Professor, I would like to thank you for the time you have spent making these videos. You are a welcome and valuable addition to the youtube discourse. I very much look forward to your videos on Daoism.

Very interesting partition. I imagine this sort of thing you'd use to explain a great many barriers of communicating identity in the 'internet' sphere of discourse.

Thank you for unpacking these concepts about identity, and creating extremely articulate videos on the philosophical implications of our online activity. One aspect of identity that greatly interests me (and is loosely related to Daoism by virtue of Zen being greatly influenced by Daoist thought) is the overlap of emphasis on ‘authenticity’ in both Zen and Existentialism. All the best for your future videos.

Do you think you could talk about profilicity in contexts outside of technology? Isn't it true we see things & others in terms of how others see them outside of digital technology? If it's strictly digital, why not with fashion technology?

Yo teach’, how come there’s this distinction in English between “religious Daoism” and “philosophical Daoism”? And does that distinction exist “within Daoism” if you pick up what I’m putting down? What makes a text “Daoist” and how can one learn more about Daoism beyond the Daodejing and zhuangzi?

The mere act of analyzing a left-leaning public figure's beliefs implies the figure's beliefs are not necessarily a 1-to-1 mapping of reality. This implication is a subtle and indirect exposé of the analyzer's bigotry and White Supremacy. Thus, the vitriol and hatred is built into the implication. Thank you for reading my Humanities PhD dissertation.

​​@@snackentity5709 😂 I hope my satire detection meter is working properly.

@@markpostgate2551 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I did not read the video as that at all. Maybe I am not smart enough, but the KZfaqr mentioned was used as an example. It wasn't a whole critical analysis of "the KZfaq figure". And also the whole video wasn't very political at all. So there can't be a lot of vitriol or hatred in there. Vitriol or hatred usually comes in very quickly if you start identifying "true" identities and "fake" ones. The situation of the worlds most photographed barn can be described without hatred and vitriol. But if the barn police comes in and measures the doors and evaluated the wood and checks if the barn is up to barn standards - and if the barn for some reason does not want to comply to barn standards as defined by the barn police then we get into a very heated discussion. This video is as much about left youtubers as it is about the guy whose friends name is Sam. "That guy was just waiting for a based and calm discussion about his understanding of friendship and his version of the best day of his life." It's not about that at all. It's not about showing people what is a correct way of identifying (as trans) or not. The video, as I understand it, describes how you can look at Identity and authenticity as concepts or tools. It describes how the hammer works, not how to hit a nail the correct way.

T is not political left

GigaChad

Which placeholder image?

@@frida507 liie at 1:43 he just shows the Google results instead of editing in a stock photo lol

@@sk98ification Haha thanks for the explanation. Not a bad idea actually.

@@sk98ification It goes beyond that, he doesn't edit anything himself, it is one of his students or former students taking care of all that. That student runs and controls the channel and puts up the talks he records, as far as I'm aware.

It’s invaluable.

Perspective Philosophy would be an interesting up and coming breadth be adjacent channel that would be great to see them both mix together

Yes in a way that isnt combatitive and partisan but just academic

@@YevOnegin lol bruh, Chris Chan isnt breadtube (though I wish he was...)

@@Glassandcandy Chris Chan is breadtube in it's purest form, without the production values and degrees in performing arts

In some ways our whole life is a performance.

@Weapons Of Mass Distraction Maybe, I wasn't speaking so much of humanity, I meant as individuals living in society. I've never experienced war, but pretty much no one is absolutely true to themselves in the company of others.

@Weapons Of Mass Distraction Isn't that more to the point?

@Weapons Of Mass Distraction Maybe that's your narcissism talking.

@Weapons Of Mass Distraction Well they say a good way to identify a narcissist is to ask them. But no, I don't think it works the other way. Kind of a squares and rectangles thing.

Ahah shit, same. And look at me using profilicity to validate your profiled experience.

I felt that way with Venice (Italy), although my reference is Tomb Raider 2. Now I know how dated and, frankly, astonishing, that reference is. Nonetheless, that was the impression felt by my teenage self.

I've had this experience too, when looking across a beautiful valley and thinking that it was just like Breath of the Wild 🤦‍♂️

@@caltissue141 akin to how a lot of people listen to jazz and think "wow this has strong Persona vibes" Persona being a Japanese RPG series

Is art an imitation of life, or life an imitation of art?

that's been going on since your granddad's day

I disagree, aesthetic identitety has been going on for a loooooong time. There's always been "influencers" but not in the sense as there is today. Examples of aesthetics pre 2000s: status style, like preppies/private school/ivy league university. punks, skinheads, greasers, mods, people with certain brand of car etc. These aesthetic identiteties stuck, which I'd say is opposite with gen z (which i assume you refer to by "my age"): the aesthetics are mostly about the fashion. Nowadays fashion evolves faster and they also have a lot more "influences" accessible, so one year one could be emo, next e-girl, the next autumn lolita, then spring comes and cottagecore with it🤷

@@xx011 if you've got the money and time to play dress up like that

@@rhyscooper3693 you hit the nail on the head -- who gets to live the profilific life? It's not only about affording clothes, but the social costs incurred in changing style. The “technology of profilicity” -- who gets to use it? Who can instrumentalise identity with less cost, whose lives are put at risk? I think this video misses a lot.

