Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #15 on: 2004-08-04 08:55:26 »
[Joe Dees] <snip> And all this (on a small so far response) thread that is intended, for very good reasons, to get past the divisive politics and back to creating the memetic foundations necessary for us to construct a stronger and more resilient CoV.
he problem is that the Bush-bashers on this list cannot for the very life of them restrain themselves.....
<anti "islamofascist" rant snipped>
This is supposed to be a list that critiques memeplexes rather than one that adheres to one, and yet I find here, outside a very few, precious little criticism directed at the most dangerous and noxious memeset of the present day, a plethora of vitriol directed at an administration that has vigorously opposed it, and a flood of irrational ad hominem attacks directed against that very administration, and in favor of a candidate that seems to think that these people will stop killing infidels in the name of their eternal deity and simply go away if he gives them and their political surrogates and apologists free rein.
If there is a need for another brahch of the CoV, its prime purpose should be to analyze and categorize this sensele
[rhinoceros] I'll be more specific than ElvenSage, who covered the general issue nicely.
This is "supposed to be" a forum which delivers value (knowledge, critical thinking, friends, whatever) to its members and its visitors, according to our basic principles as understood by each one of the current members. There is no way other than member value if CoV is to compete and build up.
The members themselves are the judges of it: "Does my participation here get me any value, compared to other communities?" "Do I find people with whom I value interacting?" "Can I proudly show this place to my friends?"
Joe Dees has been playing the "islamofascism" broken record for years and he has been losing friends one after another as a result. Everyone had had more that a chance to hear him out and to think, and his contribution, all things considered, has been evaluated with extremely negative numbers. It is Joe -- not politics -- who has been rated as a liability in this particular community.
It's not Joe's fault. That's who he is. But it is up to the community to become what "it thinks" it should be and to start building up.
I hope the new design of CoV will provide for value, with an evaluation system capable of clearing specific infections rathen than mutilating whole memetic limbs. At this point, success largely depends on joining and *using* the "Meridion" reputation system and the voting system.
Example: Vote me down in Meridion and (a) I'll know that what I say is not what the community values and (b) you will withdraw some of the increased voting power which you have given me.
Re: virus: Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #16 on: 2004-08-04 09:14:22 »
At 05:39 AM 04/08/04 -0600, ElvenSage wrote:
snip
>To me the CoV was a great way for me to keep thinking. There were >constant posts about all the many different sciences. There was a lot of >great debate, heated sometimes, but not nearly as bad as it has became. I >do not feel asif the CoV is fulfilling my want for a constant stream of >interesting information anymore. It's always the same topic (politics) >and the same things being said from both sides over and over.
I have posted bleeding edge thoughts about EP/memetics and the origin of war, not only here but in several other places. These posts seldom get even one follow up.
Is it because:
The concepts are incomprehensible?
I have stated the case so clearly nobody can think of anything to say? :-)
The subject is so depressing nobody wants to think about it?
People have quit reading?
There is a cycle in most groups where after a while the group has talked their subjects to death and people wonder away. I have been on the net long enough to have seen that happen before, particularly the early Extropian list.
Re: virus: Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #17 on: 2004-08-04 10:56:58 »
Joe, your fake apology reads like a right-wing propgandist newsletter, and will likely spur debate on whether your facts are factual bact up by other people's facts which you will again point out are not as factual as your facts.
IMHO, this post is proof that you are attempting to deliberately damage COV.
-----Original Message----- From: "Joe Dees" <hidden@lucifer.com> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 04:52:49 To:virus@lucifer.com Subject: virus: Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
First, let me remark that I found it highly interesting that this meta-discussion did not begin until I had posted articles that referenced the growign democratic successes of the present administration's policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan - successes that could neither be rationally disputed nor reasonably ignored. When another person presented the opinion that the alert levels were being politically hyped, I referenced a New York Times article that refuted that, as well. (BTW - Howard Dean had his own allegations in that direction rejected by none other than John Kerry himself).
