Who cares if cult members (both sides) hate each other and are easily triggered so they’re easily manipulated! Politics is divide and conquer 101. Both sides are mentally ill!

Good video. I'm getting into ANT lately after being a sociologist in other fields. Personally, I don't mind the ANT as descriptive. The ant is certainly isn't the first school to say that a good, proper description is better than any explanatory attempt that relies on extra forced upon concepts. In this respect, I think ANT is very compatible with other schools of thought in sociology.

The problem with any sort of "moderating algorithm" is that, as we're already seeing in real life, a cottage industry of "fact checkers" arises that tends to cater towards only one side of the political argument, typically the side favored by elites (who are the ones who have the resources to fund/found such businesses/nonprofits). The extremists are classified as extreme in large part because their primary argument is to tell the other side to shut up, and "fact checking" fits very well within that "shut up" methodology. Another thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of "moderates" on any issue don't typically hold an opinion on the issue in question at all, or only focus on what is wrong with the extreme points of view without having a solid foundation for their own personal point of view. They typically just want to avoid a fight, not promote an alternative (moderate?) ideology. One last point that I think is relevant - Niall Ferguson points out that the advent of the internet is very similar to the advent of the printing press at the start of the Enlightenment. One might even argue that the printing press started the Enlightenment. The other thing that the printing press allowed for differing opinions to be aired more broadly, and not just within one's own small community. One might even argue that it caused the Protestant Reformation since people could now read the Bible in their native language and discern that it didn't exactly say what the priests were telling them it said. That in turn resulted in centuries of warfare stoked by those religious differences. The internet is doing the same thing now: people who never had to worry about dealing with people who think very differently now have to deal with them all the time. That's bound to cause fights and controversy.

I try hard not to blame other's who had absolutely no connection to any bad individual I may encounter.

What the hell, how are you at below 1K subs??

🤔

KZfaq already has a feature where it'll ask you to reconsider a comment before you post it but the thing is it seemingly only looks at whether you swear or make insults and that obviously isn't particularly useful, swearing and insults are most commonly a part of jokes so it'll falsely trigger when you make a joke that isn't actually attacking anyone. On the other hand you can say pretty horrible things but just frame it politely and KZfaq won't really care. I doubt AI can ever really solve that because we can come up with euphemisms and dog whistles forever and often the act of recognizing a dog whistle is seen as political by those who are nominally on the same side as the person using the dog whistle. Also I think perhaps part of the percieved polarization in the US just comes down to the two party system. In a system where there literally only are two sides it's easy for them to see polarized because you can ascribe anything to the "opposing" group. In a multiparty system on the other hand it's a lot easier to see that there's obviously a continuum of opinions. Like I'm Danish and there's about a dozen different parties in the Danish parliament ranging from communists to the far right. So someone who's a voter for a center-right liberal party or the conservatives can easily see that the Social Democrats and Communists are two different groups who often disagree and only ally out of convenience and a Social Democrat can also see that someone who votes for the liberals doesn't share the opinions of the far right but in parliament they can vote as a block on issues they agree on. Another result is that the parties can't seemingly get captured by the most radical and vocal voices within them, as has seemingly happened to the Republican party, a far right person in Denmark simply isn't going to join one of the center-right liberal parties and try to sway it towards their own ideology instead if they feel unrepresented they're gonna create a new party on the far right. If that party then gets popular it might sway other parties towards the right but that's only if this party actually represents a large portion of the population. I'd say the same is true for communists but it's my impression that those on the far left in the US generally aren't interested in influencing the Democrats and tend to stay outside of it.

here's a nice comment

2:15 A third important component is moderators (those are rarely neutral) 10:30 There have been serious studies showing polarisation did grow in the past two decades. On a decent sample size too. Why does Bail not even address those?

Great video and fascinating content! I learnt something today. Subscribed! looking forward to more content like this

This is amazing.

This comment section isn't divisive enough. Do better, folks!

The thing is when you say both sides are radical, you forget that most "radical right-wing" opinions are just normal opinions from 10 years ago. Radical left-wing content you see online is mostly new crazy shit that was just invented. Media propaganda has shifted the overton window very quickly over the last 10 years.

Awesome video. I'm glad you brought up the point at the end about not moderating extreme opinions out of existence. I think a lot of people like Bail have seen the imperfect state of political opinions online, and decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater. With no new opinions, the status quo will always stick around, and that isn't tenable for the people for whom the system does not work for right now. I'd love to hear some ideas on how to bring humanity and civility to the conversations, rather than just remove all political discussion. I feel like that's an important part of in-person discussions and arguments that we lose looking at a username instead of a face

Absolutely fascinating!

10/10 content

Great video! Moderates are a dying breed. Hard to find moderates anywhere on sm.

