/cyb/ - cyberpunk and cybersecurity

While this site is defiantly left anarchist leaning, it's not officially one ideology. This split from Applechan for a number of reasons, one of which was the influx of alt right /pol/ soykaf posters. It's also affiliated with 0chan, the anarchist image board. But all that being said, it's still a general cyberpunk board, anarchist or not.

Jump on IRC and wait for the Australians to get up, while it becomes soykafpost central and you think WTF fuck are these people on about you will quickly see not every one is left leaning here.

If you start talking about Communism they will get into you, that's if they take a moment to stop talking about guns.

Fucking Australians.

>>543
Is Australia seriously that conservative compared to the US though?

>>544
Seems like it.

I think all self-identity is a trick of language and anyone who is serious about their identity beyond their physical person has a diseased mind. Thanks for asking.

>>543
Come on. Can't we just hug it out?

Or are you the one who went on a half hour fucking screaming tirade when I dared call myself a centre-libertarian without once thinking to ask myself why I chose that term and what that means to me?

>>545
Australia can be pretty conservative in places, but most of the denizens of the IRC channel are pretty far from it. Just apparently to some people if you're not a died in the wool communist you're automatically a nazi.

>>547
You are a reactionary with Fascist tendencies, I don't care what you call yourself. We already talked about this, I don't feel the need to go any further.

>>549
We did not talk. There was no talking. You saw one word that you didn't like and blasted obscenities for an hour. You barely said a fucking word to anyone before you steam rolled in and launched your tirade.

There was no talking. At no point did you ask me what my views actually were. Or why I decided to use the term 'centre' despite personally advocating a universal income policy/health care, or how my religious/spiritual views intertwine with my choice of the word 'centre'. At no point did you ask me about my experience with actual fascists, actual fucking neo-nazis dragging their twisted fucking worldview where it wasn't wanted; screaming for bloody murder against my trans, queer and jewish friends and family. I'm ultimately not even sure you even know what a fascist is. If you actually wanted to talk then maybe we could have come to understand each other and understand what we both mean when we use those terms?

Please enlighten me, at what point does the belief or advocacy in personal rights and liberties - and again never at the expense of someone else's rights and liberties - equate with fascism? They are polar opposite concepts. While yes, I do believe that some form of governance is required to prevent someone from violating someone elses rights please tell me how that makes me a fascist? I know to many Libertarians it would immediately make me not one of their own and that again pushes me back to centre.

But you couldn't. You didn't even want to. You saw one damn term you didn't like, decided you had my entire political leanings completely mapped out, my entire life history in the palm of your hand, and you branded me your enemy.

You are the type of person who needs enemies I think, you need an enemy to crusade against. And you know what? I'm not going to give that to you, I won't be your enemy. If you want to keep calling me a fascist; go for it. If you want to sit on IRC and actually talk about this stuff? Go for it. If you want to talk about literally anything else? I'm also all ears.

>>549

Today on Everyone I don't like is a reactionary fascist whereas I am the ideological equivalent of Jesus:

Some guy declares everyone a reactionary fascist and himself, the ideological equivalent of Jesus.

Remember, if you don't wholeheartedly support this man, you too may also be a reactionary fascist.

>>543
Hey now!

Lets all calm down.

Are you saying a L1A2 Para in .280 Enfield is not the best weapon ever made?

Im sorry Sir, but you are.mistaken.

>>552
I just wanna be friends :C

>>553
A great example of the hypocritical xenophobic things said by Australians.

Completely ignoring whats going on to make fun of other people.

>>551
You reactionaries are all the same. I learnt all about fascism, you people hide it until such a time it is acceptable. You hide behind the names like what you have given yourself.

I'm not a Fascist, I'm alt-right.
I'm not a Fascist, I'm liberal.
I'm not a Fascist, I'm centre-libertarian…

I am very glad Anti-Fa keep people like you off the universities here. Australia desperately needs some strong leadership to fix the problems with you people. It is as bad as South Africa under the Whites.

