Oh man, what a joy it is to see another deep dive by David. I’ve been here since 2020 through your PetScop analysis (no surprise there lol) and since have been in love with your content, especially your recent dive into social and political issues. Gonna love watching this one!
Just wanted to add a slight correction: Me and Miss Mandible is by Donald Barthelme, not John Barth, another postmodern author. One of my favorite writers of all time, and a lot of his works deal with the generation of narrative as it is being written: see "City of Churches" and "The Balloon." I love the inclusion of Me and Miss Mandible, and you should definitely check out "Come Back Dr. Caligari," the collection the story comes from. Great video!
The name "Thomas" appears in Petscop as in Thomas Hammond, who is generally believed to be Rainer's dad/stepdad. Given that Rainer is the de facto narrator of the game Petscop, his dad's name having weight in this series makes sense as well. Anyone who was obsessed with Petscop back in the day would immediately notice the name "Thomas" as significant.
Finally!! I've been so excited for this since binging your read through series. I love 3Dwiscr quite a bit, and the vague takes you shared in the read through were really interesting. Gonna get through this video asap!
17:38 in retrospect this feels like something i should have picked up during my own readthrough, but pointing out the parallels between amber’s red ball degeneration and the red ball used to denote “false” kind of blew my mind!
Also, you said this, and i have a question about it: "... 3D Workers Island offers a more complex depiction of degeneration as an inevitable product of any closed system obsessed with accumulation and control regardless of any ideological pretenses." What do you think they're accumulating? Or is it more metaphorical? I remember Pat's insistence that Amber is, "lazy," despite how often she works and I could easily see that as the kind of obsession with productivity emblematic of capital and The Soviet Union's efforts to respond to the pressures of capital. But I was wondering what your perspective was.
I dont wanna spoil anything but there is a Crimson King and a version of the author in the later books of Stephen King‘s Magnum Opus that is The Dark Tower series. It‘s done really really well. BTW thanks for this vid, very well done.
31:23 I have experienced severe depersonalisation and Derealization during the lowest point of my depression. I would sit in front of my bedroom mirror and keep looking into my eyes, and they felt alien. I felt as if I was watching myself from a 3rd person perspective, in a simulated world outside of what "i" was. but I believed that the body i was looking at wasnt mine. Perhaps in that moment i too felt as if i was squished down into nothing but a red Ball with no personhood. Im much better now but there will be days where i feel depressed and i look in the mirror and sometimes dont fully recognise me as me.
oh my gosh i just started Part 6 of the Exploration video and saw the playlist counter jump from 6 to 7, so excited i get to close out this day with this final(?) video
Mittens :) Really, really enjoyed listening to the section on AI and consciousness. It's been difficult for me to find current discussion that doesn't treat consciousness as inherently human/isn't anthropocentric. AI discussion is divisive and many of its supporters focus more on technological aspects rather than philosophical questions in forums and threads today... I've been reading up on theories like the Chinese room experiment, p-zombies, etc., and it's amazing to listen to your perspective (and it makes a lot of sense to me). The section on the present state of things and understanding that humans today are melding with machine, that humanity is already functionally/socially already "cyborgs" was something that clicked as soon as you said it. I've been following all of your read-throughs on 3d workers island, so glad to be able to watch this analysis. Looking forward to the next hour of the video :)
I don't understand the confusion between subjective experience and physical processes. We have subjective esperinces bc our physical processes are faulty, inaccurate and shoddily built. Our brains intentionally reject information in order to keep more important info readily at hand. Chemical embalances can entirely change how we process information and everything from nutrition to stimuli can change our chemical make up. We are not perfect machines, we never had the ability to have an objective experience. Am I misunderstanding the theory?
You’re not misunderstanding the theory as much as critiquing its foundational assumptions, and that’s totally valid. For the record, I basically agree with you.
This got me wondering about the MatPat effect. If someone notable like MatPat puts out an interpretation of Petscop and discussion consolidates around it, is there a way for him to avoid flattening it? Was he too famous to responsibly have a personal interpretation of it? And no, I don’t think adding “this is my interpretation” or “hey here’s a fun lens to look at it through” would have changed anything (considering how much shit he got for a joke theory about Undertale). I was thinking about this for someone in his position in general, not calling for everyone to weigh in on him personally. It’s interesting to think about how much impact a person is capable of, and the reputation they’ve built up, can restrict how many ways they can engage with a work
the flatting of the discussion is normal, which is why it takes work to expand and diversify. I think for a massive channel like matpat, it would be better to invite guests to offer their own take and find the similarities and differences. (it would also help a ton in getting more people room to shine)
It's not a matter of individual responsibility. I am making a structural critique of the way the RUclips media ecosystem works. If it wasn't MatPat doing it, someone else would step in to meet that demand. The outcome is overdetermined.
