[FRIAM] Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Hm. As shallow as I think Trump is, or as much as I think Warren is a gaming politician, I don't think any of it is (merely) a distraction.  I'm rather fond of the concept of code switching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) and it's extrapolation into other domains (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/).  It would be a stretch to believe in the Freudian Slip.  But such things do have meaning and can help understand deeper layerings of messages.

This is one of the reasons I'm saddened by the category of things that includes instant replay refereeing, hyper-realistic animated movies, deep fake videos, technically perfect guitar playing, etc.  The very reasons I like Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page better than Joe Satriani (or even Stevie Ray Vaughn) are those little *errors* where the implementation doesn't quite match whatever "governing equations" you might infer they're trying to implement.  The kerfuffle about the Saints' loss is a symptom of our being poised between the real and the fake.

And to deny our political transition from newspaper/radio into TV, where any candidate must be somewhat telegenic would miss the social impacts of technology on politics (and every other social aspect of our lives).

So, these are not distractions, at all.  I'd claim they are indicators for deeper messages, waiting to be interpreted.

On 1/28/19 1:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Or they can just be a distraction, like Elizabeth Warren showing that she drinks beer.   If the actor creates a rich dictionary to bind the symbols of the story to, then that can add value.    Other actors like Donald Trump only have the performance art, and no actual story.   


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