What is the point of living in this whole fakeness and conformism...

I almost don't talk to anyone, so you're wrong.

I just don't like liars, dissimulators, is all. I tryhard to be sincere all the freaking time, to lose any shame whatsoever.

sex
drugs
punk music

I would say no. Not to say that I don't do "nice things" for people and convince myself in that moment that I'm "being nice". I just think it is a lot colder than just "hurr I'm a nice guy who does nice things". I think we just construct a narrative that we like to believe of ourselves and fit things into this character that we constructed. Ideology plays a big part in this, and there really is no such thing as having "no ideology".

By constructing a narrative around yourself "I don't lie… I hate inauthentic people… I am not X, etc…" you are already lying to yourself. This is the same lie that you tell other people - nobody ever truly knows another person, the only thing anybody knows about other people is a narrative they construct around them. Lying is not a negative thing - it's the very form of language itself.
Drop this spook. Being truly "sincere" is impossible and you are just setting yourself up for an impossible mission. Of course, I'm not saying "become a pathological liar", but just admit to yourself that even language itself is insufficient to truly express what your experience is and nobody will ever get you, ever.

Not really sure what this means exactly, how do you determine the point at which something becomes "truly sincere"
I also don't think language's lack of being able to express our thoughts with 100% accuracy is the same thing as a lack of sincerity. Me not being able give you a perfectly accurate description of my feelings is not the same thing as me intentionally choosing to not mention those things, even if the consequence s can sometimes be the same.

It's not that i want to see myself as a "nice person" more that being nice makes me happy and i want to be happy, constructing a character is part of being capable of abstract thinking, blaming things on causatoin is bad faith, as doing things is entirely on my choice.
What if me wanting to say what you want me to say is unauthentic?,

I don't see how lie is the basis of language, language is a way to output our reasoning, you can use language to lie, but it's not something intrinsic to it.

I love being sincere, i don't want to be controlled by the ridiculous ideas of others, i want to subvert the reality of others with mine.

I'm gonna say shit even if it makes me embarassed.

Not "sincere" in the sense of accurate, but sincere in the sense of you truly knowing what you are or what you want. We think in the medium of language and so language(and culture especially) lies to us in the way we internally articulate our own character.

The problem with language and culture is the fact that it convinces us of what "happiness", "love", "authenticity" is. We never question what the word "happy" means to us in the context of day-to-day life and it is very hard to escape the notion of what it has always meant to us.

You always are. This is a fact of life you cannot escape. I'm not saying this as some sort of cynic - I'm saying this as somebody who championed being "sincere" for many, many years and came to this conclusion.

Ah, i see what you mean, but in the end, things like love, happiness are abstractions having no relation to reality, it's just like i said before, unrelated to language itself, just using language to lie.

I don't take for granted concepts, i pay attention to the real world and the eternal present moment.

Many people apply different meaning to happiness in a way to control other people's behaviour.

From my experience, i don't really care what others thing, (except when i'm feeling bad, but then it's temporary). When we discover the truth it's an amazing feeling of freedom, that there is no objective criteria over most things, and i can simply choose the meaning that i find benefitial for myself.

Authenticness is knowning the options and being capable of making your choice, and going through with it. Instead of being coerced or intimitated into behaving in some way. This is the most pure intention.

This is my definition.

That's right. Just be aware that your "choice" of what is beneficial to you is charged with internalized culture and thus is never truly your own choice.
I'd read Hegel, Derrida, Lacan and Zizek (in that order - though maybe Zizek before Lacan since you need to understand lacanian before reading Lacan and Zizek is good for entry-level) for some philosophers that tackled the same questions and are not brainlets like everybody ITT(me included)

Sure, but in the end, forcely changing someone from their culture to another (even though both are equally meaningless by themselves) is abuse, since most people do it for their own interests. Either way, that doesn't mean you can't change your choices based on your own newly formed set of beliefs, without the use of a coercitive force.

