I've been chewing on this for a couple of days now and really appreciate this perspective. There's always more context. It never occurred to me that this was all intentional as just another way to erode our understanding of the real world and what levers of power we have to pull as citizens.
Do you think this is what Substack means by getting more involved in politics in 2024? The whole amorality / psychological experimentation angle reminds me exactly of Cambridge Analytica:
I hadn't thought about this platform being used in the way Cambridge Analytica (ab)used all our data on Facebook, but it wouldn't surprise me. When McKenzie announced Substack would be more involved in the 2024 elections, I had a very bad feeling. These tech companies never face any repercussions for what they do, so what incentive have they got to stop doing it? It's always "Do harm now and ask for forgiveness (or deny any wrongdoing) after you get caught."
I've been debating whether I should stay on Substack because of this, trolls, and others. I'm not sure where else I can go, though...If Substack is going to try to sway Election 2024 to the right and I start seeing that, I'm 100-mph OUT.
I've always been skeptical of Elle's utopia-obsessed newsletter. Life and societies are made of contrasts. Why even dream of an utopic society, or wish for it? It sounds way too close to my childhood days living under harsh communism in Eastern Europe. 🤦🏻♀️
Oh, absolutely. Tech 'gods' are running the show. Bill Gates medical experimentations has literally brought back Polio in places it had been eradicated.
With tech bros you're right- it's a kinda neoliberalism of a most extreme kind - an almost anarchist neoliberalism and no rules order - a free market on steroids, but with the caveat that the masses must be subjugated in order to nature the utopia of the 'cleverest' - who they believe are themselves.
I wonder why no psychological studies have been done on tech bros because it would be fascinating
In a way, such studies have been done, but not, to my knowledge, specifically on the tech bros. But we do know that CEOs and other executive level people do tend to self select into these powerful positions because they exhibit the Dark Triad traits of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Same with dictator types who rise to power. Our current systems enable these kinds of people to gain way too much power.
I'd suggest being really cautious about embracing that kind of thinking. Biology is not destiny and sadly a lot of awful harms have been done to groups of people in the name of this kind of "scientific" endeavor. Better to alter the systems that currently grease the path to power for people who end up causing societal harm. Give me a minute while I find a video that is worth watching.
Ha, please do not worry, these are hypothetical questions and wonderings only, not eugenics! Nor in fact, biology and I'll explain why: Something interesting is that the research does not yet know is if this brain state is indeed bioloigical - ie from birth - or a nurtured state of mind. Some research say that narcissism has become more prevalent and if that is true, then it would be a nurtured state and environment dependent. In which case, can it be helped? Reversed? Or even coveted - e.g. if you are too empathetic and want to be less so so you can go for a big promotion - would you want those areas suppressed? People drink alcohol to suppress inhibitions for instance; can we do the same with empathy? If we do it too much, does it stick? One huge myth about the mind is that we can not learn significantly new skills when adults as when we are as children and so we stop. However, our brains are very capable of learning when we are adults and tapping into memory for instance and its huge capacity can very much be learnt as an adult. As can abstract mathematics and rapid mental arithmetic. In other words, we can change the structure of our brains when we like - for that is what learning physcially does.
However, it is an undeniable fact every US President for decades has presided and ordered the deaths of ten and hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions (the latter, collectively). There is obviously something greater at play. Of course, it may be the mechanisms of the system; money etc. But it also lies in the individuals and their abilities to manipulate perception, and potentially their corruptibility - unless they are truly fully unempathetic. Obama seemed to care about people - he gives that vibe - but he was just as bloodthirsty as the rest. Is it all really in protection of the market, in which his inauguration speech he declared he would not hear criticism of as it created wealth? This was a man who accepted a Nobel Peace Prize....then went and killed thousands. The whole thing is truly dystopian and maybe clues do lie in uncomfortable truths rather than truisms.
Thanks for the vid - will watch.
Would still love to see Jon Ronson quiz the President.
Yes, they have been on some - particularly criminals but strangely not, as you say, on tech - or even judges, which is remarkable.
