post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
(http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z174/rubberpoultry/dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg)
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I don't get it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:44:34 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I don't get it.
As far as I know, Discordians aren't renowned for being particularly fond of law or order.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:28:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:44:34 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I don't get it.
As far as I know, Discordians aren't renowned for being particularly fond of law or order.
Shows how much you know, noob. Read more.
Chaos includes both order and disorder. What the fuck, did you think we're fucking
anarchists? If that's what you're after, perhaps you should contact the American Libertarian Party, or just go to Somalia.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 04:31:39 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:28:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:44:34 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I don't get it.
As far as I know, Discordians aren't renowned for being particularly fond of law or order.
Shows how much you know, noob. Read more.
Chaos includes both order and disorder. What the fuck, did you think we're fucking anarchists? If that's what you're after, perhaps you should contact the American Libertarian Party, or just go to Somalia.
No, I'm not saying discordians have a hatred for order. I wasn't being entirely serious on the OP. However, as far as I know, disorder is generally preferred. Fuck, what have I gotten myself into?
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:34:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 04:31:39 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:28:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:44:34 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I don't get it.
As far as I know, Discordians aren't renowned for being particularly fond of law or order.
Shows how much you know, noob. Read more.
Chaos includes both order and disorder. What the fuck, did you think we're fucking anarchists? If that's what you're after, perhaps you should contact the American Libertarian Party, or just go to Somalia.
No, I'm not saying discordians have a hatred for order. I wasn't being entirely serious on the OP. However, as far as I know, disorder is generally preferred. Fuck, what have I gotten myself into?
You don't know.
If disorder was preferred, then why do the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military have their own knighthood?
Order and disorder are conserved. IE, if you attempt to impose order, you get a corresponding increase in disorder and vice-versa (LMNO's Dictum).
Ok, then, I'm a noob. What of it? How may I improve myself?
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:38:19 AM
Ok, then, I'm a noob. What of it? How may I improve myself?
Um, you could re-read the PD (not encouraged), lurk in Think for Yourself, Schmuck (down by the bottom of the forums, where all the gross shit silts up), or you could, you know, think for yourself (dangerous, but sometimes worthwhile).
I'd recommend the second, followed by the third, and throw away the PD. It was written by filthy hippies who had the wrong values.
Good advice, though I think I should read PD at least once, just to see.
waiting for massive noob-flaming
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:38:19 AM
Ok, then, I'm a noob. What of it? How may I improve myself?
Dont start a whole thread to make a lame one sentence joke.
Dont fuck up the forums formatting.
and uhhh... dont be so queer about people criticizing your rants.
Quote from: JohNyx on November 03, 2009, 04:55:21 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:38:19 AM
Ok, then, I'm a noob. What of it? How may I improve myself?
Dont start a whole thread to make a lame one sentence joke.
Dont fuck up the forums formatting.
and uhhh... dont be so queer about people criticizing your rants.
I've already learned my lessons there, bub.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I have enjoyed the occasional procedural drama on the teevee.
i like my disorder with a side of order thank you very much.
cause if my food and craft supplies aren't in alphabetical order HEADS ROLL!
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 03, 2009, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I have enjoyed the occasional procedural drama on the teevee.
i prefer boston legal.
Quote from: rong on November 03, 2009, 07:17:11 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 03, 2009, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I have enjoyed the occasional procedural drama on the teevee.
i prefer boston legal.
Communist. :argh!: It's un-Ammerrrrikun. Everybody knows Boston are a bunch of Commies!
(http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/palpatine-girl-scout-cookies.jpg)
Taggart is superior. Or at least Taggart with Taggart is superior. This new Taggart without Taggart, not so good.
And also Poirot.
Law and Order implies the two notions are distinct, which I approve of.
Quote from: Chief Uwachiquen on November 03, 2009, 08:12:08 AM
Quote from: rong on November 03, 2009, 07:17:11 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 03, 2009, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I have enjoyed the occasional procedural drama on the teevee.
i prefer boston legal.