@@FleshRebellion Yes. This video completely misses these real concrete economic factors and only looks at identity through a narrow idealistic lens. For example, someone like Abigail is ultimately profile crafting for economic reasons -- to advance her career and status. Someone like Juan the warehouse worker or Joe the plumber aren't going to be as hyper-focused on their "cottage core aesthetic" or their general "profile," except insofar as it lands them more work. They're gonna wear sturdy work boots because they protect their feet, and cheap plain T shirts because they work in dirty jobs where sweat, dirt, and grime are gonna be a constant issue. Their "aesthetic" is crafted out of practicality, not the "appearance of practicality" (like when lumbjack hipster aesthetic was all the rage). Profilicity is pretentious in the most literal sense of the word - "an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true." - it is creating a "pretense" of a certain "look" (a profile) which infers certain values and assumptions with it, in order to be perceived publicly in a very specific way. It's PR, propaganda, image-crafting. The same way Wendy's and Burger King have "relatable" social media presences with specific "personalities" associated with them. Profilicty is just the adoption of capitalistic Brand Recognition techniques to the indivdual person. Coke is classic family values and Santa Clause, Pepsi is for edgy cool people who don't follow tradition! "Profilicity" is literally just those same branding techniques trickled down to individuals. And yeah, this video entirely misses that point because it lacks any proper understanding of class divide or connection between human behavior and economic necessity. It ignores the material reality of why a person might need to carefully craft and market their "image" in such a way in the first place.

i thought the same thing. man i love that book

This is actually a very interesting topic. VTubers might be a peak representation of profiling since you get to choose even your "physical" aspect🤔

I know this is late but I'd assume it would be something along the lines of vtubers just being a natural extreme of profilicity. It is quite literally becoming your social profile, if only digitally.

@@morezombies9685 Depends, when it comes to VTubers I would be surprised if many of them considered their everyday identity to be not separate from their identity as a VTuber, so there is a separation between the private and real, and the public and fictional. I would rather see it as analogous to an actor performing in a movie.

Really?

@@SchmulKrieger Teutonic tones = yes

@@Nandor318 I haven't known that this attracts women. 🥺

@@SchmulKrieger 😘

@@Nandor318 fortunately I have Teutonic tones. 😘

loooooool

I agree, but I think its his student who does the video production, and puts in the images etc. I think there is room for improvement and this professor definitely isn't clickbaity like you say, but there's also a certain charm to it when I know it's his student filming the professor and editing it. I hope they continue to work together, and perhaps give the channel a more dignified identity, presented more as the channel of a professor, and less like clickbaity discount infotainment.

I think there's a degree of sleaziness to some of the titles and thumbnails-- which really isn't fair to the content of the videos. The videos themselves are great, and they deserve better titles and thumbnails. Maybe this style of title & thumbnail was instrumentally useful in getting an audience at the start, which I can understand. But I would hope the channel can now increasingly veer away from that style, and instead rely more exclusively on the content itself, and hope the algorithm is favorable.

With these warnings prompts about the videos being intentionally produced in a way to catch your attention etc. It kinda feels like a critique on clickbaits kn general

I mean that is the point. This is clearly substance over aesthetics. You can find endless videos with beautiful production value, where nothing is ever really said or implied. Whatever presentation, should always come in extension of the subject, and not as a pillar of the final product.

This is intentional. The thing about click bait... Is that seems to work. Well, you watched it, didn't you? If the substance surpasses the technique used to get people to watch it, doesn't that validate the technique in some way?

Ah so true.... I'm getting tired and inauthentic too

Yeah but I think the point the prof is making is that neither is truly "authentic", which is why you feel equally anxious as if it were "real"

@@uperdown0 Right - he's saying the profilicity model we live with now is beyond the model of authenticity. It's not a question of the profile being authentic, that would be mixing models. But I struggle with having to create a profile I don't agree with or truly believe, knowing it's a more employable profile. I just have to do it in the hope it helps me get hired.

@@caltissue141 Or, you could join a communist revolution? Just sayin

Woah, interesting comment

the most Chad response ever.

