Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 7, 2022 Author Share Posted October 7, 2022 Heh heh heh... It's all about story... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 17, 2022 Author Share Posted October 17, 2022 Holy crap! Elon got upstaged. BREAKING: Kanye West “Ye” Buys Parler Social Media Platform BREAKING: Kanye West "Ye" Buys Parler Social Media Platform WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Kanye West or “Ye” is purchasing Parler social media platform. Ye is the richest black man in history. He was recently blocked by JPMorgan Chase from using their banking services for something he said in an... Quote Kanye West or “Ye” is purchasing Parler social media platform. Ye is the richest black man in history. He was recently blocked by JPMorgan Chase from using their banking services for something he said in an interview. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Media and Democrats are determined to control speech in America today. They resort to tactics used by previous deadly regimes like the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany. Ye has entered an agreement to purchase Parler. Here's the official notice on Parler's blog saying the purchase should be completed in the fourth quarter. Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, to acquire Parler platform Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, to acquire Parler platform BLOG.PARLER.COM Parlement Technologies announced today that it has entered into an agreement in principle to sell Parler, to Ye (formerly known as Kanye West). Now for an intriguing O-Land dangling cause. (As an aside, a dangling cause is a screenwriting term used by Paul Joseph Gulino to describe an anticipation technique. You present a cause, like a warning, threat, intention, information that needs completion of some sort and so on. That serves as a cause. But you only present the result later in the story. The cause dangles during that time. The audience keeps wondering what will happen.) And the O-Land dangling cause? Heh... Amy Peikoff is the Head of Policy and Legal at Parlement Technologies. She is a devout never-Trumper, atheist, Randian, and so on. What the hell is she going to do? About 5 hours ago, she posted this on Linkedin: Quote Having been with Parler for over two years, through the surges in 2020, the unjust deplatforming in January 2021, the long rebuilding phase, and the recent restructuring and addition of Dynascale, I thought nothing could surprise me anymore. And yet… Then she linked to the blog post. Imagine what Parler is going to be like under Ye--the influx of Trump stuff and Christianity, not to mention rapper culture. If that isn't a great dangling cause for O-Land, I don't know what is. And Elon? Well, Elon is still dicking around with Twitter and Elon has no dangling cause in O-Land. Elon has been upstaged by Ye. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 On 10/6/2022 at 10:37 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Heh heh heh... It's all about story... Michael Speaking of "story": Michael, what is your take on this, from Scott Adams? I saw this the other day, and thought you might have a counter-argument, from your "story wars" perspective... Adams: "Stop replying to analogies as if they are arguments. "An analogy is a story about a different topic. Acknowledge the nice story and guide your opponent back to the topic. "Never engage an analogy that is pretending to be an argument." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 Is the fractionalization, marginalization, gettoification, and/or factionalization (and Balkanization) of "society" going to make things better or worse? Isn't one of the main aims of those trying to destroy America and Capitalism (the West in general) using race, sexual preference, gender, religion, etc. the fracturing of tolerant independent free people into warring groups or tribes? Does this not possibly amplify the same overall process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said: Is the fractionalization, marginalization, gettoification, and/or factionalization of going to make things better or worse? Isn't one of the main aims of those trying to destroy America and Capitalism (the West in general) using race, sexual preference, gender, religion, etc. the fracturing of tolerant independent free people into warring groups or tribes? Does this not possibly amplify the same overall process? Maybe better or maybe worse? Divide and conquer is an 'ancient' stratagem , but tribe is probably even older and probably 'biologic'. Consciously setting tribes against one and other comes from manipulating situations to encourage certain and or predictable outcomes of group behavior. I think there are examples of internet 'encouraged' tribe building that are on the whole 'good' and derive their benefits from the positive aspects of individuals recognizing and or joining 'tribes'. The growing popularity of the 'heterodox' universe and things like the Intellectual Dark Web(IDW, one instance of a fad like existence of a group) are attractive for the 'right' reasons, and the mentality that allows one's self to identify with others and their ideas as being more in common than not and either joining 'tribes together' or even a broader recognition that tribes that considered themselves as separate 'from ' can gain positive effects from widening or branching out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 17, 2022 Author Share Posted October 17, 2022 48 minutes ago, ThatGuy said: Speaking of "story": Michael, what is your take on this, from Scott Adams? I saw this the other day, and thought you might have a counter-argument, from