A couple of disclaimers! I know Baudrillard would probably reject using this as a framework for multiple reasons, but I still found his Precession of Simulacra to be useful for mapping out new Simulacra. I also know that I am not an objective observer and at the same time doing this is a simulation of a simulation and a part of hyperreality.

I'll be using The Precession of Simulacra to analyze the aftermath of the bombing of Yandex's Sasovo hub and ultimately how the event was absorbed into hyperreality.

For Stage 1, the faithful reflection of "reality", we have raw unedited footage of the event.

For Stage 2 we have a denatured version of "reality." Examples of this are the news article I linked, press releases by Yandex, and exaggerations/spins by both governments

Stage 3, this is where we break completely from "reality." On social media a narrative started that the Russian bots were gone and that there was less division and hate. This is despite no evidence showing this. This also is Stage 3 of a separate precession of simulacra with stage 1 being the raw data of *all* bot activity from the data center decreasing and Stage 2 being the news of that bot activity. At the same time, the idea of Russian bots no longer being an issue gives people the false sense of a more real internet. Masking the fact that it never was real in the first place

Stage 4 / A New Stage 1 For Future Simulacra

Stage 4, a full simulation, this starts with a separate precession of simulacra. That being from the Speed/Usage limits of Starlink in Ukraine. At the data center's Stage 4, this is Starlinks Stage 3. Stage 4 is the political narratives and conversations about the believed reduction in Russian bots on Social Media. Some of these narratives include the idea that Elon Musk and Donald Trump shut down Starlink because Russia removed their propaganda network.

Effects

There are a few effects of this new simulacrum. One being that for many people this is their lived reality. The other being that this affects several existing signs. For example, signs like Elon Musk and Donald Trump/MAGA/Right Wing are further associated with Russian bots. The sign of Ukraine/Zelensky is associated with freeing the internet from Russian bots giving them a hero status. Because of this (and previous precessions) these signs evoke different emotions out of people that feel incredibly real.

It's hilarious how many of my fellows men are so retarded to believe this shit and feel depressed after reading something written on these forums or wikis. Some of them keep asking themselves why they're so depressed, and still fail to connect the dots. How you can be so idiot? How you can be so stupid to let you get pwned by a random guy struggling with his sexuality who clearly wants an utopia with only men and no women make you dislike pussy? (i have nothing against homoes, just sayin, if you hate women, bro, you don't like pussy at all). Its not said, its implied, its between the lines.

Also, look just at that stuff about women who secretly love being r__ped, srsly guys, its something you need to be born with, its a gift being able to make people suicidal and keep belieiving you're just awakening men minds with ''truth''. Think about it, theres a flow, a very structured flow in all this shit, its hilarious but also impressing, you're literally subliminally trolling people by existing but you're so emotional and stupid to get an insight. You're just being emotional af while pretending you aren't.

Image being this user, put yourself in his shoes, you're convincing yourself that you've just done your research, you're a fact checker, not a human being with boring beliefs, sounding like a depressed teenager, no, you've read all this shit multiple times, put effort on making it as depressing as possible, but no, just like a kid who wants to impress his parents, you think it would be a good idea to add it some bullshit stats about women who secretly love being raped. Wow, you may thin this wiki post now its perfect. You're just spitting the truth raw as it is. You just added some maths, men are practical, they know math, they will believe this, muh facts. You know way too much about men to be straight.

Now, this guy is not aware about his mental state and how his own sucidial view of the the world is not universal. His whole ,,philosophy" is just a gigantic massive turd-like ragebait. Delete that part with stats about terrible things about women and its just as it is. Its just a slop ragebait.

Hey, new here. I'm a writer and creative strategist interested in the intersection of technology, ideology and belief.

I've been researching the parallels between 19th century spiritualism and AI, specifically how both manufacture a kind of epistemic authority. The more we trust these systems, the more dependent we become.

Wrote a piece on this recently. Curious if anyone has thoughts on AI as a mechanism for commodifying belief, or other theoretical frameworks worth looking into...I would love to do more research!

https://cultholdings.substack.com/p/the-demon-in-the-machine

I recently spoke with the psychoanalyst and author Darian Leader.

We covered a lot in our interview, including the ideological apparatus of Scooby Doo, the mediatization of violence and madness, the distinction between “true” and “false” ghosts, as well as the tensions in defining the internal and the external in schizophrenia and autism.

I'm sharing it here in case some of you are interested. Thank you in advance, should you choose to watch it.

Hi everyone,

I'm an undergraduate studying sociology. A while ago, I read Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust, which left a huge impression on me. Following that thread, I just finished reading the chapters on "Domination" (Herrschaft) from Max Weber's Economy and Society.

Here is where I currently stand:
- Currently reading: Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process alongside Georg Simmel's Fundamental Problems of Sociology (though I'm honestly finding Simmel quite difficult to wrap my head around 😓).
- On my shelf: I recently bought a copy of Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality, waiting to be read.

I'm now trying to figure out which path makes the most sense to prioritize next:

1. Stick with the classical foundations
   Continue building a solid foundation in classical theory—working through Durkheim, Marx, or wrestling more deeply with Simmel.

2. Branch off into Hannah Arendt
   Follow the thematic interest sparked by Bauman (violence, modernity, and totalitarianism) by reading someone like Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism or Eichmann in Jerusalem).

3. Dive into Berger & Luckmann
   Shift toward the sociology of knowledge and social constructionism with the book I already have.

For those of you who have navigated this stage of sociological study, how would you recommend pacing or ordering these readings? I would love to hear your thoughts, experiences, or any recommendations you might have—please feel free to drop a comment!

---
(Disclosure: English is not my native language, so I used an AI assistant to help draft and translate this post.)