*I dare you to get more intellectually edgy than this*

Attached: FB_IMG_1518857256385.jpg (747x474, 65K)

The print is great, nice paper.

fpbp

That's not edgy. He was just picking up on the growing culture of the last men and articulating it.

What utter nonsense

I still prefer edginess over Anglo all-unmarried man-are-bachelors reaches in philosophies.

Never read Baudrillard but sign value is obviously correct. We display commodities with high sign values in order to improve our reproductive success, improved social position, access to further resources etc. Contrary to popular opinion, the way our current society is set up is that for example a purchase of a highly expensive car or displaying highly costly behavior (I mean here not just monetary cost but something as in acting with supreme aggressiveness for example) is not a waste but is highly beneficial to further generation of resources, social standing and reproductive success. What you wear is literally not just what you are but what you will get by engaging in the appropriate ritual behavior.

Is that because you don't understand the implications of the latter?

You know that came from a German, right?

>Conspicuous consumption is highly beneficial

Attached: 1f13a446116247cc1988bfeaed6d78b2f5f5c1ab1569db7dc114feb531347b93.jpg (450x600, 22K)

To the individual who does it, it obviously is, even if one could argue at the expense of others who don't.

Yes and the point I am trying to make that this is bad

Attached: 5c43113b1c517289428bc6d35559c451cc6a4d3667ecfaa639ecaaa42d56896c.png (282x353, 235K)

god i wish that were me

Funny, I have it reserved at the library.

It's not always obvious, let's remember what does benefit imply here. I wouldn't say normies getting drunk the hell up or skipping on their jobs and feeling crippling regret almost immediately (and just as immediately jumping into the next meaningless excitement) is anyhow beneficial regarding either social position or reproductive value. There are many forms of "conspicuous consumption" and we are at a more or less critical point where sign values are no longer assigned to every form.

There is an underlying notion of lack of social mobility at play here, with 'proper' sign values at once being available, ultimately, solely to those who already possess much of it. Saying "we can all buy Iphones" is profoundly different to "we can all buy Iphones, and this guy can buy one covered in platinum". It's part of this value that it be scarce, and most of us are merely buying the representation of a sign value (I suspect Baudrillard does address this but I wouldn't be able to pinpoint where). In this way you can only relish in the structure of society if you transpose a (growing) gap, and I am eager to claim most of us are not on the other side of said gap.

I suppose it would depend on how you define the hierarchical structure of society. We are probably still at point where using certain behaviors and obtaining certain commodities is plausible enough to most individuals in society that there is no revolt. In practice, acting a certain way, going to the gym, wearing certain clothes and having possession of certain items probably still gives you enough of a benefit in society that most of the population is not ready to revolt against the dominant narrative. Unless we believe them to be deluded or in some state of false consciousness, but I am not sure that is in fact the case. Would I say that most people have delusions in the vein of the American Dream that 99% then fail to obtain? No. I think there is on a local level still social mobility, the ability to climb a ladder in society at least to the extent that the general population finds the conditions of the society still tolerable. As much as we daydream about the "1%" problem, it is enough for most people to play the "1%" in their local environment without necessarily possessing everything the "1%" do. I believe, at the root of it is the desire to yield power over other individuals in the society moreso than actual experience/manifestations of the effects of said power. What is appealing about the "1%" idea for most people isn't the ability to dictate your own life, to have endless sex, drugs, cars, vacations, whatever...The appeal of that idea is the elevating of your own person, over your own consciousness over the other in a clearly hierarchically defined manner. When sex, money, drugs blablah...are obtained through that, it is the perversity of the fact that you can fire some Joe Doe and ruin his life at a moment's notice solely because of your position that generates the high that people crave. That is why I believe Weinstein jacked off in front of those actresses. To him the high is the fact that he is in this bizarre position of power that allows him to do whatever without any consequences. That is what the high is, not the actual idea of sex with a 10/10 actress.

yea ok but i reject human apes. why would i want to procreate with them anyway. my hot rod says hot ideas only on the passenger door.

read this then watch some Adam Curtis documentaries and watch your entire perception of the world crumble around yourself

>dude like the world sucks, everything is so artificial brooo

Here we see the ideogical apparatus trying to maintain the status quo