You very well know the problem here,, Elven - or on the slight chance that you don't, please permit me to enlighten you.
Walter Watts: Anything is better that arguing about that goddamn &%^* and the mot&)er fu*(er in the white house.
(My answer: anything is better than slandering a successful war that liberated 24 million people and hyping that demagogic and opportunistically appeasatory co#*%uk!r who is willing to promise to do anything, however damaging to the maintainence and expansion of freedom it may be to the defeat of the terrorists and the safeguarding of America, just to get his sick and cynical ass elected).
Bill Mackinnon:
Walter for President! "Better Lies, For a Better America"
Bill MacKinnon
REMEMBER --
GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T NEED YOUR VOTE TO WIN
And all this (on a small so far response) thread that is intended, for very good reasons, to get past the divisive politics and back to creating the memetic foundations necessary for us to construct a stronger and more resilient CoV.
The problem is that the Bush-bashers on this list cannot for the very life of them restrain themselves from administering snide kicks to the gluteus of the present administration, and those of us who hold a different view of the wisdom and efficacy of the present administration's actions against the global terror network that plagues us cannot, in all good conscience, allow such slurs to pass unanswered, for silence indicates assent. It seems to us as if they are either wilfully ignoring the vicious tactics that the terrorists are employing or are embracing submission in the face of those execrable tactics, to the point of embracing the dhimmitude and slavery that are entailed in allowing these bloodthirsty and brutal terrorists to dictate to us who our next president should be. It almost seems as if the far leftists on this list are willing to embrace on bended knee the agenda of their absolute nemesis - a terrorist Islamofascist Puritanism - just so they can replace some! one who has shown true resistance to and achieved progress against such twisted people - people who view individual freedom of any kind as a shari'a-violating anathema - and replace him with a person who seems willing to bow this country down on bended knee before an impotent international body that has been both bribed and terrorized into acquiescence to the terrorists' foul and totalitarian designs. And even work to advance that demented agenda.
This whole situation is complicated by the fact that those of us who see Al Qaeda as (still) a clear and present danger also see those list members who do not agree with them as once-again-slumbering narcoleptics who have forgotten, excused or discounted the horrors of 9/11 and reverted to a pre-9/11 politics as usual, and who are allowing their disagreement with the present administration's domestic social policies (a disagreement which I share) to bleed over and illegitimately effect their stances as to who would be better able to successfully pursue our present necessary actions against the very terrorists who perpetrated that vile atrocity.
Your suggestion seems to me to be an attempt to purify the list of those who deeply perciece the clear and present danger and reserve it for those who do not view the continuing terrorist threat as indeed a genuine and authentic one - a position already historically taken by Bill Clinton with disastrous 9/11 results.
In the interests of fairness, either there should be no comment from either side of this debate, or it should be open to comments from both sides. Either alternative can be adopted on this list, without the superfluity of creating another insular forum.
But the first of these two alternatives is going to be surpassingly difficult, simply because both the contentions betwen the islamofascists and the west, and the disagreements within our own country on how best to respond to the jihadist threat - or, after 9/11, incredibly, even whether we should - are eminently memetic discussions, and furthermore, discussions that are referencing a memetically virulent religious variant, which should rationally entail that they are not only contemporarally germane, but that they are entirely within the purview of a list the express function of which is to construct a memetically successful pfaith - one that adheres to the kind of free inquiry, secular, egalitarian, democratic and science-friendly values which are anathema to the terrorists who are attacking the American basiton of these values. I find it quite incomprehensible that the leftists on this list, who ostensibly inculcate such values within their own positions, should be makin! g agitprop common cause with the very terrorist who would insist upon their conversion, enslavement or execution were they to be in power.
This is supposed to be a list that critiques memeplexes rather than one that adheres to one, and yet I find here, outside a very few, precious little criticism directed at the most dangerous and noxious memeset of the present day, a plethora of vitriol directed at an administration that has vigorously opposed it, and a flood of irrational ad hominem attacks directed against that very administration, and in favor of a candidate that seems to think that these people will stop killing infidels in the name of their eternal deity and simply go away if he gives them and their political surrogates and apologists free rein.