I'm stealing this for a meme

Bruh these comments

Oh my!😳

Professor Moeller: "You love my profile, which is tailored to be attractive to you, but that is not in any way bad or wrong. I love you, whichever you you are, which means there is no you, too"

That is exactly right. It reminds me of Lacan's idea of the mirror stage, that at some point, we start viewing ourselves through the lens of the other in order to construct an ego. I might argue that all identity, in any meaningful sense of the word, is performed.

The question, "Is there an authentic self?" always reminds me of the question, "Do we have free will?" Of course we have an authentic self, and of course we have free will. But neither of those assertions means that selfhood or freedom are atomistic realities operating in splendid isolation, unimpacted by social or physical forces. The self can be socially embedded and authentic at the same time. We are no more simply a "product of our surroundings" than we are divinely self-created.

@@KingoftheJuice18 I find that the compatibilist stance of free will relies on the assertion that intention arising from within the self counts as free will. However, I feel as if you're not considering the full extent of what people are saying. People aren't merely saying, "The self isn't real because it is impacted by other things." I, for one, would question the distinction between "self" and "other things" in the first place. What is yourself, first of all? The molecules that make up your body, your brain? What is materially special about these molecules, from the air molecules that surround you? All such molecules exist in an open system. My conclusion is that the idea of a "self" is merely a psychological shortcut, and must be called into question in the first place. Therefore, my argument is that there is nothing materially special about any "self", and similarly, just as a scientific distinction cannot be made between the self and everything else, there cannot be a scientific distinction made between internal and external will.

Did you watch the video

​@@KingoftheJuice18 We are not divinely self created, we come (are birthed) from the work of society (sexual reproduction) and bear the mechanisms to continue this process, there is no self creation, we are a social species, there may be genetic mutations which give us traits not found in our societies but that's about it.

it's a man

@@aleggs2786 it's an idiot

@@jonstewart464 it’s a man with a brain

Should be noted who is subjected to anti-identity political critiques and who is not. Being trans is in many ways an ultimate rejection of rigid identity even in the search of it. Rarely criticized are those who project themselves onto cis masculine/feminine roles by those supposedly most against this sort of thing (identity).

How can a female brain structure exist in a male body? That's a contradiction. A male body contains a male brain. Secondly, many of the brain differences found in trens individuals (if theyre attracted to the same sex) are also found in homosexuals and they are not found in trens people who are attracted to the opposite sex. Its far more likely that those braim structures indicate sexuality and not gender. Also some braim differences in trens people dont happen until after they started transitioning and taking hrt. There is no neurological evidence that i kmow of that gebder identity is real. Its a fiction that people engage in because they are uncomfortable with their bodies and the role they play in society. This discomfort does not mean that they have suddenly becomw a member of the opposite s3x. Male people are still men even if theyre not always happy about it.

Thank you for pointing this out, the constant callbacks just feel exploitative at this point.

I feel the same, I think using Philosophy tube as an example has been done enough at this point, and I am sure the professor can find plenty of other examples on youtube if he wants to. Nothing the professor is saying is wrong or anything, and he is discussing theory very well, but I think there comes a point where we as viewers no longer see Abigail Thorn as just an example used, but more like this professor is more interested in bringing her down, than discussing theory. If he is first and foremost interested in philosophy and theory (and not views or obsession over this youtuber), then he can also find other examples to use for his social media / internet theory. Like LinkedIn for example also requires you to construct and curate a profile, which is obviously with the purpose of appearing professional and to almost sell yourself to any bidders.

Here's one possibly interesting topic for a future video: A sort of retrospective video about the nature of online performance and suchlike (like in the videos thus far), but adding to it some self-criticism of how the channel been engaging in some clickbaity stuff in order to grow an audience for the videos. And maybe some analysis of the ethical dilemmas this poses. That would be an interesting topic in its own right. I mean like a video that asks "If I've used clickbaity tactics to get you to watch these videos, but you've gotten a lot of value out of these videos, have I done the wrong thing? What's the ethical status of this?" That could be pretty interesting! I think demonstrating more self-awareness about the fact that he's "playing the game," as it were (though he does already to *some* degree), could go a long way. I'd consider that cool and good.

I don't see the problem, if we understand the theory correctly. The fact that it's done for society emphasizes the point that is made.

