Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/22/2021 in Blog Comments

  1. The thing I find funny about the "QAnon Shaman" is that he is treated as a Q influencer by lefties, but I can't think of a single MAGA person he influences. And among the MAGA people I know, he's treated as an attention getter and fruitcake. By attention getter, I mean in the sense of a drunk dude wearing a lampshade at a party and thinking he's funny. This is one classic case of incorrectly identifying someone. Of course, this incorrect identification is done on purpose by the propaganda machine for, well... propaganda. Michael
    1 point
  2. William, Exactly. Rules to follow instead of using your brain to identify. According to your own explanation, algorithms are rules used for calculations and problem-solving. That means measurement and human-designed processes. That does not mean core identifications. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. That's what algorithms get you without correct identifications. You don't use an algorithm to see if it's day or night when you want to go out. You look out the window. You don't use an algorithm to identify whether it's a snake in the grass or a water hose. You observe more closely. And do on. The closest thing you can use as an algorithm for basic identifications in order to not fall into brainless (literally) bigotry is to ask yourself, (1) What do I know? and (2) How do I know it? But there is no way to make the rules themselves (the algorithm) give you the answer automatically. You yourself have to do the thinking. You might want to do that when waging your campaign to ridicule Q. What do you know about Q? Not much apparently. You know the fringe and that's about it. The rest is generalities you get from others. How do you know it? You restrict your observation (the kind that shows you the difference between the snake and the garden hose) to the most quirky and loopy examples you can find. If you see something more serious, you ignore it. This is what I have seen in your writings on Q. There is no algorithm to provide you with a method that will make all people who find value in Q become like the loopy and quirky ones. There is only bigotry. And that is based on faulty identification, habit as a learned response to "What is it?", and a strong negative emotional imprint as frame. (Incidentally, that correctly describes TDS and any other form of blind hatred or blind contempt brought to the social level. That goes for all sides, too.) An algorithm is a tool for the brain. It is not a replacement. On a more fun level, Ray Bradbury once wrote a short story ("There Will Come Soft Rains") about an automatic house in an automatic neighborhood system that went through its day fixing meals, cleaning, making repairs, chiming the time, and so on. Except there were no humans left on earth. Only shadows left on the walls, presumably from a nuclear explosion. All of the "algorithms" and robotic routines they governed were designed for human activities, but there were no humans anymore. The thing just churned on and there was no meaning to the activities anymore. That, to me, is a great metaphor for how many people seek to use their brains. Michael
    1 point