Wasn't talking about anybody forcing somebody to change beliefs, I'm just talking about how everybody internalizes their culture and how it affects their choices and thought processes without them even being aware. Take for example how hipsters or hippies champion individualism and sincerity but how that in itself is a culture they internalize and thus becomes a symbol for them to aspire to, thus making them look pretty similar. Or how today people like to think of themselves as "post-ideological" and empirical but in reality are dominated by ideology without even being aware of it.

Yah, i agreed with what you said but i complemented with an opinion, cause i antecipated you might think that…

The fact with Hipster is sort of that it might have started like that, but in the end others simply followed because it became an aesthetic of it's own, and they enjoyed it. though. It's difficult to talk purely on concepts, without knowing the intentions behind the individuals choice.

But your argument is basically: If in a fictional world where there is only have 3 colors, and 99% of the people use blue, and i'm the 1% that use yellow i'm not "original" because i didn't come up with it. Isn't it?

Then it depends on how you see some definitions.

What about people cut off from language either do to deafness or some form of brain injury? Are they being lied to somehow?

They still communicate so they still use language - i.e. sign language. When people think internally there is documented micro movement of the tongue as we think in vocalized language. For deaf people they have micro movements in the hands/arms.
Nobody is being lied to by somebody. There is no nefarious constant agent in language that is intentionally lying. It's that language itself and how it is used within culture creates a sort of web of thought that is not completely reflective(or entirely subversive) of either internal reality or external reality.

Although if somebody is completely and permanently cut off from language so that he has never and will never be able to both communicate or receive a visual or vocal expression of language, then yes he is completely unspoiled by our cultural web of thought. At the same time, we would never be able to talk to him and would probably think he's retarded if he was ever able to communicate. I am not saying language is bad - even though it obfuscates and blurs our perception of reality and different ways of thinking it still serves the purpose of creating and maintaining society which would not be possible without this.

Okay, but you still haven't explained what constitutes "true" sincerity and how exactly language prevents that from being realized

I mean, I can accept that language can sometimes have the effect of influencing people's internal thoughts and feelings to the point where they're not fully able to get in touch with how they feel but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that's necessarily always the case

My argument is that there is no such thing as sincerity because everything you perceive to be a "sincere" reflection of yourself is just a pleasant narrative you constructed of yourself. You lie to yourself that this is you. That this is what you really are. You lie to others when you present that narrative of yourself as the "real you". There is no escape from this. The only way you can be as close to sincere within this would be to express yourself in a manner that exposes completely every minute detail of your train of thought and even this is impossible and incomplete as you would both have to accurately depict your train of thought using imperfect words and at the same time express as fast as you're thinking. In this way you would at least expose how you're lying to yourself and what you sincerely believe about yourself.
I would argue that this is exactly the case, everybody is just so heavily influenced by it that it doesn't seem like a possibility.

Why? If I tell someone I'm hungry, what relevance to the sincerity of that statement is there that I'm also thinking about my homework, for instance?

Hunger and homework are external objective necessities. For example math is an objective language in which no lies are possible. Same goes for seeing two cows and saying "there are two cows". There is no lie here. Where the lie comes in is when dealing with your identity, soul, and "self". "Sincerity" in the cultural-historical context is to truthfully reflect your inner self. Human language, when dealing with the "self" and culture is where it lies to us.

I don't think expressing the fact that you're hungry is the same as stating some mathematical fact. There's the perception of the sensation of hunger and then the interpretation of that sensation as actually being hunger. It's not same as thinking 2+2=4 or something.

I'm just using math as a metaphor for how there are ways of expressing ideas that do not fall into this subjective web of pre-existing ideological language in which we define ourselves by identifying with some coordinates within.

hooktube.com/watch?v=gG3Tw3Tm7To
This video does a much better job of explaining this than me.

The whole "everything you do is just domination by ideology/language/conformism/system'' relies on the premise that there is a pure, untouched core somewhere inside of us beneath all the layers. If there is, it is completely unknowable and unable to have any sort of connection whatsoever without those very layers.

