>we are no longer living in objective reality.>we are already in an informational matrixThis explains everything about zoomers, memetics, ecelebs, and internet culture today.
>>25526778this book wasnt prophetic, the situation described in it was already firmly established back then
>>25526785People didn't get the majority of their perceptual input from screens then
>>25526795they did, it was just an internal screen that projected the simulacrumadding actual screens was just a matter of formality
>>25526803Maybe the real screens were the friends we made along the way
>>25526814tactical reddit joke deployed
ELEPHANT GRAVEYARD
>>25526818yes, intentionally, as a way to mock you for your le deep meaningless post. Multiple layers of mockery
>>25526838how have actual screens changed the nature of the simulacrum? and please dont try to reddit your way out of this one
qrd on this? I only know Elephant Graveyard and Sam Hyde about the 'reality is not what it seems' canon.
>>25526850One example: because of screens, people have become much less capable of navigating around by reading street signs and observing their surroundings. Navigation in physical space has been replaced by a set of instructions that get you from point A to point B
>>25526850>>25526879in fact not just a set of instructions -- people actually have a much harder time following MapQuest-style instructions, execution of which does still require you to observe your surroundings. Instead, navigation has entirely become "look at this map on this screen and make sure your blue dot stays on this line"
>>25526778He doesn't even make any meaningful remarks throughout the text. In the very first passage, he begins by giving poor definitions for the central concepts, and then spends most of the rest of his time making dull references to then-current popular culutre. About the closest he gets to an interesting observation in the entire thing is when some historical site either in America or France is somehow permanently ruined or otherwise rendered "inauthentic" (I forget exactly which), and somehow it is imagined that the place can be "truly" reconstructed if they ship materials from one place back to the other, officially designate the place as a historical preserve, or something along those lines. But (one of the very few interesting remarks in the entire thing) it probably would have been more honest to just leave things as they were at the time.
>>25526795Yes they did. It was called television and movies.
>>25526971People did not get the majority of perceptual input from television and movies. A LOT of it yeah, but not the majority.
>>25526778No spoilers pls, I’m saving this book for when I’m able to read it in French.
>>25526879>>25526883my point is that reality is simply beginning to match what the mind has been warped into decades beforei dont disagree about the negative effects of the current stage of the process
>>25526998would you agree that the *extent* of the warping is exacerbated by the "current stage of the process"?
>>25527011yes but only on a conscious level
>>25527014Why not on an unconscious level as well?
>>25527020because i think that the process down there has reached that level decades ago, which is why the population adjusted to the current situation so easily
>we're living in a le simulacra >because uhhhh people spread lies which has never, ever, ever, ever happened before in human history>the west has fallen
I havent read this yet but his "The gulf war did not take place" is one of if not the most retarded things I've ever read.
>>25527109>adjusted to the current situation so easilyanon lots of people's minds are absolutely fucked now
>>25526893you mean the centre pompidou? you missed his point entirely
>>25526795>>25526795 go outside man, jesus
>>25527348No, he means the monastery that was relocated after the French Revolution to America and returned to France in 70s/80s. They reconstructed the original building that was destroyed in the revolution, so it seems now that there never happened anything in the first place to the monastery; and the cutting off of an indigenous tribe in south east Asia that was researched by ethnologists and then it was decided that they should be isolated and left alone again, but the contact with the first world scientists obviously shattered there old worldview, so baudrillard points out that they wanted to simulate their original state before contact.
>>25527348>>25527358And you know what, I take it back. Even that (the monastery or whatever it was) isn't interesting. All he's saying with that one is "you can never step in the same river twice", a commonplace. So really, the entire book is superfluous.
There was once a time this board would regularly discuss Baudrillard, Deleuze, Land and Marx. Now so many tourists don't know ass from elbows.SAD
>>25527356what are you getting butthurt because I mentioned screens? You go outside, and pay attention to what people are looking at
>>25526883do you even know how to use a magnetic compass and a map?
>>25526795>Released in 1981People got the majority of their infomation about the world via the television and had for well over a decade and the first generation to have been brought up universally with TVs within the home were now able to vote.
>>25526785Fippy bippy
>>25527773Yeah, but it’s still combined with simulating that one can step in the same river twice and not just twice but an infinite number of times, which is not a commonplace.
>>25527808Yes.