"my trans, queer and jewish friends and family."

I'm not racist I have black friends.

>>556
:C

>>556
You reactionaries are all the same. I learnt all about fascism, you people hide it until such a time it is acceptable. You hide behind the names like what you have given yourself.

I'm not a Fascist, I'm Anti-Fa.
I'm not a Fascist, I'm a progressive.
I'm not a Fascist, I'm a socialist…

This soykaf goes both ways. You are literally just name calling. It's time stop and provide real evidence.


>I am very glad Anti-Fa keep people like you off the universities here. Australia desperately needs some strong leadership to fix the problems with you people. It is as bad as South Africa under the Whites.

>implying antifa accomplish anything besides getting beaten up
>implying Australia isn't a centre left paradise
>implying South Africa isn't currently absolutely fucking fucked by black nationalism

At this point I genuinely don't believe you see the world like the average person does. I honestly believe you have some sort of psychological difference which means that you don't see what everyone else sees.

>>556
"A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante."

I see you keep liking to repeat the word reactionary over and over again, but you still won't tell me where I fit under that umbrella, because the last I checked the last fuarking thing I want and that I'm advocating is what's written above.

Locked for 24hr for off topic and low quality discussion in general.

/cyb/ includes topical political discussion, but it is not /pol/.

>>549
>>558
See, this is the problem with people of your couleur.
You put people into nice little boxes, then shut down any and all discussion because "those [whatever]-ists should just shut up".

Please continue like this, it'll only be your own downfall.

>>536
Cyberpunk, as I see it, and as I see it presented here is survival in this current world of ours that is turning more and more into a dystopia. It's the paranoia, the dirt and filth, the ramshackle solutions to problems built from whatever you could beg/borrow/steal, the trying to hold onto your very individuality against crushing social pressure, and somehow trying to do all that without ending up on a list or worse..

To a certain extent (and somewhat ironic given how the thread turned out )I view Cyberpunk as being separate in a certain sense to conventional politics; the politics fade to the background when you're more concerned for your very survival in a system actively trying to step on your neck. The soykaf has already hit the fan and now it's a matter of survival.

To be honest the whole cyberpunk thing to me has many parallels with prepper mentality. It's all capability building.

>>590
I second this. Cyberpunk, for me, is a survival trait. Don't get me wrong, the Aesthetics and cliches are enjoyable but it really comes down personal perspective and experience.

>>536
>>590
>>619
I agree. The individual against the machine thing is not about revolutionary visions, it's about individual getting himself out of it's control and getting as much freedom as he can on his own. It does not contain the idea of changing the world into something it is currently not (and probably can never be); but about living in dystopian environment and not letting it get to you. Not "I want to be a part of a mass movement that takes over the power structure" (regardless if the initially stated goal is to dismantle it, change it, or whatever), but "I want the structure to not have influence over me".
Self-preservation, or survival, is a perfect word for it.
I'm not saying that it's mutually exclusive (it might be, though, I don't know), but that the political stuff is entirely besides the point. The opposition to the structure does not stem from being an anarchist, and the structure not being whatever enough to my tastes and in need of destruction, or from being a reactionary, and the structure being too degenerated to my tastes and in need of restoration; but simply from the fact, that it attempts to encroach upon me. It's not about saving the entire world, but saving yourself.
Anarchism is simply a different thing from cyberpunk. It plays together well because it is sometimes similar in aesthetics and shares many common objects at which the opposition is aimed, but anarchism has a specific ideology, motivations for action, moral judgements, and a proposition of an alternative to what is being opposed. Cyberpunk does not contain any default ideology, motivations and judgements may be purely personal, not ideological, and the proposition of a different mode of functioning of a society is completely besides the point, because it is not concerned with society at large, but an individual. With some, the dystopian view suggests that replacing the structure with an alternative is technically out of reach for an individual against the mass, with some, it's just the way the cookie crumbles and it's naive and impossible for an alternative to be put in place, and with some, it's their life goal to destroy the structure and replace it with what they think would be better. It's just not a part of what cyberpunk is.
Regarding the other statement in the OP, though, I would have to say that a science fiction genre is an understatement. Aesthetics usually carry some meaning with them, and are not just things being pretty. A genre of literary fiction is not enough, because we think it somehow applies to our current lives. There are to it some observations about the nature of interactions of people with technology, individual with the society, some sentiments, feels and attitudes. It wouldn't do it justice to simply describe it as "science fiction genre".

