Basically a prophet: Literature is doomed

Someone was literally born yesterday, you troglodyte.

And this is exactly what they will think of the world.

...

Who is that even? I have spent more hours in virtual worlds than you may have spent conscious at all. Video Games are Digital Literature, and anyone who doesn't understand that is a ludological cancer, hell-bent on winning some high-score instead of paying attention to the characters - even when that character is you trying to win a high score.

Dood.

Then I misread your post.
Whatever man, at least I will do so eventually since I don't want to be 8-5 for the rest of my life.

Have a good thread

...

Don't forget in the Emoji Movie where they literally say "Words aren't cool anymore, it's all about pictures now"

such a stupid person and such a bad thread, what you’re saying is correct but you’re so vulgur i don’t want to discuss anything with you. you realize you talk like a kike at lunch meeting trying to sell some garbage derivative to some other soulless piece of trash? You ooze false consciousness and pernicious detachment from reality, i get the sense you’re the type who would let someone drink themselves to death in front of you, or would fuck a best friend’s gf and “let it happen” as a detached psychodrama experiment for yourself. Gross personality, horrible use of language and misuse of knowledge, no interest good day sir.

Allow me to tell the tale of this universe:

I saw the image, and thought "what is the source?"

I Tineyed, it, naturally.

Four pages of Reddit.

Timesink question: do I dare to do the research that apparently AI hasn't managed yet (though how I'm not even sure)?

Alas... now indeed is the game of chances.

Permanent does not exist unless there is no time.

I'm with you. Keep up hope, because the bonds of wage-slavery will soon be broken, if human beings can stop being so fucking predictable.

L'Chaim

I've been meaning to research him because he's so pervasive on the boards, but I don't remember any significant information about his ideology other than his resistance to ideologies.

And that's sort of how it should be, because I'm totally part of his clique, I think (unless there's some surface-level sort of thing he's known for hiding in the background that I'm unwittingly associating myself with, which I do not intend, and which would rather undermine his and my shared repudiation of ideology, n'est c'es pas?)

meh. plebs gonna pleb.

I mean, emojis are sort of the intermediary between the linguistic and iconographic languages, right? It's a small piece of art that can be communicated as easily as a letter or character (I know they're not the same linguistically, but I'm not writing to the expert audience in this part), but which expresses a particular sort of emotion.

Which appears to be a sort of universal language.

The human face.

This could be horribly and staggeringly significant in ways that if I try to elaborate on, I'll just sound crazy.

But yeah.

good post

Dear sir or madam:

It occurs to me after interpreting your scathing invective that I have offended your sensibilities.

Please rest assured, dear soul, that it was in no way my intention to upset your fine manners.

Please accept this, my humblest apology, for being so crude and unrefined in my missive, and know that any misuse of the most proper of properist English is an intentionally rhetorical move intended to widen my audience to those less-fortunate souls who have not been lucky enough to acquire the King's most holy and God-given dialect.

OP I want you to know I stopped reading your post because of how incomprehensible and stupid it is.

The ultimate hypocrisy in this thread is that while belly-aching over "the world of today" and how technology is crippling us - supposedly - of our ability to write, you go on to make post after post saying almost nothing, and then mock my rebuke without addressing the central implied critique, claiming that since you could not verify a picture through the ONE website you rely on you couldn't be arsed to make any attempt at all. Does that dependency sound familiar to you?

You vapid, sophomoric moron. Do you even have a thing to say? Are you going to use your experience doing laundry as an example again or are you going to tell me why your ho-hum observations of teens is something revolutionary to this specific generation, and not applicable to scholars of all ages looking back with rose-tinted glasses?

this is the source. It took me almost thirty seconds to find.
books.google.com/books?id=3G8_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=woe to drunkards sermon&source=bl&ots=IVsT-9rydR&sig=3EBnJvF0rUY2gjj4do1Qk-UNGnc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBmoVChMI0a6vh4yWyAIVhRCSCh3c3w8g#v=onepage&q=woe to drunkards sermon&f=false

I do appreciate your feedback: I'm interested in taking this message to a wider audience.

