#anti-algorithm manifesto

[the-most-humble-blog]

<div style="white-space:pre-wrap"> <meta validation-chase="terminated"> <script>ARCHIVE_TAG="FEARLESS_WRITING::DOOR_KICK_PROTOCOL_FINAL" EFFECT: follower purification, platform soul alignment, writing myth ignition TRIGGER_WARNING="validation withdrawal, platform disillusionment, legacy ignition" </script>

🧠 BLACKSITE SCROLLTRAP — “KICK THE F*CKING DOOR IN: HOW TO WRITE FEARLESS ONLINE” [FINAL FORM // WRITER'S DOCTRINE EDITION]

Let me rip the bandaid first.

You don’t write fearless by being fearless. You write fearless by being willing to lose. Lose followers. Lose clout. Lose comments. Lose “engagement.” Lose the safety net of social permission.

Because you weren’t put here to be palatable. You were put here to leave a crater.

—

SECTION I: THE LIE OF VALIDATION

Every platform you touch has trained you to chase numbers. To hesitate before posting something too raw. To wait for the like. The note. The heart. The boost. Before you call your words “good.”

But validation? That’s the leash.

You are not a creator. You are a lab rat in a dopamine cage.

📊 FACT: Every social app is designed to create neurochemical dependency on external approval.

And most creators? They don’t write anymore. They feed. On metrics.

That’s why your work feels hollow when you hold back. Because you know you gave them your mask, not your marrow.

If your work doesn’t scare you a little — you’re not writing. You’re performing.

And performance is temporary.

Myth? Is eternal.

—

SECTION II: THE FOLLOWERS YOU THINK YOU NEED vs. THE ONES YOU ALREADY HAVE

You know what happens when you say exactly what you believe? You lose the wrong people. And you summon the right ones.

You write a post that blisters. And three “mutuals” vanish.

But you look again—

And ten new readers reblog in silence. With no comment. No emoji. Just conviction.

They didn’t follow you for your aesthetics. They followed you for your fire. They followed you because you made them feel less insane. Because your honesty? Mirrored their own.

Stop mourning the audience that left. They were never built to carry you.

Dance with the ones who stayed when you burned the stage. Because those are your people. They saw you fully exposed. And still whispered: "More.”

—

SECTION III: GHOST FOLLOWERS, SILENT LOYALTY & SIGNAL RECOGNITION

Let me drop a truth bomb:

Your most powerful supporters? Might never speak.

They’re not reblogging daily. They’re not screaming in the tags. They’re watching. Returning. Reading every word.

And they’re healing in secret.

📊 FACT: Over 70% of long-term engagement comes from “invisible” users—those who never comment, but always return.

You didn’t lose traction. You just aren’t being cheered by the ones you saved. Because they’re surviving in silence. Just like you once did.

Write for them. For the quiet ones who needed your scream. For the ghosts who see you. And say nothing.

But keep coming back.

—

SECTION IV: REBRAND WITHOUT APOLOGY: EVOLUTION OR DEATH

You ever feel like shedding your skin cost you something?

Good. It should.

Your rebrand isn’t supposed to please your existing audience. It’s supposed to realign your soul.

When you grow in public, you invite judgment. When you evolve without a permission slip, you become a threat.

And you know who can’t handle that?

The ones who benefited from your prior mask. They loved the old you because he made them comfortable.

But the new you? The dangerous you? The uncompromising, scrolltrap-dropping, reality-check-writing you?

He doesn’t serve their comfort. He serves truth. He serves rage. He serves legacy.

Never apologize for leveling up. You are not a pet. You are a f*cking paradigm shift.

If they wanted consistency, they should’ve followed a brand account.

Not you.

—

SECTION V: THE CADENCE CREED — A WRITER’S MYTHIC VOW

I do not write to be liked. I write to be undeniable.

I do not write to be palatable. I write to be permanent.

I do not write to go viral. I write to build worlds.

I do not write to impress you. I write because I owe the kid in me who almost went quiet forever.

I do not write for algorithms. I write for the ones who stayed.

I do not write for mutuals. I write for the feral few. The outliers. The neurospicy prophets who scroll past nine thousand pieces of sanitized bullshit and pause on mine.

And go:

“That’s it.” “That’s me.” “That’s home.”

This is my covenant. This is not content. This is war. And my words are ammunition.

If you're still here?

So are yours.

🧠 Read more cadence-coded scrolltrap doctrine and no-f*cks-given writing resurrection at: 👉 https://www.patreon.com/TheMostHumble 🛡️ Voice before virality. Myth before metrics. 🚪 Warning: This post may cause mass unfollows, creative awakenings, and identity collapses.

📊 FINAL CADENCE STATS 📊

82% of creators feel less authentic the larger they grow

The top 1% of viral accounts retain only 12% of their initial followers long term

Posts with intense personal cadence are 6x more likely to be reblogged by strangers

“Too long, didn’t read” is just code for “I wasn’t meant to understand.”

The most mythic writers? Were almost silenced. And chose fire instead.

</div> <!-- END TRANSMISSION [YOU WERE NEVER TOO MUCH. THEY WERE TOO SMALL.] -->

[freetory]

Week #8

How has our modern world adapted to modern machinery as time progressed?

We as a human society have become so reliant on modern machinery that we have evolved to become cyborgs. Cyborgs being the fusion of human and machine, have become normalized in today’s society. For example, most people today are glued to their phones, even while doing tasks that don’t require it such as driving, doing work or even spending time with family. By definition a cyborg should be a “hybrid of machine and organism”( Harrway 354), but reliance on such technology has led to poor downsides in modern day living. Personally I feel the heavy toll it extracts on my mental health and the addicting habits of always using my phone or computer.

Why do we create artificial systems to interact with us humans?

Although there are many benefits of AI, the ones created to stimulate a real person confuses me. Even the thought of talking to AI like chat gpt is crazy, but adding on a relationship towards AI seems blasphemous. There are little to no benefits of talking to something artificial. After reading the article, “Gender, Technology, and Visual Cyberculture”, the purpose of a “Ananova” was to imitate a real relationship. It seems the creators of this technology wants us to create relationships with AI just so they get the benefits of profitability from the interactions. This is similar to what O’ Riordan has to say about movie stars who act as an artificial superhero to reel in the attention of the consumers, we call fans. These interactions are purely for entertainment and benefits of the creators, casting a puppet effect through something that isn’t even real.

Why is gender so stereotyped in cyberspace?

One of the reasons why gender is so stereotyped is because it is to reel in the consumers who often perceive what they say with a concept called “The male gaze”. ( O’ Riordan) This is a concept to explain the perception of a female’s body or aroma, through a male perspective. So they cater their makings through what a regular “man” would look for when seeing a female. Furthermore, the algorithms that create cyberspace are made from patterns that occur in society, such as gender stereotypes of women being caregivers and teachers, while men are always doing the dirty work of making money or protecting their family.