>>543
This is true.
>>556
This is bait.
>>559
This is sophistry.
>>590
>survival in this current world of ours that is turning more and more into a dystopia.
When taken to its logical conclusion this relies almost solely on an insular, myopic worldview. There is absolutely no such thing as a "post-political" mantra available out there, it will always deconstruct itself back into traditional political conventions. It reads like you're so hesitant to recite survivalist drudgery when I think you know as well as I do that cyberpunk has nothing to do with that. I've grown tired of this conflation insofar that when people think of cyberpunk, they don't think of the philosophical intricacies of Lain, the brooding tone of GITS or even the atmospheric reflection instilled by Blade Runner. No, they typically think of Robocop, Terminator and Dredd; y'know, strong everymen who can do no wrong in a neon-laden crusade against an elusive Other–whether it be artificial intelligence gone awry or migrants crossing the border.
>>621
What you're both thinking of here, is nihilism but that's not necessarily the problem. Rather, it seems like you're both using gnosticism as a map for your ham-fisted rationalizations, which is why I don't object to other users' accusations of y'all at the very least being sympathetic to (neo)reactionary views. Because I've no doubt about it; this showcases such an incredibly superficial understanding of these concepts that it really begs the question over why you identify with cyberpunk at all in the first place. If gnosticism is the map, then animism is the territory; now this could leave you with the impression of being "post-political", but this does not negate politics altogether. It merely sees it as a given; this isn't necessarily an aversion to politics, but rather political organization in and of itself. Which.. explicitly elicits an anarchist tone whether you like it or not.
>The opposition to the structure does not stem from being an anarchist
In the Stirnerian sense, not having power structures have influence over you is precisely what being anarchist is all about. This doesn't stop us from creating a "union of egoists", however that is still different from replacing the current status quo with that of another. I'm not even going to go into contemporary conceptions of nihilist communism, posthumanism, and object-oriented ontology, either; y'all'd be better looking into those yourselves. The notion that we should be taking ecological devastation in stride is central to most cyberpunk fiction, and anarchism as an umbrella term is by far the easiest way to properly contextualize it. Absolution over redemption; accept the annihilation of human and embrace the inhuman.
>It's not about saving the entire world, but saving yourself.
Okay, Mike Pondsmith.
>anarchism has a specific ideology, motivations for action, moral judgements, and a proposition of an alternative to what is being opposed.
You obviously don't have much of a grasp on anarchism if that's what you genuinely think. You decry anarchism because of its ideological tenets (that which you don't understand) yet at the same time reiterating that cyberpunk is somehow more than just a subgenre of media, while providing no reasons beyond some kind of lifestyle.. ? That's fucking stupid.

>>645
Could you elaborate on what you mean by gnosticism?

>What you're both thinking of here, is nihilism
No, it's not. At least I am not thinking of nihilism. I have not said anything about my philosophical views, I have merely said that cyberpunk does not seem to me like a philosophy. I don't push everything that I believe in under the label of "cyberpunk" because it makes me feel edgy.

>ham-fisted rationalizations
Aside from the adjective, rationalizations of what?

>which is why I don't object to other users' accusations of y'all at the very least being sympathetic to (neo)reactionary views
It was my first post in this thread, so your accusation is the first. Also, whether or not you gather the feeling that I am sympathetic to some political views that you don't like is of no relevance to the discussion and of no importance to me.
I would advise that you keep these feels to yourself and not try to evoke the kind of meaningless soykafstorm that happened earlier in this thread by informing everybody about your unrelated political antagonisms.

