Video

at least one video was more deliberate gross out and another was just pure masochistic schadenfreude not cringe

I think we are less than a decade or 2 out from your identity being outsourced to an AI that is linked to 'big data' that has determined our consumer profile. The AI chooses our music, furniture, clothes, etc. for us. The groundwork is already being done without algorithms deliver entertainment to people. The way we will "talk" about identity at that point I feel will be completely devoid of 'authenticity' rhetoric.

In the era of sincerity, "shameless" was considered an insult; under authenticity, "remorseless" is an insult. I wonder if under profilicity, "cringeless" will become an insult. Because I consider myself completely cringeless. 😂

Reine Vernunft darf niemals siegen!

Am I being funny in thinking that at least egalitarian capitalism has a nice trickle down effect 😅 friggin neo-liberal gahhhh

worth listening to and reading Yanis Varoufakis on techno feudalism - you cannot do many essential tasks without using these platforms that create revenue for their owners - they own the very means of you functioning in the contemporary world - youi pay them rent every time you do anything online, which is where we do so many things, including warding off the state

In regards to the last section, in what way does this new "internalized general peer" differ from the older idea of the "super-ego"? Similar in that it's an internalized external critical voice, but different in the type of 'seeing' and 'criticism' that happens? The agent being a general peer as opposed to authority figures or role-mates? I'm not saying necessarily that they are the same, or different for that matter, but I'm interested in what other people think about the comparison.

This video makes me think that the dualism of "mind vs body" of the past has been replaced with "society/technology vs people". They way people talk about culture, media, technology and government is as if they are wholly separate from people, as if these systems are interchangeable and the people who inhabit them will remain the same, only with "better" or "worse" conditions. You see it with reactionaries who think we can just return to old systems of religion and that they will work as they always have; and you see it in revolutionaries who think, "oh, just impose this new system and the people will flourish" instead of realizing that once the system is imposed, the people you intended to "help" will now be different and in a different world.

Can't tell if your George Thorogood drop was cringe or post-cringe self-aware funny, but leaning to the latter.

Gender abolition is about abolishing gender labels and gender roles because they are inherently repressive, NOT abolishing masculine/feminine expressions. I am aware of radical gender abolitionists who call for strict androgyny but those are a fringe group within the gender abolition movement. Gender is femininity and masculinity. Neither innate nor stable. This’s why gender identity does not make any sense. We should abolish it and abolish gender roles. Let people express themselves however and whenever they want while still acknowledging the material reality of sex differences in spaces and sports.

Is the brain the ruling class? I don’t think it's possible to separate "functional differentiation" and "structural differentiation." In the U.S. at least, all systems are dominated by the same oligarchy which is formed by a plutocracy... being old fashion I would call this a "ruling class."

Are not the best questions: Who whom? & Cui bono?

Great video

So mad men and edward bernays are just simple common people like you and i. Thank you. I sleep better now.

Wait, what? You teach people cun*?

I have not seen all the videos on this channel, I have not read all of Mr. Moeller's books, although I have read a couple on Luhmann who I am also very fond of, and I appreciate the intent of alleviating an overemphasis on these technologies as well as the concepts themselves and the explanations given because Mr. Moeller is clearly very good at what he does. Nevertheless, is it me or is the negative language used for the technology of authenticity a bit much especially in comparison to the more generous language I perceive is being used for Sincerity and Profilicity? He states, the moment you feel guilty is the moment that you are starting to over-identify with the authenticity and forgetting about genuine pretending. Perhaps I should read the book on genuine pretending, but "guilt", can be understood as an indication that one is out of balance also in the other direction, i.e. in the direction of not paying enough attention to something or in not taking something seriously enough. I think that the idea is to find balance and I would agree with that aim but I do not see that that aim is fulfilled by taking a dismissive attitude towards guilt. That said, on the whole I do think this discussion and these concepts are very helpful even though confusing at times as well for the reason I have just explained.

I love 3rd point. Totally agree with all 3 points, especially 3rd. You got any video about some tips to study philosophy?

Der Halleffekt ist zu gut.

i do declare that everyone should watch the most worthy cringe video of youtube, of jreg, titled 'Post-Cringe, Faux-Cringe and Cringe Accelerationism'. the last words on cringe have been said in that video, yes.