@@NightmareMasterclass I wasn’t talking about responsibility, or at least that wasn’t how I was trying to word it. I’m more interested in the dynamic of how a person can engage with a work publicly based on how much reach they have. I consider that more structural than moral. Sorry if the way I’m wording it is unclear
@@deebee5378 I understand what you're saying. I mean, it's definitely something I grapple with. But, see, the parameters of the discussion have again shifted to individual choices (e.g. "how a person can engage with a work publicly.") On an individual level, I would say just do your best to engage with the work in a nuanced, responsible manner. The problem is, you will be actively punished by the algorithm for doing this. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between.
i still dont think your attempt to understand consciousness as computation works- we might be able to explain the presence of qualia (i.e. dopamine causing happiness), but this is like flipping a light switch on and off, and then saying we understand exactly how the light is produced. The 'switch' might determine if the qualia is there or not there (a discrete, measurable change), but it tells us nothing about why the content of the qualia is what it is. We can measure amounts of chemicals or electrical signals in the brain but thought and qualia (which ironically are what we actually directly experience) exist in abstraction and are not measurable things- and computation of course is dependent on discrete measurement. its unclear how the discretely measurable could give rise to the un-mesurable experience. i feel like the comparison rests on conflation of thought and logic/reasoning. logic is mostly something we learn, and isn't cognition itself, its just something cognition sometimes produces or contains. Logic of course has much in common with computation by the nature of computation, but there is more in thought than logic. In a way, humans really just emulate the processes of logic- one thing that differentiates us from from computers is that we can get logic wrong, and produce incorrect answers to discrete questions for little observable reason, while a computer (sans physical damage to the device) will always produce what its instruction logically should. It can only be wrong if the instruction did not align with the programmers intent. with the ai discussion- this isnt to say (as the cirtics you bring up have) that such things would be incapable of consciousness, but rather that if they do then computation seems to have little to do with it. Its somewhat comical to see companies like openAI predicting a sentient product based on computational resources, assuming there is a direct tie between the two with no real rationale for it. I actually do think 'technological cognition' is not anywhere near as impossible as some say, but also think that the ability to be irrational is a necessary component of free will of thought. of course in the end this whole discussion ends up begging the p-zombie problem, which ultimately wrecks any attempt to explain consciousness (or more specifically the phenomenon of 'experience') via purely biological means by pointing out that it serves no evolutionary function, and thus by the logic of a deterministic reality should not exist. And yet it does because we directly experience it, and it is perhaps the only thing we can be truly sure of.
To clarify, I'm not looking to "explain" consciousness as a process. I'm looking to demystify it as a concept. The way it's often discussed in mainstream discourse perpetuates a lot of mystifications and, frankly, charlatanism. It would suffice to say that you diverge from materialism at your peril.
@@NightmareMasterclass i think you've lost the second you start whipping out "CHARLATAN" at anyone who disagrees with you lol. that's just. a little goofy.