>Because I've no doubt about it; this showcases such an incredibly superficial understanding of these concepts that it really begs the question over why you identify with cyberpunk at all in the first place.
Does not follow, or, at the very least, you did not explain how that would follow.
If you attempt to offend someone's understanding of something, then it would be nice if you could provide at least semi-decent explanation of perceived errors in their understanding, instead of some worthless, highly emotional name-calling and venting.

>You decry anarchism because of its ideological tenets
I have mentioned no preference on anarchism. Neither did I mention any ideological tenets beyond the most obvious one contained in any basic dictionary definition; I have pretty much only said that there are some, and I do not perceive cyberpunk to be an ideology in the same sense that anarchism is, so it would not be precise to conflate these terms in any way.
>(that which you don't understand)
Not only did you manage to assume that I have neoreactionary sympathies, but also, you have somehow deduced my understanding of ideological tenets of anarchism, which I did not mention beyond "a political ideology which, among other things, is against the existence of government and similar power structures in society". And, somehow, you claim that this small portion of view of what anarchism is is somehow completely wrong. If you believe that anarchism is not a political ideology which, among other things, is against the existence of government and similar power structures in society, then I must admit, I do not understand what anarchism is for you, but definitely something else than any anarchist that I've talked to would say.

>In the Stirnerian sense
Well, there he goes. All right, I would admit that in the Stirnerian sense there is a significant overlap between anarchism and cyberpunk. However, the notion that when people use words, they mean them in the Stirnerian sense, is highly absurd.

>I'm not even going to go into contemporary conceptions of nihilist communism, posthumanism, and object-oriented ontology
Ooh, you're a big guy!

> yet at the same time reiterating that cyberpunk is somehow more than just a subgenre of media, while providing no reasons beyond some kind of lifestyle.. ? That's fucking stupid.
I did not claim that it is a lifestyle, just provided examples of individual relation to power structure associated with cyberpunk, and why that does not exactly constitute anarchism.
It is not a dichotomy of "subset of media" versus "all-encompasing ideology".
I did not attempt to provide any in-depth explanation of why it is more than a subset of media, either.

Your post is highly belligerent, suggests that you've only skimmed through my post in a fit of rage, and you're ill-mannered, but I will attempt to explain to you the source of our misunderstanding.
Think of it as, let's say, how economy (the science) and politics are entirely different things. Economy studies the phenomena regarding the production, exchange, value, etc., in a similar way that ecology studies interactions between organisms, it does not pass any judgements on the phenomena occuring, merely categorizes and explores them. Political views, however, contain the sets of values and priorities by which you judge the occuring phenomena as desired or undesired, provide proposed technical solutions, and so on, and so forth.
The works of art that we associate with cyberpunk, sometimes to the extent that we would consider them a perfect example of this form, well, let's say that everything that they have going on for them is what cyberpunk is. They definitely explore certain phenomena regarding individual, society at large, existence, epistemology, etc. They focus on certain motives, carry different ideas with them, we infer some views and angles of exploration, inquiries, regarding the makeup of being, consciousness; individual and society, individual and culture, their interactions, and so on. Sometimes they blatantly refer specific works of philosophy (particularly Ergo Proxy comes to mind as an example of that).
But would it be right to say that they are just a visual or narrative representations of a certain philosophy?
Do you think that analysing a couple of works in such a manner would end up completely consistent?
Wouldn't it be more precise that they are not simply stating a view, and are rather more modern in form, that is, they are explorative?
Do you think there is some judgement value common among works in what we would call cyberpunk? Do you see any regular definitions of problems and proposed, practical solutions, as we would expect from something that contains something related to a specific political theory?
Mind you, I am not saying that they are opposed, incompatible to any specific ideology. Neither me saying that I do not see any specific value systems there means that I reject any systems of value at all. What I do mean is that, simply, you cannot say that cyberpunk decidedly encompasses any specific ideology or values, especially political ones.
The focus of cyberpunk works might play well together with some ideology or other, but they are separate things.
You might be interested in cyberpunk because you find it consistent with your ideology, it might even lead you to develop or expand certain ideological views, but they are different things.
I'm not saying that there isn't any overlap; on the contrary, it shares common themes with things, including anarchism.
But those two words are still separate things, and to think that someone means "anarchist" when they say "cyberpunk" is imprecise. Even if there are statements where exchanging these two terms would mean the same (and there are), those are different things.
And yes, I do understand that you have very wide definition of what anarchism means, and me mentioning the political aspect over and over probably unnerves you. But that is precisely the problem; posthumanism is not cyberpunk, individualism is not egoism, neither is it anarchism. These words mean different things, and I get the impression that you throw everything from your belief system into anarchism, cyberpunk and any other label that you assume. I get that for you these things might intertwine and harmoniously complete one another into the end result of your worldview. But we have different words for a reason, and not everybody has the exact same worldview as you do. Very very few people, if any, have. And someone having a different worldview than you does not mean that he's an idiot.
Unless you have ascribed some personal definition to that word as well.