What's fascinating about these studies is that they consistently show that in this minority, there are three consistent areas of the brain which show far less activation, impairing much of what the rest of us have such as empathy. Now, armed with this knowledge, surely this can be classified as a cognitive condition of sorts? In which case, every Presidential in the US should have to be tested to ensure they didn't have this condition in order to comply with the constitution - and be disqualified as unable to lead should they not meet these requirements? Maybe there should be a push for this? It may mean less genocidal warmongerer leaders and instead ones who prioritise healthcare?
And if you were the kingpin techbro, the top of the pile, w/billions in other folks' money to leverage, you might want to "acquire" the largest social media town square as your personal plaything.... & change it's name to some annoying, retro-future letter, like X. The corruption cult will be patting you on the back & ensuring your viral status to the ends of the planet. All of the actual X's should rise up & make 2024 a mutant superhero rebellion... =^.^=
'First off, let me address the elephant in the room that so much of the American-centric discussion misses. Substack is an international platform and will eventually have to act like it if they want to grow, or you know, succeed in capitalism. '
We are in a neoliberal death trap which basically means capitalism unchecked and on steroids. Neoliberalism always requires a subjugated class - in our world it's the Global South. As such racism is a central tenet of its ideology and success. I wrote this in a note prior - why would substack stop Nazis when the racial ideology of inferiority and exploitation is central to both ideologies? Why bite the hand that feeds?
Oh yes, I don't disagree at all. And I welcome the fall of neoliberalism and capitalism. I worry that what these circle-jerking elitist techbois have been cooking up in their Silicon Valley man caves is even worse though, and I am resentful that they want to roll out whatever plans they have come up with to alter our collective human course without any transparency or consideration for what the rest of us actually want and need (and their patronizing assumption we're all too stupid to know what's best for us). I am angry that the Ivy League type neoliberals did this and I'm just as mad when Ivy League type tech-utopians do it.
Interesting reasoning, you ought also consider that Nazis championed censorship in the Third Reich. You are a product of their educational system(assuming you attended a public school). National Socialism and Communism both draw ideology from Karl Marx. The Communist regimes retained an iron-fisted control of press AND speech of all kinds. How are your ideas about Nazis being denied a platform to make fools of themselves with any different?
How are we not affected by the actions and ideals of our parents? The choices we make are affected by the choices our parents made and their parents made, etc. Unless there is a conscious effort to change the psychological pattern. This pattern adjustment is accomplished by the public school. Instead of a classical education of trivium and quadrivium, we have indoctrination into a certain worldview that reduces humanity to materialist animalistic insignificance. In short, the idea that humans are a cancer on the Earth. The fundamental issue is that people aren't taught how to reason logically in school and therefore filter out foolishness on their own. A people that is capable of proper discernment prevents the ideology Jacobinism, Marxism, Nihilism, and many others from gaining adherents. We are awash in ignorance programmed into the people of the world by a high-minded Academia that esteems itself the arbiters of what is true and what is not true. How do you personally know that a moderator's work is not influenced by his or her political opinions? The answer is that you don't. You don't ever allow a boil to fester without lancing it, draining it, and dressing it. So why would you prevent free and open discussion for the purposes of public transparency? If there is banality, vulgarity, and generally ugliness in public discourse, isn't it better for it to be apparent to everyone? How can people learn and grow in maturity without the broadest experience possible? Are you afraid of radicalization? It's already happened, and many times over the centuries, too. I am a student of history. If history is moderated and censored, what actually am I learning?
What sort of education system would teach its students to fabricate grand-sounding gish gallop like yours?
And which is it? Is radicalisation something we can't avoid anyway so why bother, or is it something that is less likely if we allow whatever ugliness and ignorance to flourish? You seem to making both arguments.
The American education system, subverted by Socialism, Communism, transgenderism, and environmental activism leads IQs of 110+ to concoct gish gallop like this to engage folks like you. It feels sad that there are still people that want to gag others because they don't like what they're saying. This is the same thing that's been done by authoritarians and totalitarians the world over. Love free speech, fight for it, or throw it away forever. Radicalization always happens no matter your efforts. Might as well gain wisdom from it.
