On satire

I’ve always had a problem with satire. For a mind like mine, made of fundamentals and principles, satire was ever too blurry, hard to pinpoint.

If something like body shaming in universally wrong, why it is generally widely accepted as satire? Even historically, but also in modern times? Maybe you do remember all the controversies about Charlie Hebdo. Where is the line drawn?

There are certain groups of people that are sensible to certain topics. In general you make sure to avoid bringing them up, with a specific audience. But in the case of the internet a message doesn’t simply reach its intended target, it has the potential to reach everyone. So does this mean we avoid everything that can potentially offend someone out there, since everyone is potentially present? Of course not, it’s not even practical.

Something similar happens with “pronouns.” It’s absolutely okay to misgender someone by mistake. But if you then get corrected and refuse to acknowledge it, then you immediately are at fault. This becomes an attack, a deliberate offense that needs a strong response. Not so many people agree here. For some, the content of something said can already be at fault, universally wrong and to be condemned. But for me instead the distinct dividing line is on intent. Intentional, deliberate offense or not.

But intent does not solve satire, where the intent is often to explicitly INSULT. And yet we say it’s fine.

Well, all this until I figured out what satire actually is. It’s now a solved problem.

The way I understand it now, is that satire is not a problem of content. Whether what is being said is allowed or not. Because again, if that was the case you’d end up with too much ambiguity. Ambiguity that instead goes completely away when you realize what satire TRULY is: a contextual message.

That’s why body shaming, that would be unambiguously wrong as content, becomes totally accepted in the context of satire (not fully, it still retains moral implications, but lets say it stays lawful). This because satire doesn’t define a content, but a context. The relationship between who says something, and who’s the target.

Satire defines a message that ALWAYS has a “bottom up” trajectory. This is the line of distinction. It always origins from someone (or a group of people) who are vulnerable, toward someone who holds the power. That’s why, as a society, we accept it. Because it is a category outside judgement, regulated as a form of universal balance: even if a person is attacked, mocked, insulted… maybe even hurt, it will always be someone in a position of greater power. If money defines not happiness but a multiplication of possibilities (if you get ill you can die even if you’re rich, but being rich multiplies your chances of survival), then the satirical power is a power of destabilization for more stability. And if positions get reversed, then even application of rules get reversed.

A thing REVERSIBLE in application, but UNMOVABLE in its principle. It’s specifically one of those absolute “weak makes right” rules.

This is also why a member of the parliament cannot mock and insult another member of the parliament. For satire to apply you need a contextual imbalance of power, it doesn’t work between equals.

That’s why powerful men hate satire, it’s something they cannot control because it is defined outside their reach. Unless relying on active censorship.

A summary

Not going for nuance or complexity, here. But I do remember the world is complex.

I do believe that fascism is in the destiny of humanity.

I believe that humanity is a failed experiment, that it has nowhere to go.

I don’t think there’s any pragmatic, real space at this point to avoid this course. (the rightful correction is built as self-defeating, the system built to be unsolvable in its structure)

This is only a process that can be slowed down or accelerated. But I don’t think it’s something like a twenty years of delay possible. More like a few months or a few years. (I’ve been wrong about timings in the past, but not on the trajectory)

For all I care, it’s better to accelerate at this point. May chaos create some anomalies that lead to surprises. Good or not.

(me accepting the acceleration doesn’t mean me participating in it, I’m not movable and my point of observation is absolute. This isn’t about me)

Reviewing Hitler, indeed

No need to add words to wiggle and nudge two different shapes that weren’t intended to match…

These two are a perfect match.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7213729970

Meanwhile, Elon Musk is endorsing concentration camps.

…Here be clowns

Yeah, it was a paper launch. But at least it’s a funny one:

The question everyone is asking is why has Nvidia done this? And the answer should be quite obvious, since Covid and then the AI craze. These videocards didn’t sell out because of the demand, but because of lack of stocks. Artificial (perceived) scarcity is what Nvidia uses to keep the prices high. Essentially one giant psyop.

Same as people wondering why the whole game industry is in a terrible ongoing crisis with all the layoffs. Wasn’t it an extremely flourishing sector up to 2019? People blame the Covid bubble, then blame AI. The AI is the correct answer, but for a different motivation. Devs aren’t being fired because replaced by AI. The simple reason is that the whole global economy is a giant joke. The game industry was blooming because of investors. The AI craze is not driven by utility or potential, EVEN in cases where they are justified, it’s once again driven purely by perception and hype.

Simply: all the money that was in the videogame industry rapidly shifted to AIs. Same as just a few days ago the whole tech sector crashed because, once again, the “perception” of a Chinese AI. There’s very little impact on the realities of these circumstances, it’s all a psyop. Although it is a psyop likely outside of anyone’s hands. It’s a capitalist psyop that is ran onto us as humanity. Driven by… absolutely no one.

A Dark God of Nothing.

If I had to buy a new videocard, right now, I’d probably get a 7900 XTX. I’d be absolutely fine with raw performance and I don’t give a single shit about RTX or DLSS.

There’s still a giant problem with AMD videocards and that one model in particular. They have way, way too high energy absorption. Powerful enough, but inefficient.

If AMD is able to improve consistently in that area with the 9070 XT I would gladly make the switch (with the added bonus of not giving money to the spreading cancer that is Nvidia).

Not only that, but if it had some 20Gb of ram for less than 1k price (the old 7900 has 24Gb, I only want something in that range but with acceptable efficiency and power draw), it would destroy Nvidia in general, not just in my own personal case. AMD simply isn’t even trying.