I want to say upfront that I love ur stuff. It always gets me to think deeply about things I find important. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to think. I am a hard determinist, so I'm glad that this was inevitable, even though we couldn't have known before hand. I hope I don't come off as antagonistic because I do not intend to be (this is meant to make the following less antagonistic if it happens to be so). I'll try to be as transparent as possible to be more amenable (not the word im looking for but its probably close enough). You really had me thinking u were going into anarchist theory because of discussion of cybernetics, complex systems, hierarchies, state power, authoritarian tenancies, centralized authority, and state capitalism until u said that the term 'state capitalism' was "fraught due to ultra-left sectarian connotations". If I may ask, do u find anything else objectionable about the "ultra-left" (who I assume to be anarchists) besides their sectarianism (btw I would call myself an anarchist)? In relation to sectarianism, why might u find it objectionable (I assume u imply this)? I agree that many anarchists can be described as sectarian due to refusal to work in/with hierarchical power structures, however I think that is a logical outcome of their analysis of those power structures. I think of it in this way: its like how the state capitalist Leninist Russia then Stalinist USSR failed to be socialist due to participating in the global capitalist system. Anarchists would fail to be anarchists if they participated in/with the hierarchical nature of the state system (and all other hierarchical power structures). With regard to Susie's cafe, my answer would be: a coop would be better and give the workers more autonomy and power instead of being at the whims of Susie, but as u said it would not solve the problem of interfacing with capitalist systems. My 'solution' is certainly not perfect, but I believe it to be a step in the right direction: the cafe needs to be separated from capitalist production; obviously this is no small feat and may fail; but I believe this gives the workers more ability to resist capitalist exploitation and competition. First of all, Susie is able to become destructive because of the structural power she has over her workers, so becoming collectively owned and democratically run could collectivize/cushion economic pains instead of it being wielded against certain (or just the) workers by Susie. Completely decoupling from capitalist systems is nearly impossible at the small scale, thus doing so requires support from as many people as possible. Basically, as the process of decoupling starts/occurs, people need to be able to collectivize their economic resources so that everyone can survive. Also, plans need to be made to interface as appropriate with capitalist systems but not so much as to become too invested in capital and its perverse incentives. This is where the practice of mutual aid comes in, where people give/receive economic resources to/from each other, to survive hard spots. Appropriation (taking ownership/control from dominators) in many forms is also necessary as capital controls necessities like housing and food behind paywalls and legal private property ownership. This is just the start, but I'm sure I've communicated enough to establish at least vaguely what I mean: to fight against capitalism and hierarchy in general, we need to work collectively in power structures (structures for decision making and carrying out action) that are not plagued by perverse incentives and I believe the best power structures to do so are horizontal in nature and as decoupled from (existing) hierarchies as possible. I hope this may help to explain sectarian tendencies of anarchists with similar thoughts. Back to the soviet system, I believe very soon in the revolution they were on a clear path towards state capitalism. I define socialism as the "ownership (the power to make decisions/carry out action) of the means of production (property used for work ie factories, tools, etc) by the workers (aka the people who directly use those tools/property)". In Lenin's first decree, he declared all delegates from the factory committees to be be dismissed and put under state control to assure strict order and discipline if they fell under a wide range of different types of production from agricultural to industrial. The state was starting to take control of the already socialist factory committees and bring them OUT of worker control and into state control. Further, Lenin used quota elements of the 'taylor system' which was formed in america by the logic of capitalism to control the output of workers. The workers were not the ones making decisions, thus it was not socialist. This is a bit simplified, but is the broad strokes. A thought about your conclusion: "How do we generate the outcomes we want without producing a spectacle?" I do not believe we will be able to achieve goals such as 'freedom from oppressive systems' and 'freedom to live as you please' within our life times, I do not believe we can achieve such things in such short time scales. I am neither an optimist or a pessimist and will change my thoughts according to the material conditions I see. The people in the US and many western nations today are much less radicalized than the revolutionary populations of a century ago. We have much work to do to ensure a better world for those who come after us. We need clear goals and a clear method. I believe anarchist theory and intersectionality are invaluable to form clear methods to achieve just goals. The 3Dwiscr page "Computer Philosophy 1. Windows" has always stuck out to me since engaging with 3Dwiscr. The weird grammar forces the reader to interpret, to take a stance, to project their ideas onto the text. The constant references to "windows of reality" connects to themes de-realization and alienation. "What happens when something bad you find responsible for is there, and you do nothing to stop it, because it looks through a window and is not real?" When we are "trapped in the TV" and looking into reality, feeling so disconnected from it that we cease to feel real or be connected to others or the world itself, we become complicit in these systems of domination around us. I'm saying a truth that I need to internalize. I'm crying. I have little power to change the world for the better and what little power I have is at the expense of those unlucky enough to be born with less. To gain more power, more ability to effect change, I must communicate and cooperate with others. Ever since I was born, I have been trapped in the TV looking into the window of reality, separated from the world. I have been sheltered by a life so comfortable that it is numbing. Where have I been? What am I doing here? I cannot continue to be complicit and do nothing to stop these systems of hierarchy and domination. "What happens when something bad you find responsible for is there, and you do nothing to stop it, because it looks through a window and is not real?" The reality we look into cannot be just a window for voyeurism, it is real. The pain we witness is real and we are complicit in our inaction. First they came for the ___, and I did nothing... We need to do something to stop these oppressive hierarchies and I firmly believe anarchist principles are good guiding tools. I still suffer from inaction and distraction because I am coddled and have always been extremely introverted. The first step is always talking to people. I keep falling at this first step. This is a half step. A youtube comment. Its still hard. Thank you for your time and labor. All the power to all the people. Goodluck out there and I wish you the best.
