In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles

The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished.

The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, as part of society, and as instrument of unification. As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all gazing and all consciousness

The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.

It is not a supplement to the real world; it is the heart of the unrealism of the real society. In all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, as advertisement or direct entertainment consumption, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life.

In a world which really is topsy-turvy, the true is a moment of the false.

The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says “that which appears is good, that which is good appears.” It demands passive acceptance by means of its monopoly of appearance

The society which rests on modern industry is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally spectaclist. In the spectacle, which is the image of the ruling economy, the goal is nothing, development everything. The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself.

To the extent that necessity is socially dreamed, the dream becomes necessary. The spectacle is the nightmare of imprisoned modern society which ultimately expresses nothing more than its desire to sleep

The spectacle is the existing order’s uninterrupted discourse about itself, its laudatory monologue. It is the self-portrait of power in the epoch of its totalitarian management of the conditions of existence.

Given the above, which is from Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, it is time to undertake the continuous project of rating the spectacular events that form the topology of outrage space

Our goal here is neither to condemn nor endorse the moments of the spectacle; rather we wish to cultivate a connoisseurship of spectacle-qua-spectacle.

The question is not “do I welcome this messenger as an artifact of my partisan simulacra of an identity?” but rather “what is the quality of this spectacular event as an instance of the form?”

I stole this idea from @Logo_Daedalus And was reminded of it by an ongoing @visakanv thread. https://twitter.com/visakanv/status/1164334508587401216

So let’s get started. Regardless of your opinion of climate change activism, what do you think of Greta Thurnberg as an instance of Debordian Spectacle?