Communist. :argh!: It's un-Ammerrrrikun. Everybody knows Boston are a bunch of Commies!
yeah, but shatner cracks me up
Quote from: Cain on November 03, 2009, 10:49:06 AM
Law and Order implies the two notions are distinct, which I approve of.
THIS. The two are VERY distinct concepts.
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Which is why they call it Lawlz.
As I understand it, Law is, at its best, a vain attempt at forcing one's flawed interpretation of morality on the rest of the world.
That and an unwavering conviction that your morality is objective and absolute.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 02:01:34 PM
As I understand it, Law is, at its best, a vain attempt at forcing one's flawed interpretation of morality on the rest of the world.
Actually, it's a way to keep the strong monkeys from killing or enslaving the weak monkeys.
Pardoxial as it may seem, without law there is only tyranny.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
The government thinks so.
Quote from: Lysergic on November 03, 2009, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
The government thinks so.
What government?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
Not in my opinion but it is only an opinion. So it's an opinion shared by pretty much everyone but not all of them are. Law = a couple of babies, drowning in an ocean of bathwater.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:22:24 PM
Not in my opinion but it is only an opinion.
Monkeys run civilizations on opinion. They call it "democracy" or "a republic", but it's still opinion.
A civilization run on nothing but fact is an impossibility.
(http://themixtapemonster.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/popcorn_soda.jpg)
munch munch munch munch
slurp sluuuurrrpp
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 02:26:18 PM
(http://themixtapemonster.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/popcorn_soda.jpg)
munch munch munch munch
slurp sluuuurrrpp
Um, yeah. Let me know when you have something to add.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:24:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:22:24 PM
Not in my opinion but it is only an opinion.
Monkeys run civilizations on opinion. They call it "democracy" or "a republic", but it's still opinion.
A civilization run on nothing but fact is an impossibility.
Couldn't agree more. However a civilisation run on nothing but opinion is also an impossibility. This fact leads to many lulz.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:24:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:22:24 PM
Not in my opinion but it is only an opinion.
Monkeys run civilizations on opinion. They call it "democracy" or "a republic", but it's still opinion.
A civilization run on nothing but fact is an impossibility.
Couldn't agree more. However a civilisation run on nothing but opinion is also an impossibility. This fact leads to many lulz.
No, a civilization run on nothing but opinion works just fine. For a while.
I wonder if there's a critical mass, measurable in lawbook pagecount, which marks the end of that "while"
I hold out hope that while a civilisation may run on opinion, you can aim to increase how much of that opinion is influenced by fact-based data. The ability to share/correlate/advertise facts on the internet hasn't quite reached its full potential, but I think it will.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 03, 2009, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
The government thinks so.
What government?
All the ones that think that sending out young men to kill and be killed is a good idea.
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
I hold out hope that while a civilisation may run on opinion, you can aim to increase how much of that opinion is influenced by fact-based data. The ability to share/correlate/advertise facts on the internet hasn't quite reached its full potential, but I think it will.
I hold out hope that the primates will evolve into sensible bipeds that see the illusion of power for the trap it is.
But it's just hope. A harmless indulgence with no grounding or precedent in the real world :lulz:
Quote from: Lysergic on November 03, 2009, 02:37:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 03, 2009, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
The government thinks so.
What government?
All the ones that think that sending out young men to kill and be killed is a good idea.
The best course of action is not always a good idea.
Granted but it's not always a bloodbath wrapped up in a clusterfuck either
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:39:52 PM
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
I hold out hope that while a civilisation may run on opinion, you can aim to increase how much of that opinion is influenced by fact-based data. The ability to share/correlate/advertise facts on the internet hasn't quite reached its full potential, but I think it will.
I hold out hope that the primates will evolve into sensible bipeds that see the illusion of power for the trap it is.
But it's just hope. A harmless indulgence with no grounding or precedent in the real world :lulz:
:wink: I am involved in several projects ( one of which: http://www.metagovernment.org/ ) with the explicit aim of making that a reality.
Good luck avoiding the revolution paradigm:
The powerful will not give up their fix and will cling to it while all around them crashes and burns (think roman emperors and small guitars that fit under your chin)
The only way to take power from them is by force and that means coming to power yourself.