Who gets to define hate speech? Since you advocate for censorship of national socialists, what of international Trotskeyites? Marxists? Can we censor every ideology that is built upon mass graves, tyranny, genocide, democides, hate, racism? Thus, Margret Sanger, Marx, Mohammed, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, the entire American Progressive movement, eugenicists, Catholics, puritans,fascists. Personally I find all of the aforementioned offensive, reprehensible, evil, of no moral or ethical value.
Still,
Who decides?
Why do I suspect a clique of just-us would decide rather than justice?
Excellent post, but a shame it includes a machine learning (“AI”)-generated image ☹️.
I realise its inclusion in the post might have been thematic, considering the subject of the article section it precedes, but please consider not using these images (made by generators trained on stolen, uncredited art) as it harms actual creatives and normalises art theft.
I just added that image tonight, provided to me by a fellow Substack writer. I felt like using it enhanced the point I'm making about the ethics, or lack thereof, in how the tech industry is forcing change on all of us without consent and without proper guardrails in place.
I understand. It’s still a shame that to enhance a point about the tech moguls’ lack of ethics and disregard for consent you used an unethically generated image, resulting from the scraping of artists’ work without their consent. I really appreciate your article overall but as a professional artist I feel this contradiction was worth highlighting.
I've been chewing on this for a couple of days now and really appreciate this perspective. There's always more context. It never occurred to me that this was all intentional as just another way to erode our understanding of the real world and what levers of power we have to pull as citizens.
Do you think this is what Substack means by getting more involved in politics in 2024? The whole amorality / psychological experimentation angle reminds me exactly of Cambridge Analytica:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal
I hadn't thought about this platform being used in the way Cambridge Analytica (ab)used all our data on Facebook, but it wouldn't surprise me. When McKenzie announced Substack would be more involved in the 2024 elections, I had a very bad feeling. These tech companies never face any repercussions for what they do, so what incentive have they got to stop doing it? It's always "Do harm now and ask for forgiveness (or deny any wrongdoing) after you get caught."
This is quite annoying, I've only recently joined this thing and it's already being taken over by AI Nazis. SMH
Wowza! JD you leave no crumbs. Slay Queen Slay!!!
Hahahah! Thank you.
I've been debating whether I should stay on Substack because of this, trolls, and others. I'm not sure where else I can go, though...If Substack is going to try to sway Election 2024 to the right and I start seeing that, I'm 100-mph OUT.
This is seriously one of the most incredible pieces I have read on this. Thank you!
Wow, I am blushing at the compliment. Thank you!
Im just slapping that patal interview anywhere I can, it's so telling
Sooooo telling
What a great piece and strong reasoning! 👏🏼
I've always been skeptical of Elle's utopia-obsessed newsletter. Life and societies are made of contrasts. Why even dream of an utopic society, or wish for it? It sounds way too close to my childhood days living under harsh communism in Eastern Europe. 🤦🏻♀️
Oh, absolutely. Tech 'gods' are running the show. Bill Gates medical experimentations has literally brought back Polio in places it had been eradicated.
With tech bros you're right- it's a kinda neoliberalism of a most extreme kind - an almost anarchist neoliberalism and no rules order - a free market on steroids, but with the caveat that the masses must be subjugated in order to nature the utopia of the 'cleverest' - who they believe are themselves.
I wonder why no psychological studies have been done on tech bros because it would be fascinating
In a way, such studies have been done, but not, to my knowledge, specifically on the tech bros. But we do know that CEOs and other executive level people do tend to self select into these powerful positions because they exhibit the Dark Triad traits of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Same with dictator types who rise to power. Our current systems enable these kinds of people to gain way too much power.
https://youtu.be/BJIOLTMitK4?feature=shared
This is long, but very worth the time. It's by Brian Klass, who also writes "The Garden of Forking Paths" here on Substack.
I'd suggest being really cautious about embracing that kind of thinking. Biology is not destiny and sadly a lot of awful harms have been done to groups of people in the name of this kind of "scientific" endeavor. Better to alter the systems that currently grease the path to power for people who end up causing societal harm. Give me a minute while I find a video that is worth watching.