Thank you for leaving such a thoughtful comment. It's getting late here, and I don't have time to respond adequately. But you are raising some important points. Perhaps I'll do a comment response video.
@@saroporoggo Oh my god, how fragile you are that you feel the need to voice your disdain for my performance of a common courtesy that was not even partially directed at you.
YAYYYY your petscop investigation is still my favorite series on youtube this is a wonderful treat :3 (im still bumping the OST you made for it too)
Ngl, your Petscop investigation got me through the pandemic
So glad you directly addressed Game Theory and how its issues are a reflection of RUclips's systemic issues
Oh man, what a joy it is to see another deep dive by David. I’ve been here since 2020 through your PetScop analysis (no surprise there lol) and since have been in love with your content, especially your recent dive into social and political issues. Gonna love watching this one!
Just wanted to add a slight correction: Me and Miss Mandible is by Donald Barthelme, not John Barth, another postmodern author. One of my favorite writers of all time, and a lot of his works deal with the generation of narrative as it is being written: see "City of Churches" and "The Balloon." I love the inclusion of Me and Miss Mandible, and you should definitely check out "Come Back Dr. Caligari," the collection the story comes from. Great video!
one of many brain farts I've had recently.
Impeccable timing I had just heard about this project the other day thank you for this
i just want to say im loving these new mittens i got
Thanks for the upload- still trying to fill the Petscop-sized void in my heart so super stoked to be introduced to a kindred spirit!!!
Thank you so much for this well edited masterpiece discussion on my newest favorite mysterious internet thing. Hope your mittens are warm!
you fucking golden god. Haven't the time to sit down with this right now but I am excited to watch it when I can
This comes to us at the right time, thank you!
The name "Thomas" appears in Petscop as in Thomas Hammond, who is generally believed to be Rainer's dad/stepdad. Given that Rainer is the de facto narrator of the game Petscop, his dad's name having weight in this series makes sense as well. Anyone who was obsessed with Petscop back in the day would immediately notice the name "Thomas" as significant.
the transfer between forum to real world to screensaver reminds me heavily of the northern caves
What a shame there are no subtitles. i have a hard time following as a non english speaker. I'm so sad 😢
You can use the auto generated ones!
Yea but for such a long video it’s understandable, I REALLY miss that feature were fans could submit captions
when i posted my comment, the auto-generated subtitles were not available 😉
thanks to nightmare masterclass for activating them ❤
Finally!! I've been so excited for this since binging your read through series. I love 3Dwiscr quite a bit, and the vague takes you shared in the read through were really interesting. Gonna get through this video asap!
this treatment on ai is pretty sophisticated, I'm a little shocked
yeah, except for the glaring typo I just caught that will haunt me for the rest of my days. thanks though
Nmc even changed his profile pic... that's all the approval for a series I need
17:38 in retrospect this feels like something i should have picked up during my own readthrough, but pointing out the parallels between amber’s red ball degeneration and the red ball used to denote “false” kind of blew my mind!
Also, you said this, and i have a question about it:
"... 3D Workers Island offers a more complex depiction of degeneration as an inevitable product of any closed system obsessed with accumulation and control regardless of any ideological pretenses."
What do you think they're accumulating? Or is it more metaphorical? I remember Pat's insistence that Amber is, "lazy," despite how often she works and I could easily see that as the kind of obsession with productivity emblematic of capital and The Soviet Union's efforts to respond to the pressures of capital. But I was wondering what your perspective was.
I dont wanna spoil anything but there is a Crimson King and a version of the author in the later books of Stephen King‘s Magnum Opus that is The Dark Tower series. It‘s done really really well. BTW thanks for this vid, very well done.
31:23
I have experienced severe depersonalisation and Derealization during the lowest point of my depression. I would sit in front of my bedroom mirror and keep looking into my eyes, and they felt alien. I felt as if I was watching myself from a 3rd person perspective, in a simulated world outside of what "i" was. but I believed that the body i was looking at wasnt mine. Perhaps in that moment i too felt as if i was squished down into nothing but a red Ball with no personhood. Im much better now but there will be days where i feel depressed and i look in the mirror and sometimes dont fully recognise me as me.