your "story wars" perspective... TG, You got that right. But my perspective here is not story-wars. It's epistemology. Scott loves to sever context from a situation when he wants to win an argument. He like to predict things and predicting them better than others is part of his brand. So when his predictions do not bear out, he has a series of ways of saying, "I never said that to begin with." Claiming that analogies are not arguments is one of them. (btw - Just because I see the underbelly of Scott's fudging, that doesn't mean I think he's just a dishonest creep. He is wicked smart and those who underestimate him do so at their own peril. Scott gets into fudgy waters when his vanity is involve. Surprise, surprise. A celebrity has vanity issues. Also, Scott owns up to just enough failed predictions to satisfy the "damning admission" part of persuasion without destroying his predictive credibility to get trust, but that's another issue.) Technically and surface-wise, Scott is right. If you missed an appointment and you are being called on it, you are not a ship crossing another in the night. You are a person who missed an appointment. But once you get down into the nitty-gritty, the issue becomes epistemological, not an exercise in gotcha logic, and that's where it gets real interesting. Before we dig in, let's give Scott his due. If you want to argue something logically, it's a good idea to stick to the topic for your main arguments. That keeps things clear and honest. The switcheroo happens when you want logic to be persuasion, not logic qua logic. Remember, not all logical arguments are persuasive. A well told lie works far better to persuade than simple logic, at least in the short and medium term. But Scott often tries to claim or insinuate that, in the end, the logical argument will win as persuasion--even as he says logic has nothing to do with persuasion. It's a cognitive bullshit two-step and he's hellishly good at it. The truth is, persuasion actually is not the purpose of a logical argument. The purpose, in my view (and I got this from Rand), is to correctly identify reality. My view is not the popular one, though, especially among gotcha warriors. They see logic as making the rules of abstract systems align or conflict with propositions, which may or may not align with reality. Scott often uses this last as his main system for arguing, but not always. To be a smart-ass, in Scott's view, an analogy is not an argument unless it is. And what's the standard for when it is and when it is not? I know artists well and, for me, that one is easy-peasy. His vanity, of course. Certainly not epistemology. And here we get into an extremely interesting area. If you ever get the time, look at a book called Metaphors We Live By by cognitive scientists, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. As an aside, Lakoff is a despicable leftie of the worst--most childish--sort. You really have to see a video of his to understand what I mean and that I am not exaggerating. He is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (to use a perfect analogy ). In one instant, when lecturing to college students or some other academic audience, he is a serious, rational, credible authority on cognitive science. Then without warning, he turns into a smarmy sniggering pissant and caricature of a Twitter bot bad-mouthing conservative politicians left and right. And that sniggering... Ugh! It is a wonder to behold. I will always remember my shock on first seeing that. But on metaphors without all the politicking, Lakoff knows what he is talking about. It's been a while since I read his metaphors book. I remember he makes a compelling case about the need for metaphors in language just for language to have evolved at all. His book is filled with examples. To give a few, when you rise above your surroundings, you are not literally moving upwards through space. I almost said floating on air, but things float in water. So floating itself would be a metaphor. When you look back in time, you are not literally looking and you are not literally turning around to see. Those are easy obvious examples, but, as I remember, Lakoff goes to even more obvious ones. There are many and add many many more to that. So Scott's idea that an analogy is not an argument crumbles when you realize that well over 95% of language (if not more) is made up of not just concepts, but also analogies. When a dictionary has more than one meaning for a word, start looking and you will see, in a vast majority of cases, it's because the word incorporated an analogy or became one. And not just one. Many per word. If you merely stay on the surface, Scott's proposition is a good rule of thumb. Stay on topic, avoid homilies and try to keep your thinking set within the topic, not within an elaborate analogy. (btw - Did you notice that "set" is a great metaphor here? ) In other words, persuasion-wise, his rule of thumb is useful, especially to pick holes in the statements of someone you disagree with. But as epistemology, Scott is way off base. Without analogies, we can't think in words. That's literal. And just to simplify, when looking within this context, metaphor and analogy mean the same thing. I think Scott himself is aware of this on some level. He says analogies are useful to give first explanations of new and complex ideas. In other words, if you start off with jargon about something new and complex, your audience will not understand what you are talking about. But Scott conveniently leaves out the fact that the analogy thereby becomes an essential part of the abstraction. It becomes a standard to compare the new stuff against, so to speak. There are many