Please take a moment to answer this simple questionnaire:

1) At what point did you determine it is "incomprehensible?"

2) If you didn't understand it (as implied by the word "incomprehensible," which literally means "I didn't understand it"), how do you know it was stupid?

3) At what point did it become "stupid?"

4) What exactly do you think "stupid" means?

Thank you for your time and feedback, and our experts at the Institute for Acknowledging Every Fucking Opinion will review it in order to refine our tactics of communication.

Enjoy your day.

Goddamn drama queens.

There's more entertainment to chose from, and much of it has a lower barrier to entry.

As in, people read more before TV, and before the Internet, and before NetFlix, and before whatever is going to be the rage next year.

You may also have noticed that celebrity doesn't mean what it once did.

It's because there are about 1000x more TV "stars" than there were 30 years ago.

Likewise religion. Back when it was the only book around for miles, people were more religious. Hmm.

You want reading to be special, stop teaching everyone to read! Otherwise STFU, there's tons of book out there to read still. Maybe we can bury you with a few.

*eggplant* *corncob* *underlined 100*
WE LIT AF IN HERE MAYNE

>entertainment
Let's explore that term.

"late Middle English: from French entretenir, based on Latin inter ‘among’ + tenere ‘to hold.’ The word originally meant ‘maintain, continue,’ later ‘maintain in a certain condition, treat in a certain way,’ also ‘show hospitality’ (late 15th century)."

Interesting. What "entertains" us is that which holds our attention. I suppose that is true, but then - what is the logical endpoint of that chain? If you have entertainment, you have to have an entertainer. And who can hold attention for 24/7?

Yeah - that's it - the Internet itself. The singularity of all media, be it visual, aural, or textual. You have all three dimensions in this beast, if you have any imagination whatsoever - which I think we all do - and then the only question is time.

How much time do you want to be merely "entertained?" What else is there? Work? Do you not want to work?

Who does? What defines "work?"

Work is movement.

You don't want to move. And nobody does. But if you follow that to its extreme, and your entertainment is based on audiovisual stimulus, then I assure you you may fully spend an entire human lifespan streaming various stories from the monitor.

People are already.

Do you want to engage, though? Is that the opposite of entertained? It seems like "entertainment" is so passive by connotation, even though denotatively it includes "active engagement..." but that's not a very popular definition. That sounds like work.

[The really crazy part]

So, apply this body, and you get sexual slavery. Apply it to mind, though, and you get pure unlimited fantasy.

Is this the binary to which we are reduced?

John Grilmand was quite the man who knew where to egg his sideways before setting out to gnash

...Is this some weird attempt to call someone out who you think is posting in this thread? I googled him, but I get no apparently significant results.

If you have any more information about this sideways-egging gnash-setter, I'd love to hear it.

lmfao

Your'e a dick, if you want the old wisdom - keeping it 100% real.

YUP

Please explain this term, "pleb." I think it derives from the classicist term "plebian" from the Latin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebs), but this confounds me - are you saying that the reversal of primacy has occurred such to the point that those skilled with linguistic prowess have become the "commoner?" I only understand the term numerically, and thus my confusion: please estimate what percentage of the population you imagine can fully infer my meaning? Is it common?

No - because of an entire history which privileges English as the Lingua Franca - and which I'd like to see transformed into a true multilingual community, if I could, but which seems to be rendered moot to the degree by which AI "translates" things... but how do we achieve reliable translation without the human factor of self-awareness (if, in fact, that's a human factor - I'm 50/50 at this point)?

How is there hypocrisy in that?

You have wildly misinterpreted that little ad-hoc poem.

I simply could not infer your intended message with simply a picture as the content.

It's ironic, I know.

But I figured you were going for an artistic comment, so I thought I'd give an artistic reply.