If successful you will be addicted to power for it's own ends and utterly beyond redemption.
Soon a disgruntled mass will rise against you.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I'm not saying the addictive property of power is theoretically impossible to resist. All I'm saying is that in 2million years of human evolution it's never happened yet. :D
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:52:27 PM
I'm not saying the addictive property of power is theoretically impossible to resist. All I'm saying is that in 2million years of human evolution it's never happened yet. :D
I disagree: the American Revolution is a counterexample.
Considering how often the system of governance has been called an "Experiment", one might conclude They Did That Shit For Science.
So, mix in another ideal or agenda, like Doing This Shit for Science, and the fires of revolution might actually cool or quench, or get back inside the furnace of progress.
Discordian troll thread?
okay okay okay okay okay lemme tell you how to troll this forum proper:
Come in and be a little big smug. Use a few philosophical terms. show a little bit of ontological territorialism, then get defensive when people call you on it.
When people sense that you'll flip out if provoked, they won't be able to stop themselves from disagreeing with you. Eventually you'll have four replies to each of your posts.
Eventually they'll start telling you to fuck off and leave. Which, of course, you won't do because they're doing exactly what you wanted them to do - wasting their time replying to you. They will, of course, continue telling you to GTFO and kill yourself. You won't. People will eagerly anticipate your next posts, pressing Refresh until you finally reply.
You may want to step back for a second and consider what's really going on here. Are you ruining the board by sucking up all the "energy"? Or are you feeding the sharks the blood they crave? The key is persistence. At first, they will enjoy telling you to die. Over time, they will start to mean it.
This is really a test of patience for both parties. Because the responses you'll be getting will be kind of boring. You will feel like you have no reason to go on. But you must perservere! And we, on this board, must continue to drain lulz from you by provoking you into emotional whirlwinds. If you don't do that every so often, we will lose interest. So don't play too guarded, you actually can't troll us effectively without taking a few wounds. It takes blood in the water to make sharks frenzy.
Some classic, time tested opening gambits.
-talk about anarchy
-try to explain Discordia as if someone misunderstands it
-accuse people of being dogmatic
-reply to roger when he's good and pissed
there are tons of others, I'm sure somebody can fill in the blanks
Endgame: at some point, somebody will say "PLEDGE", which means they are suggesting everybody takes a pledge to not reply to you anymore. This is actually the most effective tool we have against trolls. We seldom sucessfully use it because it's too fun to provoke someone, and it only takes one person ignoring the pledge to screw it up for everybody else. The best way to avoid the pledge is to show a little "promise" - meaning, admit that you're wrong once ever three arguments or so. Occasionally show that you can be a cooperative poster. If you're both helpful and destructive, people won't be able to make up their minds about you.
It would be easy for PD not to fall for these traps. But they won't. We have a weird sort of love affair with destructive disorder. This is, after all, the Worst Forum on the Internet.
Your revolution paradigm relies on a one-to-many communication environment, which requires a leadership structure, and the subsequent lack of accountability which results.
Distributed decision making is a new thing, and impossible without many-to-many communication models. We'll try our algorithms and software first on housing co-ops, then small corporations. After a while we'll shadow local government. Scaling up when possible, rebuilding when not. In this case "leaders" would simply be people whom you respect, and who might influence your own decision making - that ingrained aspect of human nature I don't think it would be even desirable to resist.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 03:12:43 PM
Discordian troll thread?
okay okay okay okay okay lemme tell you how to troll this forum proper:
Come in and be a little big smug. Use a few philosophical terms. show a little bit of ontological territorialism, then get defensive when people call you on it.
When people sense that you'll flip out if provoked, they won't be able to stop themselves from disagreeing with you. Eventually you'll have four replies to each of your posts.
Eventually they'll start telling you to fuck off and leave. Which, of course, you won't do because they're doing exactly what you wanted them to do - wasting their time replying to you. They will, of course, continue telling you to GTFO and kill yourself. You won't. People will eagerly anticipate your next posts, pressing Refresh until you finally reply.