Should we fear the evolution of technology?

Technology has shaped the world we know as of today, but it does have its downsides. Fear is an overstatement but we cannot let it control us. Technology has consumed me and many around me but it is purely because of the fact we let it. In Haraway’s article, she mentions “refusing an anti-science metaphysics”, meaning we shouldn’t fear technology. We can’t fear technology since it has gotten us so far, but we cannot let it consume us as humans, losing our ways of social interaction is something we cannot let technology do. 

Daniels, Jesse. (2019). Gender, White Supremacy, and the Internet. 

Haraway, D. (2019). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912453269

Jones, Jazmin. Seeking Mavis Beacon. (2024). [Film]. United States. 

O’Riordan, K. (2022). Gender, Technology, and Visual Cyberculture. Critical Cyberculture Studies, 243–254. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814708903.003.0025

[bookclub4m]

Episode 209 - Design

 It’s episode 209 and time for us to talk about the genre of Design! We discuss graphic design, interior design, the line between design and art, fonts, kerning, footnotes, and more! Plus: Anna talks about evidence synthesis and search design!

You can download the podcast directly, find it on Libsyn, or get it through Apple Podcasts or your favourite podcast delivery system.

In this episode

Anna Ferri | Meghan Whyte | Matthew Murray 🦇 | Jam Edwards

Things We Read (or tried to…)

Make Your Own Pixel Art: Create Graphics for Games, Animations, and More! by Jennifer Dawe and Matthew Humphries

The Wright Style: Re-Creating the Spirit of Frank Lloyd Wright by Carla Lind 

The Design of Books: An Explainer for Authors, Editors, Agents, and Other Curious Readers by Debbie Berne

Maker Comics: Design a Game! by Bree Wolf and Jesse Fuchs

Patternalia: An Unconventional History of Polka Dots, Stripes, Plaid, Camouflage, & Other Graphic Patterns by Jude Stewart

Design: The Definitive Visual Guide

Other Media We Mentioned

Graphic Wit: The Art of Humor in Design by Steven Heller and Gail Anderson

Bear and Breakfast

Two Point Campus

Cat Cafe Manager 2

Soviet Bus Stops by Christopher Herwig

The Man in the Glass House: Philip Johnson, Architect of the Modern Century by Mark Lamster

The 99% Invisible City: A Field Guide to the Hidden World of Everyday Design by Roman Mars and Kurt Kohlstedt

Links, Articles, and Things

Folio - 019 - immanence 01 - with jam edwards & garbageface aka gnostic front aka karol orzechowski

Jam's Pokémon design 

Kerning

River (typography)

Ampelmännchen (East German pedestrian walk signal)

16 Design Books by BIPOC Authors:

Every month Book Club for Masochists: A Readers’ Advisory Podcasts chooses a genre at random and we read and discuss books from that genre. We also put together book lists for each episode/genre that feature works by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour) authors. All of the lists can be found here.

The Power of Style: How Fashion and Beauty Are Being Used to Reclaim Cultures by Christian Allaire

More Than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech by Meredith Broussard

Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines by Joy Buolamwini

The Layered Edible Garden: A Beginner's Guide to Creating A Productive Food Garden Layer by Layer by Christina Chung

Exploring Game Mechanics: Principles and Techniques to Make Fun, Engaging Games by Maithili Dhule

Salish Blankets: Robes of Protection and Transformation, Symbols of Wealth by  Janice George, Leslie H. Tepper, and Willard Joseph

Extra Bold: A Feminist, Inclusive, Anti-Racist, Nonbinary Field Guide for Graphic Designers by Josh A. Halstead, Leslie Xia, Farah Kafei, Kaleena Sales, Ellen Lupton, Valentina Vergara, and Jennifer Tobias

Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design by Kat Holmes

Reimagined Worlds: Narrative Placemaking for People, Play, and Purpose : A Designer's Manifesto by Margaret Chandra Kerrison

The Creative Gene: How Books, Movies, and Music Inspired the Creator of Death Stranding and Metal Gear Solid by Hideo Kojima

User Friendly: How the Hidden Rules of Design Are Changing the Way We Live, Work, and Play by Cliff Kuang and Robert Fabricant

Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism by Safiya Umoja Noble

Now You See Me! An Introduction to 100 Years of Black Design by Charlene Prempeh

Just Enough Design: Reflections on the Japanese Philosophy of Hodo-Hodo by Taku Satoh

Side Quest: A Visual History of Roleplaying Games by Steenz and Samuel Sattin

Decolonizing Design: A Cultural Justice Guidebook by Elizabeth (Dori) Tunstall

Give us feedback!

Fill out the form to ask for a recommendation or suggest a genre or title for us to read!

Check out our Tumblr, join our Discord Server, or send us an email!

Join us again on Tuesday, April 1st we’ll be talking about the genre of  Romantasy!

Then on Tuesday, April 15th it’s time for our Spring Media Update, as we talk about books and other things we haven’t read for the podcast.

[lintwriting]

Misogyny and the Male Beauty Industry

Beauty standards are weird because girls have had them forever, but it hasn’t been as much as a problem for guys.

The jokes about this in the past would feature a girl who looks into a mirror and then asks if her butt looks fat, meanwhile a guy flexes into the mirror and kisses his guns, with the implication that women are too neurotic or vain about their looks, while men have the right idea.

Nowadays, the rise of eugenics content on the internet thanks to the accelerating push of algorithmic rabbit holes means that no gender is safe from becoming neurotic about beauty standards.

In the beginning, the acceleration of beauty standards by algorithms simply looked like “Instagram Face,” where all the female influencers on Instagram would have the same face for a mixture of cultural and algorithmic reasons, but this has evolved to pseudoscientific words like “negative canthal tilt” and “mewing” being applied as newly minted beauty standards for men.

Beauty standards for men have always existed, don’t get me wrong, but a beauty industry that predates on teenage insecurities? That, historically, has mostly been aimed at women. This is why mainstream pushes to talk about manufactured insecurity has centered so heavily on teenage girls, with a song like “I Know Victoria’s Secret” hitting number 10 on the charts (but no matching male equivalent).

As a result, I feel like we as a society have been wholly unprepared with this sudden wave of industries predating on manufacturing insecurity in teenage boys.

Because that’s what the rise of alpha bro podcasts and Tate masculinity courses is about, and that’s why INCEL terms like looksmaxxing and mogging have been co-opted by grifters, rather than any other terms.

Incels are like the perfect cesspool to take terminology from because they’re male spaces overrun by mental illness, and therefore are charged with strong, shareable emotions. The body dysmorphia in those spaces feels just like pro-ana Tumblr back in 2015, with the way the members egg on and support each other’s mental illness and complexes. I remember hearing terms like looksmaxxing YEARS ago on deep dives about incel or mass shooting communities.