He just exAmplified that PewDiePie is the reasoning behind the development of "Cringe Factor" or am I reaching?

i feel like in a way profilicity is a mass consumanble substitute for authentic and sincere identity bulding. a way for people who are scoially isolated to find affirmation they do not find in their day to day life. not exclusively, but it does fit imo. its interesting, because that would mean that social media sites essentially curate who gets to be affirmed via their algorithm, and essentially tax anyone who uses their websites for it. kind of distopian, ngl.

Dr Mueller dismissed the relevance of the trolley car dilemmas as “useless” which meant that to him there was no real life application. Dr Mueller overlooks the arithmetik issue. Innumerable decisions are made everyday, in war zones particularly but also in many other contexts, about how to reduce the casualties, or alternately, how to increase them. Likewise, logistics and manpower or the concentration of force to limit casualties is a relevant ‘hard decision’ because limiting casualties in one location tends to involve sacrificing others, but fewer casualties. That is, the hard decision is to protect a larger number of people at the expense of a smaller number - this is the “arithmetik.” College classrooms approach these dilemmas with the foresight that future states of affairs will involve understanding these decisions, and accepting the sacrifice. It does not take much research on military events, or policing events or firefighting events to grasp the logic at issue. It is unlikely that very many people will have to make these kinds of hard decisions - where individuals are literally sacrificed for the greater good - but everyone needs to understand them. One of the reasons why wars are fought is because of the presumed likelihood of greater loss without the fighting now, or here or there. So, I think we need to take the trolley dilemmas more seriously and understand how our thinking is related to actual casualties.

Yoo! Good video man. Presentation is on point.

19:44 profiles need validation from the general peer

Regarding Jordan Peterson, I think it is great that you mention him. Even though he is Canadian, I'd agree that he represents the standard moral philosophy of the USA and actually the entire English-speaking world quite well. And indeed, his opinions is quite similar in the USA, Canada, and anywhere else in the English-speaking world, with just tiny variations. In addition, the difference between most conservatives and liberals in the Anglophone world is not so great when you understand the full-range of moral thought; the differences are usually related to political wedge issues that conservatives hold mainly because they are grudges, the phenomenon of some people flat-out "liking" religious life, people taking oppositional stances to other ethnic/regional groups due to deep grudges from the past, etc. The difference in outcome of the USA vs. other Anglophone countries is not the moral framework. That's why JBP can be so popular to American audiences. Likely the difference has more to do with various events of enormous social turmoil in the USA, since the enormous turmoil in the history of the USA created a society at-war with itself, which is a rather unique situation (maybe only the Russian world has a similar situation), and it creates a feedback loop of distrust and un-cooperation that leads to a lot of major social/legal/cultural differences when compared to countries with less turmoil and more unity in their history.

hard to believe that I have more to say on top of a 23 minute video. One thing - I think cringe is often a word people use to hide anger. When people are angry at another person's misbehaviors, sometimes they say that they cringe. Some people use "sadness" in the same way. Definitely not always happening with cringe. But I think we have an "anger epidemic" in the USA these days, maybe in the rest of the world, to a lesser extent. And I think that the anger epidemic actually contributes to the cringe epidemic.

"What makes people cringe, or at least say so!" I'd emphasize "at least say so."

I see the "Three Body Problem" book in the background. Have you read "Dark Forest" and "Death's End"? I'd love to hear a spoiler-filled analysis of the series through a philosophical lens...especially from someone who has expertise in Chinese philosophy.

Yeah, right - emergent complexity - Ok, Robert. Could the troll that lives in my phone beep any louder? Couldn't emergence theory cover the "uncaused cause" - a cause that has emerged independently from its building blocks? Thanks (?) for sharing. 🙂

McLuhan wasn't an incoherent theorist as stated here, because he wasnt a theorist at all, and neither was he political he is way too perceptive to be indulging in ctafting concepts. He is a seer, who could inhabit the center of a paradox and probe in both directions. He is not telling us what to think about anything but is an example of really getting to know something.

