I frequent 4chan (these memes really colored the conversation on /lit/...it has really hurt that board) and I have to say that watching these memes play out has been an interesting experience. It...
I frequent 4chan (these memes really colored the conversation on /lit/...it has really hurt that board) and I have to say that watching these memes play out has been an interesting experience.
It reminds me of all the suicide posting back in the day when /b/ mattered...there's a lot of people who identify with what the "doomer" thing is all about and those people are prime material for recruit to your far-right ideology of choice. It's a strange mix...one thing that's been a constant on 4chan (though I'd say it's at an all-time low) is this sense of solidarity among losers. Like, you'll shit all over each other all day but when push comes to shove and you really get serious, you act like good people and raise each other up. I've seen countless people talked down from suicide on that website. Thing is, the "bloomer," "go-getter," and similar representations of those who have moved past the doomer mentality tend to embody this extreme idolization of perfect self-control (often first and foremost focused on sex by not allowing themselves to masturbate and framing women as only existing for sex, though sometimes they will see that as another vice to be killed) and a move away from so-called degeneracy that really opens these people up for fascist recruitment. It's not surprising, extreme self-control as an ideal has outcomes that vary wildly (see: the complicated range of attitudes within straight edge and vegan movements), but it's horrifying.
It's so easy to put a friendly face on hate movements if you appeal to someone with their own personal development and convince them the people you hate are who dragged them down initially and are keeping the world as it is.
I don’t mean to belittle the tropes and memes that are the subject of this video, but I think the mapping of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche to these archetypes is an oversimplification. I think the...
I don’t mean to belittle the tropes and memes that are the subject of this video, but I think the mapping of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche to these archetypes is an oversimplification. I think the premise that the 'Doomer' is a valid archetype is flawed. I remember when the 'feels' meme became popular on 4chan, but I hadn’t encountered the variants of 'Doomer', 'Boomer', 'Bloomer', and 'Zoomer' (the lattermost is introduced in the video, but then never addressed). These seem to be more recent innovations. I’m not against amateur philosophizing nor remixing memes and content to express oneself. However, there is evolutionary pressure on memes to oversimplify, because memes that are too complex tend not to be shared, or are too difficult to consume within the confines of the image macro medium.
As such, I think that compressing the philosophies of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer into these trivial caricatures is puerile. The perception of similarities between ideas and themes is valid, but it’s extremely superficial in this case. Serious philosophers are not only interested in propagating their views of the world, they also put that view in context and will offer some substantive reasoning to back it up. The referenced memes constitute a crude ontology of archetypes seemingly heavily influenced by a subscription to the idea of inherent generational differences (at least in the focus on the contrast between Doomer and Boomer). But they assume the validity of these archetypes, and they do not back them up with any reasoning. There are plenty of Gen Xers who qualify as fitting the Doomer archetype. And, conversely, there are plenty of Gen Yers who would qualify as fitting the Boomer archetype. I think that all of these labels, *-oomer, Gen *-er, etc. are not useful in reaching any real insights. I think they are critical-thought killing tools. I think they actually stifle debate and, intentional or not, they inspire bickering and distrust amongst people who take them seriously and apply them unironically.
I do see these archetypes (or similar memes) used liberally to express dissatisfaction about the state of the world. I think this is simply tribalism, which is generally unproductive. If you can pick out an 'other' to place the blame of all your perceived troubles on, it may be satisfying, but it is an unproductive ideology. I don’t think Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer (nor any other serious philosopher) would be satisfied with the attitude that young people ought to just wait for the previous generations to die off so that they can rectify the world of the damage caused by their predecessors' foibles.
I do think there's a bit of an issue because the uploader uses a sort of hardline reading of each of the memes and what they represent that doesn't always reflect their actual usage, but this kind...
I do think there's a bit of an issue because the uploader uses a sort of hardline reading of each of the memes and what they represent that doesn't always reflect their actual usage, but this kind of conversation is absolutely occurring on 4chan when these memes come up, and it's a fairly accurate representation of how the conversation around them has progressed. "Everything is awful" to "everything is awful but you can conquer it if you push forward and improve yourself" (while planting some other beliefs that I whine about in my comment) has been the move, and there's a lot of self-help bullshit and philosophy referenced in conversation and used in memes along the way.
I don't think they're forcing their point here...I think they just gloss over a lot for the sake of style.
I don’t buy the "it’s low effort" as a matter of style as a valid defense. Why should a video essay on YouTube escape critique for not employing solid reasoning? It’s the same issue I pointed out...
I don’t buy the "it’s low effort" as a matter of style as a valid defense. Why should a video essay on YouTube escape critique for not employing solid reasoning? It’s the same issue I pointed out about memes in general—evolutionary pressure to oversimplify is not a good excuse to hand-wave. If you don’t bother to back up your points in a defensible way, I’m not going to take you seriously. If you can’t back up your points, then they are either not valid points, or you are not in a position to make them.
Hm? I wasn't trying to defend anything about their reasoning, I was addressing their simplifications of the memes because going over the different offshoots of how they've been used on different...
Hm? I wasn't trying to defend anything about their reasoning, I was addressing their simplifications of the memes because going over the different offshoots of how they've been used on different websites and even just different boards on 4chan might be useful to at least mention but is ultimately unfocused. I do think they over-emphasize the generational element, though...even the boomer and zoomer have been almost entirely separated from generations and instead used to address attitudes. Hell, half the joke about boomers is that it's applied to relatively young people.
But if we're talking about their point and their reasoning, I don't think there's much of one. They aren't picking Nietzsche and Schopenhauer out of nowhere, they seem to me to be documenting how that back-and-forth has gone where these memes have been used...which I would say is accurate.