"Coming out is not something we do for ourselves, we are required to come out...by society and that has been true in every era." I think this is addressed in the professor's video, with regard to how identity has been constructed in the past. Professor Moeller described how, in the past, identity was constructed off of performed social roles, and then the notion of authenticity took hold. In times when it was illegal to be publicly homosexual, for example, homosexuality was simply not an identity, and this is evident if you ever ask a gay person from the 1940s what it was like to be gay back then. Often they will say something like "gay wasn't something you were, it was something you did." It wasn't a "type." Later, in the 20th century, gay people began to "identify" as gay, even though they're homosexual activity was still mostly done out of the public eye. This dovetailed with the increased medicalization of "the homosexual" as a psychological type, and with McCarthyist conflations of gay people with communists. I kind of agree with you, that the distinctions the professor is drawing are, in reality, not as rigid as he makes them seem. To an extent, Abigail's performance of gender is being presented as transitionary, between "authenticity" and this thing the professor calls "profilicity," since Abigail was authentically a woman before turning her identity as such into a part of her public and professional life.

Yes, maybe the first actually sincere warning

love that you said this, because it's actually what happens in my head when I subscribe to a new channel 😛

I'm not smart enough to put it into intelligible words but there's a beautiful irony to comments like this

@@toasterenthusiast8023 yeah! it's our awareness of the phenomenon of parasocial relationships while still saying something like moeller is a bestie (or in my head, i heard a twitter remnant part of me say "ok moeller i stan" when i subscribed a while ago lmaoo...) the beautiful irony of commenting something like this under a video about identity-building/profilicity on the internet/social media.

They can technically still be found-- but yes it is truly a tragic loss for them not to be on her profile any more.

@@captivatingcurios I guess you need the old URLs? alas, that I didn't bookmark them individually. Do you know some other way? A lot of those videos were *so good*

@Kevin Cobb Your own statement is self-contradictory, and is much more in line what what I said than with what you claimed at the beginning. What I am saying is that everyone's identity is formed by all three of these mechanisms in different amounts simultaneously and these mechanisms are used simultaneously to validate one's identity in different amounts. Like I said originally, they aren't as mutually exclusive as you or professor Moeller lead on. Society and circumstances certainly have a hand in deciding how much weight we place on each (on average), but to argue that we see broad sociological trends where people move primarily from one to the other is just inaccurate. In fact, relying too strictly on any one of these methods of identity validation is incredibly unhealthy psychologically. Someone who bases their entire identity concerning their appearance on the feedback they get from others has body dysmorphia while someone who completely disregards everyone else's opinions about their appearance because they 'believe they are attractive' is delusional. Someone who bases their identity solely on their role within a given external structure is entirely dependent on external factors to give themselves meaning while someone whose assessment of their own value does not take into account external reality is just a narcissist. We must consider all three (what we actually are, what we feel we are, and what others perceive us) in order to have a well-rounded sense of our own identity. And, for the record, I'm not assuming that doing anything makes one more manly, only observing that plenty of people act in certain ways because they think that's how men are "supposed" to act. The fact that our modern conception of masculinity is socially constructed doesn't change that they are conforming their actions to their conception of their desired identity. And there is more than enough evidence of this that if you don't accept it you're just not living in reality (there's a reason anything other than straight beer or hard alcohol is called a "girly drink" and cosmetics companies have to brand make-up products targeted at men as "war paint" before most men will even consider using them).

​@Kevin Cobb While I agree that none of these technologies ultimately succeeds in a full definition of a person's essence, that doesn't mean they're without merit. The problems mentioned by Crowe (narcissism, self-delusion, self-contempt) won't disappear merely by overcoming the concept of self in language, because their origin is not conceptual but, more fundamentally, psychological. If we could establish new ways of speaking about these and other related phenomena, without reference to ego, then the shift you prescribe could perhaps become viable, but not before then. I am very skeptical of your argument, as well, because I would say the same is true not only of self but of every notion of essence. I think that a description/definition of any extant object is always incomplete, and that it always to some extent fails to be representative, but that we do not take this as grounds to discard such definitions entirely. I don't believe that 'self' should be a special case in this sense.

@Kevin Cobb I don't know anyone revered for that, and whoever you have in mind, following them sounds very bizarre to my way of thinking. I find the motivation for this neo-platonism very difficult to wrap my head around. Why attach yourself to the idea that our concepts point to eternal realities, even as you accept that they must be continually revised? What good is the unchanging nature of the underlying form, if it's inaccessible? You seem to think it _is_ accessible, but then how can people tell the difference between a correct association between concept and ideal form, and an incorrect one? It's far more sensible, to my mind, to make no unnecessary assumptions about these outer realities. That way, you don't end up fighting these repeated battles against ensconced, outmoded ideas -- just accept them as provisional to begin with, and quit trying to refer to absolutes.