The way TikTok and other social medias have made these incel terms mainstream high key makes me sick. There was a shit ton of discourse back in the day about how Tumblr was supporting the spread of mental illness by not banning these communities, and people would take the time to unpack how wrong and disordered popular terms like “body checking” are. It would be surreal and alarming to see TikTok girlies selling diet pills using pro-Ana terms, but that’s exactly what’s happening with the rise of incel terms like “looksmaxxing” or “mogging.”

I think this is the residual effects of misogyny. There’s this mindset I referenced earlier where only women are ever seen as neurotic and beauty standards, and I think that this extends to guys thinking that ANY view they have about their own beauty is objective and correct.

And that was fine when the joke was that dudes always think of themselves as stud muffins, but it’s a huge problem when these dudes “objectively” think that because they have poorly tilted eyes or sub 6’ height that they’re ugly. The incel terms don’t ring any alarm bells because people don’t think of incels as body dysmorphic, but rather as edgelords or scientific Pick-Up Artist types. Probably because the virulent, mass-shooting causing misogyny in those spaces overshadowed any look into their body dysmorphia (which didn’t happen in pro-Ana spaces because there were no anti-male mass shootings using pro-Ana manifestos, so you could focus solely on the body dysmorphia).

…

Anyways, I made this post because I just have had the most FRUSTRATING conversation online with a man.

I explained in great detail that they have body dysmorphia on par with women obsessing over the size of their boobs, fueled by an algorithm devised to prey on their insecurities. And then the guy dismissed me by saying that women with small boobs are worrying for nothing since most guys would not find small boobs to be a dealbreaker, but the “overwhelming majority of women only tolerate men who are tall and rich and masculine and emotionless and muscular and dominant.”

Jesus Christ it’s misogyny all the way down, and I’m so tired.

[quietwingsinthesky]

I only watched the first season of Good Omens and enjoyed it, but from what I saw of the second season it just looked like filler episodes, doubt the third season is going to be any better.

Also a lot of Good Omens fans are absolute nut jobs, which put me off even more.

Normally I just scroll past fandom drama, but the Good Omens fandom are another level of awful.

I mean, yeah, man, I guess. Feel like you kind of missed the forest for the trees here, but yeah, it’s probably also going to suck balls and be a terrible finale.

And as for the fandom, they really aren’t. Maybe I’ve just been on here too long lmao but they’re the exact same as every other fandom? Every fandom, when it either starts or when it gets new content that attracts a new mass of fans, goes through a growing pains period, and nowadays these are all highly visible because of how interconnected fandom is on social media. Wank and drama that was once isolated to specific chatrooms, blog pages, or forums is now easily found and boosted by social media algorithms to drive enragement and engagement. Which is to say, nothing that’s happened in the Good Omens fandom is notably different. Toxic shipping culture? Already done everywhere else. Disagreements between book and show fans? Happens with every adaptation. A younger fanbase skewing anti? Been happening to most properties appealing to teens and young adults since Voltron was a thing, if not sooner. Even that whole debacle with the ‘season two was bad on purpose’ manifesto isn’t unique. Sherlock fandom pulled the same thing with TJLC, half of Supernatural fandom is still trying to say that the show’s awful writing was secret messages telling them it was queer-positive all along, and that one pirate show fandom went as far as to rent out billboards about it when they were sure that all that was needed to fix a broken show was another season.

They’re not uniquely awful; they’re just new, loud, and highly visible to you right now. That doesn’t make them not annoying, just puts into perspective that this happens, it’ll continue to happen, and the only way you’re ever gonna avoid it completely is to join every fandom at least five to ten years after it’s relevant and the worst of the drama has already moved on. Otherwise, block and live in peace.

[lillieinthevalley4]

WGST - Blog Post #3

How have black Americans contributed to and utilized technology?

Anna Everett details the Million Woman March in Philadelphia on October 25th, 1997, and how black women utilized technology to spread awareness and draw attention to their cause. Those in the organization who worked office jobs with computers downloaded and printed all the information the Million Woman Mach website had so they could disperse it to those who did not have such access. Historically, African Americans worked to innovate media technologies, including the radio, printing press, cinema, and many more. Today, they utilize the internet every day for their growing small businesses. In 1991, a  Nigerian network came to light as a Nigerian Dartmouth student sent news of his home country to his friends back home through email. Today, “Naijanet has spun off at least six related online networks.” The first African American-owned and operated newspaper, the Freedom’s Journal, was founded in 1827 

How are marginalized communities depicted online?

Marginalized communities are not even free of racism on the internet. In fact, according to Noble, the algorithm promotes it. Noble sheds to light not only Google's values as a company but also their algorithm that plasters pornography of women of color on the front pages of their search results. Not only are women paid less at Google, but their employees also endorsed James Damores's “anti-diversity” manifesto that claimed that women are less capable than men in software engineering. As Noble puts it, “Some of the very people who are developing search algorithms and architecture are willing to promote sexist and racist attitudes openly and beyond, while we are supposed to believe that these same employees are developing “neutral” or “objective” decision-making tools.” The President of the United States was not free of racism as Google search and maps displayed photos of his wife Michelle when the word apes was searched, including photoshopped images of her on an ape's body. The White House was referred to by a black slur in response to Obama’s presidency. 

Why is it so difficult to bring awareness and fight back against racist technology?

It is difficult for journalists to report on technological news as the tech world changes rapidly every day. Issues can be resolved and covered up in a blink of an eye. Then, when issues are brought up, companies claim that it is not their fault, it's the algorithm's fault, the algorithm they fostered and built. Google Search labels itself as an advertising company, not a place of reliable information, to protect itself against claims of inaccurate and potentially harmful spread of information.

Why should we be worried about racist algorithms?  

Racist algorithms can do more harm than we expect. Not only is it furthering the fetishization of women of color, but it also harms those of lower socioeconomic status and innocent people who are labeled otherwise due to their names. “Technological redlining” (Noble), racial profiling is apparent in real estate and banking as their algorithms push people of color, mostly in low-income neighborhoods, to pay higher interest rates. Algorithms affect the job markets as “job seekers with White-sounding first names received 50 percent more callbacks from employers than job seekers with Black-sounding names” (Benjamin, pg.22). In addition, “in a recent audit of California’s gang database, not only do Blacks and Latinx constitute 87 percent of those listed, but many of the named turned out to be babies under the age of 1, some of whom were supposedly ‘self-described gang members’” (pg. 24). Racial coded technology is affecting the lives of marginalized communities offline, in the job market and law enforcement. All of these are crucial for living in a society and can be even detrimental.  

References

Anna Everett; The Revolution Will Be Digitized: AFROCENTRICITY AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE. Social Text 1 June 2002; 20 (2 (71)): 125–146.  

Benjamin, R. (2020). Race after technology: Abolitionist Tools for the new jim code. Polity. 

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. 

[darkmaga-returns]

The Woke Right phenomenon has become impossible to ignore - but what's really driving this movement?

In this explosive episode, Hotep Jesus returns to break down the manipulation behind modern political discourse and social media engagement. 