You may want to step back for a second and consider what's really going on here. Are you ruining the board by sucking up all the "energy"? Or are you feeding the sharks the blood they crave? The key is persistence. At first, they will enjoy telling you to die. Over time, they will start to mean it.
This is really a test of patience for both parties. Because the responses you'll be getting will be kind of boring. You will feel like you have no reason to go on. But you must perservere! And we, on this board, must continue to drain lulz from you by provoking you into emotional whirlwinds. If you don't do that every so often, we will lose interest. So don't play too guarded, you actually can't troll us effectively without taking a few wounds. It takes blood in the water to make sharks frenzy.
Some classic, time tested opening gambits.
-talk about anarchy
-try to explain Discordia as if someone misunderstands it
-accuse people of being dogmatic
-reply to roger when he's good and pissed
there are tons of others, I'm sure somebody can fill in the blanks
Endgame: at some point, somebody will say "PLEDGE", which means they are suggesting everybody takes a pledge to not reply to you anymore. This is actually the most effective tool we have against trolls. We seldom sucessfully use it because it's too fun to provoke someone, and it only takes one person ignoring the pledge to screw it up for everybody else. The best way to avoid the pledge is to show a little "promise" - meaning, admit that you're wrong once ever three arguments or so. Occasionally show that you can be a cooperative poster. If you're both helpful and destructive, people won't be able to make up their minds about you.
It would be easy for PD not to fall for these traps. But they won't. We have a weird sort of love affair with destructive disorder. This is, after all, the Worst Forum on the Internet.
I have to add the "what makes you think I'm a male/female" gambit.
I actually have no idea why the fuck so many of them do this but it seems ever so popular. Make sure from post 1 you do not mention if you are male or female then, when someone calls you him or her immediately post back with "what makes you assume I'm male/female". Most posters will usually start referring to you as the other sex at this point. Wait a while then own up to the fact that you were a him/her in all along and you never actually said you weren't.
Yes it's lame but without it you aren't a proper PD troll.
Of course, no one is any the wiser to the fact that this thread is, in actuality, a social experiment.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:31:27 PM
I wonder if there's a critical mass, measurable in lawbook pagecount, which marks the end of that "while"
Ask Cicero. He howled about it until Marc Anthony had him killed.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:29:27 PM
Of course, no one is any the wiser to the fact that this thread is, in actuality, a social experiment.
And did we do exactly what you expected?
TGRR,
Is beginning to suspect that you may not be as new as you seem.
I'm pretty sure he is as lame as he seems, tho.
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
I hold out hope that while a civilisation may run on opinion, you can aim to increase how much of that opinion is influenced by fact-based data.
Creation science, thinking with your gut, etc, etc.
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
The ability to share/correlate/advertise facts on the internet hasn't quite reached its full potential, but I think it will.
Twitter.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:32:47 PM
I'm pretty sure he is as lame as he seems, tho.
Every time I think he has potential, he posts some lame shit.
I'm about 30 seconds from calling "Wade".
Quote from: Lysergic on November 03, 2009, 02:37:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on November 03, 2009, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Order is an illusion.
Law is an attempt made by people who don't understand this, to impose and maintain this fantasy state by threatening people into conforming to a set of arbitrary rules.
Um, so wanton murder, etc, is a good thing?
The government thinks so.
What government?
All the ones that think that sending out young men to kill and be killed is a good idea.
Oh, you mean Standard Oil and Halliburton.
I'm really going to have to work hard to redeem myself now, aren't I?
-SHS,
digging myself to china
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:36:08 PM
I'm really going to have to work hard to redeem myself now, aren't I?
-SHS,
digging myself to china
I'm starting to think that isn't your intention.
China or Redemption?
He knows all the hot buttons. Wolf, Social Experiment, etc.
Not 100% sure he's an alt, but a little checking will settle that. As soon as I get to my laptop.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:36:08 PM
I'm really going to have to work hard to redeem myself now, aren't I?
-SHS,
digging myself to china
I'm starting to think that isn't your intention.
And I'm starting to think maybe it should be. All self-deprecating humour aside, the people here seem worth associating with.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:36:08 PM
I'm really going to have to work hard to redeem myself now, aren't I?
