Chair Leg of Continents
Part 1. Trolling and Status
-1. My Problem with "Don't Feed The Trolls"
-2. Why NOT feed the trolls?
-3. What does that have to do with...?
-4. Don't Give Status?
-5. Different Standards: "Real Life" VS Internet ... Legit!
Part 2. Memetic HIV
-1. The Memetic HIV Loop
-2. Disable (Conquest) Is King
-3. Not Just Redundant, But Harmful... or is that Semantics?
-4. Lazy As Fuck = Survival?!
-5. Christianity and Banking
Part 3. Cure?!
-1. "Don't Feed The Trolls" is Pathetically Under-developed
-2. MAD - Mutually-Assured Destruction
-3. Doc-Dropping - Who Cares?
-4. If You Seem Bad, I Feel Better
-5. But... but... HOW? Good Question...
-6. Oh right, I almost forgot...
(This space left intentionally bland for some unknown reason... ah fuck it. We like to waste paper. Wait, what, this is on a blog? NOOOOOOOOO! If it weren't for those kids and their damn dog!...)
Why You Should
Feed
"The Trolls"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Trollface.png
(This space left intentionally bl- Hey! Why have you trapped me in this blog?! I want to get around to wasting paper, not blog-space. How else can I legitimize my otherwise meaningless existence?)
Part 1. Trolling and Status
1. My Problem with "Don't Feed The Trolls"
Something that I've always had trouble with is not talking about stuff. It's reminiscent to me of "Don't Feed The Trolls", something that Orygyn touched on a while back in regard to ThunderF00t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSljXPUlN_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLj5j39-2rw
2. Why NOT feed the trolls?
And it's not so much even talking about stuff, as seeing everything related, and why can't we talk about blah de blah? It reminds me so much of religion and other things, that it's an irresistible thing for me to ask. Why NOT feed the trolls, if the subject interests you? Thunderf00t, variablast, BiteHunter? And, of course, Not, if there is the possibility of danger. Ah, but WHY would there be danger? So this is the problem: How do you talk about something that could potentially be dangerous without by way of conversation making it even more dangerous? Isn't talking about things supposed to help so that you can plan out why something might be dangerous, that you might prevent that outcome?
3. What does that have to do with...?
And so I'm reminded of variablast. Ni-GARRRR-i-tarianism. Yes, that's intentional. It's not NIGGERtarianism, but NiGAR (Air!) itarianism, like Humanitarianism. For some reason, the pronunciation is vital to the cause. What relevance is this? Because it's hard to talk to the man without going into all these seemingly pointless loops that don't address the main issue: he's using nigger in the same way that people use smurf.
4. Don't Give Status?
In relation to more literary circles, this shows itself as Richard Dawkins saying,
"Would you, if you were a geographer, agree to have a debate with a flat-earther? There comes a point when you have to say you are, by agreeing to appear on a platform, with somebody like that, you are giving them status; if a real scientist appears on a platform, if say a reproductive scientist appeared on a platform with an advocate of stork theory... [crowd laugter] ...
But, I will say this. I've never actually dared to use the formula that my colleague, [Lord] Robert May... When he's asked to have a debate with a creationist, his response is,
'That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine!'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes
Perhaps this is me being too far on the fringe in ideology at this point, I don't know, since I have seen a variety of memes. This is in the line of anti-statism, anti-school, anti-compulsion. And it's this:
Doesn't that seem a bit pompous? Doesn't it seem a bit non-addressive? I mean, I understand it, but check out the premise that's being used: gorilla VS gorilla - "you are giving them status". Status? I thought ideas could hold or lose on their own.
5. Different Standards: "Real Life" VS Internet ... Legit!
Then again, I am talking in reference to the internet, and Dawkin's, more or less, isn't. There are different standards for internet and non-internet. Why? Because, as Thunderf00t put, "The internet, where religion comes to die."
Or, as ProfessorAnton put:
(I'm paraphrasing until the video loads for the exact quote:
25:47 - 30:09
"We don't have to say that religion will die. It just may well mean that religions aren't going to be able to live in the internet. If you want to practice your religion, you may have to do it in the oral word, you may have to do it in the written word, you may have to do it in community and in song, and if you try to bring it into this world [internet, YouTube], look out! The medium will kill it!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxLyuCSVTfE
Chapter ONE THOUSAND .... or Part 2. That's fine too... don't mind me over here. You've only TRAPPED ME IN YOUR FUCKING BLOG... So yeah, no big deal... asshole...
Part 2. Memetic HIV
1. The Memetic HIV Loop
What should this all be considered? That acidic mind viruses rely on preying on the methods of communication to spread? I suppose that would make sense. Think of it, and as I read in a book,
'What would be an effective way to eliminate the human species?'
Well, put some disorder to the reproductive system that spread during the vital-for-survival of the species' activities: sex. (HIV, AIDS, so forth.)
And where do ideas have sex? Communication.
Accordingly, perhaps you could consider the new strains of religious insanity and personality defects as people who have no Memetic anti-virus protection, nor have sought it (duh). No preventative vaccine.
