Shufei 🫠

Shufei's pfp

Contacting Shufei 🫠

Federation handle:

@Shufei@mastodon.sdf.org

Shufei 🫠's Information

Respect my identitah

Techsis

皆の歌

Weird Al Yankovich - Christmas at Ground Zero

Gemini

Gemini://Gemini.circumlunar.sp

Gopher

Gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.

Shufei 🫠's Bio

Howdy.

我是箇奇怪老姑娘而已。

and yokel, a script spinster with a very manqué interest in , , , .

Shufei 🫠's Posts

Shufei 🫠 has 27 posts.


Pinned

Shufei 🫠

For the record, my ass is immediately on the line politically now. No, I won’t wax maudlin how. Suffice to say I’m on multiple hit lists for the USA regime about to be handed total state power. My views come entirely as someone “marginalized” with multiple dogs in the hunt. That’s as close to identarian chest thumping as I care to make. So when I nuance? It is hard won from self-reflection and self-pushback. Anyone who wants lockstep ideology from all of us isn’t paying attention.



Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

So personally? When I say “no” to , I am not merely saying the little “no” of debate. I am saying the “NO” of jihad. No. I won’t engage these new regimes of intelligent machinery, no matter how coercively they solicit my compliance. If they mandate AI in cars, I shall walk. If they mandate AI in infotech, I will cleave to paper books. If they demand I bow to the machine enhanced ruler, I shall stand and die.

No. Full stop. That is


Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

I’m saying “no”.

I want nothing to do with , by whatever flag it flies. The whole mess reeks of totalitarian order. I want nothing to do with AI. I shame those who pimp and shill for technofatalism as traitors to their species’ very survival. I spit on the Quislings of Silicon Valley and their doe eyed compliance with oligarchy’s desires. I want none of this crap near me and tear it down with mine own hands when so imposed.


Tags: #ai #machinelearning #llm #butlerianjihad #boycottai


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

Do you like and ? Are you in open revolt against the devilish mainstream internet, renouncing Web 2.0 and all its works?

If you use terminal colours via internet, please hit me up, here or on the textnet. I’m trying to make a central depot for gopher and Gemini colour sites, especially any artists doing ASCII/UTF8/BIG5 &c.

Gemini://gemini.circumlunar.sp

What can I say; I’m a bbs kid. I like CLI text. I like pretty primary colours.


Tags: #gopher #gemini


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

南京拼音輸入法,讓南京官話講的人打字。況且這箇RIME軟件非常厲害,可見為yaml編制輸入法挺容易,我在想配置自己的。

Amazing input method for Nankingese Mandarin by pinyin. The Rime IME is a great platform for making keyboards using yaml config files, in just about any OS!

uliloewi.github.io/LangJinPinI
rime.im/download


Tags: #方言 #輸入法 #languagerevitalization #indigenous #endangeredlanguages


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0


Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

@ErikUden Ja


Mentions: @ErikUden@mastodon.de


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

@ErikUden Sometimes, now and then, I dearly miss Germany.


@Shufei no

by Erik Uden 🍑 ;

Mentions: @ErikUden@mastodon.de


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

For the record, my ass is immediately on the line politically now. No, I won’t wax maudlin how. Suffice to say I’m on multiple hit lists for the USA regime about to be handed total state power. My views come entirely as someone “marginalized” with multiple dogs in the hunt. That’s as close to identarian chest thumping as I care to make. So when I nuance? It is hard won from self-reflection and self-pushback. Anyone who wants lockstep ideology from all of us isn’t paying attention.



Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

So personally? When I say “no” to , I am not merely saying the little “no” of debate. I am saying the “NO” of jihad. No. I won’t engage these new regimes of intelligent machinery, no matter how coercively they solicit my compliance. If they mandate AI in cars, I shall walk. If they mandate AI in infotech, I will cleave to paper books. If they demand I bow to the machine enhanced ruler, I shall stand and die.

