/lit/ - Literature

>>11398173
cuz they're plebs with poor taste, except maybe gates

I dont hate them, I just consider them naive and foolish with their psudo humanism and libertarian shit

>>11398173
because they're manchildren that think they're hot shit
I'm describing both groups

Powerful men with little nuance and no transparency of intentions, or in the case of silicon valley c. 2001-2012 plainly stated distaste for mankind; everyone should hate them until they clean up their act. Posters brought up mostly past 2012 are confused by propaganda that they should like powerful men and tacky unnuanced philosophies, but when we hit another separation event they'll probably stop that.

>>11398173
Because they march forward without any regard for the ethical implications of their technology. They're kind of like idiot savants.

>>11398222
Heh.

>>11398207
>>11398222
>>11398264
These.

They are powerful because of the money they have and being in the right place in the right time. I think Zuckerberg is prime example because he is a sperg with a simply huge power, bigger than most States. It's not that he is just evil or an idiot, it's just that he can't handle the power he has.

Elon Musk is the most retarded of them all though, because he thinks he understands the world and people and all of that shit, when he doesn't. Also, his ideas for the future are retarded. But he will win eventually, people are too stupid.

Imagine if English professors tweeted about engineering stuff, you'd hear all kinds of shit. If you are talking ethics, politics, etc, then you are entering the humanities field and they take it for granted. Just because some people in humanities are retarded it doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned in those fields. It's like making a "philosophical" post here and pretending you just have things figured out without reading any philosophy. Or because you read the news you are able to talk about macroeconomy and political systems like an expert. Or because you are a human being with a mind, you are a psychologist.

The issue, the way I see it, is that stem fields are hard to make sense of if you don't know the language(math symbols and shit), but in humanities, the words can flow through various levels, so I can have a sophisticated opinion and phrase it with relatively known terms "desire", "capitalism", "god", etc. Then someone who doesn't read anything may think he understands what they mean throughly and begin debating as if the sophisticated guy was just making things up on the same level.

>>11398173
Progress for the sake of progress and profit. These guys don't think enough about what their technology implicates

I don't get it either since most humanities guys are progressive and Zuckerberg, Gates and the likes strongly push the progressive agenda.

>>11398236
This, they are greedy faggots, fuck them. Gates? He might be a Billionaire, but he's still retarded. Using his fortune to vaccinate Africans? What a waste.

Look at this pic. This is Bill Gates in the 90s saying the computer age will save the environment because all of that paper could be in that tiny CD. And that's a fact, he is not wrong.

Except the computer age raised productivity of everything and we actually use more paper today than before and we fuck the environment more than before.

That's why it's not only a matter of having a smart idea and working those logical parallels. These guys have no idea what they are doing in a broader sense. Not that they should, no one can, no one could in their position, it's too much power. But then again you can't dismiss humanities knowledge, because if you were to tell them the internet won't save the environment, they'd call you off as pessimistic, luddite, fear of progress, commies, etc.

Bill Gates was not so bad in that sense, but the newer guys are more and more alienated.

they are always triggered by STEM majors, especially successful ones

don't ask me why

it's probably an american phenomenon

>>11398173
Musk is a crony captialist who has never made any of his own profit (since paypal) and all his endeavours are funded by wining government contracts, aka the people's tax money. He is a dead ringer for the villain from Atlas Shrugged.

Zuckerberg runs a company popular with boomers so its natural that the new generations shun it. His company invades privacy and is attempting to infiltrate all facets of life. Plus he looks funny so its easy to make fun of him

As far as I know everyone loves Bill Gates, it isn't '99 anymore.

>>11398372

>>11398389
>Musk is a crony captialist who has never made any of his own profit (since paypal) and all his endeavours are funded by wining government contracts, aka the people's tax money.
That isn’t actually true. The main reason why Musk managed to get those contracts was because he consistently offered much lower prices than, let’s say, Boeing, despite largely being an outsider in the business.

>>11398173
because Capitalists and the kind of scholar caste that inhabit universities and control most of public policy are at odds with each other in the power struggles to dominate society.

>>11398310
I think that the epistomology angle gets close to the truth. Technologists are very much used to the idea of linear progress : innovation builds upon itself with very rarely having to re-evaluate how things “down the stack” operates. The new application you want to build does not need to reinvent the CPU. This is very dufferent from how society actually operates, where forward progress at a high level (economic inequality or whatever flavor of problematic you choose) depends on revisiting how we fulfill our basic needs (not having our food supply depend on slave labor). Technocrats miss this level entirely and therefore are poised to make some serious fucking mistakes with all their power.