It was genuine.

You're writing is so fucking awful, man.

>I'm posting this on Veeky Forums, so you ahve to expect some academic dick-swinging, right?

You're pretentious, edgy, and you treat your audience like they're children. The latter i'd be fine with if you weren't one, and the former I'd be fine with if you had anything of merit to say that literally your average 17 year old contrarian isn't spouting.

>It was an historical inevitability

WHOA.

But its content, now that you have explicated, is less insightful than I had anticipated.

It moves from reliable print (through the image of the book) to a dice-game. Almost oddly prescient of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rejection of Quantum Physics (at least the Copenhagen Interpretation).

Maybe your image communicated something you didn't intend, but which was more enlightening than that which you did.

Let's hope.

It's a little hard to tell what you're criticizing.

The tone is intended as what I call "analingish" (that is, tongue-in-cheek).

You might want to review how "latter" and "former" works, though, because you listed three things there. It's sort of reserved for when there's two.

Great critique, though - keep it up!

And so as not to tear down without building:

"Lattermost" and "formermost" are what you use when speaking of lists with three or more items.

>your ho-hum observations of teens is something revolutionary to this specific generation

Misses this from OP
>This isn't some stupid "generation-gap" bullshit either. Don't even go there, because you know it's affecting us all. But if you don't remember the primacy of print media, then you don't know what it was like to live in a world of words.

It's not about age, it's about experience with print-media as the primary source of information in society.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, it might be that you never determined print-media as such a primary source.

I don't really know who else has, but it might not have to do with age, who knows?

Sure seems like a linear progression from Gutenberg, though, if you look at the history.

I could be wrong. I hope it's way cooler than that.

There are a lot of people in this thread that need to stop taking amphetamines.

Pleb is short for plebian, in that you are an uneducated fuckhead with no understanding of the broader scope of history. Fucking Aristotle got mad about books detracting from the purity of the spoken dialogue(and memorised poetry). The patrician is one who understands shit like this, and is capable of engaging with an idea on its own merits and not autistically writing several paragraphs about each and every idiosyncratic word.

>stop taking amphetamines
never. I am amphetamines

Literal 15 year olds could make the same shitty argument wrt asynchronous communications. When they discussed things on forums, and everything was asynchronous and therefore more considered, ideas were so much better than today’s real time chatrooms. Your age group isn’t special.

there are also a number of people in this thread who should have been mercifully smothered in their cribs

blah blah blah

people were saying this when TV first became a thing. you forget very quickly the amount of time investment and return a book represents. you can read a short book in about 15 or 20 hours. who the fuck is going to look at memes and youtube crap for hours and hours at a time like reading a book and get anything constructive out of it? if literature is being replaced by internet shit then why are people who spend all their time on youtube and Veeky Forums and social media such knuckle-dragging troglodytic freaks instead of patrician ubermensch?? show me the 1st internet culture hero please, otherwise STFU

The internet had potential to be something before the web 2.0 boom. But like all good things, the market took hold of it and never let go.

You can read a short book(1984/Fight Club) in four hours and get something out of it if you’re not a fucking pleb.

>10647877
Disintegration of Conceptual Life

Read this forum
mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7991-the-disintegration-of-conceptual-life/

>short book
>15 to 20 hours
>10 pages an hour
The selfie generation, ladies and gentlemen

It's a little troubling how quickly people will revert to the idea that we can label some drugs as "harmful" and others as "medicinal." It's like, who exactly is to determine the difference?

Taking too much aspirin can kill you, as can any prescribed medication. So, it's obviously not the toxicity of the substance that's the issue.

So, what is it?

Think about this, especially in terms of the prior capitalist critiques.

Yes. Yes, you are. In fact, all "drugs" are essentially already in our brains, as the chemical compounds activated by the specific agent are only half of the interaction, the other half being the receptors therein.

In theory, should we discover some objectively superior chemical state of the brain, we should take every measure to develop a chemical that incites it.