Is Memetics (for me, Memetic Engineering), then, akin to having discovered penicillin? Perhaps. But, Dawkins has simply discovered it, coined it, and then, seemingly, abandoned it. Well, no, that's not really the case. It's more along the line of me having wanted to do this all along, but not having a platform, a format, whereby to speak with. Now I do.
2. Disable (Conquest) Is King
So, really... what's the problem? The problem is that we're spending inordinate amount of time and value on things that don't work, and, ultimately, may be extremely counter-productive, and possibly deadly. Not just to oneself, but to our species as a whole. The earth can go on without us; we can't without it.
We, of course, started without verbalization, and now I'm grabbing hold of theories about the past, which is overall fine, but a few aspects of which will probably be shown to be false in the future. That will probably change a few aspects of method here and there, though, unlikely, the intent.
Actually, I've already written on this. I'll link to the Buzz:
https://profiles.google.com/u/0/108244673825981390856/posts/aCck7gWFd7q
But I will summarize the point I want to bring forth:
"Eons ago, it started. The first cells, the first organisms. Soon came
bacteria. The bacteria fought. Some grew techniques that disabled the
reproductive process in other bacteria. These bacteria dominated the
spectrum, though it also resulted in a percentage having the lesser
reproductive traits; an interesting mix.
Then came homo sapiens. These were more advanced than bacteria, and
they were able to make even more complex reproduction complexes for
its competition. Why fight when you can disable and not waste energy?
This wasn't, of course, consciously done -- not yet, but it is the
basic nature tendency: find the easiest way possible. Does not water
fall downsteam rather than upstream?
Eventually, homo sapiens became homo sapien sapiens, with something
called language, of which this current homo sapien sapien is using an
advanced form, dubbed in this language as English. With this new
ability for language, came a name for these manipulation tactics:
religion.
The story goes on to explain many things, but what I want to focus on
is the reproductive aspect. There is a thing called marriage, which is
"between a man and wife," a curious phrase, since the female version
of the human species is often considered as property. Property does
not have a soul, something that is required to get into heaven. Heaven
is where you want to be.
...
The prime focus of marriage was that of trying to deal with lust.
Ideally, people wouldn't fuck, instead dedicating themselves to The
Lord. Because doing such a thing is pretty much an impossibility for
most people (hey, how the hell do you think we got here?), a regretful
restriction was placed on the reproductive process instead. Regretful,
in that reproduction could not be stopped outright. The "burning lust"
was worse than a less sinful and God-approved fuckage, for the threat
there was that the teachings would simply be dropped outright of
impossibility.
Now, in this current century, or perhaps more accurately, decade,
marriage, for Christians - at least, Christian boys - is considered
the gateway to pussy. Successful meme? Yep."
Ideally, people wouldn't fuck, instead dedicating themselves to The
Lord. Because doing such a thing is pretty much an impossibility for
most people (hey, how the hell do you think we got here?), a regretful
restriction was placed on the reproductive process instead. Regretful,
in that reproduction could not be stopped outright. The "burning lust"
was worse than a less sinful and God-approved fuckage, for the threat
there was that the teachings would simply be dropped outright of
impossibility.
Now, in this current century, or perhaps more accurately, decade,
marriage, for Christians - at least, Christian boys - is considered
the gateway to pussy. Successful meme? Yep."
3. Not Just Redundant, But Harmful... or is that Semantics?
In addition, when people talk about the utter smallness of humans, and how vast the universe is, they often refer to "the atom", which is composed mostly of empty, unused space. Matter, solid things, are an illusion. In reality, matter is merely highly, highly vibrant energy. So vibrant that it bounces you away so fast that you don't notice it. In atomic theory in my science book, as I recall, the orbits of the atom always take the easily, most energy-efficient path. That is, they're lazy as fuck.
4. Lazy As Fuck = Survival?!
Now, quiz-a me this:
Is it easier to improve oneself to then find a mate to reproduce with who will be impressed,
or disable your competition so that the mate has ONLY YOU as the option?
Guess what gets selected for? That's right: you, you evil son-of-a-bitch! And besides, as the process goes on, things get improved anyway, so what are you complaining about?
5. Christianity and Banking
Applying this to Mind Viruses, guess why it's "atheists believe in nothing", and so on and so forth? If the competition looks scary as shit, looks immoral, looks awful, then Christianity (or insert your local religion here) wins by default. Which reminds me of something: when a house goes down, or when a person goes backrupt, that's called "defaulting". Seems strange to me, almost like it's expected. Probably is.
Chapter AWEOMESAUSE... No? Can I settle for chapter One Thousand? No? Damn... A peanut from the store? Yes? Thanks... No, nevermind, I think I'll just go in the corner and pee on my nuts. I'M DISGUSTING?! YOU'RE, I REPEAT, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO FUCKING TRAPPED ME IN YOUR GODDAMNED BLOG! KIDNAPPPER! GOATNAPPER! GOATSE! RANDOM PROFA- [deleted]
Part 3. Cure?!
1. "Don't Feed The Trolls" is Pathetically Under-developed
But how does this apply to "Don't Feed The Trolls"?