Ha, please do not worry, these are hypothetical questions and wonderings only, not eugenics! Nor in fact, biology and I'll explain why: Something interesting is that the research does not yet know is if this brain state is indeed bioloigical - ie from birth - or a nurtured state of mind. Some research say that narcissism has become more prevalent and if that is true, then it would be a nurtured state and environment dependent. In which case, can it be helped? Reversed? Or even coveted - e.g. if you are too empathetic and want to be less so so you can go for a big promotion - would you want those areas suppressed? People drink alcohol to suppress inhibitions for instance; can we do the same with empathy? If we do it too much, does it stick? One huge myth about the mind is that we can not learn significantly new skills when adults as when we are as children and so we stop. However, our brains are very capable of learning when we are adults and tapping into memory for instance and its huge capacity can very much be learnt as an adult. As can abstract mathematics and rapid mental arithmetic. In other words, we can change the structure of our brains when we like - for that is what learning physcially does.
However, it is an undeniable fact every US President for decades has presided and ordered the deaths of ten and hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions (the latter, collectively). There is obviously something greater at play. Of course, it may be the mechanisms of the system; money etc. But it also lies in the individuals and their abilities to manipulate perception, and potentially their corruptibility - unless they are truly fully unempathetic. Obama seemed to care about people - he gives that vibe - but he was just as bloodthirsty as the rest. Is it all really in protection of the market, in which his inauguration speech he declared he would not hear criticism of as it created wealth? This was a man who accepted a Nobel Peace Prize....then went and killed thousands. The whole thing is truly dystopian and maybe clues do lie in uncomfortable truths rather than truisms.
Thanks for the vid - will watch.
Would still love to see Jon Ronson quiz the President.
Yes, they have been on some - particularly criminals but strangely not, as you say, on tech - or even judges, which is remarkable.
What's fascinating about these studies is that they consistently show that in this minority, there are three consistent areas of the brain which show far less activation, impairing much of what the rest of us have such as empathy. Now, armed with this knowledge, surely this can be classified as a cognitive condition of sorts? In which case, every Presidential in the US should have to be tested to ensure they didn't have this condition in order to comply with the constitution - and be disqualified as unable to lead should they not meet these requirements? Maybe there should be a push for this? It may mean less genocidal warmongerer leaders and instead ones who prioritise healthcare?
25th Amendment?
Here is a key clip from that longer video:
https://youtu.be/PpyIZ4DGIK8?feature=shared
All citizens and non citizens must pass, and have a certificate of, a brain scan before engaging in any economic or political venture. ?? Uhh
And if you were the kingpin techbro, the top of the pile, w/billions in other folks' money to leverage, you might want to "acquire" the largest social media town square as your personal plaything.... & change it's name to some annoying, retro-future letter, like X. The corruption cult will be patting you on the back & ensuring your viral status to the ends of the planet. All of the actual X's should rise up & make 2024 a mutant superhero rebellion... =^.^=
Thank you for this.
Absolutely spot on! Brilliant!!
I'd add to this though:
'First off, let me address the elephant in the room that so much of the American-centric discussion misses. Substack is an international platform and will eventually have to act like it if they want to grow, or you know, succeed in capitalism. '
We are in a neoliberal death trap which basically means capitalism unchecked and on steroids. Neoliberalism always requires a subjugated class - in our world it's the Global South. As such racism is a central tenet of its ideology and success. I wrote this in a note prior - why would substack stop Nazis when the racial ideology of inferiority and exploitation is central to both ideologies? Why bite the hand that feeds?