If there is a need for another brahch of the CoV, its prime purpose should be to analyze and categorize this senseless paradox.
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re: virus: Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #18 on: 2004-08-04 12:20:21 »
Jesus take me home now.
Joe Dees wrote:
><snip> > >You very well know the problem here,, Elven - or on the slight chance that you don't, please permit me to enlighten you. > >>>Walter Watts: >>>Anything is better that arguing about that goddamn &%^* and the mot&)er fu*(er in the white house. > > >
Me saying that "Anything is better that arguing about that goddamn &%^* and the mot&)er fu*(er in the white house." is the fucking problem?
Moi?
Was I talking to you Joe? Can I say ANYTHING that you MIGHT consider left-of-center without you feeling compelled to give the Fox News "Fair & Balanced" response?
Jesus Krist in a speedo you're a Kool-aid gulping memebot.
The reason-deficient and emotion-driven Mecca-cola-gulping Chomskyite America-is-the-Great-Satan Anti-US-is-Kewl anti-Bush-broken-record crowd on this list once again attacks the messenger because they don't like yet can't refute the message (because the message is an honest description of the facts of the case). See, dewdz, ad-hominem name-calling is a logical fallacy no matter who indulges in it. It doesn't work, but it's a lot easier than point by point refutation for lazy minds. And do not make the category error of confusing popularity with correctness; I would have the same rating if I were defending civil rights on a KKK list, or practically any Western value on an Islamofascist one (oh, wait; perhaps that is close to the case, considering the senseless yet burgeoning hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance that seems to be emerging - even here).
PS: to Elven: Just Exactly WHERE do you not agree with me? That Bush-bashers on this list continue to gleefully indulge themselves in childish jibes while endeavoring to squash, totalitarian fashion, the free speech with which they do not agree? That Islamofascist terrorism is a genuine and present threat to Western values? That these values - freedom of speech, thought and religion, interphaith tolerance, gender and racial egalitarianism, participatory democracy, free markets, free scientific inquiry, equal opportunities - are worth preserving and defending? That it is better to vigorously resist Islamofascist terror assaults upon those values and the people and countries that adhere to them than it is to submissively acquiesce to them? That these threats cannot be safely dismissed or ignored? That either both sides or neither should be permitted on a balanced and equitable list? That we should be about studying memeplexes in general rather than demanding adherence to any particular one?
Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #20 on: 2004-08-04 18:56:19 »
[Joe Dees] And do not make the category error of confusing popularity with correctness;
[rhinoceros] Neither popularity nor unpopularity implies correctness. Failure to convince anyone while repeating yourself for years means that either you don't make sense or you are at the wrong place; you could make better use of your time elsewhere.
[Joe Dees] I would have the same rating if I were defending civil rights on a KKK list.
[rhinoceros] Correct; a KKK list would want to live. The difference is that, whatever you are defending here, you are not on a KKK list. If you think that you are on anything similar to a KKK list, you might want to make better use of your time again.
[Joe Dees] And do not make the category error of confusing popularity with correctness;
[rhinoceros] Neither popularity nor unpopularity implies correctness. Failure to convince anyone while repeating yourself for years means that either you don't make sense or you are at the wrong place; you could make better use of your time elsewhere.
[Joe Dees 2] yeah, and further fractionate politics by everyone getting banded in their own little insular groups and preaching to their respective choirs. That is anti-Darwinian, as it forcloses all confrontation and competition of differing views; it is therefore anti-memetic and anti-Virion. But perhaps Virus itself is mutation in anti-Virion ways, such as embracing emotion-driven stances to the detriment and dismissal of logic, reason, rationality, facts and evidence.
[Joe Dees] I would have the same rating if I were defending civil rights on a KKK list.