@Kevin Cobb I've read the Tao Te Ching. It struck me as misleading people. It struck me as political. It struck me as pacifying. I've also read existentialist philosophers, which I believe the prof also mentioned. I found that they're _far_ more insightful and empowering. >If we cut all ties with the eternally real, all we’re left with is vain, self-referential images and literal echo chambers, mirrors and ink-blots, and essentially delusional opinions. There are truths about the world. Through indifference, some turn out to be pleasant, while many are uncomfortable. The purpose of religious tracts is largely to pick and choose which ones to deny. Discarding these abstractions is the beginning of honesty, not its end. The Tao rings true at least once in what you've quoted: _throw away holiness and ""wisdom,"" and people will be a hundred times happier._ Men are mortal. Meaning and importance are elusive. If we know something, we don't necessarily know how or why we know it. Because of the world's complexity, we cannot necessarily make sense of things. Boring, sad, and challenging truths must be confronted, not rejected in favor of something glib or romantic storytelling. >It sounds like you’re saying that we should treat all ideas as provisional in a different way from how I say that, because I think that what one has left when they detach from all ideas is the eternal, whereas I think what you have left may be some kind of regular, every-day material reality that may or may not even conceal “eternal” forms. There seems to be a difference, but you shouldn't assume I'm a materialist. An absurdist, perhaps. A skeptic, by disposition. An artist, aspirationally. Not inclined to be a follower, if I can help it. What we have left is unspeakable, but "the eternal" is a foolish name for that which might just as well be called a process as anything else. This inclination to impose definition on that which we cannot grasp is pitiful. It's defeatism, self-rejection. So little respect shown for the truth mediated through our limited selves. Instead of appealing towards perfection, learn to love what's real -- imperfection. It's far more perfect and beautiful than perfection could ever be. >I think the neo-platonic, but really universally religious and philosophic perspective, is that if you’re doubtful, you can and should doubt much further until you really don’t know anything at all, at which point you can see through all of the layered assumptions about life you previously held, and you’ll be able to see the unmediated form of what they all intended to describe. When you arrive at the truth, that little is knowable, have the courage to stay there. You will only return to thoughts of eternity through the will to delusion. It is better to grow strong enough to live consciously in the muck, and to potentially make something of it, than to consider the proposition unworthy.

thank you for your comment and providing discourse!

Life is incomprehensibly complex. That's why we need models. Those tools are always imperfect and incomplete but that's not a problem because we have a lot of them. The problem is when we trust the models more than personal experience.

Building off that, using Abigail & her coming-out video as an example of profilicity is pretty careless. At times it feels like he comes close to implying that Abigail's transness & identity as a woman is an act of building a profile, which is a gigantic yikes

@@aspeno7212 personally, I don't think he meant to suggest that Abigail's transness or her coming out is an act of creating an identity. But it would have been nice if he included a clarification there, so that people wouldn't walk away with the wrong idea that her transness is fake

@@dangkhoa0202 I read his book. The construction of a profile, or the use of any of the technologies described here, constitutes an identity which is as good as any. It seems that a lot of people are misunderstanding his theory of identity in conflating “performed” with “fake”. These are not the same thing.

@@shrill_2165 oh I see. I haven't read it yet, but true I can see how performing can be part of identity. I guess I understand where he's coming from, although we all don't agree on one definition of identity.

If anyone came away from this with the idea that the professor is implying that PT's transition is fake either wasnt listening to the video, missed a couple of key points, or is being a bit reactionary at the expense of critical thinking. He never said or implied any such thing. The cognitive dissonance of PT announcing that she's "no longer acting" and "the performance is over" while sitting on a fancy, full-on set in very deliberate clothing and makeup, reading from a script with what she later admitted was an affected accent, (especially if you add in the tweets the professor mentioned), is very real. I felt that cognitive dissonance and a sense of the uncanny very, very strongly when I originally watched Abigail's coming out video. And to be frank, I'm glad the professor used her profile and her video in the thumbnail and title of this video. Otherwise, I doubt the algorithm would've shown me this video and I never would have found this pretty damn awesome overall channel.

I don't think he claims to be a philosopher 😅

10

Do you know where to find this specific painting? I really like it. Edit: I meant the one at 6:30.

@@Lefaseer I can't seem to find the exact painting at the moment. He's got several paintings with the same theme of the mountains beyond a wooded lake. You can find all of Bob Ross's paintings here, if you have time to go through them, which I currently don't. www.twoinchbrush.com/all-paintings?page=1

@@justgettingby7725 Thanks! I will try to find it.