>I've grown tired of this conflation
So have I.

>There is absolutely no such thing as a "post-political" mantra available out there, it will always deconstruct itself back into traditional political conventions.
I'm sorry that people not being fascists and not being anarchists unsettles you. It must be tough when you can't call someone the slur that you usually use when someone does not agree with you.

>I've grown tired of this conflation insofar that when people think of cyberpunk, they don't think of the philosophical intricacies of Lain, the brooding tone of GITS or even the atmospheric reflection instilled by Blade Runner. No, they typically think of Robocop, Terminator and Dredd
Well, that's just lowly. I haven't even seen the latter three.
I think that maybe youtube comments under music videos where 11 year-olds masturbate each other saying "wow i listen to [this generic rock band] instead of [generic radio pop star] i'm so better than other people" might be a good place for you.

>>650
>Could you elaborate on what you mean by gnosticism?
I've seen it been said before that anime such as Serial Experiments Lain can be used as examples of gnosticism in contemporary media; gnosticism, generally-speaking, the belief that all matter is evil and that emancipation can only be achieved through what is referred to as gnosis (or some manner of reification). The Matrix would probably be a better example but I digress. Now, gnostic belief structures can certainly lend themselves to truly emancipatory ends. Knowing past conflations of the 90s cyberdelic scene with that of cyberpunk, the kind of stuff that gave us John Perry Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" among other things, but they also have a tendency to lend themselves to less emancipatory ends like numerous facets of Nick Land's Accelerationism, which mostly relishes in technofetishism and socioeconomic inequality. Since the emergence of cyberpunk we've also seen a renewed casual interest in the metaphysical, and so as a result there's been a growing subset of people who can be described as (neo)gnostic; the more outspoken side of this community of sorts happens to identify with vaguely traditionalist values–your yudkowskian drudgery and duginist moldbuggery, all neoreactionary. It can be very easy to fall into the trap of gnosticism, as many people quickly find themselves willing to do anything to obtain emancipation; who wouldn't want to be become one with the Wired, for instance? It's very dangerous thinking, but let's all love lain.
>I don't push everything that I believe in under the label of "cyberpunk" because it makes me feel edgy.
I was trying to say that in order to approach cyberpunk effectively.. gnosticism, nihilism, and anarchism have historically provided great avenues for analysis. To say that it doesn't contain an underlying philosophy, and is somehow beyond political conventions is just a weak way of saying, "everyone's entitled to their opinion." That's not the point, if you want an example of authors pushing soykafty political agendas then look no further than William Gibson's twitter feed.
>It was my first post in this thread, so your accusation is the first
How the fuck was I supposed to know that? smh
>Also, whether or not you gather the feeling that I am sympathetic to some political views that you don't like is of no relevance to the discussion and of no importance to me.
areyousureaboutthat.webm
>I would advise that you keep these feels to yourself and not try to evoke the kind of meaningless soykafstorm that happened earlier in this thread by informing everybody about your unrelated political antagonisms.
The posts in question are still public, I see no reason why they can't be further discussed, unless you find these kinds of conversations boring. I would prefer that over a meaningless insider trade over how cyberpunk is 2deep to be approached analytically from from certain schools of thought. That's boring–hearkening back to my complaints over superficiality.
>I did not claim that it is a lifestyle
I'm sorry for making that assumption, then.
>But would it be right to say that they are just a visual or narrative representations of a certain philosophy?