Stirnerites have just made a spook out of Cartesianism.

I like football, but I don't really like football, I just like to be someone who likes football, therefor I like football..

Fantasy isn't as absolute as you posit it to be, it can't be, or it wouldn't have something to be the fantasy of in the first place. Most people are also well aware of it.

Okay, but how do we know there is this kernel containing our actual true thoughts and it isn't instead just the case that these thoughts are indeed our true feelings but have just been influenced by our use of language?

no thanks

If everything has already been said for us, then how is doubt even possible?

Does it presuppose this though? I would think every bit of you is touched and defined by external influence all the way to the very core of each human being. My understanding is that there is a stream of consciousness, an input of external stimuli and an internal monologue that narrativizes both into a comprehensible and expressionable format.

Because the process of defining your true feelings is built on a system in which you verbalize and articulate your feeling or "narrativize" it, it is this narritivization that confines you to language. Some psychologists have said that the only feeling that does not lie to you in this way is anxiety.

Because by saying something you automatically create the coordinates for somebody to take up a contrarian position by negating whatever you said?

How do you know if this expression is at odd's with your true feelings to begin with, though? How do you tell the difference between a person who does truly feel a certain way about something and a person that doesn't feel the same way deep down but expresses sharing the feeling due to his use of language?

By believing in your narrativization it effectively 'becomes' your true feelings and there is no real way to tell if it is a result of you defining yourself by coordinates you identify with within language or whether those coordinates is truly "you".

My point from the start is that your OP rails against fakeness and conformity. Those things are precisely indistinguishable from your true self from the start.

But how would that make me able to doubt myself, how I would be able to be unsure of anything?

Then if you can't tell the difference, how do you know the difference exists at all?

Because in the case that it is the same thing, then it would mean that the language and cultural coordinates anybody defines themselves by literally reflects their soul and so you would then literally be fakeness and conformity collectively created by other people long before you.

There is no way to be sure or unsure of anything and that is what all philosophy since Plato is built on. Go read philosophy, seriously, I think you would enjoy it at least.

To be conscious, is to be conscious-of, so I would go further and say there is no stream of consciousness either. I don't see the self as some unicum among the things, it exist and does not exist in the same manner of a fir tree or a lump of clay in the sense that every attempt to locate it, to define it, begs the question.

If by saying something I create its coordinates through language, then there could be no doubt because the coordinates are already set, I cannot doubt if they are located in this place or that place.

How do you know their "soul" doesn't change according to the language they're using?

I don't think this is a question of creating rather than it is finding the coordinates in language. To create a coordinate within language would be to change language or invent a new word and a whole body of thought along with it. When processing anxiety and external stimuli we almost never create a new coordinate within language - we almost always plot the experience on a coordinate within language along with all the loaded ideology between coordinates.

That's what I'm saying. We don't use language to express our soul - our soul is a map of coordinates within language.

Then it doesn't seem like there's any conflict between your true feeling and the language you use in that case. If your true feelings are shaped by your language the whole time, how can you say there's any conflict between the two? At that point it's a sincere expression of my true feelings as influenced by the language I'm using. You could say I might feel a different way with a different language but you could make that argument about almost every facet of myself.

Since language always has a particularity to the subject, it never is merely a matter of finding. Still, the question remains, how does this allow us to doubt anything?

Yes, there is no conflict between the two. I'm saying that by defining ourselves by coordinates within languages means that there is no way to avoid conformity and fakeness(the subject of your thread) as that is the very object of our experience.

What do you mean by being allowed to doubt?

Conformity, sure. Fakeness, that depends on how you define it.
This isn't my thread.

Sorry user I thought I was still talking to OP

How can you know the truth if everything is fake?

For me, it's not much that everything is "dominated by ideology", but more that everytime i see Americans yapping(specially in PR), i perceive they're always dissimulating for their own self-interest. Which i find revolting.