That's curious. Their role in the institution sounds like an expression of sincerity (if they in fact 'love' that institution), while their love of their study is authentic. The love of 'being a lecturer' qua 'being a lecturer' sounds more like profilicity as described here. I mean, if anything, it shows this theory of identity is (psychologically) intentional, rather than behaviorist. It predicts, or has as components of the theory, the mental-states of the subject, rather than exclusively looking at behaviour alone.

i think what eta carinae is true, but if you look at the other videos released by this guy on the same subject he seems to have said there is a dichotomy between lecturer and influencer in that the influencer (PT in this case) has to focus heavily on presentation and they themselves become important information, but for a lecturer there is (hopefully anyway) a merit based system where there presentation is potentially awful but all going well they're the most knowledgeable person to be standing there talking about Kant, organic chemistry, french grammar etc. So are they being authentic? I would say firstly it's maybe the wrong question to ask, and secondly... instinctually i feel like saying yes but i can't substantiate it.

@@GudWithFud " it's maybe the wrong question to ask" Perfect! lol

In my opinion, an answer to this might be found at the intersection of authenticity and prolificity. Influencers create their identity under the prolificity model(? is it a model?) whereas there are many out there who still construct and understand identity through the authenticity model. The audience, who falls into the latter category, is thus "tricked" into believing that the influencer in question is the same as any other peer and so begins to expect to be recognised by the said influencer. I feel like this might be exacerbated by the fact that unlike a theatre or cinema hall, there is nothing to suggest to the audience that what they are witnessing is a kind of performance, after all, they are seeing it in the same place they see what their friends and family are up to. That's just me tho, I too am interested in hearing what the professor thinks.

it's a form of an idealization of a character in which two things have to be true: 1) you have a poor self-esteem, which is true for about 85% of the world's population, 2) you need to have an illusion of correspondence with the said character, which is true for about 100% of the internet population, but was different back in the days of the TV and the whole effect was truly observable only in rock concerts. now the idealization part stems from the low self-esteem. first off all, the character has to be seen from the person as a solution to emotional and social needs, whether romantically or through some attitudes and other strong points in his/her charisma. this is not the same as identifying with someone else, because you cannot possibly know the person, and cannot possibly identify with what little you know. the other part is in indulging itself when it comes to a rational reality of such situation. this character serves as an extension of a facet of an own part of personality that was somehow suppressed. the character is thus a known friend because we rationally decide that we know what he/she represents, and the rest of their story is somehow known to us. it's an imaginary friend for the adults, so to speak, further condoned by TV and media in general, because capitalism. parasocial relationships typically end up with a chronic disappointment. which is especially expected from those people who are unaware of the rational decision that lured them into any such emotional engagement. this can lead to a dangerous behavior and a dangerous lynch mentality because the character is seen as permanently responsible for maintaining the healthy idealization. it's become an integral part of other people's inner aspects. violating that little imaginary self means raping their own image of themselves, and it was already in a bad place to begin with. targets of parasocial relationships also can't die. but if and when they do, entire nations will come to a funeral of their own little inner buddy. if it's a tragic death, a song will be made and sold in quadrillions.

@@tanishqvedak1862 That is an interesting thought. Wondering what is to be found at the intersection of sincerity & authenticity, and sincerity & prolificity.

@@milanstevic8424 Is this a new phenomenon on twitch or something?

@@ArmLegLegArmHead47 this is a new manifestation, allowing us to "see" the actual psychology driving it, but the phenomenon is as old as civilization. people are typically "incomplete" or this is what they believe for themselves (maybe it has to do with the Christianity itself, this is open to debate). these people aren't born with dignity, with self-esteem, or with natural rights. in almost every culture, you somehow have to earn this, and many many people simply give up when they see the competition, or just succumb to the general social pressure of their environment which normally expects them to be nothing less and nothing more relative to their socioeconomic stratum. obviously this yields psychological suppression (or internal schism), which can manifest in weird ways (profilicity), and I firmly believe behaviors such as middle age crises and parasocial relationships are merely a tip of an iceberg. twitch.tv is just a display into mass psyche (and neuroticism), giving us an unprecedented potential to observe the general population, and accelerate our understanding of the invisible forces at play, shaping up entire societies, and thus carving up the land, and inevitably plowing through what we call a history, like a stampede. as things stand, people will always grow attached to the brazen anomalies present in the human system. this is to compensate for their own inner yearning to behave in anomalous (or simply unapproved) ways, yet never having courage to do so from the fears of shame, social retaliation, and excommunication. this is a psychological fact that is pretty much abused ever since tabloids (and propaganda) were invented, and speaks volumes of the particular type of silent and systemic coercion our modern societies thoroughly implement through generational indoctrination. people, basically, behave as placid and timid as humanly possible -- on the surface -- only to paint an image of themselves that is somehow very much a desired generalization of a "suitable human". what characterizes this behavior is that it is ALWAYS a taboo. just as an example, if you live in the USA, you are pretty much expected to always say your praises for the US military, regardless of what you really think about their engagement overseas. it is deeply cultural, while also being an enforced social doctrine. if you don't agree with the militant "peacekeeping" and are reasonably literate to understand what's going on, you have no other option but to silently embrace Snowden as a pseudo-social connection that matters to you intimately. he becomes a public voice of your inner true self, so to speak. (this was just as an example and I don't wish to enter a political debate, as I have no opinions on this.)