[rhinoceros] Correct; a KKK list would want to live. The difference is that, whatever you are defending here, you are not on a KKK list. If you think that you are on anything similar to a KKK list, you might want to make better use of your time again.
[Joe Dees 2] This position, the position that embracing Islamofascist-apologizing hate-Bushist anti-Americanism is necessary for the list to survive, is surpassingly dense and obtuse - not to mention contrary to all memetic understanding.
28.17% of the total equity has voted so far and the results are between 4 (all but the disreputable) and 5 (members in good standing).
Yeah, when you can't refute the message, just silence the messenger, like a spoiled two-year-old with its fingers stuck in its ears yelling "Na-Na-Na-Na- I Can't Hear You!" It's called the active enforcement of willful ignorance in the interest of protecting one's existing biases from cognitively dissonant information - otherwise known as a memetic filter (which indicates that the hooks of an opposing memeplex are already buried deep in one's psyche - kinda like what Christian fundies do with evolutionary theory).
virus: Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #22 on: 2004-08-05 02:55:09 »
Joe Dees Sent: 05 August 2004 00:17
<snip> That these values - freedom of speech, thought and religion, interphaith tolerance, gender and racial egalitarianism, participatory democracy, free markets, free scientific inquiry, equal opportunities - are worth preserving and defending?</snip>
[Blunderov] You have some recent evidence to support your assertion that these are Western (American) values? I would be both amazed and delighted to learn that this was true. (Of course a great deal of pious lip service is paid to these concepts especially at (s)election time.)
It seems to me that the only value that the 'West' (American franchise tm) embraces is that of 'profit'.
If these values you extol DO exist in the West, it is quite likely that they do so by only virtue of the efforts of the very 'left' which you so frequently and rancorously deride.
"The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis - aided by the force of nationalism and media control by substantial interests - presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon."
<snip> That these values - freedom of speech, thought and religion, interphaith tolerance, gender and racial egalitarianism, participatory democracy, free markets, free scientific inquiry, equal opportunities - are worth preserving and defending?</snip>
[Blunderov] You have some recent evidence to support your assertion that these are Western (American) values? I would be both amazed and delighted to learn that this was true. (Of course a great deal of pious lip service is paid to these concepts especially at (s)election time.)
It seems to me that the only value that the 'West' (American franchise tm) embraces is that of 'profit'.
If these values you extol DO exist in the West, it is quite likely that they do so by only virtue of the efforts of the very 'left' which you so frequently and rancorously deride.
"The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis - aided by the force of nationalism and media control by substantial interests - presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon."
(Noam Chomsky--After the Cataclysm)
Chin chin.
Nice quote, but derivative. Chomsky stole the idea from the neo-Marxist Herbert marcuse, as espoused in his theory of repressive tolerance, which asserts that if every sentiment is allowed free expression, that dissenting minority voices are drowned in the resulting cacophony. This view ignores, of course, the memetically modified Darwinian understanding that in such a competitive marketplace of ideas, the cream rises to the top by virtue of its quality of adhering to the facts of the matter and the logically derivable consequences of those facts. People get famous here by successfully challenging presuppositions, but if on further perusal their challenges are found to be illegitimate, their fall is as precipitous as their rise. This dialectic is most observable in the realm of science, but it also applies to some degree in social/political/cultural/economic assertions, which is why Moore's work is increasingly falling into disfavor among the cognoscenti.
In fact, these values are indeed inculcated in the fabric of Western civilization, beginning with the Greeks, expanding through the Enlightenment, and taking off with the democratic revolutions in France and the US, which has subsequently pursued them via constitutional amendment. You would be hard pressed to find even lip service paid to them by the medieval jihadist faithful. In practically all cases, they are rejected by the Islamofascist faithful as shirk held by kufrs, whose lives hold no value due to their infidel blasphemy, and whose deaths, and the deaths of these ideal which they hold, can only serve to advance the impending and inevitable ascendancy of the Global Ummah, and, thus, the Greater Glory of Allah.