Great stuff, just found you, and I'm really glad you brought up the question of what constitutes extreme, that's one of the big questions for me regarding AI is the values inherent in information as presented Which AI has no means of parsing.

I'm a Christian and I'm fascinated but weary of a man who would call himself an anarchist and a Christian. P.s. you gave away your bias several times and I would bet you've fallen for quite a bit of leftist propaganda

Interesting video, I hope one day people can see past the illusions and come together and create meaningful change.

Ha ha panic attack... there's a few communities of Christein Anarchy here in south France...not people prone to panic attacks...

Based and redpilled

Christian anarchist here too. Excited to watch this.

Adorno would have a stroke if he lived long enough to witness TikTok

thank you for the clear & concise summary!

thank you!

Nice Video! Thank you for making it.

A very nice video and it really helps me a lot

Thanks for the videos! If you ever have the time to explain some Barad it would be highly appreciated!

This has been truly helpful in understanding this difficult and lengthy read. I just wanted to thank you for doing an excellent job in summarizing this text while remaining informative and accessible. You're amazing!

The Counterpoint to Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto. “A Sense of Wonder" “I believe that natural beauty has a necessary place in the development of any individual or any society. I believe that whenever we destroy beauty, whenever we substitute something man-made and artificial for a natural feature of this Earth, we've retarded some part of man's spiritual growth. In contemplating the exceeding beauty of this Earth, I have found calmness and courage. For there is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of the birds, in the ebb and flow of tides, in the folded bud ready for the spring. There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature. The assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after winter. Mankind has gone very far into an artificial world of his own creation. He has sought to insulate himself in his cities of steel and concrete, away from the realities of earth, water, the growing seed. And intoxicated with a sense of his own power, he seems to be going farther and farther into experiments toward the destruction of himself and his world. There is certainly no single remedy for this condition. And I can offer no panacea. But it seems reasonable to believe, and I do believe, that the more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and the realities of this universe about us, the less taste we shall have for its destruction.” - Rachel Carson, "Silent Spring"

The dialogue between Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" and a speculative "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" presents two divergent pathways regarding humanity's future relationship with technology, identity, and nature. Haraway's manifesto envisions a world where traditional boundaries-between human and machine, nature and technology, and various social categories-are transcended through the integration of humans and technology. It argues for a fluid understanding of identity and advocates for a socialist-feminist approach to technology, aiming for a more inclusive and equitable society. On the other hand, the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" imagines a return to principles grounded in humanity's ancient connections to nature, emphasizing sustainability, community, adaptability, and a profound respect for all forms of life. This approach advocates for living in harmony with the Earth, prioritizing ecological balance, and drawing on ancestral wisdom to navigate contemporary challenges. Carl Jung's perspective would likely offer a nuanced interpretation of these visions, emphasizing the importance of psychological integration, the balancing of opposites within the psyche, and the significance of the collective unconscious and archetypes in shaping human experience. Jung might view the cyborg as a symbol of the potential for transcending traditional human limitations, representing an integration of opposites-technology and nature, conscious and unconscious. However, he could also express concerns about losing touch with the natural, instinctual aspects of the self, which are crucial for psychological wholeness. Regarding the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto," Jung would likely appreciate the emphasis on living in harmony with nature and the interconnectedness of all life forms. This approach resonates with Jungian concepts of the collective unconscious and the archetypes that emerge from humanity's deep evolutionary past and our embeddedness in the natural world. The principles of community, sharing, and respect for the earth could be seen as conducive to encountering and integrating archetypal images and experiences, supporting the individuation process-Jung's term for the journey toward wholeness and self-realization. In evaluating the sustainability and success of these manifestos for all life upon the biosphere, including the humus that is fundamental to human existence, the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" likely aligns more closely with principles that ensure the long-term health and sustainability of the planet. This approach prioritizes ecological balance, sustainable resource use, and a reciprocal relationship with nature, supporting biodiversity and the health of ecosystems upon which all life depends. The Cyborg Manifesto, while offering transformative possibilities for society and individual identity, primarily focuses on transcending human limitations through technology and does not directly address ecological sustainability or the relationship between humans and the natural environment. Its success in contributing to the well-being of the biosphere would depend on the development and application of technologies in ecologically responsible ways. In conclusion, while Jung's insights suggest the psychological and spiritual importance of integrating technology and nature, as well as the collective unconscious and archetypes, the "Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Manifesto" might offer a more sustainable and successful blueprint for ensuring the thriving of all life forms on Earth, including the very substance of humus. This approach emphasizes harmony with the natural world, sustainability, and a deep respect for the interconnectedness of life, principles fundamental for the flourishing of the biosphere and humanity's place within it.