How do you meen? Curation appears to my dumb ass as a process of discrimination between options in light of having options do choose from. Sincere role fulfillment and the discourse of authenticity both occlude the possibility of contingence

@@UnicorneaterSaya Perhaps I misunderstood what was meant by curation, which I took to mean the (un)conscious choices we make about how we present ourselves to others. As I see it, such "curation" is operating whether it's for purposes of sincerity, authenticity, or profile-icity. My understanding of curation is also probably influenced by the work of Erving Goffman -- e.g., *The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life* -- and the subsequent work he inspired. In short, my question may be moot.

@@seinsfrage I had the same thought

Pretty sus it comes at the end and not the beginning.

You may have missed it. Start at 10:50 and listen to his take on Abigail's video. He definitely addresses this point and explains how even dropping the act is done in the context of building a profile.

@@justgettingby7725 much appreciated

@@alifbat1562 ...because I couldn't think of a better way to put it, I literally said why

@@alifbat1562 what the actual hell is wrong with you? you 'support trans rights' but won't even address thorn by her preferred pronouns? ngl, but i absolutely don't believe that you do. you're making a lot of assumptions about someone based on her peers, completely removed from the context that is the danger of being an out trans woman in the UK, the same society housing bloody JK rowling who goes in the BBC spewing her anti-trans nonsense on the reg. i'm sorry, but if suspicion and invalidation of trans people's identities is your idea of 'support' for trans rights, you're absolutely delusional about what we mean by trans rights, and you need to stop pedalling the bullshit. and what she said one year ago has no bearing on what she said now. people do not stay static, and we learn about ourselves all the time, more and more as we get older, we get better understandings of ourselves. the narrative that all trans people know from childhood their gender as adults is nonsense, it may make cis people very comfortable, but it is absolutely a narrative that does not fit many trans people. and especially not in a society downright _hostile_ to children who perform outside of set roles and works extremely hard to abuse and force those children onto a 'correct' path. in this context, it should hardly be surprising that 'on record one year ago, this person said she was a cis man, but after a deeper introspection, she came out a year later because she found that was not actually the case'.

@@russianbot8576 +

I wouldn’t

@@thecoolyoyo5353 are u old enough for a yt account

she would embarrass herself

@@cringeandpunishment3140 *he

@@hhhuthhhjj5599 I really think Carefree Wandering would do just fine

I can't stop looking at it either. It's the #1 thing I see.

Why do you like Breadtube?

@@asdfasdf3989 Because I love the work that some creators of breadtube put into their videos, production and research wise. I mean, Contrapoints, Lindsay Ellis, Hbomberguy, Folding Ideas are super entertaining people and some of their videos are masterpieces of content. But of course no one is beyond criticism and that’s why I appreciate channels like this.

My first philosophy professor gave me this amazing quote “the philosophy doesn’t start until someone says something stupid” Not to say that Abigail’s video was stupid, but rather to say that philosophy is all about this type of critical questioning. It’s great to see that this concept is not lost on all viewers of “breadtube”

Ana Ramírez "h rape apologist guy" why is he still considered breadtube?

@@chavaspada when did he do that thing?

@Davi Drummond yeah

@Davi Drummond Yeah, it's a pretty trippy cyberpunk(?) manga with very coola rt

Do you know where can I hear McLuhan talk more on this?

Technology differs across context and time. The digital age is one of infinite reproducabiliity. Cheap cameras, cheap internet with it's high-speed, across-the-world capability allow for the curated self to be massively projected, only limited by popularity. It's a capitalist entertainer's dream - wealth accumulation only barely limited by technological constraint. Profilicity is limited by the technological capability of producing second-order witness. We now live in a global surveillance state where cameras are everywhere, where communicating the images we see is easy, and therefore witnessing someone else's image is easy. Furthermore, global capitalism has brought everyone together - we live in a global village, a "small world" - cheap oil has allowed for cheap global trade of goods, connecting us across the world economically. So we not only have the ability to see images from across the world (and with English as the universal language, most people understand this universal text), but we have the *desire* to see a wide array of images, since everyone (in theory) is part of the same global village. Roman Emperors had no cameras, no internet, extreme limits on communication relative to what exists in 2021. So profilicity barely existed, and was not a meaningful factor politically. Profilicity was largely limited to places of political power - the Senate and Forum two examples. In 2021, whether a place is one of political power is determined by ideology, not so much by technology. So slums around the world are ignored by practically everyone outside of a given slum - poverty and the poor are swept under the rug, as being 'not of interest in capital accumulation". In contrast, a celebrity is paid attention to by economically aspiring people, especially those in the same line of work. A celebrity has things to teach us about how to gain power and wealth - a poor person obviously only has negative lessons. When one takes a photo and it goes viral, there's often nothing special about the place the photo was taken.