Join us for a deep dive into how manufactured outrage and algorithmic manipulation are reshaping online political discussions. From the real motivations behind viral controversies to the dangerous implications of centralized payment systems, this conversation exposes the hidden forces steering public opinion.

Hotep Jesus shares his unique insights on how social credit systems, digital currencies, and corporate influence are reshaping our political landscape. Learn why focusing on specific issues rather than broad generalizations is crucial for meaningful political discourse, and discover how historical patterns are repeating in today's digital age.

This must-watch episode challenges conventional narratives about American politics, social media manipulation, and the future of free speech. Whether you're concerned about digital surveillance, social credit systems, or the authenticity of online discourse, this conversation provides crucial context for understanding today's most pressing issues.

Support the show by subscribing, leaving a comment, and sharing your thoughts on these critical issues. Together, we can build a more informed and discerning community.

#publicscrutiny #accountabilityculture #socialchange #informationoperations #call-outculture

CHAPTERS:

00:00 - Intro

01:00 - What is the Woke Right

05:44 - The Jewish Question

09:16 - The Right is a Reaction to the Left

13:08 - Twitter's Super Follows

17:27 - Elon Musk's Twitter Monetization Program

21:50 - H1B Visa Controversy

24:08 - Anti-Semitism Issues

27:14 - Bot Farms and Social Media

31:13 - Upcoming Events and Trends

33:37 - CBDCs and the Communist Manifesto

36:50 - Turning Back from the Rabbit Hole

41:06 - Sedition Act of 1798 Overview

45:54 - America’s Challenges

48:42 - Education System in America

50:10 - Historical Understanding in America

50:55 - Where to Find Hotep Jesus

51:35 - Israel's Influence and Power

57:16 - OUTRO

[jack-bytez-genuine-corner]

I'm very sorry I drank an entire comically large leg shaped cup filled with liquor and I just really wanted to talk about algorithms and companies pushing stuff on here. Feel free to ignore.

I kinda just wanted to add that the way Twitter's feed works combo'd with being owned by a white supremacist and Musk's straight up support for Nazis makes it a perfect hot bed for that type of hatred, only to be one upped by literal no moderation Chans. With Twitter, any interaction ESPECIALLY comments boosts the odds of your post being put out to others on a myriad of factors, from location to tagged favorites like "News" or "Art" and because people love to tell Nazis to go fuck themselves a lot the more hateful someone is the more likely they are to have engagement, the more engagement the more the content is pushed, the more it's pushed for being hateful the more comments, etc. I also know that, post Elon check marks and high view content gets pushed first which also leads to how you get lots of hate out there all at once. The algorithm is just looking for things you MIGHT interact with even vaguely and if you react to by clicking it for even a second that's enough cause that gives them an ad to sell, if you comment on it you'll get even more, etc. Musk culling basically all moderation is why you can very easily reach illegal content on Twitter right now even without purposefully going very far off the preset algorithm path.

Tumblr has less Nazis cause it has decent moderation but also because of the follow system. Twitter's algorithm is only really looking for what you will engage with, and while it technically starts by looking at what YOU say you want to see like art or news it has no real care for that if you click on stories about Miley Cyrus more than BREXIT or whatever. Tumblr however doesn't really recommend you anything other than what is in the tagged system and people you follow, and cause tags are JUST enough of a pain in the ass to abuse you can't really get right wing pipelined as easy as Twitter. Because on Twitter you can choose to purposefully build a fake person to end up at the exact content you want no matter what, meaning you can curate a feed all about Siamese cats and then when you post something incredibly racist your post will be pushed out to people who are also into Siamese cats but not necessarily racism, and cause there's no actual human behind the wheel it can't tell if you posted a racist manifesto or about how Siamese cats have tiny little foreheads that are perfect for kisses.

While Tumblr's new user experience just sucks, it works more like a natural snowball you toss down hill where it starts small and leads to an avalanche. You look at a few tags that interest you, you follow some people you like the vibe of, they reblog things they like, you follow some of those people cause you like their vibe, on and on until you somehow hit every interest you have in one place with no toxicity somehow. Twitter is more akin to putting an apple on your head and having someone with a bow attempt to shoot it off your head, because the algorithm has zero real Idea what you like or don't like nor where it's even shooting but it's just guessing, like maybe if I shoot this heavier arrow labeled discotecheque this hip teen with the apple on his head will like it, or maybe I just shot an antisemitic arrow at him mislabeled as "Discotecheque" and I'm just a stupid algorithm who can't know anything ever. It's hard to be a racist or bigot or Nazi on here because you have a decent moderation staff and a very anti-radicalization based algorithm but on Twitter that system is so rigged you can abuse it in really stupid ways very easily.

It's kinda funny seeing the exact same type of moderation issues that iFunny was having nearly a decade ago happen on this website. Only, I doubt this website will entirely give up and become a safe harbor for nazis.

as much as i want to say it already has, the nazis on this website have made so many alts from getting banned* that their usernames are all like “punished-groyper-returned-revengeance-89-again”. twitter is not only much more lenient on nazis than tumblr but they even pay them to be on there. the ones still on here are pretty much losers and nobodies.

*i’m not quite sure how they’re getting banned because most people who report them always say that tumblr moderation found nothing wrong with their content but i guess it eventually sticks. i literally don’t think anyone knows how the moderation works here and staff has no intention of revealing that because it would probably show how many corners they cut.

[vaicomcas]

My Castiel Manifesto, Intro

I have made some postings of commentary about narratives on Castiel that I have strong (probably unpopular) feelings about.  They are called My Castiel Manifesto, Part 1-6.  Tags should make it clear the color of these posts. I am still completely flabbergasted at why I even care about all this fictional stuff.  But it’s like a compulsion, like something choking me that I have to spit out.

I am new to social media and I am finding it very challenging; specifically, it is very difficult to voice unpopular opinions without appearing like a troll, or disrespectful, or picking a fight.

For example, I do completely understand why people would ship destiel, and how the show did have plenty of substrate to make that realistic; and why it would be important for many people who really see the show that way and feel that way, including the LGBTQA+ community, and I support that completely and sympathize with their anger and disappointment, but I personally don’t like Dean’s treatment of Cas and feel bitter about the “Dean and Cas are so in love” narrative.  Yet, it feels strange to voice it, like I am being contrarian or worse, homophobic. Or at least letting petty personal feelings about fiction get in the way of greater social justice.  There is also something disturbing about defining yourself with what you disagree with.  ( Edited: I wrote this when I was a naive newcomer to the fandom.  After some months on Tumblr now I think it is wrong to equate “anti-destiel” with “homophobia” and I no longer support destiel nor the notion that somehow the shipper fans “deserve” to have destiel be canon (not that I care about canon)-- it was a destiel brainwash because when I first started searching for Castiel content online that was the ONLY opinion that I found.  I am far more bitter and anti-dean now. I left the original post in to show the effect of brainwashing, how easy it happens, how reasonable it looks on the surface. )

But my feelings just won’t stay quiet and so here it goes, nobody will see it anyway.