No. Full stop. That is


Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

We have ethical agency deeper than contingency which best roots decision. I take this as axiomatic and also demonstrably helpful. To persevere in autonomous decision is the best jihad, as it frees us from quandaries of interpellation which serve to subvert us into the tragedies of mimetic irony. Steadfast “no”. Judicious restraint and equanimity guiding energies toward goals unencumbered by outside compulsion. All social and technic change are best responded to by such ethical discipline.


So personally? When I say “no” to , I am not merely saying the little “no” of debate. I am saying the “NO” of jihad. No. I won’t engage these new regimes of intelligent machinery, no matter how coercively they solicit my compliance. If they mandate AI in cars, I shall walk. If they mandate AI in infotech, I will cleave to paper books. If they demand I bow to the machine enhanced ruler, I shall stand and die.

No. Full stop. That is

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

The need for ontological resiliency is precisely why the term “jihad” is warranted when confronting . I don’t speak of the false jihad shown by fanatics who are tied to mimetic debate. True , if true jihad it be, must needs rely on a positive endeavour for commonweal - struggle human visions of good possibility. It is not enough to jihad *against*. We must jihad *despite*. This level of jihad bears the patience afforded to any serf or peon who seeks it.


We have ethical agency deeper than contingency which best roots decision. I take this as axiomatic and also demonstrably helpful. To persevere in autonomous decision is the best jihad, as it frees us from quandaries of interpellation which serve to subvert us into the tragedies of mimetic irony. Steadfast “no”. Judicious restraint and equanimity guiding energies toward goals unencumbered by outside compulsion. All social and technic change are best responded to by such ethical discipline.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

All ideology functions by interpellating an audience into a mimetic debate. “No” within the mere context of mimesis is lame, unworthy, feckless. It’s not enough to *argue* as we do in the chattering social media era. It is NOT enough! The deeper “no” is needed, the “no! which is unmoved by the entire contingency of events. The cold shoulder can be far more powerful an act of agency than mimetic conflict. This I believe to be the needful ontological position of .


The need for ontological resiliency is precisely why the term “jihad” is warranted when confronting . I don’t speak of the false jihad shown by fanatics who are tied to mimetic debate. True , if true jihad it be, must needs rely on a positive endeavour for commonweal - struggle human visions of good possibility. It is not enough to jihad *against*. We must jihad *despite*. This level of jihad bears the patience afforded to any serf or peon who seeks it.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #butlerianjihad


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

So when the oligarchs, their sycophants, their legions pimp ? I think the only dignified response must be a hard line on the grounds not of mere mimesis, but of complete disregard. “The only winning move is not to play” applies in this moment. The kind of which might endure and succeed must needs be that bedrock deep. That is, not as mere rejection within a framework of argument. But it must rest at an *ontological* level of decision how Earthly life should look live.


All ideology functions by interpellating an audience into a mimetic debate. “No” within the mere context of mimesis is lame, unworthy, feckless. It’s not enough to *argue* as we do in the chattering social media era. It is NOT enough! The deeper “no” is needed, the “no! which is unmoved by the entire contingency of events. The cold shoulder can be far more powerful an act of agency than mimetic conflict. This I believe to be the needful ontological position of .

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

If we are to be fatalistic, we should *choose* the parameters of our fatalism. If we are bound to regimes of coercion and force, the ethical imperative of trolley dilemmas *fails* us. When someone… some *thing*… has a gun to your head, sometimes the only dignified decision is to refuse all compliance, regardless of any consequential argument.

This is to say, the hypermodern says “trolley dilemma”. But there is a deeper level of recourse - a diamond hard “no” to the entire game.


So when the oligarchs, their sycophants, their legions pimp ? I think the only dignified response must be a hard line on the grounds not of mere mimesis, but of complete disregard. “The only winning move is not to play” applies in this moment. The kind of which might endure and succeed must needs be that bedrock deep. That is, not as mere rejection within a framework of argument. But it must rest at an *ontological* level of decision how Earthly life should look live.

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

Whither then, when even marginal rebellion is inhumanly circumscribed? In the end, the only remaining dignity is not to comply. “No”.

