Really the plural is "eight-foots" because octopedus is just "eight feet" but you're successfully attempting to sound pretentious by saying it in someone else's words instead of your own.
Of course technically eight-foots have no feet at all, only arms. Hence, successfully calling it the incorrect pretentious name.
The pre-bureaucrat name for the eight-foot is devilfish, by the way. So there's that too.
I should really stop expecting it to be.
I find nobody on the internet is genuinely having fun. At best you have schadenfreude, e.g. trolling. It's "fun" in the addictive/bullying sense. It's not about making yourself feel good, it's about making someone else feel bad.
Nobody on the internet is genuinely trying to get work done. If something requires any real discipline, it will not occur. Self-reflection is absolutely verboten.
No wonder everyone on the internet has imposter syndrome.
What's left? Wasting time. One gigantic waste of time.
What actual games can you play on internet fora? Mafia? So, the game about lying? Great. Awesome.
You can play the ninja tower game on twitter, I suppose.
Sometimes there's pun competitions?
....and that's it. Nobody on the internet is playful. Paratelia-negative.
What projects have been launched via internet meetings? Surely there's one or two, but they sucked. I haven't heard of them and you haven't either.
It's hard to even get folks to share personal stories with the identifying details stripped. Anyone: "Tell me about yourself." Internet: "No. P.S. Fuck you."
E.g. developing a canon doesn't need a budget. A group could come together and agree on an orthodoxy. Don't though; requires discipline and self-reflection. Not to mention submitting to hierarchy. Definitely can't do that.
The exception
that proves the rule: it's not work, because you're not being paid, and
it's not play, because you have to follow a blueprint. The end product
is a video which is less than ten minutes long, and the creation has no ongoing use. Minecraft buildings are non-interactive.
Social media is anti-social. You can't even chat in such a way as to
build a relationship. On the internet, "authentic" means you're supposed
to be allowed to be as rude as possible, and it's the other person's fault for being repulsed. Hey Einsteins, consider avoiding deliberate antagonization...
Faking a society is both.
Imagine roleplaying a military group in an MMORPG. E.g. holding world-PVP events in World of Warcraft. Both play and discipline. Doesn't exactly have a high bar of entry. Never happens.
Sociological research in general has never been easier. You can experimentally test any sociological theory you like, using minimal resources aside from your own virtues.
The ""4 fun"" guys can't do it, because it requires following something other than their instantaneous impulse. (Ref: Plato. Heck, they won't even try a game that's not immediately appealing.)
The ""serious"" internet denizens can't do it, because it's all play and games; Minecraft is a good platform. Undoubtedly the highest priority for a ""serious"" person is their appearances, not their substantial actions. Clearly. How are you supposed to know they're ""serious"" if they don't spend 100% of their time signalling how ""serious"" they are? You might forget!
They're not telic either. There's no purpose here. If they define a goal they've discriminated between success and failure, and that means they might fail. Too afraid to do that. School status: well-schooled.
Though as I often mention, personnel is policy. They must already have been well-schooled or they would never have submitted to being explicitly schooled. It probably has a mere marginal effect.
A very simple game: come up with synonyms.
Oh I guess that explains why nobody can play. If you play without putting anyone down, what are you doing? You're showing off. That's why it feels good; you're displaying your own glory. If you show off, someone will Envy you. And that's not what a good Fascist does, now is it?
Personnel is policy, and the California internet is internet for Fascists.
Overall I like Plato's cave as an allegory, but it's inaccurate in several respects. The classic is the fact that truth is far more like darkness than light, though this plays havoc with the lovely metaphor of Plato's sunburn...
A more serious error is identifying the shadows as beliefs instead of the population themselves. The mortals of Plato's cave don't see the shadows, they are the shadows. They can survive neither the darkness nor the light.
In the darkness, they become invisible, indistinguishable. They become a difference of no difference. With no end to a shadow, there is no beginning.
Outside in the sun, a fire casts no shadows. They become washed out, invisible, etc.
If you mistakenly try to drag away one of the poor "misguided" fools, you will end up pawing uselessly at shadows. Your irresponsible meddling will "help" no-one. Maybe you'll get some bemused shadow-puppeteers.
Even if you somehow hack the situation and grab a shadow, naturally they will mightily resist being moved any distance from the false fires which give them life.
Another way to kill shadow-puppets is to drag one of the shadow-puppeteers away from their fires.
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/GraniRau/status/1586229439230136320
"If 10000 crazed and hungry rats attacked one genius bodybuilder who do you think would win?"
Then all remaining bodybuilders would buy anti-rat technology, and the rats would lose every time thereafter. Unless the bodybuilders were feeling particularly merciful or magnanimous, they would return the damage with interest. They would go on offence. There would be a rat pogrom resulting in precipitous decline in rat population.
https://nitter.lacontrevoie.fr/GraniRau/status/1586232927813263361
"We should all act like starving rats"
.......
I primarily see morality used as a defection-positive tool which obscures the accounting.
If something is good-ingroup you should do it regardless of the costs. If something is bad-outgroup you should avoid it even if it costs you and your group nothing. Right? Yeah, right.
As I wrote previously, universal morality is childish. Perhaps someone will tell you a movie is "good" or "bad." If that's all you can get out of them, they are a child, regardless of their chronological age. Their thoughts are nearly as useful as they are sophisticated. The evaluation is almost worth the time you spent hearing about it.
If someone is not a child, see if they use qualifiers. Good for, rather than good per se. "If you want X, then tool/technique Y is useful."
Otherwise, they are trying to cheat you. They don't want you to do the accounting, because if you do the accounting, you will realize they're pulling a scam. At best it's narcissistic ego-fluffing. They feel insecure and need constant flattery. More likely they're trying to snatch your wallet while you're distracted by oughts. (Ref: Hume.) They want you to pay the costs because you're paying the costs to them.