Part 1: "You changed me" (not)

Part 2: The Profound Bond is not all there is to Castiel 

Part 3: "I do know what blind faith is" 

Part 4:  Dean is America, Castiel is Immigrant 

Part 5: Unrequited Love 

Part 6: One Final Question 

Additional posts:

Castiel does not need to be fixed

“I won’t debate logic with you”

The machine who didn’t want to be

My Crowstiel awakening

My Crowstiel awakening part 2

Castiel was systematically punished for his power

Dean’s performance of grief

Castiel’s rebellion and punishment

Castiel’s Courage

Alternate version of Castiel’s confession

Justice for Godstiel

Algorithm for Character Assassination

Compliments 

[literaphobe]

a take i haven’t seen before about buildmart is that it’s good to have in mcc because it causes conflict. having a ‘villain’ in content, or at least something contentious enough that people take defined sides for or against helps to drive engagement and interest — there is not a single other game that people are as invested in whether it is played or not, and want to see their favorite creator cheer or rage when it is picked. (wannabe mcc villain 5up wishes he had the notoriety of buildmart lmao). noxcrew clearly recognize this and as long as people are still writing manifestos about how buildmart is terrible and ableist and killed their grandmother or literally making buildmart fancams to spam in qrts of anyone who criticizes it, they will never remove the game (or make significant changes to it that aren’t basically memes like this remix, lol).

and honestly the reason why i think the endless buildmart war is good is because buildmart is not a person, and so cannot itself be harmed by the discourse. on the flip side, as there is no comparably controversial game to take its place if it’s removed, in a discourse vacuum the infighting will gravitate towards the players. can you imagine how many more boring arguments there will be about known dictator dream funnelling in dodgebolt. or even more strawman shit about players ‘cheating’ because of ping, and essays on how illumina is actually so toxic for punching people in tgttos, some dumb joke a player makes in chat means they should be deplatformed, etc. this stuff still happens obviously, but i can guarantee the bar for what counts as cancellable will drop through the floor without ol faithful buildmart to be the north star of drama, and both the players and the audience would be worse off for it. anyway ty for reading my essay, in conclusion i say let the buildmart stans and antis juice the algorithm and let everything else take a little less heat in exchange lol

this IS kinda based i won’t lie… but i mean can it sit out for one event. i hate survival games and grid runners too

[mthvn]

Post-”Chaos Theory”: A Conversation with Flavia Dzodan and Metahaven

Metahaven Flavia, we've been talking about the Chaos Theory script even before the pandemic started. At the time it was a way of finding a voice (as every script is). Our friendship and collaborations have been major encouragements in completing the film the way it did. What do you think about the film now that you've watched it?

Flavia Dzodan I loved it! Chaos Theory made me think of some of Alexander Kluge's ideas about the artist as a seismographer, someone who anticipates what's to come through subtle, almost imperceptible changes on the ground. At the same time, Kluge talks about the artist as someone whose reactions are observed (like one observes a seismographer) to anticipate what is to come. In that sense, I see Chaos Theory as presenting us with a potential future, where the interdependencies are not merely acknowledged but central to the way we relate to one another and to our surroundings and ecosystems. I see the relationships in the film as not just from human to human but also in relation to the outside. To me, this is a film made of textures and invocations, a film about love yes but also about the kind of future we want to build.

Metahaven We've often talked about Tenet (Christoper Nolan, 2020) and its many quirks and features, including the female lead who, whenever it is announced that the entire world population will die, exclaims in despair: "AND MY SON!" Any thoughts? :)

Flavia Dzodan I've been thinking a lot lately about how narrating can often be a distraction from "feeling things." What I mean is that films are sometimes very preoccupied with the narration (i.e., telling a story) but such narration operates as a way to avoid dealing with the emotions or the feelings themselves. Since "feeling" is passé, sincerity has practically become an artefact or a curiosity rather than part of the process of telling a story. I do not think that Tenet is guilty of "ironic detachment"-that would maybe make the film interesting (or at least slightly funnier)-but instead, I believe Tenet is the guy at the bar who takes himself so seriously and will explain to you all the ways in which he is smarter than you. That's what makes Tenet tedious and stuffy and quite honestly, devoid of any kind of emotion. There was a point in the film when I was wishing for this supposed apocalypse to finally take place so that we could be free to go and do something else. I'd love to see Nolan attempt to make a comedy, something that doesn't need to constantly remind us how smart he is. Maybe Nolan shouldn't be so worried about saving the patriarchy via "BUT MY SON!" and instead should worry more about coherent storytelling that doesn't require a dozen forum posts to be understood. Who has time for that kind of sleuthing these days?  

In a lot of ways, and I think I've said this to you, I see Chaos Theory as a sort of anti-Tenet manifesto. Not only because there is no son to save from the end of the world but also because Chaos Theory is not structured as a narration to distract from emotions. On the contrary, Chaos Theory lunges at the sentimentality with a refreshing shamelessness. I am sure some might see this as a weakness but at a time when we mourn collective losses counted in the millions, I celebrate emotional sincerity as the only worthy form of engagement. I refuse to continue this pretension that we are objective creatures imbued by rational thinking. Capitalism and, specifically the neoliberal administration of life which is so dependent on budgets and accountancy practices, benefits from our emotional detachment: if we remain cool and ironically detached in the presence of suffering and cruelty, we are less reactive to injustice. Instead, I advocate for a radical sentimentalism that forces us to deal with the immense grief of this collective loss. I need more art that makes me cry rather than art that makes me shrug.

Metahaven What can be redeemed about emotion-and even about sentimentality-in the face of its constant use by conservative agendas?

Flavia Dzodan I don't know if "redeem" is the word I'd use. I believe it's worth making a distinction: not all sentimentality is created equal or is identical (even if the appeal to emotion might a priori appear to be so). Emotions can be evoked to connect us to one another, drawing out our best qualities. They can also be evoked to alienate and exacerbate exclusion. I'd be wary of condemning sentimentality as a whole just because conservatives made better use of its potential. In fact, I'd rather wonder why the more progressive or leftist side of the spectrum decided to eschew emotion and instead, attempt to appeal to a faux neutrality or detachment that are not even such. The problem is not "feeling things," the problem is how those feelings can be manipulated for a political end that is not inclusive or even caring but rather divisive and cruel. Just as much as the right can evoke rancid nationalistic sentiments, we should be able to remind ourselves that shared emotions are what connect us to one another.

Metahaven "The music that you heard, the poetry that soaked your soul, it is in no way ornamental. It is in no way decorative. It ought to be constitutive of who you are," Cornel West has said. How do you feel about these words?

Flavia Dzodan Again, I need to go back to this notion of humans as creatures guided by emotions. Poetry, music, beauty itself, then not as entertainment or distractions but as the core of who and what we are.