I would like to think so, yes; although I must admit, gnosticism by itself is deliberately vague in its ability to obtain emancipation, which leaves so many of its followers down the path of existential dread. This also explains why so many people (including myself) are unconsciously left with the impression that there may be some ideological underpinnings to cyberpunk.
>What I do mean is that, simply, you cannot say that cyberpunk decidedly encompasses any specific ideology or values, especially political ones.
I was wrong to say that it explicitly elicits an anarchist tone; the leap I made from nihilism to gnosticism to anarchism stemmed more from conversations I've had elsewhere on this very topic. You're right to point out my discomfort in distinguishing only the political aspects of anarchism, but I think that stems from an unwillingness to come to terms with the fact that anarchism intersects with those two aforementioned concepts more often than any other political ideology out there. Without that particular approach, we have things like pic related.
>I get that for you these things might intertwine and harmoniously complete one another into the end result of your worldview.
I think they do well more than others, hence my concern. I don't wanna wake up one day to find people contextualizing the supposed merit of wage slavery among the annals of cyberpunk history.
>But those two words are still separate things, and to think that someone means "anarchist" when they say "cyberpunk" is imprecise.
I disagree, the notion that these works are merely explorative negates any meaningful discussion that could possibly be had beyond the theoretical basis of film and media studies. By your logic, the bulk of this board's content is severely lacking; hell, even the etymology of "cyberpunk" come into question. There is an entire generation of people who've either at some point in their lives identified as cyberpunk, and/or used it as a colloquialism to describe very real phenomena. The time to be contrarian was over thirty years ago; we can't just ignore that on an elitist presupposition on what cyberpunk is, given the OP.
>It must be tough when you can't call someone the slur that you usually use when someone does not agree with you.
>reactionary is a slur
So I wasn't wrong in my assumptions after all? Oh boy, that makes my cyber-testicles tingle.
>I think that maybe youtube comments under music videos where 11 year-olds masturbate each other saying "wow i listen to [this generic rock band] instead of [generic radio pop star] i'm so better than other people" might be a good place for you.
I wasn't denying the significance of the films you haven't seen; rather, I was shedding light on mostly mainstream conceptions of the genre, most notably the type of people it typically appeals to. If you think this only applies to eleven year-old youtube commenters then I don't know what else I could say that would persuade you otherwise. A reliance on vague notions of self-preservation can give credence to determinist argumentation, and that is simply not okay.

> I don't wanna wake up one day to find people contextualizing the supposed merit of wage slavery among the annals of cyberpunk history.

There is no cyberpunk without wage slaves, all of it happens on the margin of society. I think it's easy to forget that when cyberpunk works always show the "punk"/low-life side of it, not the people who lead comfortable-but-empty daily lives.

>>677
Definitely. it comes from a realization that cyberpunk emerged during the rise of neoliberalism, and how its distinctively proletarian undercurrents have since been obfuscated as time went on. Traditional class divisions are no-more; people think you're homeless because of the smartphone in your hand. It really seems like these same people have become increasingly drawn to the prospect of cyberpunk just becoming another subset of slice-of-life fiction. In many ways, it already has.The staying-power of "postcyberpunk" stories just haven't really hit their mark, and I think that's because they can never truly detach themselves from the "punk"/low-life aspect. It will always come back to bite their authors in the ass, because deifying the bougie life, however comfortable and meaningless it may be, merely turns a blind eye to all of that.