Sorry for the lack of clarity! I hope more than anything that video essays can flourish as an increasingly in-depth and thoughtful genre with real academic merit :)
Sorry for the lack of clarity! I hope more than anything that video essays can flourish as an increasingly in-depth and thoughtful genre with real academic merit :)
I frequent 4chan (these memes really colored the conversation on /lit/...it has really hurt that board) and I have to say that watching these memes play out has been an interesting experience.
It reminds me of all the suicide posting back in the day when /b/ mattered...there's a lot of people who identify with what the "doomer" thing is all about and those people are prime material for recruit to your far-right ideology of choice. It's a strange mix...one thing that's been a constant on 4chan (though I'd say it's at an all-time low) is this sense of solidarity among losers. Like, you'll shit all over each other all day but when push comes to shove and you really get serious, you act like good people and raise each other up. I've seen countless people talked down from suicide on that website. Thing is, the "bloomer," "go-getter," and similar representations of those who have moved past the doomer mentality tend to embody this extreme idolization of perfect self-control (often first and foremost focused on sex by not allowing themselves to masturbate and framing women as only existing for sex, though sometimes they will see that as another vice to be killed) and a move away from so-called degeneracy that really opens these people up for fascist recruitment. It's not surprising, extreme self-control as an ideal has outcomes that vary wildly (see: the complicated range of attitudes within straight edge and vegan movements), but it's horrifying.
It's so easy to put a friendly face on hate movements if you appeal to someone with their own personal development and convince them the people you hate are who dragged them down initially and are keeping the world as it is.
I don’t mean to belittle the tropes and memes that are the subject of this video, but I think the mapping of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche to these archetypes is an oversimplification. I think the premise that the 'Doomer' is a valid archetype is flawed. I remember when the 'feels' meme became popular on 4chan, but I hadn’t encountered the variants of 'Doomer', 'Boomer', 'Bloomer', and 'Zoomer' (the lattermost is introduced in the video, but then never addressed). These seem to be more recent innovations. I’m not against amateur philosophizing nor remixing memes and content to express oneself. However, there is evolutionary pressure on memes to oversimplify, because memes that are too complex tend not to be shared, or are too difficult to consume within the confines of the image macro medium.
As such, I think that compressing the philosophies of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer into these trivial caricatures is puerile. The perception of similarities between ideas and themes is valid, but it’s extremely superficial in this case. Serious philosophers are not only interested in propagating their views of the world, they also put that view in context and will offer some substantive reasoning to back it up. The referenced memes constitute a crude ontology of archetypes seemingly heavily influenced by a subscription to the idea of inherent generational differences (at least in the focus on the contrast between Doomer and Boomer). But they assume the validity of these archetypes, and they do not back them up with any reasoning. There are plenty of Gen Xers who qualify as fitting the Doomer archetype. And, conversely, there are plenty of Gen Yers who would qualify as fitting the Boomer archetype. I think that all of these labels, *-oomer, Gen *-er, etc. are not useful in reaching any real insights. I think they are critical-thought killing tools. I think they actually stifle debate and, intentional or not, they inspire bickering and distrust amongst people who take them seriously and apply them unironically.
I do see these archetypes (or similar memes) used liberally to express dissatisfaction about the state of the world. I think this is simply tribalism, which is generally unproductive. If you can pick out an 'other' to place the blame of all your perceived troubles on, it may be satisfying, but it is an unproductive ideology. I don’t think Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer (nor any other serious philosopher) would be satisfied with the attitude that young people ought to just wait for the previous generations to die off so that they can rectify the world of the damage caused by their predecessors' foibles.
I do think there's a bit of an issue because the uploader uses a sort of hardline reading of each of the memes and what they represent that doesn't always reflect their actual usage, but this kind of conversation is absolutely occurring on 4chan when these memes come up, and it's a fairly accurate representation of how the conversation around them has progressed. "Everything is awful" to "everything is awful but you can conquer it if you push forward and improve yourself" (while planting some other beliefs that I whine about in my comment) has been the move, and there's a lot of self-help bullshit and philosophy referenced in conversation and used in memes along the way.
I don't think they're forcing their point here...I think they just gloss over a lot for the sake of style.
I don’t buy the "it’s low effort" as a matter of style as a valid defense. Why should a video essay on YouTube escape critique for not employing solid reasoning? It’s the same issue I pointed out about memes in general—evolutionary pressure to oversimplify is not a good excuse to hand-wave. If you don’t bother to back up your points in a defensible way, I’m not going to take you seriously. If you can’t back up your points, then they are either not valid points, or you are not in a position to make them.
Hm? I wasn't trying to defend anything about their reasoning, I was addressing their simplifications of the memes because going over the different offshoots of how they've been used on different websites and even just different boards on 4chan might be useful to at least mention but is ultimately unfocused. I do think they over-emphasize the generational element, though...even the boomer and zoomer have been almost entirely separated from generations and instead used to address attitudes. Hell, half the joke about boomers is that it's applied to relatively young people.
But if we're talking about their point and their reasoning, I don't think there's much of one. They aren't picking Nietzsche and Schopenhauer out of nowhere, they seem to me to be documenting how that back-and-forth has gone where these memes have been used...which I would say is accurate.
I misinterpreted your comment then. I thought you were saying that video essays don’t need to be rigorous because it’s an expectation of the medium.
Sorry for the lack of clarity! I hope more than anything that video essays can flourish as an increasingly in-depth and thoughtful genre with real academic merit :)