61–70 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and I think "literally" abuse is a sympton of that
They changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition. See definition 2 here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...
Use of literally in, well, the non-literal sense dates back hundreds of years.
> in cybernetic terms, a long lag time in production is deadly. Does "long lag time" or "deadly" mean something else in cybernetic terms than in regular terms? I found the "in cybernetics terms" insert quite puzzling.
"They have been interpellated by audience metrics; their subjective experience already takes audience reactions into account." This is great. I think there's a body of research to be done regarding the creation of self in the age of social media. (Not just creators but everyone)
That's a large part of the field of Cyberpsychology, and of course there's quite a body of research already.
At the top of the heap (Mr Beast, Nastya, Ryan, etc), this is true: > The ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona. They have been interpellated by audience metrics; their subjective experience already takes audience reactions into account. > Or more simply, YouTubers are not “Creators” but Creations. Audiences, rationalized by the platform, and the vloggers who upload the videos those audie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also explains why there's been an alarming trend over the last 10 years of people just getting more vehement about everything.
and I think "literally" abuse is a sympton of that
Not to mention, if you're using the word "literally" to mean "something that actually happened", you are also using the word wrong. Because it means "relating to or expressed in letters".
I also notice people complain about "literally", but they never complain about "really" which also gets used in the same ways even though it means the opposite.
And I've noticed people do it as a substitute for intelligence. They complain about these things to seem intelligent. To seem knowledgeable. But when confronted with knowledge that contradicts the complaint, they try to dismiss the knowledge rather than adjust their point of view. Similar with fewer/less. These words mean the same thing. There are no rules as to when to use one or the other. There was the preference of one guy, who even said that he had no reason for it, he just liked it. And people took that as an ironclad rule. Or the gif debate. People try to invent all of these rules, but get pissy when you point out all the places where English does not follow those rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly true, but I'm sure you'd agree that it can't really be called steadily since around 2010-2014
There is a straight line through 70s Falwell, 90s Limbaugh, tea party, to MAGA. All fueled by a self-reinforcing rage machine.
Surely the urge to cheat is unbearable with millions of dollars on the hook. (Alot of apps on the app stores also claim to have quarter million 5 star reviews. Uhhuh)
> The ideal creator has no distance between themselves and their persona. They have been interpellated by audience metrics; their subjective experience already takes audience reactions into account. Isn't this sort of one of the themes from The Prestige(2006)? That certain magicians were so dedicated to their craft that they became inseparable from it. The performance never actually stopped
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.Interesting experience to read an essay of such insight regarding a subject that is the opposite of insight. Best thing I’ve read this week. I am happy to say I have never seen a Mr. Beast video, and now I will be sure never to see one in the future.