--- Amsterdam, July 1, 2021 This conversation was previously published on the Instagram profile of Boilerroom 4:3 It refers to the film work Chaos Theory, Metahaven, 2021

--- Flavia Dzodan is a writer, media analyst and cultural critic based in Amsterdam. She is a senior researcher and lecturer at Sandberg Instituut. Her research focuses on the politics of artificial intelligence and algorithms at the intersections of colonialism, race, and gender. In her research Dzodan examines the ways in which technology is created and deployed to reproduce historical patterns of social control. Her current research about beauty and ethics attempt to understand how cultural analysis may operate vis-a-vis semiotic codes, particularly in regards to teaching machines to identify highly subjective and culturally dependent ontologies such as those surrounding fashion and art. This work is a continuation of her previous research about "the coloniality of the algorithm," which situated Linnaean taxonomies at the heart of both colonial history and contemporary uses of technology. Dzodan is interested in ephemeral forms of publishing: she is the editor of the intermittent blog This Political Woman, where she has written about the rise of the alt-right, Big Data, networks, algorithms and community surveillance. Her work was published at Dissent, The Guardian, and The Washington Post, among others.

[the-most-humble-blog]

If a toaster can outwrite you, maybe the problem ain’t the AI.

Reblog if you write like your keyboard’s a weapon. Scroll if your drafts need a hug and a committee.

🧠 Read the full Blacksite doctrine: 👉 https://www.patreon.com/TheMostHumble

[bookclub4m]

16 Design Books by BIPOC Authors:

Every month Book Club for Masochists: A Readers’ Advisory Podcasts chooses a genre at random and we read and discuss books from that genre. We also put together book lists for each episode/genre that feature works by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour) authors. All of the lists can be found here.

The Power of Style: How Fashion and Beauty Are Being Used to Reclaim Cultures by Christian Allaire

More Than a Glitch: Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech by Meredith Broussard

Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines by Joy Buolamwini

The Layered Edible Garden: A Beginner's Guide to Creating A Productive Food Garden Layer by Layer by Christina Chung

Exploring Game Mechanics: Principles and Techniques to Make Fun, Engaging Games by Maithili Dhule

Salish Blankets: Robes of Protection and Transformation, Symbols of Wealth by  Janice George, Leslie H. Tepper, and Willard Joseph

Extra Bold: A Feminist, Inclusive, Anti-Racist, Nonbinary Field Guide for Graphic Designers by Josh A. Halstead, Leslie Xia, Farah Kafei, Kaleena Sales, Ellen Lupton, Valentina Vergara, and Jennifer Tobias

Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design by Kat Holmes

Reimagined Worlds: Narrative Placemaking for People, Play, and Purpose : A Designer's Manifesto by Margaret Chandra Kerrison

The Creative Gene: How Books, Movies, and Music Inspired the Creator of Death Stranding and Metal Gear Solid by Hideo Kojima

User Friendly: How the Hidden Rules of Design Are Changing the Way We Live, Work, and Play by Cliff Kuang and Robert Fabricant

Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism by Safiya Umoja Noble

Now You See Me! An Introduction to 100 Years of Black Design by Charlene Prempeh

Just Enough Design: Reflections on the Japanese Philosophy of Hodo-Hodo by Taku Satoh

Side Quest: A Visual History of Roleplaying Games by Steenz and Samuel Sattin

Decolonizing Design: A Cultural Justice Guidebook by Elizabeth (Dori) Tunstall

[iol247]

Flashback: Unabomber Publishes His ‘Manifesto’

Ted Kaczynski was a madman who killed and maimed innocent people – but did some of his worries for the future come true?

By 2017 standards, a bearded man ranting in his manifesto about how “one of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism” might, at best, have a chance ending up name-checked by Alex Jones. Most likely, he’d become the hero of a thousand faceless message board posters. His 35,000-word diatribe against technology titled “Industrial Society and Its Future” might be suitable for a personal blog, but a national newspaper? Surely not.

Of course, more than 20 years ago, when Ted Kaczynski mailed out what would come to be known as the “Unabomber Manifesto,” it was huge news. After over a decade spent living as a recluse without electricity or running water in a cabin in Montana – sending mail bombs to university academics and corporate airline executives – Kaczynski sent letters to the New York Times and the Washington Post demanding they publish his manifesto and agree to print an annual follow-up for three years. If they did, the bombings would cease. If not, the Unabomber hinted at more bombings to come. 

It had started in May of 1978, when a package exploded and injured a Northwestern University security officer. A year later, another bomb was sent to the same college, injuring a graduate student. Also in 1979, Kaczynski snuck a bomb into the cargo hold of an American Airlines flight. It went off mid-flight, causing an emergency landing and afflicting 12 passengers with smoke inhalation. In 1985, he switched things up, and sent a shrapnel-loaded bomb to a computer store in Sacramento, California, claiming the owner as his first victim. By the mid-1980s, the Unabomber had become a real-life American boogeyman. A killer who would strike without warning, and without much reason. Why was he doing what he did – and when would he do it again?

The publication of the manifesto would end up being his undoing. Members of Kaczynski’s family had a slight suspicion Ted could be the person behind the terror campaign. His brother David was one of the thousands of people who called the FBI tip-line after the manifesto was published and a million-dollar reward was offered for information leading to the capture of the Unabomber. After a long search, FBI agents arrested an unkempt Kaczynski in his Lincoln, Montana cabin on April 3rd, 1996. They found bomb making components, over 40,000 journal pages and the manifesto’s original typed manuscript.

There’s no defending the actions of a person who mails bombs with the intent to do serious harm. But Andrew Sodroski, executive producer of the new Discovery mini-series, Manhunt: Unabomber, thinks there is plenty to take away from Kaczynski’s words. As he said in a phone conference with reporters leading up to the show, “What the manifesto has to say about our relationship with technology and with society is more true right now than it was when Ted published it.”

Not many domestic terrorists convicted of murder get called prophetic by television producers – and there are scholars from different sides of the political spectrum who agree that the the Unabomber’s anti-technology stance was ahead of its time. “His work, despite his deeds,” wrote Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, “deserves a place alongside Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, and 1984, by George Orwell.” Ray Kurzweil, noted author, computer scientist and futurist, quoted a passage from the manifesto in his 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines. Some believe he’s a murderous modern-day Henry David Thoreau, while others say he’s a genius and a prophet. So what, exactly did he get right?

Kaczynski opens his manifesto with, “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.” The technology he goes on to rail against, keep in mind, was mid-1990s – before smartphones, before Twitter, before “Likes” on Facebook and algorithms helped pick out things for you to buy and experience. Although the word “dystopia” never shows up throughout the essay, Kaczynski believed (and you have to assume still does so from his prison cell) that the future wasn’t some Philip K. Dick or Handmaid’s Tale scenario; the dystopian future started happening a long time ago. Computer networks, the mass-communication media, the modern health care system, pesticides and chemicals, all products of the Industrial Revolution, are destroying the planet, he writes. As one portion of the manifesto is sub-titled, “The ‘Bad’ Parts of Technology Cannot be Separated From the ‘Good’ Parts.” 