Well, it's what I'd call the newbie version of "Fuck, something's wrong here..."
And, really, pretty much NO work has been doing in this area. And then, as well, the interesting extrapolations on YouTube in regard to this word, as well as the word stalker, have reach, already, saturation. What do I mean by that? I mean that if you disagree with someone, you're called a troll. And if your points were brought up by someone else, you're a troll. If you're annoying something, you're a troll.
And then, and here's where it gets even more interesting to me - say that someone's stalking you, and you call them out on it. "Stop stalking me." But you're on YouTube, and so you two keep making videos about one another, because it's interesting and you're both thinking about it, paranoid about the other. Then comes the irony: the other calls you a stalker, and soon, the boundaries are blurred. You ARE, after all, looking at the other's channel and videos constantly, checking up to see what they're doing. Sure, you've got a reason behind it, but you're STILL stalking them, in technical sense.
2. MAD - Mutually-Assured Destruction
I've not been sure what to make of this, but right now as I'm writing it, it reminds me of the YouTube and Carl Sagan stuff in his book where there is talk about "Mutually-Assured Destruction" - called MAD by the YouTubers. In his book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience,
Carl talks about how having so many nuclear weapons is, essentially, disastrous. We have far more than we need. We could destroy the earth many times over. However, let's just assume for the moment, for the purpose of the illustration I want to check, that we had just enough to blow up the person that might be pissing us off. So, let's check the list of stuffs.
Carl, in the book, then goes on to tell about how using nuclear weapons wrecks havoc on the planet, essentially making it unsuitable for life. Let's assume the smallest scale nuke strike possible.
From wiki:
"A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than a thousand kilograms (2,200 pounds) can produce an explosion comparable to the detonation of more than a billion kilograms (2.2 billion pounds) of conventional high explosive.[2] Thus, even single small nuclear devices no larger than traditional bombs can devastate an entire city by blast, fire and radiation."
"Firstly, even the smallest of the mini-nukes under consideration are a hundred times more powerful that the most powerful conventional weaponry. This means they are not ‘smart’ bombs able to be used selectively against purely military targets, but weapons which will inevitably result in massive devastation to soldiers and civilians alike. Secondly, all nuclear weapons produce dangerous levels of radiation which significantly increase the long term damage of the initial blast and make an area uninhabitable for decades."
Ok, so I'm coming up with nothing specific, and just a lot of theorizing. Anyway...
Putting the MAD strategy to doc dropping (that means dropping someone name, address, and phone number, or any combination of those, in a video or its description, or in a comment, or so forth):
You drop my docs, I drop yours.
3. Doc-Dropping - Who Cares?
Why does it matter to not have your docs dropped? Why is that a threat? Because a lot of people are crazy and would like to come to your house and kill you, and since the internet is accessible to everyone, there's a virtual certainty that they, if your docs were dropped, did so much as disagree with you, that they might go jihad on your ass.
So, essentially, a threat of doc-dropping is a threat of letting crazy people have access to knowing where you live. And they might like to feast on your intestines.
In relation to my stalker, why was doc-dropping a problem? And here we come to the mind-virus aspect. The reasoning was (yes, that's past-tense) that this person used standard English, and how was this person to refer to me except by my name? Yes, this was cleared up with a LOT of talking, and this person still has a tendency to do it ("In order for me to be taken seriously by the greater, professional English professional community of Masters and Doctorate holders, I need to speak fluent English. I am doing my best to use nouns, verbs, pronouns, and other grammatical information properly to be understood clearly."), to try to impress the "higher ups". I wonder how well that's working.
I retaliated by dropping this person's docs (in proportion to what he had dropped about me), and this person went ape-shit, saying that I had done a horrendous thing to this person, and how this person's reputation needed to be protected from slander. Yeah, as if this person needed my help in any sense.
4. If You Seem Bad, I Feel Better
I think the best way to put it is that the method by which to disable a philosophy is that of...
what I'll randomly call the Politics effect. And by this I mean that the meme that is wanted is propped up by means of the negativity surrounding the other one, and it's framed then as being the default.
5. But... but... HOW? Good Question...
The question is, How is this done?
Start with the assumption that the philosophy is correct. Proceed to color the competing meme's philosophy with the assumptions thereheld within yours regarding its assumptions. And remember, your assumptions are valid. It doesn't make sense for them to not be. It's assumed; there's no need to talk about it.
When objections are raised, unconsciously, you are able to find problems with them, according to your own assumptions. And when objections are raised to the assumptions, prepare, Houston, for Loophole Time!
Prepare... for a Memetic HIV!
Annoyingly, I don't have much more to offer in this post. I would like to focus on method, more than anything else, as well as perhaps taking a look at "fallacies" in a new light. Maybe we can finally crack open this walnut that is Human Insanity.
6. Oh right, I almost forgot...
Oh, and to tell you Why You Should Feed Trolls...
FOR SCIENCE! In controlled environments (as far as is possible, you might say), after a lot of theory and strategy as to how more learning could be obtained. Y'know, the scientific method and all that jazz. Will you donate your frustration to science today? xD
I'm actually serious, btw...