This era fancies ethical dilemmas like the trolley problem. But these thought experiments predicate an empowered agency which will no longer be available to us soon. What we need to consider are *unempowered* agencies, which appeal to a higher level of entropy to which even regimes of mechanical steel must obey in time. Regimes fall. New things do occur.


If we are to be fatalistic, we should *choose* the parameters of our fatalism. If we are bound to regimes of coercion and force, the ethical imperative of trolley dilemmas *fails* us. When someone… some *thing*… has a gun to your head, sometimes the only dignified decision is to refuse all compliance, regardless of any consequential argument.

This is to say, the hypermodern says “trolley dilemma”. But there is a deeper level of recourse - a diamond hard “no” to the entire game.

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

So of course the oligarchy looks to the Terminator films as a template for the world they desire. Humans under high modernity were still herded by other humans, however enhanced by technology. In the new order, humans will be herded directly by machine. The significance of is to a full spectrum elite curation of society, force applied at every level: physical, social, philosophical, emotional. They will find all the buttons we have and push them.


Whither then, when even marginal rebellion is inhumanly circumscribed? In the end, the only remaining dignity is not to comply. “No”.

This era fancies ethical dilemmas like the trolley problem. But these thought experiments predicate an empowered agency which will no longer be available to us soon. What we need to consider are *unempowered* agencies, which appeal to a higher level of entropy to which even regimes of mechanical steel must obey in time. Regimes fall. New things do occur.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

As late capital descends into a dark age of cyberfeudalism, the people licensed to decide are tending toward changes which enable brute force above regimes of ideological complicity. The essence of rapid evolution in lies in the desperate desire of oligarchs and their sycophants to enforce their decisions with mechanical reliability. This precisely because the limits of human discipline under ideological fatalism have probably been reached.

Consent can only be manufactured so far.


So of course the oligarchy looks to the Terminator films as a template for the world they desire. Humans under high modernity were still herded by other humans, however enhanced by technology. In the new order, humans will be herded directly by machine. The significance of is to a full spectrum elite curation of society, force applied at every level: physical, social, philosophical, emotional. They will find all the buttons we have and push them.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

Of course coercion is a level of the process. Outright force is another level. But modern authority depends first on *belief* in the teleology of modern progress. But the dictum “free your mind and your ass will follow” always applies. Social, cultural, political, and technological change go wither we accept they should go within our local context. Decide not to comply, and the change doesn’t happen. Decide a different route, and change happens that way. Proof is in the pudding.


As late capital descends into a dark age of cyberfeudalism, the people licensed to decide are tending toward changes which enable brute force above regimes of ideological complicity. The essence of rapid evolution in lies in the desperate desire of oligarchs and their sycophants to enforce their decisions with mechanical reliability. This precisely because the limits of human discipline under ideological fatalism have probably been reached.

Consent can only be manufactured so far.

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

The position of a true elite is one of being granted license to free decision. Unlicensed free decisions are suppressed. But that *does not relieve the repressed person from responsibility* of decision, because agency is prior to context.

Agency is always ontologically prior. The sooner we all accept this axiom, the better, as it removes the yokes of fatalism upon which elites depend to maintain regimes of compliance.


Of course coercion is a level of the process. Outright force is another level. But modern authority depends first on *belief* in the teleology of modern progress. But the dictum “free your mind and your ass will follow” always applies. Social, cultural, political, and technological change go wither we accept they should go within our local context. Decide not to comply, and the change doesn’t happen. Decide a different route, and change happens that way. Proof is in the pudding.

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

Elites in modern societies demand teleological fatalism from all of us. “Progress just happens this way”. “The market forces decide”. “That’s just the way it is”. The ideology of modernity depends on both mass compliance and mass enthusiasm. Manufacture of consent. This does not change the fact that *people decide which way events go*.

Thus the difference between a free actor and an ideologically bound fatalistic peon is one of *perception and belief*. Resources are secondary.


