality are not about his feels either, and he could be 100 or 99% right: but I asked what I asked because I sensed what was framed was a disappointment in the way things were, a reason baudrlarladlad wanted to, so clearly, descriptdescribe reality, was the prospect of others suffering due to their ignorance of accurate description of reality.

Surely baududlrlaldlard didnt think 'the operations of the human world' were all satisfactory, and he wished they would be no other way.

Surely baurdlraidlaraidl couldnt expect to put forth his descriptions of reality, and demand them not be questioned, and furthermore, not questioned, if he had any biases or motives in his descriptions, he was or was not aware of.

no instead of discussing the meat and potatoes and interesting convo about reality we are discussing your minutiaed pedantry, kudos, if you are not him, nice contribution, bro.

bro, did you mean to quote me ?

i'm just saying >This projects further assumptions of my feelings, and disregards what I said was not about feelings, and also disregards what I said was about Baudrillard, not me.
says no fee-fees, not just none of his fee-fees

you reponded, but what about the b guy's feels? and that is still feels.

idk if it is about feels, and the first guy has fee-fees, or it's not about feels as he says, but i do know disappointment a feel.

if he insists it's not about feels and you insist it is, idk what you do my waifu is 2d and never fights with me like that.

bro, disappoint a feel. idk why that is big news to Veeky Forums

Great thread and enjoying the info from the user that is trying to inform. could you please go into any detail with respect to his ideas in simulacra and simulation?

The example I've heard spoken of was when people watch two movies set in say the 1920s and then say, "oh this one is far more realistic", when neither of them are remotely connected to anything real. The other example was religious iconography.

I've not used a great example but I'm sure you all get what I'm saying. This idea I personally found eye opening.

Slightly related, what does everyone here think of the last psychiatrist?

Cheers

>Slightly related, what does everyone here think of the last psychiatrist?
He's def read Baudrillard. He's an early post about memory that explains how simulacra can fuck you up.
thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/11/which_is_worse_a_photo_of_an_a.html

Yeah that's a great post.

Makes me think about the whole fake news thing in general. I always assumed that due to the amount of money at stake then the manipulators would be extremely talented. The whole thing has gotten so bizzare I cant help wondering if there is something else going on I can't see yet

>The whole thing has gotten so bizzare I cant help wondering if there is something else going on I can't see yet
Isn't the whole thing
>Why would people do that? Lie? On The Internet?
Most of the people lying on the internet are not smart. They just have internet access.

Oh I don't mean people lying on the internet, I mean the major marketing of which news companies are included.

I would expect them to do a better job. The fact it seems like they are doing a bad job, makes me question whether they are doing a great job cause I don't even understand what is being done.

I view it as a facebook problem and don't go there. People think this selfie of me being cute is as true as the post about The Queen of England now being a Muslim concubine. The people who make both stories sound to me like blonde hair twirlers with bubblegum about to get stuck in it when I read them on the internet and I don't want to see my friends or family male or female that way.
I know it's there, but not having facebook literally knocked those dumb thoughts other people have out of my range of awareness for my friends. I hear people say fake news is a big thing, often near the word facebook, but I'm like I don't read real news either lol.

I think most of the people making those stories are about as smart as the people who take them for granted. I'm more worried about the amount of duckfaces my female friends make on the internet than the fake news thing, really. I'd have been compelled to meme them behind their backs if I didn't quit, but some people trust the internet not to do that. It's bizarre, but I think it's bizarre stupid not bizarre smart.

Well im Def with you on the social media but then I'm 33 and Scottish. Assuming you're across the pond I can only imagine how things are going over there.

Also, I remembered where I saw some examples:

continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/view/91

Strange style but worth a read none the less.

Cheers

>simulacra and simulation

I was recently eating at a new Chinese restaurant with my friend. High-class place, very subdued decor, good food made by Chinese people. My friend remarked that the place didn't really feel authentic. He elaborated that the feeling probably came from the surroundings, the generic expensive western restaurant. An authentic Chinese restaurant would have a wonky generic name like Hunan Garden, Golden Dragon etc. The decor would be more traditionally Chinese with the pagodas, gold decorations and porcelain. We realized the irony of these thoughts, as the stereotypical "Chinese" decor has very little to do with China, and is at best a kitschy and plastic exaggeration of the actual Chinese style. The food served in these places has often very little to do with actual Chinese cuisine (look up General Tso's chicken) and often draws heavily from other Asian food cultures. To top it of most of these restaurants( atleast where I live) are owned and run by various South-East Asians instead of the Chinese. So the whole thing is a complete fabrication, but feels more authentic than the real thing.