But yes, profit, for all, is indeed part of it. People who are free to innovate create wealth, and the rising tide of this wealth lifts all boats in the harbor (cf. Microsoft and Intel). Of course, abuses can happen, but they tend, in the long run, to be correctd and their perpetrators punished. I do parenthetically note that Worldcom and Enron continued their swindling ways throughout the Clinton administration, and have only been called to account during Bush's presidency. Kinda like Al Qaeda being able to train and place the 9/11 terror flyers during the Clinton administration, while Bush's measures seem to have prevented any repetition or even worse attack. If Clinton had accepted the Sudan's extradition offer for Bin Laden, the whole question would be moot, and the Twin Towers would still be standing.
[Joe Dees 2] This position, the position that embracing Islamofascist-apologizing hate-Bushist anti-Americanism is necessary for the list to survive, is surpassingly dense and obtuse - not to mention contrary to all memetic understanding.
You don't have to embrace it, you just have to ignore it! I don't want to silence the messenger because of hating your message. I want to silence the messenger because I don't care about your message or that of your opponents. You've only been hearing from the few of them who do care enough to argue with you, while the rest of us have just mostly left reading the mailing list because it is not relevant to anything we want to talk about.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
The reason-deficient and emotion-driven Mecca-cola-gulping Chomskyite America-is-the-Great-Satan Anti-US-is-Kewl anti-Bush-broken-record crowd on this list once again attacks the messenger because they don't like yet can't refute the message (because the message is an honest description of the facts of the case). See, dewdz, ad-hominem name-calling is a logical fallacy no matter who indulges in it. It doesn't work, but it's a lot easier than point by point refutation for lazy minds. And do not make the category error of confusing popularity with correctness; I would have the same rating if I were defending civil rights on a KKK list, or practically any Western value on an Islamofascist one (oh, wait; perhaps that is close to the case, considering the senseless yet burgeoning hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance that seems to be emerging - even here).
That's one heck of a paragraph you've written here. Indeed, these long winded sentences speak of your ability to write and ability to form cognitive sentences. That said, I wonder if by portraying the CoV as a "hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance" you are doing yourself a disservice. Why do I say this? Because, not all of us are members of this so-called "hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance". Yet, you seemingly apply that label to anyone who disagrees with the current state of affairs in the United States, let alone your thoughts on the world geopolitik. I've begun to wonder if you're attempts to rise above the ad hominem posts is actually creating a disservice for yourself when you consider that the entire contents of this single paragraph are vitriolic at best, and condescending at it's worst. In other words, I think you've begun to paint yourself into a corner with no possible way to extract yourself from said corner. Good luck in finding your way out of that corner, Joe. You'll really need it.
The reason-deficient and emotion-driven Mecca-cola-gulping Chomskyite America-is-the-Great-Satan Anti-US-is-Kewl anti-Bush-broken-record crowd on this list once again attacks the messenger because they don't like yet can't refute the message (because the message is an honest description of the facts of the case). See, dewdz, ad-hominem name-calling is a logical fallacy no matter who indulges in it. It doesn't work, but it's a lot easier than point by point refutation for lazy minds. And do not make the category error of confusing popularity with correctness; I would have the same rating if I were defending civil rights on a KKK list, or practically any Western value on an Islamofascist one (oh, wait; perhaps that is close to the case, considering the senseless yet burgeoning hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance that seems to be emerging - even here).
That's one heck of a paragraph you've written here. Indeed, these long winded sentences speak of your ability to write and ability to form cognitive sentences. That said, I wonder if by portraying the CoV as a "hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance" you are doing yourself a disservice. Why do I say this? Because, not all of us are members of this so-called "hate-motivated Islamofascist-FarLeftist anti-American alliance". Yet, you seemingly apply that label to anyone who disagrees with the current state of affairs in the United States, let alone your thoughts on the world geopolitik. I've begun to wonder if you're attempts to rise above the ad hominem posts is actually creating a disservice for yourself when you consider that the entire contents of this single paragraph are vitriolic at best, and condescending at it's worst. In other words, I think you've begun to paint yourself into a corner with no possible way to extract yourself from said corner. Good luck in finding your way out of that corner, Joe. You'll really need it.