-SHS,
digging myself to china
I'm starting to think that isn't your intention.
And I'm starting to think maybe it should be. All self-deprecating humour aside, the people here seem worth associating with.
Then why are you doing your level best to alienate everyone?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:52:27 PM
I'm not saying the addictive property of power is theoretically impossible to resist. All I'm saying is that in 2million years of human evolution it's never happened yet. :D
It's all that damned agriculture!
\
(http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v41/Diamond.jpg)
I'm not a big Jared Diamond fan. However, lately, I've been wondering what might have happened if technological development had been given ample lead-time to achieve its modern level of sophistication within a hunter-gather society, rather than the agriculturally based communities which achieved dominance and led to the rise of city-states. If homo sapiens had not settled down, is it possible that they might have laid the groundwork for non-hierarchical society, and if so, what do you suppose it might be like? How might technology have manifested differently, in light of modern-day insights into the exponential nature of technological and computational development (or would these trends still apply in a non-hierarchical world)?
I'd really like to read any relevant material that touches on these questions/ideas, if anyone would be kind enough to recommend. Specifically, I'm interested in the possibilities of engineering a non-hierarchical society, quite distinct from an "anarchical" society. A non-hierarchical society which utilized modern technology would probably also look quite different than the few existing hunter-gatherer societies left in the world today, but I imagine there might be some interesting similarities.
I like to think of this in contrast with a particularly useful metaphor which I've seen thrown around here before... something about throwing sand in the gears of the System instead of a wrench. Is it possible to ever truly destroy society's dominant heirarchical structures from within, given enough of the right kind of sand? I personally experience a satisfying degree of disconnect from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living the more that I become involved with the work/play that I do, the more I feel that it is an end unto itself, and I'm curious as to whether anyone else has had any thoughts about how to encourage this in a large enough way that it could actually upset the dominant heirarchical nature of modern society, or what possible factors could lead to such an upset.
Um, the agricultural revolution IS technology.
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 02:52:27 PM
I'm not saying the addictive property of power is theoretically impossible to resist. All I'm saying is that in 2million years of human evolution it's never happened yet. :D
It's all that damned agriculture!
\
(http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v41/Diamond.jpg)
I'm not a big Jared Diamond fan. However, lately, I've been wondering what might have happened if technological development had been given ample lead-time to achieve its modern level of sophistication within a hunter-gather society, rather than the agriculturally based communities which achieved dominance and led to the rise of city-states. If homo sapiens had not settled down, is it possible that they might have laid the groundwork for non-hierarchical society, and if so, what do you suppose it might be like? How might technology have manifested differently, in light of modern-day insights into the exponential nature of technological and computational development (or would these trends still apply in a non-hierarchical world)?
I'd really like to read any relevant material that touches on these questions/ideas, if anyone would be kind enough to recommend. Specifically, I'm interested in the possibilities of engineering a non-hierarchical society, quite distinct from an "anarchical" society. A non-hierarchical society which utilized modern technology would probably also look quite different than the few existing hunter-gatherer societies left in the world today, but I imagine there might be some interesting similarities.
I like to think of this in contrast with a particularly useful metaphor which I've seen thrown around here before... something about throwing sand in the gears of the System instead of a wrench. Is it possible to ever truly destroy society's dominant heirarchical structures from within, given enough of the right kind of sand? I personally experience a satisfying degree of disconnect from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living the more that I become involved with the work/play that I do, the more I feel that it is an end unto itself, and I'm curious as to whether anyone else has had any thoughts about how to encourage this in a large enough way that it could actually upset the dominant heirarchical nature of modern society, or what possible factors could lead to such an upset.
1) Who the fuck are you?
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:36:08 PM
I'm really going to have to work hard to redeem myself now, aren't I?
-SHS,
digging myself to china
I'm starting to think that isn't your intention.
And I'm starting to think maybe it should be. All self-deprecating humour aside, the people here seem worth associating with.
Then why are you doing your level best to alienate everyone?