reasons people use analogies. Setting the context is a major one for arguments. But wait, there's more! One of the main contexts of all is, Why should I care about this crap we are talking about? Analogies tell you why. Don't forget, a standard is not only commensurable, it is something familiar. If a standard is not familiar, it is not a standard for the person looking at it. How can he use it for comparison and measurement when he doesn't have anything to relate it to? And here we get into the bait and switch Scott uses often (but please don't forget, he is a good guy who is wicked smart, not an evil villain, he's a great explainer of many persuasion techniques, for me the clincher--he is pro-Trump, but the sad truth is, he's mostly a cartoonist ) . Think about it. If you don't have any working knowledge of a standard and you are awed by its awesomeness and the ideas derived from using it, you have to accept experts who use that standard on faith. On. Faith. And what persuader doesn't want that? So getting rid of analogies for logic and argumentation makes the persuader the standard bearer (groan) if he can get people to believe him. And, to repeat, what persuader doesn't want that? Ahh... dayamm... I can't resist. Let's put this in Randian terms. Getting rid of analogies for logic and argumentation is an effective method to implement sanction of the victim on victims. You lead them to believe that experts always know better than they do and that's better than their best thinking. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And here we get into an extremely interesting area. If you ever get the time, look at a book called Metaphors We Live By by cognitive scientists, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. As an aside, Lakoff is a despicable leftie of the worst--most childish--sort. You really have to see a video of his to understand what I mean and that I am not exaggerating. He is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (to use a perfect analogy ). Thanks, Michael. I'm chewing your response over, now. (I had a feeling Adams's argument was one of "arguing from first principles", myself...) As to your book recommendation, I actually did start it a short while ago, but the "despicable leftie" aspect you mentioned has slowed me down to getting back to it. (To be fair, though, I was aware of your warning about it previously, so I wasn't surprised by it.) But I will finish it at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 18, 2022 Author Share Posted October 18, 2022 5 hours ago, ThatGuy said: I'm chewing your response over, now. TG, Never forget that most of the knowledge in your brain is in non-verbal form. You have abstractions from all of your sense organs, but then abstractions of those abstractions. This is the reason that writing while zoning out and blurting whatever comes to mind often surprises one on the insights that pop out. It seems like one comes up with new knowledge, but I have a feeling it's because we find words for things we already knew. As I mentioned before, I write in a Journal every day, a minimum of 500 words each time. I am practicing, so to speak, just like a basketball player shoots hoops at night. I have not missed a day since May, although a couple of times, I had to do some makeup entries. That's well over 150 entries, but even at 150 entries, that's 75,000 words I have written in this Journal since May. But it's a lot more in reality since my entries almost never stop at 500 words. Most of the time they got up to 700 or 800. I had one get to near 2,000 words, but I pulled back after that. I don't want Journal writing to be painful or a joyless duty. I found 500 words to be doable and pleasant for daily exercise. It stretches me at times because sometimes I don't feel like writing, but it's small enough for me to say to myself just pull up Scrivener and write the damn entry. Don't forget that this Journal writing is in addition to what I write here on OL, the fiction and nonfiction projects I am working on, and my correspondence. I try to stay super-focused on why I am writing the entry when I am writing. After all, one can automate mediocrity in one's mind through repetition. But I do NOT try to create finished work in the journal. As Jack Grapes says, if I feel writer's block coming on, I simply describe what is around me. The walls, the floor, the furniture, etc. Or the ideas that float by in my mind. Or, like he said, he reminds himself he has to pick up a chicken for supper later. Anything and everything is fair game just so there are no large time gaps until the 500 words are up. There are a few rules, though. - Write only like you speak. When you find yourself writing like writing sounds, stop and rephrase it in the way you would speak it. - Cut the adverbs. Say what you want to say without adverbs. That applies to most qualifiers, too. - Write only in first person. - Never write about others unless you are writing about what you are feeling from something they did. Or how that was important to you. In other words, never point the finger at others and condemn them in your Journal. (Well... there you have it. I just lost the Objectivist audience. ) - This rule doesn't come from Jack. This one is my own. I always go back and revise an entry immediately after I finish the 500+ words, but not before. I will correct an obvious misspelling as I go along or something like that, but I leave changing or adding to what I wrote, consulting the thesaurus, even looking up references and things like that, for the reread after I am done. I have found that this works well for me and has improved my forum writing (especially in reducing my errors). Never