Oh yes, I don't disagree at all. And I welcome the fall of neoliberalism and capitalism. I worry that what these circle-jerking elitist techbois have been cooking up in their Silicon Valley man caves is even worse though, and I am resentful that they want to roll out whatever plans they have come up with to alter our collective human course without any transparency or consideration for what the rest of us actually want and need (and their patronizing assumption we're all too stupid to know what's best for us). I am angry that the Ivy League type neoliberals did this and I'm just as mad when Ivy League type tech-utopians do it.
https://x.com/verge/status/1646588861529706497?s=20
Interesting reasoning, you ought also consider that Nazis championed censorship in the Third Reich. You are a product of their educational system(assuming you attended a public school). National Socialism and Communism both draw ideology from Karl Marx. The Communist regimes retained an iron-fisted control of press AND speech of all kinds. How are your ideas about Nazis being denied a platform to make fools of themselves with any different?
What does Marx have to do with any of this? How can you possibly draw a connection between the Third Reich and 21st century public schools?
Crazed double-speak like that is exactly the kind of obscurantist nonsense that this platform is at risk of amplifying.
There is a world of difference between fascist state-run press and sensible online content moderation. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
How are we not affected by the actions and ideals of our parents? The choices we make are affected by the choices our parents made and their parents made, etc. Unless there is a conscious effort to change the psychological pattern. This pattern adjustment is accomplished by the public school. Instead of a classical education of trivium and quadrivium, we have indoctrination into a certain worldview that reduces humanity to materialist animalistic insignificance. In short, the idea that humans are a cancer on the Earth. The fundamental issue is that people aren't taught how to reason logically in school and therefore filter out foolishness on their own. A people that is capable of proper discernment prevents the ideology Jacobinism, Marxism, Nihilism, and many others from gaining adherents. We are awash in ignorance programmed into the people of the world by a high-minded Academia that esteems itself the arbiters of what is true and what is not true. How do you personally know that a moderator's work is not influenced by his or her political opinions? The answer is that you don't. You don't ever allow a boil to fester without lancing it, draining it, and dressing it. So why would you prevent free and open discussion for the purposes of public transparency? If there is banality, vulgarity, and generally ugliness in public discourse, isn't it better for it to be apparent to everyone? How can people learn and grow in maturity without the broadest experience possible? Are you afraid of radicalization? It's already happened, and many times over the centuries, too. I am a student of history. If history is moderated and censored, what actually am I learning?
What sort of education system would teach its students to fabricate grand-sounding gish gallop like yours?
And which is it? Is radicalisation something we can't avoid anyway so why bother, or is it something that is less likely if we allow whatever ugliness and ignorance to flourish? You seem to making both arguments.
The American education system, subverted by Socialism, Communism, transgenderism, and environmental activism leads IQs of 110+ to concoct gish gallop like this to engage folks like you. It feels sad that there are still people that want to gag others because they don't like what they're saying. This is the same thing that's been done by authoritarians and totalitarians the world over. Love free speech, fight for it, or throw it away forever. Radicalization always happens no matter your efforts. Might as well gain wisdom from it.
Who gets to define hate speech? Since you advocate for censorship of national socialists, what of international Trotskeyites? Marxists? Can we censor every ideology that is built upon mass graves, tyranny, genocide, democides, hate, racism? Thus, Margret Sanger, Marx, Mohammed, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, the entire American Progressive movement, eugenicists, Catholics, puritans,fascists. Personally I find all of the aforementioned offensive, reprehensible, evil, of no moral or ethical value.
Still,
Who decides?
Why do I suspect a clique of just-us would decide rather than justice?
Excellent post, but a shame it includes a machine learning (“AI”)-generated image ☹️.
I realise its inclusion in the post might have been thematic, considering the subject of the article section it precedes, but please consider not using these images (made by generators trained on stolen, uncredited art) as it harms actual creatives and normalises art theft.
I just added that image tonight, provided to me by a fellow Substack writer. I felt like using it enhanced the point I'm making about the ethics, or lack thereof, in how the tech industry is forcing change on all of us without consent and without proper guardrails in place.
I understand. It’s still a shame that to enhance a point about the tech moguls’ lack of ethics and disregard for consent you used an unethically generated image, resulting from the scraping of artists’ work without their consent. I really appreciate your article overall but as a professional artist I feel this contradiction was worth highlighting.
I removed the image. Solidarity.
I appreciate that. Thank you 👍🏻
Thanks for getting me to re-evaluate.