Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youā€™ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

Last weekā€™s thread

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)

  • swlabr@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    Ā·
    15 hours ago

    General sneer against the SH: I choose to dismiss it entirely for the same reason that I dismiss solipsism or brain-in-a-vat-ism: itā€™s a non-starter. Either itā€™s false and weā€™ve gotta come up with better ideas for all this shit weā€™re in, or itā€™s true and nothing is real, so why bother with philosophical or metaphysical inquiry?

    • gerikson@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      Ā·
      6 hours ago

      The SH is catnip to ā€œscientific typesā€ who donā€™t recognize it as a rebrand of classical metaphysics. After all, they know how computers work, and it canā€™t be that hard to simulate the entire workings of a universe down to the quark level, can it? So surely someone just a bit smarter than themselves have already done it and are running a simulation with them in it. Itā€™s basically elementary!

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        Ā·
        6 hours ago

        Ha very clever, but as quantum level effects only occur when somebody is looking at it, they dont have to simulate it at quark level all the time. I watched what the bleep do we know, im very smart.

    • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      Ā·
      15 hours ago

      Youā€™re missing the most obvious implication, though. If itā€™s all simulated or thereā€™s a Cartesian demon afflicting me then none of you have any moral weight. Even more importantly if we assume that the SH is true then it means Iā€™m smarter than you because I thought of it first (neener neener).

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        Ā·
        8 hours ago

        But this quickly runs into the ā€˜donā€™t create your own unbreakable crypto systemā€™ problem. There are people out there who are a lot smarter who quickly can point out the holes in these simulation arguments. (The smartest of whom go ā€˜nah, that is dumbā€™ sadly Iā€™m not that enlightened, as I have argued a few times here before how this is all amateur theology, and has nothing to do with STEM/computer science).