Something you briefly mentioned in a quote is why I’m most interested in theories like ANT. Metaphysics! Perhaps it’s outside if your domain, but do you know the relevance of this or similar theories in the field of metaphysics? On a similar note, ANT seems like it has some similarity to Deleuze’s virtual, and especially his rhizome

While this text is definitely a harder read than many of the other theoretical texts I’ve read, I think the problem with accessibility also has to do with the fact that people aren’t really taught how to read theory. It’s definitely a different practice from reading a regular nonfiction text like a news article, but I think professors will assign a random piece of theory to students and expect them to just read it like nonfiction. I was lucky enough to have had a professor who spent the semester easing us into reading theory and helped us navigate leftist scholarly conversation. Because of that professor, I would say I’m now pretty okay at reading theory and can actually understand the nuances of denser texts. I think that with practice in reading theory, most people could generally understand the manifesto it as it is now. When explaining ideas, especially radical ones that aren’t already common in our cultural landscape, the writing will get weird because the concepts being written about are weird. I think the accessibility viewpoint often underestimates how smart the average person is. I think that in addition to scholars writing in a more accessible fashion, we also need to give people access to strong education so they can develop strong reading skills.

Thank you very much for the exhaustive simplification.

Really good video, explained it very well!

I remember reading Haraway's 'Primate Visions', it was required reading in a Medical Anthropology class... I don't know WHY it was, it just was. 'A Cyborg Manifesto' was recommended reading. That didn't happen. It was the early 90s. Foucault, Haraway, Derrida, Barthes and other white-paper postmodernist/deconstructionist/poststructualist were all the fashion; it didn't matter what social-science/humanities class you took, you were going to bump heads with these folks... and it was god-awful annoying. Deconstructionists had nigh completely monopolized intellectual/academic curriculum for at least a decade; if your dissertation, article, or research-paper didn't have some citations crediting the 'avant garde', you were up a creek. ... The same key words over and over which refrained nearly every abstract and article: ontology, etiology, discourse, The Other/'Otherness', dichotomy, epistemology... interwoven with verbose metaphors peppered with ubiquitous citations in which one scholar would disagree to agree with the other. For the most part, they seem to all say the same thing, but brushed with different strokes in Marxist vs. Capitalist hues. I revisited my old anthropology dept. after 30 yrs. Scarcely anyone was doing actual ethnographic works anymore, of extant communities and populations, or archaeology any more of folks long gone... it's mostly just history of consciousness crap, and I remember being right there, ground zero, when it all began. I think you did a fantastic job summarizing this book, and I'm sure those who were required to read it are truly in your debt! Sometimes, a Cyborg is just a Cyborg.

Excellent presentation. The ontology of this model reminds me a bit of the way physicists conceptualize their theories (especially the very abstract modern ones). A lot of the more honest theorists will tell you that they don't really know (or even care) about the ontological realism of their theories, but more about their mathematical rigor and predictive power. Particles, for example, are really just a set of values (mass, charge, spin, etc) -- we are not trying to explain WHAT they "really" are, so long as they slot into the theories. But those theories at least make testable predictions. ANT does not seem to do so. Is that right? Do you know of any program of social research where ANT can concretely contribute methodologically? I'm also curious about how this method compares to Luhrmann's Systems Theory? It seems to have some overlap. Is either theory more effective as a predictive tool? Do they clarify research questions at least?

It must be a pretty good challenge to summarize a text that complicated this clear and less than 20 minutes. You have explained her manifesto better than she did! Thank you for this effort. Kudos.

Thank you, this was very helpful

😊

THANK YOU!

ANT is not a theory in the sense that it’s readily applied (it is itself still evolving). I agree that it’s more of a lens or method to approach a social phenomenon, which is still not fully understood/developed theoretically. It’s also a powerful analytical device to understand a how the social came into being.

Check out the documentary The Century of the Self

I believe that if it needs to be advertised, it is not a necessity. If we need something, we know, and we get it.

This is very informative. I'd heard of the Cyborg Manifesto before, and felt there was something to it, but it was too hard and abstract for me to really grasp. But the way you explain it, it sounds like it basically supports how I feel about gender identity and other identities: they're cultural artefacts that we should get rid of. There's no need to divide ourselves into male and female. That hard boundary creates needless division, and there are too many people who are somehow in between: lacking a strong gender identity, having the opposite identity of their birth anatomy, having mixed ethnic ancestry, etc. It's great that transgender people are now able to transition, but that doesn't address the more fundamental problem that we don't really need this distinction at all in most parts of our lives; all of human experience should be accessible to all, and not be limited by artificial cultural boundaries based on your supposed identity.

won't it be self defeating to propose a theory as 'an absolute metric of the consequences of the culture industry' without out leaving any space for the perspective of the consumers? It is presumptuous to deny the element of subjective participation in the so called 'culture industry.' Stating that advertisements are there just to manipulate isn't convincing either and kind of elitist.

I, for one, welcome our cyborg feminist overladies. Shout out to Existential Comics!