I always found “Simulation Theory” to be a lazy Reddit version of Deism to begin with, but especially these days it’s dire just how often undesirables are perceptibly stripped of personhood with that same belief system. It doesn’t pass as a joke for me when too many rich creeps like 
sermonize about it on the regular and their sycophantic followers feel more like Main Characters by nodding along.
Wall Street Bets pfp
accuses others of following a trend
Are they talking anout the free Palestine protests? If so those have been going on and off for decades, I’d hardly call that a trend
No. History started a month ago. Everyone protesting has never heard of Palestine until the twitter man said something
Seems to me like they’re telling on themselves.
There is no deeper understanding about the issues they are marching for. It is all just slogans.
. I don’t understand how people who don’t know shit don’t just shut the fuck up until they learn more.I’m sick of simulation theory as well and want something cooler to take its place. Maybe Gnosticism?
So many supposed deep profound insights and beliefs from techbros are old shit that they never realized was old shit because they had to bumblefuck around with drug retreats and discover a clumsier and less developed version of such things.
holy shit this meme is hilarious. thank you
One of the things that I took up as a thought habit was to invert the messages that advertising conveyed and nine times out of ten it works really well.
Sometimes it’s just a simple reversal like “I’m loving it” -> “I’m hating it” (or to elaborate a little bit more, “Eating here is a hateful experience”) but sometimes it’s a legit inversion like “Because you’re worth it” -> “Because we’re entitled to your money”.
When it comes to political insight from armchair experts like this, I think taking the same approach works really well.
for many of the NPC “protestors”… it’s just a social thing
= “I can’t understand why people would gather unless it’s to socialise”
They just go along
= “My politics is an act of following”
There is no deep understanding about the issues they are marching for
= “I have no understanding about the issues they are marching for”
It is all just slogans
= “The one feature I have noticed about protest marches is that they have slogans”
Am I doing a reverse armchair expert analysis of their psychology? Without any doubt. But not all armchair expertise is identical and I think this gives some insight into what’s going on for people like this. All of liberal politics is projection.
There’s an old saying that a thief believes everyone steals. Deeply flaky insincere people often believe everyone is deeply flaky and insincere, that it’s impossible to actually care about things apart from immediate dopamine hits from consuming treats.
a thief believes everyone steals
That’s a good one. “every accusation a confession” is the same sentiment but this is catchier.
How is the left considered the condescending people and not the CHUDs who actually think they’re perfect? CHUD ideology can literally be boiled down to “I am better than you.”
Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not. Pretty sure it’s excellent bait and you’ve just managed to goad me into doubling down on armchair psychologizing (well played!) but for anyone who is wondering, this is my take:
Liberals believe in notions of meritocracy and the just world hypothesis etc.
When they encounter a person who disagrees with liberalism, they take it as a personal challenge to their beliefs (especially when these beliefs are sorta latent in the sense that they go unacknowledged by the person.)
Not only do they see you as a threat to their ideology but this is amplified by the fact that you posit a different solution to the problems that you have identified in the (liberal) world.
So, by being on the left, to them you represent someone who thinks they understand liberalism better than they do and that you think that you’ve got all the answers.
I think this is where a sharp distinction exists between the cultural liberals - the ones who are born into it and don’t question it so being a liberal is their default position and it’s just the background radiation - and the philosophical liberals - someone who has arrived at the position that liberalism is the best political economy by their assessment. I find I can communicate much better with a philosophical liberal than a cultural liberal, even if I find myself disagreeing more with a philosophical liberal.
I’m going to do something really odious here and make a comparison to religion. Stick with me though.
I find that cultural liberal is a lot like an evangelical in their zeal and their presumption that their ideology is the correct one to the exclusion of all others. This evangelical attitude is what makes them antagonistic towards other ideological positions and it also has that persecution complex bundled with it - anyone who disagrees with me is punishing me personally and, simply by existing, your ideas are a threat to mine and so whatever I do or say to you is an act of self-defence. (Unfortunately you see this same crypto-liberalism in baby leftists who are of the anti-authoritarian flavour. In my experience, a lot of the seasoned anti-authoritarian leftists [at least the grass-touchers] tend not to share this attitude but it does vary by degree.)
The folks who are philosophical liberals, I find, feel a lot more like people who are of a non-proselytising religion like Judaism, Hinduism, and stuff like Quakers - they are pretty sure in their own beliefs and they know why they are what they are but they don’t have a conviction that their ideology has the monopoly on morality and so they tend to coexist much more easily with people of different faiths or of no faith. Or in this case, a philosophical liberal tends to be able to coexist with a radical with much less friction and emotional investment.