Anybody seen my mittens?
That goth drum machine intro thooooo
Immense work, great job!
Realize now that productivity is pre-loaded into such oraise language.
oh my gosh i just started Part 6 of the Exploration video and saw the playlist counter jump from 6 to 7, so excited i get to close out this day with this final(?) video
Man, I had things to do.
IVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS🎉🎉🎉
This is a proletariat classic
We can investigate this together!
CINEMA!!!
Mittens :)
Really, really enjoyed listening to the section on AI and consciousness. It's been difficult for me to find current discussion that doesn't treat consciousness as inherently human/isn't anthropocentric. AI discussion is divisive and many of its supporters focus more on technological aspects rather than philosophical questions in forums and threads today... I've been reading up on theories like the Chinese room experiment, p-zombies, etc., and it's amazing to listen to your perspective (and it makes a lot of sense to me).
The section on the present state of things and understanding that humans today are melding with machine, that humanity is already functionally/socially already "cyborgs" was something that clicked as soon as you said it.
I've been following all of your read-throughs on 3d workers island, so glad to be able to watch this analysis. Looking forward to the next hour of the video :)
I don't understand the confusion between subjective experience and physical processes. We have subjective esperinces bc our physical processes are faulty, inaccurate and shoddily built. Our brains intentionally reject information in order to keep more important info readily at hand. Chemical embalances can entirely change how we process information and everything from nutrition to stimuli can change our chemical make up. We are not perfect machines, we never had the ability to have an objective experience.
Am I misunderstanding the theory?
You’re not misunderstanding the theory as much as critiquing its foundational assumptions, and that’s totally valid. For the record, I basically agree with you.
We live in fucking *dire* times man
This got me wondering about the MatPat effect.
If someone notable like MatPat puts out an interpretation of Petscop and discussion consolidates around it, is there a way for him to avoid flattening it? Was he too famous to responsibly have a personal interpretation of it?
And no, I don’t think adding “this is my interpretation” or “hey here’s a fun lens to look at it through” would have changed anything (considering how much shit he got for a joke theory about Undertale).
I was thinking about this for someone in his position in general, not calling for everyone to weigh in on him personally. It’s interesting to think about how much impact a person is capable of, and the reputation they’ve built up, can restrict how many ways they can engage with a work
the flatting of the discussion is normal, which is why it takes work to expand and diversify.
I think for a massive channel like matpat, it would be better to invite guests to offer their own take and find the similarities and differences. (it would also help a ton in getting more people room to shine)
It's not a matter of individual responsibility. I am making a structural critique of the way the RUclips media ecosystem works. If it wasn't MatPat doing it, someone else would step in to meet that demand. The outcome is overdetermined.
@@NightmareMasterclass I wasn’t talking about responsibility, or at least that wasn’t how I was trying to word it. I’m more interested in the dynamic of how a person can engage with a work publicly based on how much reach they have. I consider that more structural than moral. Sorry if the way I’m wording it is unclear
@@deebee5378 I understand what you're saying. I mean, it's definitely something I grapple with. But, see, the parameters of the discussion have again shifted to individual choices (e.g. "how a person can engage with a work publicly.") On an individual level, I would say just do your best to engage with the work in a nuanced, responsible manner. The problem is, you will be actively punished by the algorithm for doing this. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between.
@ This wasn’t meant to shift the parameters of discussion around your video, it’s a side subject I found interesting
Just wanted to say...I like your mittens. 🧤
hell yeah thank you
Sure glad I had mittens today. It was really cold out! Wonder if there could be different islands with different weather???
lets get floppy
was mostly listening on audio but i did catch mittens
i still dont think your attempt to understand consciousness as computation works- we might be able to explain the presence of qualia (i.e. dopamine causing happiness), but this is like flipping a light switch on and off, and then saying we understand exactly how the light is produced. The 'switch' might determine if the qualia is there or not there (a discrete, measurable change), but it tells us nothing about why the content of the qualia is what it is. We can measure amounts of chemicals or electrical signals in the brain but thought and qualia (which ironically are what we actually directly experience) exist in abstraction and are not measurable things- and computation of course is dependent on discrete measurement. its unclear how the discretely measurable could give rise to the un-mesurable experience.