The position of a true elite is one of being granted license to free decision. Unlicensed free decisions are suppressed. But that *does not relieve the repressed person from responsibility* of decision, because agency is prior to context.

Agency is always ontologically prior. The sooner we all accept this axiom, the better, as it removes the yokes of fatalism upon which elites depend to maintain regimes of compliance.

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

Cultural and technological change both happen because people *decide they should*. It’s also a fact that many people resign themselves to believing otherwise because of a fatalistic mythos. Both of these facts function together to create mind slaves of modern people.

Nothing about this paradox absolves *any* particular person of the responsibility of decision for change within their purview. We decide even when we believe we cannot decide. That’s what makes modern regimes of iniquity work.


Elites in modern societies demand teleological fatalism from all of us. “Progress just happens this way”. “The market forces decide”. “That’s just the way it is”. The ideology of modernity depends on both mass compliance and mass enthusiasm. Manufacture of consent. This does not change the fact that *people decide which way events go*.

Thus the difference between a free actor and an ideologically bound fatalistic peon is one of *perception and belief*. Resources are secondary.

by Shufei 🫠 ;


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

I’m saying “no”.

I want nothing to do with , by whatever flag it flies. The whole mess reeks of totalitarian order. I want nothing to do with AI. I shame those who pimp and shill for technofatalism as traitors to their species’ very survival. I spit on the Quislings of Silicon Valley and their doe eyed compliance with oligarchy’s desires. I want none of this crap near me and tear it down with mine own hands when so imposed.


Tags: #ai #machinelearning #llm #butlerianjihad #boycottai


Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

Under the course of technofatalism’s process of cultural entrenchment, we have a brief window in which to establish any ground of resistance against as a regime. Any enduring resistance must needs be collective. But the size of any AI-free sector or humanity ultimately boils down to the sum acts of dignity - the autonomy in the personal refusal to assimilate. Even if the cyber-cognitive rapists put a enhanced gun to our heads, those who say “no” rage against the dying of the light.


I’m saying “no”.

I want nothing to do with , by whatever flag it flies. The whole mess reeks of totalitarian order. I want nothing to do with AI. I shame those who pimp and shill for technofatalism as traitors to their species’ very survival. I spit on the Quislings of Silicon Valley and their doe eyed compliance with oligarchy’s desires. I want none of this crap near me and tear it down with mine own hands when so imposed.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

From the strategic point of view amongst the oligarchy, our rulers now must ask themselves what to do with the rest of us, their de facto precariat peons and debt chattel. A few options present themselves clearly:

Entrenched Neoliberalism
Cyberfeudal police states
Culling the herd

We can see all these strategic options being toyed with, experimented on us. militates toward cyberfeudal orders as its power is cognitive coercion and propaganda.


Under the course of technofatalism’s process of cultural entrenchment, we have a brief window in which to establish any ground of resistance against as a regime. Any enduring resistance must needs be collective. But the size of any AI-free sector or humanity ultimately boils down to the sum acts of dignity - the autonomy in the personal refusal to assimilate. Even if the cyber-cognitive rapists put a enhanced gun to our heads, those who say “no” rage against the dying of the light.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad #boycottai


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0

Shufei 🫠

In response to this post

We know by now what the fruits of regimes of technofatalism are, and rest is not one of them. At the dawn of the “Information Age” the pimps of promised the same cargo cult with the same justifications they do now. Yet leisure for the precariat masses has only become a more endangered good over the past half century for all but the morally compromised professional jannisary classes. Now even they are suddenly to be made obsolete, their creativity outsourced.


From the strategic point of view amongst the oligarchy, our rulers now must ask themselves what to do with the rest of us, their de facto precariat peons and debt chattel. A few options present themselves clearly:

Entrenched Neoliberalism
Cyberfeudal police states
Culling the herd

We can see all these strategic options being toyed with, experimented on us. militates toward cyberfeudal orders as its power is cognitive coercion and propaganda.

by Shufei 🫠 ;

Tags: #ai #butlerianjihad #boycottai


Likes: 0

Replies: 1

Boosts: 0