forget that this is daily practice. You can do that other stuff and you can dispense with the Journal rules in other writing elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with doing that, either. You better. It's just you need to open the right brain and underbelly of your mind every day to get things pumping along and to automate different writing skills. Daily practice does that for you. The first thing I focus on in a Journal entry is to make sure I keep writing without stopping. Or the pauses are as short as I can make them. Blurting. Letting it all come out. The good the bad and the ugly (and at times, the beautiful, or even the mediocre when that sucker appears, although I get pissed at myself when that happens--but I let it stay and simply chastise myself right there in the entry for being so bland). I have found an exercise especially helpful from Jack. He calls it massaging a Transformation Line. I won't go into his particular format of Transformation Line, but I do want to share a variation on it I do using his two questions. Whenever I come across an idea that I blurt out in the Journal and I don't know where to take it, I write out the following question: How does this idea relate to the truth of who I am? Then I answer it and let my mind take off. There is a second question I write out, too: How does this idea relate to the story of my past? Then I write out the answer and that sends my mind to places I did not anticipate, places that cause me wonder because I had forgotten about them for so long. You would not believe the sheer amount of material that comes up. A lot of times my fingers can't keep up with the material that surges up. A great deal of this stuff is in verbal form, but I am convinced that a lot of it was not in verbal form until I used this process to put it in words. (btw - That is just one exercise I do. There are several and I am awed that I discovered these processes. Not awed at me because I am so awfully awesome, but awed that this thing works so well with my own mind and I never knew it was there before.) Call this forum drift. As you can probably imagine from the size of this post, I wrote it right after doing a Journal entry... I'm warmed up... Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 18, 2022 Author Share Posted October 18, 2022 22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Amy Peikoff is the Head of Policy and Legal at Parlement Technologies. She is a devout never-Trumper, atheist, Randian, and so on. What the hell is she going to do? A thought occurred to me. I wonder what tea is like between Amy Peikoff and Candace Owens. In case you don't know, her hubby is CEO of Paler and has been for a while. Guess who probably convinced Ye to buy it? Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 19, 2022 Author Share Posted October 19, 2022 Yup... Twitter STANDS DOWN In Musk Dispute Twitter STANDS DOWN In Musk Dispute WELOVETRUMP.COM Twitter has made a move that signals that the long-standing dispute is over and the Musk Twitter buyout will go through. Quote The battle for Twitter is almost over…And Elon Musk has won! We know this because of a move Twitter recently made. The tech giant recently froze employee equity accounts—something that occurs before a corporate buyout, as stock cannot be traded during such buyouts and mergers. Twitter would not have done this had the deal not been imminent… After months of back and forth, Twitter has finally relented and the left-wing establishment will lose control of the platform… Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted October 19, 2022 Share Posted October 19, 2022 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Yup... Twitter STANDS DOWN In Musk Dispute Twitter STANDS DOWN In Musk Dispute WELOVETRUMP.COM Twitter has made a move that signals that the long-standing dispute is over... Michael So President Trump should be reinstated on Twitter before midterms and before President Trump gets reinstated as President. Love it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 22, 2022 Author Share Posted October 22, 2022 Lotsa changes coming to Twitter. Elon Musk Set To Cut Twitter Workforce By 75 Percent: Report Elon Musk Sends Direct Message To ‘Woke’ Twitter Employees and They Are NOT Happy CONSERVATIVEBRIEF.COM This would shake the foundation. At least they will cut down on shadow-banning and deleting accounts and followers. There won't be the manpower to do that anymore. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 22, 2022 Share Posted October 22, 2022 "you think the regime would simply surrender control over their censorship apparatus?" re: this: "The US government is considering a national security review of Elon Musk's $44 billion Twitter acquisition, report says. If it happens, Biden could ultimately kill the deal." The US government is considering a national security review of Elon Musk's $44 billion Twitter acquisition, report says. If it happens, Biden could ultimately kill the deal. WWW.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM President Biden has the ability to cancel the Twitter deal if it's subject to a national security review. Elon Musk has tried to back out of the deal. Let's see if they have the cajones, or are just bluffing... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 23, 2022 Author Share Posted October 23, 2022 6 hours ago, ThatGuy said: Let's see if they have the cajones, or are just bluffing... TG, Not cajones. Panic. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 24, 2022 Share Posted October 24, 2022 On 10/23/2022 at 12:58 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: TG, Not cajones. Panic. Michael "JUST IN White House reportedly says it is not true there is a national security review of Elon Musk." Looks like they're blinking... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 26, 2022 Share Posted October 26, 2022 It begins: Elon Musk has updated his Twitter profile caption to "Chief Twit":BREAKING: Elon Musk literally enters Twitter HQ with a 'sink' (video) "Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 26, 2022 Author Share Posted October 26, 2022 2 hours ago, ThatGuy said: BREAKING: Elon Musk literally enters Twitter HQ with a 'sink' TG, That's to drain the swamp. I like what I am seeing so far. Here are a couple of Elon Musk tweets from a few hours ago. First, his opinion of the New York Times. Then, a more cryptic one, but I believe a more important one. Look closely. This last tweet is a mission statement. He wants Twitter not to be a virtual trolling park and propaganda outlet, but a place of citizen journalism. Let's see if he pulls it off. The intelligence community and the predator class in general--the ones who have controlled Twitter up to now--play dirty and play often. In fact, I think it plausible they will try to assassinate Elon Musk once he starts making changes for real. Michael 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 26, 2022 Share Posted October 26, 2022 16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: TG, That's to drain the swamp. I like what I am seeing so far. Here are a couple of Elon Musk tweets from a few hours ago. First, his opinion of the New York Times. Speaking of... "I looked for the most unnamed 'people familiar with the matter' ever cited in daily paper, but so far only got through a brief search of the NYT and Washington Post. If anyone’s seen an example crazier than 'according to 11 people familiar with the matter,' I’d love to see it." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 "Elon Musk says he bought Twitter to try to help humanity.. more:" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 27, 2022 Author Share Posted October 27, 2022 TG, What Elon said is all admirable and stuff. But have you noticed that the fundamental is always left out in these messages of "let's all try to get along"? Here is one fundamental: How can you get along with a bully? There is only one way. Submit to the bully. If you do that, you will get along with the bully, but it won't be pleasant. The best thing for freedom-loving people to do with bullies is get away from them. Let them stew in their own bile because no one takes them seriously. They soon find out that they can't bully themselves to scratch their neurosis. But that's their problem. They can choose not to be bullies if they wish, but they seldom wish to give up the feeling of power that comes from bullying. I used to talk about a mental experiment with George Smith. Imagine sending a group of hardened criminals to a deserted island and setting them free. If you tell them they can make whatever governance they wish among themselves, when you come back 6 months later you will see gang warfare. If you give them an individual-rights based constitution and the formal structures for maintaining it, but they have to man those structures, when you come back 6 months later you will see gang warfare. Bullies are not made for freedom. The truth is people have to want to be good before a government of freedom can work. Or, in George's case, before the ancap view will work. With bullies, all you get is gang warfare in the end. In other words, all you get is a shitty life. Elon Musk's message presumes everybody on Twitter wants to be a good person. And he ignores those who mainly want to bully others. Unless he builds in encouragement for being good and a way to deal with bullies based on their bullying, and not on ideology or feelings or any of the crap Twitter censors have been doing, he will find out that whatever measures he may build in will be taken over by bullies and used to intimidate people. That's how it always works out because that's just what bullies do. They can't not do it. They are bullies. I wish Elon well on his vision. I do. But I don't believe in it based on his words in that message. There is no moral equivalence between a person who wants to express a different idea and a fucking bully who demands obedience in deed, words and thought. Ignoring that moral difference will not make it go away. It has to be part of the project if the project is to work the way Elon wants it to. It's a human nature thing, not an opinion. It's a reality thing. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 28, 2022 Author Share Posted October 28, 2022 Looks like it happened. Elon deserves the Nobel Peace Prize just for removing an effective Deep State propaganda arm. I am sure it will be effective no more. It might take a bit, but Elon's ownership fucked it up for the bad guys. The intelligence community will have to come up with a new vehicle. Now for the fun part. Elon put in billions. He wants them back. And he knows he can get them back using Twitter in a manner different than it had been used. I sure hope he doesn't break bad... Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 28, 2022 Author Share Posted October 28, 2022 Have no fear, mutineer. Catturd is near. He's on it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 "JUST IN - Elon Musk took control and immediately fired Twitter's CEO, the CFO, and the head of legal policy, trust, and safety — WaPo" Let THAT "sink" in... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 [Edit: Looks like this tweet got deleted, along with a similar one from disclosetv. Could have been a fake Trump quote?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now