i feel like the comparison rests on conflation of thought and logic/reasoning. logic is mostly something we learn, and isn't cognition itself, its just something cognition sometimes produces or contains. Logic of course has much in common with computation by the nature of computation, but there is more in thought than logic. In a way, humans really just emulate the processes of logic- one thing that differentiates us from from computers is that we can get logic wrong, and produce incorrect answers to discrete questions for little observable reason, while a computer (sans physical damage to the device) will always produce what its instruction logically should. It can only be wrong if the instruction did not align with the programmers intent.
with the ai discussion- this isnt to say (as the cirtics you bring up have) that such things would be incapable of consciousness, but rather that if they do then computation seems to have little to do with it. Its somewhat comical to see companies like openAI predicting a sentient product based on computational resources, assuming there is a direct tie between the two with no real rationale for it. I actually do think 'technological cognition' is not anywhere near as impossible as some say, but also think that the ability to be irrational is a necessary component of free will of thought.
of course in the end this whole discussion ends up begging the p-zombie problem, which ultimately wrecks any attempt to explain consciousness (or more specifically the phenomenon of 'experience') via purely biological means by pointing out that it serves no evolutionary function, and thus by the logic of a deterministic reality should not exist. And yet it does because we directly experience it, and it is perhaps the only thing we can be truly sure of.
To clarify, I'm not looking to "explain" consciousness as a process. I'm looking to demystify it as a concept. The way it's often discussed in mainstream discourse perpetuates a lot of mystifications and, frankly, charlatanism. It would suffice to say that you diverge from materialism at your peril.
@@NightmareMasterclass i think you've lost the second you start whipping out "CHARLATAN" at anyone who disagrees with you lol. that's just. a little goofy.
I want to say upfront that I love ur stuff. It always gets me to think deeply about things I find important. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to think. I am a hard determinist, so I'm glad that this was inevitable, even though we couldn't have known before hand. I hope I don't come off as antagonistic because I do not intend to be (this is meant to make the following less antagonistic if it happens to be so). I'll try to be as transparent as possible to be more amenable (not the word im looking for but its probably close enough).
You really had me thinking u were going into anarchist theory because of discussion of cybernetics, complex systems, hierarchies, state power, authoritarian tenancies, centralized authority, and state capitalism until u said that the term 'state capitalism' was "fraught due to ultra-left sectarian connotations". If I may ask, do u find anything else objectionable about the "ultra-left" (who I assume to be anarchists) besides their sectarianism (btw I would call myself an anarchist)? In relation to sectarianism, why might u find it objectionable (I assume u imply this)? I agree that many anarchists can be described as sectarian due to refusal to work in/with hierarchical power structures, however I think that is a logical outcome of their analysis of those power structures. I think of it in this way: its like how the state capitalist Leninist Russia then Stalinist USSR failed to be socialist due to participating in the global capitalist system. Anarchists would fail to be anarchists if they participated in/with the hierarchical nature of the state system (and all other hierarchical power structures).
With regard to Susie's cafe, my answer would be: a coop would be better and give the workers more autonomy and power instead of being at the whims of Susie, but as u said it would not solve the problem of interfacing with capitalist systems. My 'solution' is certainly not perfect, but I believe it to be a step in the right direction: the cafe needs to be separated from capitalist production; obviously this is no small feat and may fail; but I believe this gives the workers more ability to resist capitalist exploitation and competition. First of all, Susie is able to become destructive because of the structural power she has over her workers, so becoming collectively owned and democratically run could collectivize/cushion economic pains instead of it being wielded against certain (or just the) workers by Susie. Completely decoupling from capitalist systems is nearly impossible at the small scale, thus doing so requires support from as many people as possible. Basically, as the process of decoupling starts/occurs, people need to be able to collectivize their economic resources so that everyone can survive. Also, plans need to be made to interface as appropriate with capitalist systems but not so much as to become too invested in capital and its perverse incentives. This is where the practice of mutual aid comes in, where people give/receive economic resources to/from each other, to survive hard spots. Appropriation (taking ownership/control from dominators) in many forms is also necessary as capital controls necessities like housing and food behind paywalls and legal private property ownership. This is just the start, but I'm sure I've communicated enough to establish at least vaguely what I mean: to fight against capitalism and hierarchy in general, we need to work collectively in power structures (structures for decision making and carrying out action) that are not plagued by perverse incentives and I believe the best power structures to do so are horizontal in nature and as decoupled from (existing) hierarchies as possible. I hope this may help to explain sectarian tendencies of anarchists with similar thoughts.