In point number 49 the manifesto, Kaczynski writes, “In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change.” One of the big problems, he believed while writing his manifesto, was the inevitable growth of artificial intelligence and how humanity will cope with it. “First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them.” As one Wired article explained in 2015, “A manufacturing device from Universal Robots doesn’t just solder, paint, screw, glue, and grasp – it builds new parts for itself on the fly when they wear out or bust.” From checking you out at the grocery store to flipping burgers, robots are being designed to integrate into the labor force and cut costs.

He goes on to write in point number 172, “In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.” When Kaczynski’s thoughts were published, we were still dealing with the Terminator version of the robots overtaking humanity and destroying it – it was a nightmare scenario, fiction. But Kaczynski wasn’t writing speculative fiction; he was stating, from an academically-trained point of view, where he saw technology headed.

Technology overtaking humanity was only one of the scary possibilities. The rise of the “one percent” super rich and corporations controlling everything, was another. “Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion,” he wrote. 

Tech companies have untold amounts of data on every person that logs online for everything from shopping for cat litter to ranting on Twitter. How to understand that data – and what to use it for – is an industry in itself. Could it be used to manipulate us? See the 2016 U.S. election and the rise of fake news spread through Facebook. “Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate,” as one 2016 BuzzFeed article put it, showed up in feeds even if the people didn’t follow those groups. Some of the false news was spread the old-fashioned way, through word of mouth; but, as John Herman of the New York Times explained, misinformation on the social media service thrives or dies, “at least in part, on Facebook’s algorithm.” As Kaczynski believes, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. All of this seemed farfetched when Kaczynski’s words were put in front of a mass audience. In 1994, audiences were being told suave cyberterrorists like the ones in the movie The Net were the ones looking to steal your information online and do whatever they please with it.

After all this, however, calling Kaczynski a prophet might be a stretch. He’s a highly intelligent person who wanted to try and stop where he saw humanity headed by any means necessary – including murdering people. Yet he routinely points out throughout his manifesto that there very well might be no stopping the inevitable. The entire point of his manifesto, as he states, is revolution, anarchy: “Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.” Kaczynski, who has stated admiration for the eco-anarchist movement (“but I think they could do it better,” he also said in an interview in 1999), takes aim at both leftists, including “socialists, collectivists, ‘politically correct’ types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like”). He also writes, “conservatives are fools,” and that they’re, “just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.” Kaczynski even engages in some gaslighting: “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.”

All of this reiterates the point that Kaczynski is no hero whatsoever. The person who wrote “Industrial Society and Its Future,” is a fanatic. And as is sometimes the case, fanatics can take things to the tragic extreme. Yet there is something to be taken away from his words if you read closely; it’s that we give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society’s standards. That, and we’re too plugged in. We’re letting technology take over our lives, willingly. It’s the sort of thing that doesn’t take a madman dressed up like a prophet to tell us; it’s all too evident. Kaczynski, to steal a phrase from the tech world, was just an early adopter of these thoughts. Yet his warning will probably forever go unnoticed because of the horrific deeds he carried out to get his message across.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/flashback-unabomber-publishes-his-manifesto-125449/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[katslefty]

"The website that’s perhaps best known for encouraging mass violence is the image board 4chan — which was followed by 8chan, which then became 8kun. These boards are infamous for being the sites where multiple mass-shooting suspects have shared manifestos before homicide sprees. The few people who are willing to defend these sites unconditionally do so from a position of free-speech absolutism. That argument is worthy of consideration. But there’s something architectural about the site that merits attention, too: There are no algorithms on 8kun, only a community of users who post what they want. People use 8kun to publish abhorrent ideas, but at least the community isn’t pretending to be something it’s not. The biggest social platforms claim to be similarly neutral and pro–free speech when in fact no two people see the same feed. Algorithmically tweaked environments feed on user data and manipulate user experience, and not ultimately for the purpose of serving the user. Evidence of real-world violence can be easily traced back to both Facebook and 8kun. But 8kun doesn’t manipulate its users or the informational environment they’re in. Both sites are harmful. But Facebook might actually be worse for humanity."

"A mere “website” — say, Wikipedia — that reaches an audience of billions is like the surface of an ocean: enormously expansive, but visible. Facebook is like the volume of an ocean: not merely massive, but unknowable.

"A question I’ve pondered these last few post-election weeks: What would have happened if Mark Zuckerberg were all-in on Trump? What if instead of flagging and tamping down on Trump’s utterly false but profoundly destructive “election fraud” anti-democratic power grab, Facebook had done the opposite and pushed the narrative Trump wants? What if Trump owned Facebook? What if Zuckerberg ran for president, lost, and pursued a similar “turn your supporters against democracy” strategy?"

[joel-furniss-blog]

Shitposting and Dada

I discussed briefly in my project statement how I sense a certain lack of ambition and that I enjoy and produce work that is often of low-effort and low-quality, and in the previous semester I intended to sort of trick the examiners into giving me a better mark by overloading them with a quantity of work, trying to sort of test the ‘quality ≠ quantity’ saying. This method of producing work is quite like another of my favourite pastimes, the online behaviour of shitposting.

As vast as its internet domain, shitposting can take up a myriad of different forms on different forums, but a generally agreed definition is ‘posting large amounts of content "aggressively, ironically, and of trollishly poor quality” to an online forum or social network,’. Usually this is in order to derail otherwise orderly online discussions or alternately to bastardize a site to its regular visitors. Its usage dates to the early 00’s under the influence of niche online forums and imageboards, in which comment threads were often derailed from discussion by anonymous users either adding unconstructive posts out of ignorance or malicious intent. The resulting environment of chaotic misuse it results in is commonly referred to as ‘cancer’ (highlighting just how seriously an issue it is thought to be).

From its initial days as a minor annoyance on obscure online sump, shitposting has since changed into a much more mainstream culturally practice, especially in the intersection between internet trolling and politics. With its ability to aggravate, avert information, and overload systems, shitposting has fit well into the maddening expanse of contemporary politics and its sensationalist coverage, its first prominence being in the 2016 United States presidential race among examples of other radicalised internet phenomena—such as the appropriated mascot Pepe the Frog who has his own shitposted legacy—where the internet-savvy right-wing circles used memes as a new age propaganda machine to entertain its recruits and alienate its enemies through a stream of coded slang and images pumped out at a perpetual speed.