@@briankoontz1 Roman Emperors had less means for profilicity, but were extremely profilitic. There are entire fields of study in their (self-)depiction on coins, monuments, public buildings, bread stamps (to mark free bread) etc. The idealized types of depiction in classical art exemplifies the pittoresque. One could also argue they also use sincerity in a very unique role of emperor.

@@sualtam9509 World events can now be simultaneously witnessed by billions of people. Technology is nearly free - the cost of being popular is in social development and constituent acquisition. Granted, we exist in a dying meaningless world of spectacle, so a "world event" is a Super Bowl, but the rise of profilicity is tied to technological power and global capitalism, creating a "small world", a global village. The Roman Emperor for one thing had to become the Emperor. That's the only way he was spreading his image. Now poor people with the right luck or canny presentation can spread their profile. And as far as the Emperor's image goes, it was self-selected but static - the Emperor couldn't change his image on coins very easily or frequently. So his image was "authentically him", instead of humanity in 2021, who are all Actors presenting whatever image we desire today - like putting on a new set of clothes, we very well might like something entirely different tomorrow. In the 20th century this was called Plasticity. KZfaq democratized entertainment. Instead of Hollywood dominating the silver screen, "anyone" could present themselves on the glowing monitors of however many people their popularity allows. It's a Libertarian dream - the "free market" of entertainment.

I think those are less examples of profilicity than examples of sincerity. The role of king and emperor was seen as a duty, often granted by God. That outside was real, so the inside had to sincerely match that. It's more similar to the example he used of sincerely adhering to gender roles than curating a profile. They got their identity from the duty assigned to them by birth, and then they constructed things you would perceive as a profile around that. With actual profilicity, it has nothing to do with duty or traditional roles, its entirely personally chosen and curated

Falling in love was such a good example. It made the concept more concrete.

Yeah, that's one of the pitfalls of authenticity politics, is that its in some way contrarian. The concept is that there is a part of you that has not been profiled, meanwhile the world of markets and surveillance and information gathering is relentless in their attempts to categorize human beings, to reduce people to "types."

We definitely still very much identify with roIes. But we curate roles too, in profilicity (think of Insta bios along the lines if "Businesswoman. Authour. Mom."), mimicking sincerity.

real in people`s mind is not the same as real in reality

🤣🤣🤣👍

They are not models in the sense you seem to use the word. They are mechanisms through which you construct your identity/"your true self". That is your dreams and asperation may come also through sincerity when your identity is constructed through this mechanism, and they are close to your role by the same amount your identity construction has been made through this mechanism. What I try to say is that your dreams and thoughts are always part of your identity regardless of the mechanism through which they have been constructed.

If you google prof Moeller, there is a published paper he co-authored on the subject of identity as presented here. He is also publishing a book on the subject that is already listed on Amazon.

He did not need to spell it out. Students can make up their mind themselves.

@@MyEconomics101 Well, I don't know that there is anything to spell out in the way you seem to be implying, but considering he seems very comfortable throwing around words like "stupid", "terrible", "bad", etc. I don't know that this is a philosophy he aspires to. - No pun intended.

@@futurestoryteller to answer your first question, no, there aren't enough of those already. name just one credible channel claiming that "everyone and everything is wrong". to comment on your other remark, what you're advertising is a political correctness, a weird social construct that has no place in any kind of discourse, apart from protecting what is vulnerable to simple words -- thus dogmatic to begin with. as an exercise, how would you describe something that is stupid, terrible or bad? with euphemisms or enigmatic symbolisms, if I had to guess. and why do you think this is useful or somehow more profound? do you believe you are a better human for burying your meanings beneath mild words that waste everybody's time? in fact what makes you think that your opinion factually stands out and/or renders you unique, when all you do is a blunt and peculiar opposition to a relatively eloquent and long description of how weird our society is. I wish you just said "this video is terrible I don't like it" -- this would mean more and waste less time to all parties. and honestly, other than dry and unprovoked sarcasm, there is no other substance to your text. you can't possibly be serious if you're hoping that by fishing for such and such words you can destroy the entire meaning of what was said. or I don't know, maybe it's a strategy that works with your peers. in my view, you have to do better. or not do anything at all.

This video was just being analytical. This helped me a lot.

@@milanstevic8424 I'm not going to read this word vomit. If you've got a problem go to anger management, otherwise calm tf down for once in your life.