“Si tu es pris par le rêve de l’autre, tu es foutu” Deleuze

There's a special office of the KGB Russian Intelligence that specializes in language as a tool for ideology... simply their responsibility is to create confusion and keep Western society tied up isssues which are designed to keep the youth from innovation which is about building

Subsuming cringe within the academic tone is itself pretty cringy, to lift networked attentive rot into the language of the academy taints the tone itself, rather then exculpates cringe as a concept. Also the acknowledgement of the self awareness of cringe, rendering the action un-cringe, retrospectively renders the whole performance cringe; as the acknowledgement negates the performance: Where a performance (P) is Cringe (C) or un-cringe (-C) and the judgement is rendered in the form P = C/-C the acknowledgement inverts the performance -P = C , or P = -C Therefore if the video was cringe before, the acknowledgement inverts it, however if it wasn't then it is now cringe; as defensive postering when there is nothing to be defensive about is pretty cringe. What other rhetorical or semantic movements could be added to the cringe equation? Could this movement itself be modeled?

Thank you! Fascinating.

Fantastic! Thank you.

You’re taking the thing that isn’t ‘woke’ and calling that woke. Makes no sense. I can assure you that ‘woke’ is deeply rooted in Marxism. More so in critical theory

I don’t watch Peterson much but this whole video seemed like a bunch of senseless blathering

It's cool to know the germans have the concept of 'Fremdschämen' because also say the same thing in Portuguese: "Vergonha alheia". Literally, "Shame (feeling ashamed) for others". Also interesting to know this concept only took off in Germany 10 years ago.

Excellent video. I think your mispronunciation of 丢脸 was a little cringe. 😅

this is the only channel that I can't dare to leave cringe comments

“Vergonha alheia” in Portuguese.

And it really is this easy to respect a person's gender identity, name and pronouns.

I cannot count how many times i have read or heard something deeply human, insightful, original, moving, produced by a stranger on the internet. Even more difficult to count tge amount of empty calories I've consumed in the form of algorithmic sludge. I wonder if these small glimpses of light matter in the end...

I pressed "like" on this video to sincerely and authentically express my enjoyment of the lecture.

How can you say that we didn't have cringe and Fremdschämen until after 2000 when we've had peinlich for literal centuries?

Cringe is a weapon wielded by the self-flagellating ones against the ones oblivious to reflection. You know like sociopaths and psychopaths. But the problem is you can't make someone who does not self reflect, self reflect. All it does is make people who can ponder and reflect feel morally superior. Some sort of cringe is necessary. Without cringe, you would be living in Japan where everything has to be seamless and lifeless. Children are supposed to feel shame for parents because they are out of touch and old. But would parents stop being a parent because it is cringe. Grow a pair of lobes. Last of all, philosophy is cringe. Socrates is cringe for thinking he can access the capital letter Truth. Get real, good sir. PS: Your channel has produced so many good videos. Keep it up!

16:50 there is also ironic cringe which is both funny and cringe, but where cringe predominates over the funny e.g. shorts by @mitsy270

The last sentence of the video was cringey :D, because it felt: "manufactured authenticity" (a term I borrow from Lindsay Ellis and that now I see everywhere). Also: is the king wearing new clothes cringey?

If what is cringeworthy for you is not necessarily cringey for others, then nothing is really cringeworthy. You cringe at calls for social justice because you are a reactionary. The call for social justice feels embarrassing to you because among the reactionaries you hang out with, you would be criticized for it. Ultimately there is only right, which is authentic, and wrong, which isn't, and calling someone "cringe" is just an attempt at shaming them into silence when you have nothing better to say. The inauthentic hate it when the authentic remind them of their inauthenticity. This is actually seen the most clearly in matters unrelated to politics: try to tell someone to stop filming with their phone at a concert for example. It's clear that what they're doing is taking them out of the moment of authentic appreciation of the music and yet they will keep doing it because otherwise they would have to start reflecting on their behavior and it may lead them to realize they were doing something wrong. What you describe as "profilicity" does not differ from "sincerity". In both cases the individual does what is expected of them by others for the sake of social credibility. Both are tools for restricting individuality.

Here’s one for you; Getting “Triggered” seems to now be universally considered Cringe behaviour.