absorb and neutralise

[line b]

9/11 was neutralized practically at the moment of inception.

 

[Murphy]

 

[line b]

Terrorism is kind of what were 'asking for' in the current state. traditional warfare is what were not prepared to handle

 

[Murphy]

 

[version]

The thing I'm currently wrestling with is whether a company like Amazon selling Marx means Marx has been neutralised or whether it's a flaw in the system that it can't help but manufacture and sell products which may damage it.

That Todd Haynes film I watched the other night was a multi-million dollar product of Hollywood, but it also made people aware of an instance of corruption they might not otherwise have heard of, likely made them angry too and possibly instilled further doubt in them re: things they once took for granted, e.g. the safety of household items.

 

[Murphy]

As violence against the person has dropped in scale it’s slowly been replaced by so much it being broadcast through expanding platforms, age old too

Corruption is like compassion fatigue, you know it’s everywhere and by attrition and attraction you absorb it indirectly

 

[line b]

Is Xi Jinping saying Marxism works means its non neutralized?

 

[version]

What does London Review of Books running a piece on MKUltra do to that information? Does it legitimise it? If so, does the process of legitimisation give it power or simply allow it be safely packaged and stowed away?

 

[Murphy]

It would’ve been enabled, a back channel, “here, we’re being open as shady govt fucks”

Always amplify the fear

 

[Murphy]

That’s why I find acts of violence and their platforms as a weird intersection of encoding

You can watch an MMA bloodbath, but you wouldn’t see Falkland corpse. You might get emailed a beheading clip by a drunk mate

Interesting relationship to trauma

 

[version]

Another one's whether the kind of audience one can get with a mainstream platform counters the issue of having become acceptable enough to be offered that platform, e.g. Tom Morello having a New York Times column.

 

[Murphy]

 

[line b]

What does London Review of Books running a piece on MKUltra do to that information? Does it legitimise it? If so, does the process of legitimisation give it power or simply allow it be safely packaged and stowed away?

Another one's whether the kind of audience one can get with a mainstream platform counters the issue of having become acceptable enough to be offered that platform, e.g. Tom Morello having a New York Times column.

If we want to take the media/consumerist angle the answer is everything. We got to find a different way to look at the question.

 

[version]

That’s why I find acts of violence and their platforms as a weird intersection of encoding

You can watch an MMA bloodbath, but you wouldn’t see Falkland corpse. You might get emailed a beheading clip by a drunk mate

Interesting relationship to trauma

One of the most surreal experiences I've ever had was someone showing me a beheading clip on their phone when I was about fifteen. It didn't really sink in at the time and I don't know whether it was real, but over the years it's taken on more and more weight.

I can't quite articulate it, but it feels like there's so much compressed into that single experience. That convergence of violence and technology. It's how casual the whole thing was too. The guy pulled his phone out, we were shocked for a few seconds then everyone just started talking about something else.

 

[Murphy]

You absorbed it all, but only processed part of it, the rest is hiding in your amygdala

It’s why that climber had no fear response, whatshisface, his amygdala was fucked

 

[version]

You absorbed it all, but only processed part of it, the rest is hiding in your amygdala

It’s why that climber had no fear response, whatshisface, his amygdala was fucked

Alex Honnold. I think everyone who's seen that film was more anxious watching it than he was climbing the thing.

 

[version]

If we want to take the media/consumerist angle the answer is everything. We got to find a different way to look at the question.

What other angles are there? You can't really avoid media if you're talking about communication, can you?

 

[line b]

What other angles are there? You can't really avoid media if you're talking about communication, can you?

Ive offered a few!

 

[line b]

Im not necessarily sure I beleive it but lets say its impossible. If so then the only phenomena non neutralized are those that are deliberate appeals to institutions that fail miserabley. Like Hillary Clinton doing the dab and making memes on twitter

I think the gus and beiser angle for this question is that weve entered an irreversible state of nature with regards to the global system of flows and trying to think we can get past it is as practical as a religious approach. and its tempting view. Whats non neutralized from this approach?

Terrorism is kind of what were 'asking for' in the current state. traditional warfare is what were not prepared to handle

Is Xi Jinping saying Marxism works means its non neutralized?

 

[IdleRich]

This is a good question cos it's very often that someone says "yeah capitalism absorbs everything and takes its power" and so on, and whenever it's said, I nod my head in agreement... but yeah, what does it truly mean?

Don't get me wrong, I do think it's broadly true in that you can say that at point A this thing was more vital than it is here at point B, but the details between are vague. How much so? Was it gradual or at one particular point? What specifically drained that vitality and if something can be identified can we skip that step in future?