Of course, by that point, we'd be able to develop a biotech brain that exactly matches it, so all we'd need is the spark of self-awareness to activate it, and then we could have it promulgate itself.

But how soon is that? Was that? Will it be?

Questions, questions, questions.

I bet pic related really gets your panties in a bunch OP

So, you need to talk to more 15 year olds (I'll take "the worst advice on Veeky Forums in history," Alex).

They're not actually all the same. Turns out they're real people, with thoughts and ideas and varying degrees of experience.

Your argument is paradoxical, though. Anyone who has lived through it remembers that "realtime chatrooms" predated imageboards. We were on MUDs and MOOs in the late '90s, before any of the shit you're thinking of. It looked like a weird virtual dot-matrix simulation, when you think back to it.

I don't know if you know what I'm talking about, or maybe you need to review your timeline.

Maybe. We won't ever know, because by the time you figure that out, they're grown up. This isn't too hard for you, right?

Okay, yeah - I mentioned McLuhan, who was among the most notable early critics of television.

This is giving me some trouble, though:
>who the fuck is going to look at memes and youtube crap for hours and hours at a time like reading a book and get anything constructive out of it?

It seems like you're denigrating "youtube crap" (while equating it with memes, which is even weirder to me) and championing books. Yet, you have summarized my point (which, in a way, agrees, sort of) as "blah blah blah."

How does that make sense, if you like reading? Is it that you don't like the (attempted and failed) straightforward non-fiction first-person narrative approach?

I am befuddled.

Okay, so triggered by mention of Web 2.0 - that means you've done some research.

But I don't know why you're so willing to admit defeat by "the market."

We are the market, after all, right?

Like, we know America (if that is your location, or mine) is run by a corporate oligarchy that likely controls governments as sort of a necessary evil they have to manipulate in order to ensure limitless wealth.

But the people in America, who theoretically (though little) possess the most expendable, and therefore directable, income determine the greatest influence over that (global) market.

It's the internet. It has no country.

>ctrl f "Debord"
>0 results

Merde vous imbeciles

Very relevant to my interests, user. Thanks.

It's better than the lolcat translation, but there's obviously a lot of refinement needed.

No problem, there's a lot more on that forum, would love to talk, but I must hit the sack, you seem like a smart guy, don't hesitate to join and contribute if you think you've got something to add.

Muds we’re running at the same time as BBS dominated actual discussions, literally as asynchronous as possible. And muds were text based, not a “dot matrix simulation” you fucking pseud.
(You can tell that OP is

The moment you used the word "ain't" I knew something was wrong. When you started talking about Star Wars I stopped reading and dismissed you as stupid. It's also worth noting your tone in general suggested said idiocy up to that point and so what followed was more confirmation than anything.

Read Baudrillard

you're welcome

> Uploading information directly into your brain stops you from having a critical opinion on it
What the fuck, man.

Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more
corrupt

I'm 40 years old, but thanks for the compliment.

BBSs were utterly gone by the time MUDs and MOOs hit my awareness, but then again, I'm not 1337; I just adjuncted programming by learning Apple Basic and having to literally program my own video games from a book of code on an Apple IIE. I never kept up with it until I learned Symbolic Logic in college, and then a synapse fired and I sort of saw a connection between all logical language. I mean, I'd like to think that's what I saw, but I'm probably just delusional.

Furthermore, I was trying to describe the image of a bunch of chatrooms open on monitors in a late-night computer lab circa 1997 with that "dot-matrix simulation," but it obviously did not land.

It's just some lad who probably mixed ritalin and weed and just started to peek into the abyss. Dragging him into this now would be for the worse.

Like... really? You didn't read that as an intentional tonal inflection to denote the idea of intentionally breaking convention to alert importance?

It's a pretty common rhetorical device.