All goals can be evaluated by the costs and benefits. It is not difficult to state. "This game's easy mode will let you complete the game more quickly, but is less satisfying." What you find most valuable is up to you, not them. "This blog author is always concise and correct, but speaks of shallow topics." "This author is highly verbose and often confused, but has occasional deep insights." What do you want? What do you need? There is no author who is inherently canon or specifically not-canon. No author is universally a valuable read.
If they avoid stating costs and benefits, they are trying to trick you. A snow job. A smokescreen. Muddying the waters.
Logic is accounting. If they thought you would genuinely find the author valuable, they could simply list the costs and benefits, you would agree with them, and they would successfully persuade you to read that author. They are using rhetoric like universal morality and camouflaged versions such as a 'canon' precisely because they don't think you find it valuable. It's not merely illogical, it is a confession of deviant motive. If they don't mention the costs, you can safely conclude the costs are the opposite of whatever they're trying to imply.
Michaelangelo was a φαγγωτ, which means the Sistine ceiling was him drawing porn for himself in broad daylight.
Notice how Adam is drawn as a chad and God is drawn as a simp? Do the green line test, fam. Gee, what kind of person likes to portray the divine as having lower status than the mortal? Truly, a mystery for the ages.
Is the Church incompetent and just let itself be vandalized like that, or is it in fact φαγγωτρυ-positive? (In either case, the solution is lustration. Fire every single last one.) They weren't drawn rock-hard only because he knew he couldn't get away with it.
We can't even say the Gay Sistine Whorehouse is a weird fluke. The only thing that makes this an outlier is that Michaelangelo learned to draw well. (If had turned his skills toward something other than Satanic degeneracy, it would have been spiffy neato.)
The true esoteric history is not even remotely like black government history.
The point of studying morality is to figure out what is and isn't a crime. E.g. the Moldbug position is that everything legal is not a crime and everything illegal is a crime. The Church position is that everything Jehova or Yeshua forbids is a crime, and everything Yeshua or Jehovah allows is not a crime. Socrates was interested in justice, not merely criminal justice, but nevertheless it's the same puzzle.
Universal morality is an oxymoron, but defection and cooperation are real.
Defection is always a crime, and cooperation is always not a crime. If cooperation is illegal, the law is unjust. If the law defends defectors, the law is unjust. It is not only possible, but easy, to define crimes without reference to mortal law.
As I've written before, all forms of defection destroy the wealth they're trying to seize. If you can't reasonably control the creation of your labour, you don't create it in the first place. An unjust society becomes poorer over time until it cannot afford to sustain itself. A just society becomes wealthier and more powerful over time, and the more just it is, the faster this occurs.
Sadly this is technology-dependent. Higher technology can support a more-unjust society, which tends to reward too-unjust societies when they get a technology shock. They then attribute this increase in wealth to their unjust black government. The cancer becomes better-defended instead of worse, and grows until it strangles the host.
As per Socrates, so-called evil is in fact ignorance. Among a rational population, cooperation is self-reinforcing and defection is self-defeating. It is always rational to resist defection, and it's always possible to do more damage to the defector than they would gain from the defection. It's always possible to make defection unprofitable. Likewise, even if the deviant is suitably tricksy or the population is suitably servile, the traitor would gain more total wealth if they cooperated. Defecting on cooperators is plain stupid.
E.g. if someone wants to tax your wheat field, and you can't prevent them from taking it, burn the wheat field so there's nothing for them to take. Ideally, if you can't reasonably wall off the field to prevent the necessity, don't sow wheat in the first place; secure your shit.
Conspecific defection is necessarily parasite behaviour, relying on stealth and trickery. Don't rip your skin off and then complain about infections. Since defection can always be rendered unprofitable, the defector must convince you to forgo defending yourself.
In present Fascist countries securing yourself is downright easy and cheap. Perhaps in past Malthusian countries it was less inexpensive, but the logic suggests that it shouldn't have been. All governments have an element of the consent of the governed, or at least the resignation of the governed. If the citizens do not broadly consent to be subjugated, the government cannot afford to force the issue. Even individual dissidents cannot be brought to heel unless they deliberately antagonize the government or its supine subjects. Defection is stupid and it is implemented by the stupid, blind, and easily tricked.
"What makes the provincial critic so grimly, hilariously terrible
is that he she imagines himself herself not just equal to the wits of the
metropolis, but vastly superior. Is it even possible to respond?"
"I may have no idea about anything except for the fact that you give off short man vibes"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/clairlemon/status/1577954338017751040
"Shall
the man of letters reply: “Excuse me, ‘Dr. Lexus Lehmann,’ but I am
resolutely heterosexual—as if it mattered—and ‘my shit,’ as you call
it, is anything but ‘all retarded’?”"
I suspect this sort of thing is self-hypnosis. The woman goes, "Oh crap that's hot, oh crap I can't be attracted to this, I'ma pretend he's short until I believe it."
Bonus: you can see this strategy even works sometimes. Recall that women are catastrophically bad judges of character. They literally have no idea what you're like, often not even after thousands of hours of interaction. They don't know character, but they do know [the lady doth protest too much]. "I'm not short!"
That and Lehmann is clearly starved for masculine energy and is trying to provoke a man into invading her life.
They say women are socially skilled; don't believe them. Their schemes work when a man takes pity on her and allows her to think it worked. She so earnestly believes she did her best...do you have the heart to let her smile turn crestfallen?
The insight of Dr. Lexus does leave much to be desired. I have indeed found brighter things floating in the toilet. I have called [free speech] the art of pooping in the common well, but perhaps that was overly optimistic. Manure can be used as fertilizer, by contrast...
If we are to call a spade a spade, it is the Intellectual Dim Web.