Back to the soviet system, I believe very soon in the revolution they were on a clear path towards state capitalism. I define socialism as the "ownership (the power to make decisions/carry out action) of the means of production (property used for work ie factories, tools, etc) by the workers (aka the people who directly use those tools/property)". In Lenin's first decree, he declared all delegates from the factory committees to be be dismissed and put under state control to assure strict order and discipline if they fell under a wide range of different types of production from agricultural to industrial. The state was starting to take control of the already socialist factory committees and bring them OUT of worker control and into state control. Further, Lenin used quota elements of the 'taylor system' which was formed in america by the logic of capitalism to control the output of workers. The workers were not the ones making decisions, thus it was not socialist. This is a bit simplified, but is the broad strokes.
A thought about your conclusion: "How do we generate the outcomes we want without producing a spectacle?" I do not believe we will be able to achieve goals such as 'freedom from oppressive systems' and 'freedom to live as you please' within our life times, I do not believe we can achieve such things in such short time scales. I am neither an optimist or a pessimist and will change my thoughts according to the material conditions I see. The people in the US and many western nations today are much less radicalized than the revolutionary populations of a century ago. We have much work to do to ensure a better world for those who come after us. We need clear goals and a clear method. I believe anarchist theory and intersectionality are invaluable to form clear methods to achieve just goals. The 3Dwiscr page "Computer Philosophy 1. Windows" has always stuck out to me since engaging with 3Dwiscr. The weird grammar forces the reader to interpret, to take a stance, to project their ideas onto the text. The constant references to "windows of reality" connects to themes de-realization and alienation. "What happens when something bad you find responsible for is there, and you do nothing to stop it, because it looks through a window and is not real?" When we are "trapped in the TV" and looking into reality, feeling so disconnected from it that we cease to feel real or be connected to others or the world itself, we become complicit in these systems of domination around us. I'm saying a truth that I need to internalize. I'm crying. I have little power to change the world for the better and what little power I have is at the expense of those unlucky enough to be born with less. To gain more power, more ability to effect change, I must communicate and cooperate with others. Ever since I was born, I have been trapped in the TV looking into the window of reality, separated from the world. I have been sheltered by a life so comfortable that it is numbing. Where have I been? What am I doing here? I cannot continue to be complicit and do nothing to stop these systems of hierarchy and domination. "What happens when something bad you find responsible for is there, and you do nothing to stop it, because it looks through a window and is not real?" The reality we look into cannot be just a window for voyeurism, it is real. The pain we witness is real and we are complicit in our inaction. First they came for the ___, and I did nothing... We need to do something to stop these oppressive hierarchies and I firmly believe anarchist principles are good guiding tools. I still suffer from inaction and distraction because I am coddled and have always been extremely introverted. The first step is always talking to people. I keep falling at this first step. This is a half step. A youtube comment. Its still hard. Thank you for your time and labor. All the power to all the people. Goodluck out there and I wish you the best.
Thank you for leaving such a thoughtful comment. It's getting late here, and I don't have time to respond adequately. But you are raising some important points. Perhaps I'll do a comment response video.
I have been waiting. I am prepared with snacks.
Babe wake up Petscop 2 just released!
Hell yeah
Yaaaay (for the algorithm)
Amazing video!! BTW- anyone else thinking about Severance especially Worker Degeneration? Many similar themes I think
Just watched the premiere of the second season. I'm excited to see where they go with this severance concept.
OMG PYRO TOOK SO LONG THAT TONY MADE PETSCOP 2
i cant believe LLM are going to get human rights before trans people do. 😞
TTD
Should've titled this video Petscop 2
yippee!!
mittens :0
mittens 🎉
Hi! This is a great video. What are your pronouns?
nobody cares
He/him
@@saroporoggo Oh my god, how fragile you are that you feel the need to voice your disdain for my performance of a common courtesy that was not even partially directed at you.
@@NightmareMasterclass Thank you ^v^
mittens
yahoo!!
purple prosaic, meaningless, oxymoronic video
this feels like an enormous nothing burger, and I usually love obscure analysis videos like this
"nobody cares"
Just quoting what you said to another person in the comments.
I give this video a 🟩 rating