Also, the word is actually a derivation of the abbreviation "amn't," short for "am not," which after a while became further abbreviated to "ain't" because the "m" kept getting swallowed. Straight from my linguistics prof's mouth to your eye.

But dismissing someone as stupid for mentioning Star Wars? How deep in this bullshit game of "my team is better than your team" are you, mah dood?

Like, pull your head out of your ass and read things past their sociocultural references: develop a fucking opinion about the *topic*! That's where it's at.

I need to visit Vegas again, when I have a lot of money, and just have a fucking fantastic night in honor of Baudrillard. I really hope I have that chance, now that I think about it. He was so right in so many ways.

No. Seriously. What sort of objective meaning do you imagine texts to have that they could be "uploaded" (sic - I now see it should be "downloaded") without any filter of interpretation? Motor functions, sure - alglorithmic processes, maybe - but linguistic content is polysemous. How could it be communicated without an interpretive function at the point of observation? It's like the wave-particle duality of words.

Googled (obvi copypasta) and saw some Millennials don't exist article. Didn't read it because I agree with the premise unironically to the point where I will continue and explicate my own meaning despite the original article:

Time stopped with the internet, to some degree. The rate of consumption of media is rapidly approaching (if it already hasn't) an asymptote on the logarithmic curve of availability. All the shows ever made are floating in a bubble that is accessible from any point at any time. The entertainment industry has managed to document itself well enough that a 14 year old is as likely to catch a Lil Xan reference as a Tom Baker reference, and it's impossible to predict your audience's timeline by their age.

I saw a 14 year old binge-listening to Alan Watts lectures. Voluntarily. If that's not woke AF, I don't know what is.

The point is, the information is all out there. This "generational gap" of cultural references and trends and styles... that's all gone. Everything is rhetorical now. Everything is a reference to something else. Postmodernism described the framework by which we are actually experiencing life now.

This is incredibly optimistic, when you think about it.

Of course, optimism is also a choice.

I think you wanted to learn about network culture all along. The dude at index.varnelis.net/network_culture might be what you want.

>I saw a 14 year old binge-listening to Alan Watts lectures. Voluntarily. If that's not woke AF, I don't know what is.
Kill yourself.

you are disgusting to me and deleuze

Based on the logorrhea in this thread, I think OP is that tiresome autistic larper that shits up our board with his mental exsudations. sage and report.

>dude le conservative firebrand that's not been relevant for a decade!!! Do I fit in young dudes???

You might be right.

Thank you.

...

>we have entered the world of the image.
>he says on an image board dedicated to producing memes than transcend written language

woah!

Don't drag The Last Jedi into this: Yoda knew perfectly well that Rey had already stolen the ancient texts, and she was now the keeper. That's why he appeared and blew the tree up before Luke could go in there and discover they were missing. It was about giving Luke some peace so he could do what he needed to. You see her closing a drawer on them in the Falcon at the end of the film.

You sound 19 years old. Lol.
You can drop the word "stupid" and simply ask, "What does this person bring to the table?" There are clearly people who have fallen into the traps set by governments, media, corporations, that take away their desire to strive. I would say the person who has consigned his human existence to the whims of those more powerful is beneath me.
There will always be castes and most people fit into the dumbass caste. Even if you choose to deny it there will still be functional and demonstrable definitions of stupid. You can wallow and struggle or choose to transcend it like suggests.

>expressing with words how we have entered the world of images.

You can see it by yourself: words are needed for detailed explanations of things and the expression of complex thoughts.
This is something you will never be able to do with any other means of expression: words are simply the best tool you can use to explain. And as long as we keep using them, we can keep making art with them, therefore literature will still have a space.

Accruing information without the lens of real world experience is the definition of being a pseud.

im pretty sure the average person today reads much more than the average person 200 years ago.

>playing video games for the "characters" or "themes"
Gas chambers aren't real, but if they were, I would want you and all your ilk to be tossed inside like the genetic garbage that you are.

retard thread is retard. the last jedi never had the books burned ye mongo.