It also doesn’t help that neoliberalism requires technological progress in order to move “forward” (not upward) and therefore these figures operate as messianic figures that will deliver us from the massive catastrophe of the now.

>Why do Humanities types have such visceral hatred for Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Silicon Valley in general?

Because they are the kind of ruthless techno-capitalists, that are turning our world into a cyberpunk dystopia. The kind of people that are cut from the same cloth as Werner von Braun previously who employed literal slave labor under the Nazis to achieve his technological visions. They'd do the same and in a way they are already doing it. I'm saying this as a STEMer.

>>11398173
Because it's hard looking from the bottom, up

>>11398173

>>11398943
Don't pretend that most of humanities wouldn't do far worse if they had as much power.

Because we know communism is a better economic system. We're the experts, but somehow they keep winning.

>>11398173
It goes both ways. I've listened to plenty of hate by STEM faggots towards people involved in art or humanities.

>>11399026
Art is stupid lmao just say what you feel i dont need you to paint me a damn picture ahaa

>>11399035
t. Rimbaud at age 21

>>11398389
>Musk is a crony captialist who has never made any of his own profit (since paypal) and all his endeavours are funded by wining government contracts, aka the people's tax money. He is a dead ringer for the villain from Atlas Shrugged.
this isn’t true, but even if it was it wouldn’t explain why humanitiesfags dislike him

>>11398310
agree with your point that people assume they can talk about humanities. But the same cam be said for stem. see the slew of A.I articles that imply the machines are actually making concious descisions.

>>11398937
Anon you are replying to. I totally agree, good post.

>>11398173

How can you put musk and zuckerbreg in the same stack?

Other guy uses his own earned money to advance technological deveploiment that profits whole mankind

The other one makes profit by selling your private information.

>>11399063
This isnt Reddit bud

>>11398937
On this idea of linearity, I think some of the technocrats understand this and that's why they are very interested in establishing colonies in space/underwater/other planets. They think the current situation is far too muddied and complex and a 'hard reset' followed by a singular vision is the answer. I don't know how they plan to keep human beings from being human beings, but it will at least work great for a few decades before the seams split apart.

>>11399048
I agree. People talking shit they don't know is an universal thing. I just think the difference is only that it's easier to unmask non-stem people.

An advanced physics article is completely undecipherable to me who am not a physicist, but what I get from it is the thought that I don't know enough to tackle it. But when a stem reads a tough philosophical or psychoanalytical work or something of that kind, they don't get out with the sensation of not knowing, but that it is the author that doesn't know. They may read the word "Spirit" and think the author is like the superstitious new age neighbour.

The thing we must take into account is that it's not enough to know things to be in the right to push it as a truth. It's not trivial to consider how advanced knowledge of a given area is received by people not in that area. That is, how are these scientific concepts presented in magazines and movies for example? It's a double danger, one that is to make it too hard to grasp and risk not being heard, or to make it too easy and sacrifice the nuanced aspects of each thing. Whenever I hear scientist talking about "how we know" a given thing, I wonder "who knows it?".

Think of creationist museums. If I was a kid from a religious family, in a religious school, going to religious museum, how could anyone blame me for being a creationist? It would actually not be intelligent to dismiss all of the information I received, it would actually take a lot of effort to think otherwise. It is an appropriation of scientific speak and a way to undermine it from within.

These things ought to be considered. It's not easy to get into philosophy or science and the very knowledgeable people can't go around calling others stupid for reproducing stupid things which are often products of oversimplication of their own knowledge.

>>11399063
>let's save the environment by producing more stuff

Might as well ask why people get annoyed by Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Being rich or famous doesn't mean your opinion is worth shit when discussing things that are completely out of your depth.

t. STEMlord for money

>>11399139
That isn`t really impossible, though. Even basic logistical reforms could, for example, allow people to eat more by greatly reduce the amount of food spoilage.

>>11398310
>>11399133
Good point about the sciences having their own languages inaccessible to the layman, whereas the humanities obfuscate their ideas behind layers of common language, giving the illusion of shallowness to an outsider.

>>11399129
True. That shit annoys the fuck out of me.

>I don't know how they plan to keep human beings from being human beings
I actually think with Elon Musk we got to the point that is not even necessary. With the claim that in order to travel to outer space we will eventually "upload ourselves into computers", he completely dismisses humanity. Apparently it is too hard to accept to stay here, even if "for a while"(thousands of generations), and it is easier to just pretend we are interchangeable with machines.