Regards, Casey
Oh, Casey, Casey, Casey....wake up and smell the crushed ammonia vial I shoved underneath your nose. The passage was written in response to the ad hominem attacks recently emanating my way from the list - in particular, from Sir Irvken of Pottymouth and yourself (something about a 'Kool-aid-drinking memebot', I believe?) - and was written with tongue massively in cheek, to point out the fallacy of such childish name-calling (if you don't believe me, you need to reread the second and third sentences in the referenced paragraph).
Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-08-04 17:32:09 [Joe Dees 2] This position, the position that embracing Islamofascist-apologizing hate-Bushist anti-Americanism is necessary for the list to survive, is surpassingly dense and obtuse - not to mention contrary to all memetic understanding. You don't have to embrace it, you just have to ignore it! I don't want to silence the messenger because of hating your message. I want to silence the messenger because I don't care about your message or that of your opponents. You've only been hearing from the few of them who do care enough to argue with you, while the rest of us have just mostly left reading the mailing list because it is not relevant to anything we want to talk about.
[Joe] In that case, you must want to silence those who do care enough to argue with me even more, because I have mainly been replying to their initiated slurs with refutational evidence. If they didn't indulge in such hate-motivated fallacious fantasies, logical and factual correction would not be necessary. Or would you prefer that such absurd and nonsensical contentions go undebunked, and therefore multiply like mushrooms in the ignorant dark, thus tarring this list with the paranoid Bush-hating conspiracy pseudo-theory brush? Nothing much you'd enjoy reading there, either, is there?
Re:Ways to encourage a CoV-like life-style?
« Reply #28 on: 2004-08-05 15:56:41 »
[Joe Dees] Oh, Casey, Casey, Casey....wake up and smell the crushed ammonia vial I shoved underneath your nose. The passage was written in response to the ad hominem attacks recently emanating my way from the list - in particular, from Sir Irvken of Pottymouth and yourself (something about a 'Kool-aid-drinking memebot', I believe?) - and was written with tongue massively in cheek, to point out the fallacy of such childish name-calling (if you don't believe me, you need to reread the second and third sentences in the referenced paragraph).
[Casey] Tongue in cheek, or not, you might want to take the high road as opposed to sinking to the level of those whom you so vehemently disagree. There is no purpose served by foisting upon the entire congregation these verbal jabs you and a few others have the tendency to do. By taking the high road, you give yourself the opportunity to have your message heard, rather than drowned out by the white noise that currently fills the email list.
You should also know that cutting and pasting articles without commentary, as you do often times, does not make your argument more valid than someone else's. It means that you've employed your research skills in locating articles that adhere to your point of view. Lexis Nexis and Google.com are wonderful tool for such practices.
Also, I do not recall calling you a "Kool-aid drinking memebot" in a post on the email list, or the BBS, for that matter. Would you care to refresh my memory? I actually did a bit of searching - looked up my profile and searched my last 50 posts to ensure that I didn't write such a thing. I kindly ask that you offer me the link to my post in which I referred to you as a "Kool-aid drinking memebot". If you will not, then I'd prefer that you cease posting these allegations.
My sincerest apologies, Casey; I checked and that was Walter, not you.
And my article posting has dropped dramatically - although I will note that the arguments and evidence contained in the articles I have posted here stand or fall on their own, regardless of their source - this principle (excision of ad hominem from a critique) is elementary logic.
The problem with taking the high road alone is that it puts those feisty yappers who take the low road at the perfect elevation from which to bite my ankles. When this happens, I need to kick them loose so that I can proceed unhindered.
Author
Logged