So basically, to TLDR the question, what it boils down to is their belief that by being a part of the non-default position you are positioning yourself as better than everyone who is in the default position since you are convinced that you are right and therefore, by extension, you are convinced that the majority is wrong. The conclusion: you think that you’re better than everyone else.
(The reason why I brought up the idea of religion and analysed the question from the perspective of Christianity is because I’m basically riffing on the idea of ressentiment applied to liberalism but that’s a big long discussion, especially if you aren’t familiar with the concept.)
This is coming from the same “genius” who has (among many other things) claimed to be a socialist, and a utopian anarchist (because of sci-fi books
) and most recently came to the epiphany that all of politics is actually just good vs evil.
If there’s one guy who has a deep understanding of politics and doesn’t just say random shit that he thinks is trendy it’s definitely himHe’s not really brighter than
and shares the same “last person in the room that kisses his ass can likely change his entire opinion of something” trait.And
is decidedly more charismatic in a crude way overall in a way that nazis can more openly go for.
They were saying the same thing about the Freedom convoy shit right?
They were saying the same thing about the anti-mask “protests” right?
The irony of these right wing grifters turning around and using the same rethoric the libs use against them. Maybe its me but approaching this from simulation theory or whatever is entirely missing the point here.
Libs call chuds Putler/CCP bots. Chuds call libs NPCs.
There is nothing deeper than that. Although if you asked me the whole “emotional roller coaster” line is entirely about alpha male grifter shit so there is that.
And we’re the smug “elitists”?
Elite means any group that thinks a very divorced apartheid prince is too fucking cringe to bearably hang out with.
Elitist just means knowledgeable to these people. It’s how they can call a barista with a hs diploma living in a 1 person apartment with 2 roommates an elite.
“elitism” in American political discourse is almost entirely aesthetic imo. Anyone who’s interacted with conservatives knows they’re just as smug as liberals and share the same love for “I told you so” and "they just don’t know any better’. We joke here about libs droning on about “the adults in the room” but conservatives actually do think that everyone that disagrees with them is a literal child.
The difference is that liberals watch TV shows with higher production values. They don’t listen to country music. Right wingers in my area are putting chuck norris on their campaign posters.
Sounds like nerds vs jocks all over again.
I’ve heard a pretty similar bullshit theory from friends, that most people in youth communist groups are there because they want to belong somewhere. They’re also very mindwashed about communism as are most middle class young people.
I mean, obviously.
Nothing garners more social acceptance than openly being a communist and there isn’t a single interest group which requires less study, less effort, and whose acceptance is more unconditional than a communist org.
that most people in youth communist groups are there because they want to belong somewhere
That’s typically said by validation-seeking status quo warriors that want to be normal in performative ways while bullying the unhinged and deranged that need to touch grass.
Pretty much yeah
that most people in youth communist groups are there because they want to belong somewhere.
I don’t know if that’s the primary reason, but it’s certainly valid to want to belong. It’s why people join gangs, terrorist organizations, etc. Perhaps it also applies to commie groups, we shouldn’t think of them as holy mystical orgs free from real life issues. I get that your friends have no idea what they are talking about, but I do think that people join orgs not solely for helping others, but also helping themselves (‘it’s better to be together with like-minded people than to suffer alone’ king of thing).
Very true, though the point my friends were making was that those people don’t truly believe in communism and are just lonely and want to belong somewhere
deleted by creator
Telling a bunch of 14 year olds that they actually are as important as they believe and that anyone who disagrees isn’t a real person is going to have some terrifying consequences.
is going to have some terrifying consequences.
Unless they were born rich and connected, though maybe you mean consequences for those they dehumanize.
I probably should have more concern for the kids but I’m definitely talking about consequences for people like us.
The Japanese call it Chunibyo.
deleted by creator
simulation theory isn’t a lazy reddit version of deism, it’s a lazy reddit version of solipsism
I think it qualifies as both, considering it necessiates a “prime mover” that started and established the parameters of the supposed simulation.
I wish my friends were cool enough to go protesting with me.
This was a common ‘insight’ that sought to explain how anti-covid protestors moved on other crank right wing causes to protest.
This is a pretty popular take that I keep seeing on Reddit anytime someone says, “I can’t believe people are blindly supporting Hamas!”
too ebic for god
But simulation theory…
Reddit’s deism
A lot of them never really got over their former religious beliefs before they became euphoric Reddit New Atheists. They don’t stay there, often filling that unhealed god-shaped hole with “singularity” nerd rapture prophecies or maybe just substitute themselves as solipsistic deific beings destined for greatness or even rebound back to religion eventually with
kinda funny they didn’t even use anything to say it was wrong or bad, just that their opponents weren’t doing it for the right reasons.
They want all of the things. There’s nothing else at their core than that.
Can’t imagine outing myself as a friendless weirdo on a public platform
deleted by creator