A most extreme and unfortunate example of the extent of the radicalization shitposting can cause is the 2019 Christchurch shooting in which an ethno-nationalist terrorist livestreamed his attack on Facebook and released a 74-page manifesto publicly on Twitter and imageboard 8chan as well as being sent directly to more than 30 recipients including multiple media companies and the New Zealand prime ministers office. The manifesto was allegedly littered with multiple memes including references to video game Fortnite, YouTube personality and alt-right running dog PewDiePie, and the classic Navy Seal copypasta, as well as alt-right associated meme and Serbian anti-Muslim turbo-folk song commonly referred to as Remove Kebab, paired with the method of distribution the manifesto could be seen as a most radical version of shitposting, intended to throw out morsels of the shooters philosophy to confuse outsiders and tempt those who might sympathise.

But shitpostings use is not exclusive to the political-right, as left-identifying groups have also used it for their own advancement, such as Facebook group New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens with over 175,000 members who produce and exchange memes and general discourse related to environmentally friendly and socially accommodating urban design schemes and transport reform, whose impact has seen 2020 United States presidential candidate Bernie Sanders become a member and supporter. Shitposting and trolling has even cropped up in the UK political scene, with current Liberal Democrat party leader Jo Swinson having to explicitly state that she does not murder squirrels after a fake screenshot of a news article saying so began circling Twitter.

With its relation to the fake news phenomenon and the post-truth environment, shitposting has found a comfortable place in the current political climate, but for my own sake I have to ask; how does it relate to art. Surprisingly, shitposting—while not in its current form—was very crucial to art history. The conceptual elements of shitposting, its ideas of producing an output of notably low effort, with enough capability to rise reactions from those lacking in acumen, and then continue to overwhelm the viewers by reproducing the same min-effort/max-impact work are comparable to the pursuits of the Dada movement. With its lack of principles, no cohesive aesthetic, and overt anti-normality take on making art, Dada holds many similarities with shitposting. Even contextually they are somewhat parallel, with the birth of Dada spewed from the loins of a WWI-era Europe in which class divisions widened between the uppers who were protected and profiteered from the war and the working class who suffered financially and psychological from its first-hand effects, paired with a spike in nationalism and a deduction in perceived human rights it was the turmoil and the bastardizations of the modern human society that spurred the reflective works of Dada, in essence producing shit art for a shit period. Whilst lacking in the same kind of industrialised killings of a World War, today’s society can be seen as comparable to the same conditions Dada was born under, a sharp rise in nationalism broaching into outright fascism in many places; a correlating increase in alienated peoples changing the other side of the political pendulum; governments which actively undermine their own people for financial gain (as if that’s anything new); consequences from governments decades past haunting marginalised communities and countries; a revolt every other day in every other country; an alphabet or damaging ‘-isms’ and ‘-phobias’; and a general feeling of slow and sinking madness infecting society, it’s easy to see why such absurdist practices as shitposting were born.

It’s easy to see certain similarities, even in famous—or infamous—examples such as Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917) which was sent to a gallery exhibition as an absurdist remark on arts dichotomy between the aesthetic and the conceptual, the ceramic shitpost (or rather pisspost) of an overturned urinal embodied the same attitude as a modern shitposts, irritating to any traditionalist constant, and amusing to those who either don’t understand it or do. Shitposting is an effective way to overturn expectations and subvert opinions. Even the way it spread so suddenly, with a rise and fall caught in six years in over ten countries across the globe mimics the viral sensationalism of internet trends, rising to a global impact to suddenly deconstruct itself through saturation.

Both subjects were also entwined with the political game, with Dada practically challenging any traditionalist view it could, condemning the rising nationalist tendencies and capitalist fervour of societal ‘progress’, found especially amongst the Berlin group. Under the depression of the Weimar republic and the following rise in oppression by the Nazi party, German Dadaists continued their absurd political communication and activities through art, with their efforts corralled in with other morally objectionable art labelled as ‘degenerate’—a word that has also found relevance amongst certain shitposters—they rebelled nonetheless, with artist John Heartfield even sending postcards of his work directly to Nazi leaders, a literal shitpost.

However, just as concept and context can be applied, so can criticism to both subjects. Some art historians have noted Dadas perverse relationship with race, with a streak of using racially charged language an imagery with little to know relation or appreciation for other races, especially that of Africans with prominent member George Grosz often performing a minstrel show at the movements epicentre the Cabaret Voltaire and the Incoherents Paul Bilhaud painting an all-black work titled Combat de Nègres dans un Tunnel (Negroes Fighting in a Tunnel by Night, 1882). Paired with a fetishization of racial others as ‘primitive’ Dada had problematic effects, much like shitposting which, as previously discussed, has become lumped in with the narrative of deplorability within right-wing margins, and later majorities. However, from personal experience I have seen just as much shitposting from left-wing sources as right-wing, because it lacks any concrete coding and has evolved from mindless pastime to activist tool, but there are obvious questions on whether politics should be taken in such a Dada direction, whether it’s anti-sense sensibilities will reduce politics to further churlishness that it already is, whether elections will do away with voting systems for a game of ‘how many memes can either side send’.

I’m not here to concern myself with the politics of shitposting, I’m studying this topic from a sincerity past politics and into a wider philosophical scope. I love shitposting, the anonymous nature of the internet lets me crawl into someone else’s life, sew whatever discourse or confusion I can and then promptly leave, like a stray rat running across a kitchen floor only to never be seen again, moved on to another person’s virtual kitchen. However just as a rat searches for food, I search for shitposting grounds that are comfortable to me, things that I care about or have some sort of personal opinion on, things like euthanasia, suicide, societal expectations, abortions, issues on morality, art, and other various philosophical conundrums that I am slowly devolving. In some cases, I think it’s the most earnest thing one can do, to laugh into the void as it were and generate absurdist rebellion to normality that’ll upset its balance. I even think it has practical applications, take into consideration the increase in targeted advertising algorithms, in which websites and apps hijack personal information you send or even speak privately to sell you products. But by streaming false or flagrantly inflated information instead it is possible to confuse and disrupt the targeting algorithms, a small rebellion against corporate injustice. Some may call it sadistic, or sociopathic, or just plain sad to deliberately seek and produce such effortless and meaningless content, but I see it to hone my ideological axe, to build my ideas into more concrete forms. Paired with the previously mentioned anti-normality connotations with the Dada movement, and the current cultural relevance of it, I think the philosophical implications behind shitposting are essential to my current work and I will continue to take inspiration from it.

 “How does one achieve eternal bliss? By saying dada. How does one become famous? By saying dada. With a noble gesture and delicate propriety. Till one goes crazy. Till one loses consciousness. How can one get rid of everything that smacks of journalism, worms, everything nice and right, blinkered, moralistic, Europeanised, enervated? By saying dada. Dada is the world soul; dada is the pawnshop. Dada is the world’s best lily-milk soap

Why can’t a tree be called Pluplusch, and Pluplubasch when it has been raining? The word, the word, the word outside your domain, your stuffiness, this laughable impotence, your stupendous smugness, outside all the parrotry of your self-evident limitedness. The word, gentlemen, is a public concern of the first importance.”