What I'm trying to say is that I'm putting a stop to all that bullshit right now. It was a bit fun at first, but it's really getting old for all parties involved, I think.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:36:08 PM
I'm really going to have to work hard to redeem myself now, aren't I?
-SHS,
digging myself to china
I'm starting to think that isn't your intention.
And I'm starting to think maybe it should be. All self-deprecating humour aside, the people here seem worth associating with.
Then why are you doing your level best to alienate everyone?
What I'm trying to say is that I'm putting a stop to all that bullshit right now. It was a bit fun at first, but it's really getting old for all parties involved, I think.
It was old when you started doing it.
Or do you believe you're the very first person to come along and try to "mindfuck" the Discordians?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
Um, what the hell gives you THAT idea? We're still the monkeys we were 2000 years ago.
Not all of us. Some of us are more and more aware of our poop-fixation and thats a half step to getting over it.
if there's no hierarchy, no chain of command, whose back is gonna be up against the wall when the revolution comes?
leaders give us somebody to blame. And lynch. I fear what would happen in a non-representative democracy, where the majority rules with an iron fist.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:51:34 PM
Not all of us. Some of us are more and more aware of our poop-fixation and thats a half step to getting over it.
So a few monkeys wake up. That's happened before. I think they called it "The Enlightenment".
And here we are today, free as birds. :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 03:51:52 PM
if there's no hierarchy, no chain of command, whose back is gonna be up against the wall when the revolution comes?
leaders give us somebody to blame. And lynch. I fear what would happen in a non-representative democracy, where the majority rules with an iron fist.
The headless fascist! You thought Hitler was bad? Wait'll you get a load of the next one :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:51:34 PM
Not all of us. Some of us are more and more aware of our poop-fixation and thats a half step to getting over it.
So a few monkeys wake up. That's happened before. I think they called it "The Enlightenment".
And here we are today, free as birds. :lulz:
Patience old chap. Rome wasn't built in a day. :wink:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:49:33 PM
It was old when you started doing it.
Or do you believe you're the very first person to come along and try to "mindfuck" the Discordians?
Not by any means. I knew that you knew what I was doing. I wasn't trying to mindfuck. I thought everyone knew I was joking. I guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm done with it. It doesn't matter at this point.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
Um, the agricultural revolution IS technology.
Well, yes... this is the generally accepted paradigm... I guess I'm trying to jump out of it for a sec, and picture a technological society which did not rely on sedentary agriculture from the onset. Is it truly not possible somewhere in the grand universe of universes, that out there somewhere a shit load of disorganized creative freaks have evolved a more advanced non-hierarchical society than we have observed in human history? The agricultural revolution caused a very drastic change in human habits, but was it necessary for technological progress, or has it just become more convenient to think of it that way? In the same way that discordians and subgenii, or artists and musicians, have been capable of organizing grandiose creative projects without a necessary chain of command, so in turn am I imagining technological progress, if it had happened differently, or perhaps if indeed it begins to happen differently. The interwebs has arguably become a strong enabler for decentralization.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:55:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:51:34 PM
Not all of us. Some of us are more and more aware of our poop-fixation and thats a half step to getting over it.
So a few monkeys wake up. That's happened before. I think they called it "The Enlightenment".
And here we are today, free as birds. :lulz:
Patience old chap. Rome wasn't built in a day. :wink:
And there has been no evolutionary drive to change monkey wiring. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
Um, the agricultural revolution IS technology.
Well, yes... this is the generally accepted paradigm... I guess I'm trying to jump out of it for a sec, and picture a technological society which did not rely on sedentary agriculture from the onset.
Not possible. No surplus food = no surplus population = no room or time for innovators beyond those which offer immediate benefits for gaining food.
Just call me VV, double V, or fuckface, or whatever. :wave:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
I like your optimism. :)
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:59:13 PM
Just call me VV, double V, or fuckface, or whatever. :wave:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
I like your optimism. :)
That's like saying "I like your syphilis".
TGRR,
Knows optimism is a
disease.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:50:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
Um, what the hell gives you THAT idea? We're still the monkeys we were 2000 years ago.