With more earthly tech like the internet, other problems arise. If in the past the challenge was how to access information, first newspaper, then radio, then tv, etc. Now we already have access to information and social media is already very advanced on getting to know what you like. But very few people consider that getting what we like in that sense may not be beneficial to us or bring other problems.

Most of our issues today are not about things we can't do, but about things we can do far too well. We haven't developped mature enough debates to figure out the consequences of these things we do rather well. And these guys are already trying to do something else and "progress".

I cannot imagine all of the ethical and political problems we are going to get when a percentage of the population can travel to mars, but not the others. Or when fake news will be fed to you in realistic VR or augmented reality technology. Or as soon as some guy who is in love with his robot gf goes to justice to claim she has rights like a human being. A lot of scientists think the issues will start when "machines are more clever than humans" in some regard or where to draw that line objectively. But the thing is totally subjective, it's only enough to "look like it" for the real problems to start.

>>11399181
That is absolutely the most retarded and biased thing I've ever heard.

If anyone needs any evidence that 4chan has gone to shit, it's this line right here. As someone who was enthralled with a progressive spiritual soul-based movement with God and his sent one, I cannot enjoy shit with people spouting scientific nonsense like this.

>>11399181
>illusion of shallowness to an outsider.

Read "How to deconstruct anything" if you haven't already:
http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html

The problem with humanities is that it doesn't have the same incentives that stem does. There's no selection pressure for ideas except being viral and interesting. You can accuse people like Elon of being megalomaniacs but at least they're creating things that people are willing to pay money for.

>>11398173
For me personally its that Tim Ferris/Tony Robbins EntrepreneurOUTWORKEVERYONE-fake lifestyle that just makes me want to kill them all.

>>11399215
>but at least they're creating things that people are willing to pay money for.
Not that anon, but why would that be positive? The only thing I can think of is a recursive thought that it gets done. As in "you may argue it's a bad thing, but at least it happends". Well, if it is bad, it's not good that it happends.

I agree humanities lack the incentives and the pressure that stem do. I actually think that's the core of the problem.

I once saw a comic strip that said "the difference between the work of the painter and the work of the guy who makes the painting's frame, is that the latter has to be good".

>>11398173
What did he mean by this? Bugman types absolutely love Silicon valleycels

>>11399181
>sciences having their own languages inaccessible to the layman
Sciences are really fucking anal about the definition of their terms, which they consistently reafirm so you don't misunderstand them. It is only humanities that you see people calling each other charlatans.

>>11398222
come on, musk read "the capital" with only 14 and he is a socialist

>>11399263
He is right tbqhwy, Marx was a libertarian

>>11398173
The impotent rage of the unsuccessful loser with no life perspective.

>>11399139

Well, that is the only non-violent option. Or do you seriously think that majority of people would just give away their wealth and/or stop consumption? Or stop reproducing?

>>11398182
basically this. it’s kinda scary to think people so obviously mediocre have so much power in stucturing our society. zadie smith has a nice piece on this relevant to zuckerberg. dudes a literal r9k bot with a sophmore education. yet he is directly responsible for restructuring how we approach relationships. and dont get me started on the base materialism of it all. like holy fuck these are well-educated people how’d they get so cucked by OWNING THINGS LOL. you think they’d allocate a tenth of their brain power to figuring out better ways of supporting human flourishing rather than building glorified word processors or god forbid rocket ships.

>>11399240
>why would that be positive?

yeah I regretted wording it that way, since I definitely don't think markets (which are basically greedy search algorithms) should be used for civilization-impacting decisions.

>>11398173
IDK

But in /g this guy is really hated. I am STEM myself and I understand why this sociopath is a problem.

>>11398173
Also, try harder faggonaldo.

>>11398173
I don't get it. I'm a hopeless lefty lit nerd, and I like those guys a lot. So do most of the people I know. And most humanities types fucking worshiped Jobs...

>>11399339
>yeah I regretted wording it that way, since I definitely don't think markets (which are basically greedy search algorithms) should be used for civilization-impacting decisions.
To late for that, lad. The very food you eat relies on the market, and I doubt that anyone were really wants to go back to a subsistence manorialism economy.

>>11399263
It's so weird to boast that you read something when you were 14. It seems to imply "I'm so intelligent I already got this when I was that young", but I can only think "I've read this complex shit when I didn't have the means to comprehened it properly".

>>11398173
>Why do Humanities types have such visceral hatred for Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Silicon Valley in general?
Where does this weird stereotype even come from lmao

>>11398182
gates worships steven pinker, he's a pleb

>>11399335
>calls others mediocre
>subscribes to utilitarian axioms