I also like your cynicism btw. :p
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:59:13 PM
Just call me VV, double V, or fuckface, or whatever. :wave:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
I like your optimism. :)
That's not optimism. Optimism is knowing that for a long time before that happens I'll be able to sit back and watch monkeys beating each other over the head with increasingly heavy sticks :lulz:
The monkey brain is hard wired for authority, leadership, and dom/sub relationships, so it's an uphill battle. I think there may one day be pockets of people who are socialized to get over some parts of their monkey programming. But these will be oasises. Like the hippie communes of the 60s, they can only exist in isolation, and are only a utopia for those that buy in. That being said, it sounds like a nice place to live.
I don't think that model of living will ever gain primacy because there's too much chaos built into humans. I consider myself an upstanding dude, but I can only imagine how I'd act if there were no cops around to regulate my behavior.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
The monkey brain is hard wired for authority, leadership, and dom/sub relationships, so it's an uphill battle. I think there may one day be pockets of people who are socialized to get over some parts of their monkey programming. But these will be oasises. Like the hippie communes of the 60s, they can only exist in isolation, and are only a utopia for those that buy in. That being said, it sounds like a nice place to live.
I don't think that model of living will ever gain primacy because there's too much chaos built into humans. I consider myself an upstanding dude, but I can only imagine how I'd act if there were no cops around to regulate my behavior.
Do what I do and fuck off into the wilderness. The answer, in my case, is to get disgustingly drunk and then find some new and exiting way to risk injury or death.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
Um, the agricultural revolution IS technology.
Well, yes... this is the generally accepted paradigm... I guess I'm trying to jump out of it for a sec, and picture a technological society which did not rely on sedentary agriculture from the onset.
Not possible. No surplus food = no surplus population = no room or time for innovators beyond those which offer immediate benefits for gaining food.
This the obvious answer and probably the correct one... I'm just trying to ask the old anthropological questions from different angles. I'm aware of the no time argument, but I'm not sure it has proven correct under cultural analysis of modern day hunter-gatherer societies. They have arguably more free time than we "civilized" prats. Could you clarify the "no room" part tho? Thx.
An unproductive mouth, chewing at the kill, is one too many.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 03:12:43 PM
Some classic, time tested opening gambits.
-talk about anarchy
-try to explain Discordia as if someone misunderstands it
-accuse people of being dogmatic
-reply to roger when he's good and pissed
there are tons of others, I'm sure somebody can fill in the blanks
- killing X% of humanity cause the planet is crowded / to save nature
- having kids is a horrible thing
- explain enthousiastically about something that a lot of people already know like it's the latest hot shit (then condescendingly explain details on the subject as we point this out)
- (chaos) magic / occult / new age / pseudoscience / self help / quantum
- check out my band we're inspired by Limp Bizkit / koRn / SOAD / Metallica / ICP , then link to some bad MySpace band with music that is vaguely like that.
- all opinions are equally valid so you cannot disagree with me plus your reactions are hilarious to me
- !'m wr!t!ng th!s way to show that ! am spec!al
- consistently post in bold, italic, colour etc because that's "your thing"
- bad dada / surrealism, language is relative
- speak in obvious slang or olde englysh
- speak about the PD forum as if it's a homogenous mass with only one opinion
- You didn't like the BIP because it was "too dark"
- jack topics about essays such as in OKM into fluff topics by going into unrelated details in as less posts as possible. do this repeatedly.
- make unfounded claims about easily researchable topic but refuse to actually read the research when people point it out. ask them to explain it to you. (do nevar fucking google it)
- 4chan memes
boy we really get all of them don't we?
QuoteEndgame: at some point, somebody will say "PLEDGE", which means they are suggesting everybody takes a pledge to not reply to you anymore. This is actually the most effective tool we have against trolls. We seldom sucessfully use it because it's too fun to provoke someone, and it only takes one person ignoring the pledge to screw it up for everybody else. The best way to avoid the pledge is to show a little "promise" - meaning, admit that you're wrong once ever three arguments or so. Occasionally show that you can be a cooperative poster. If you're both helpful and destructive, people won't be able to make up their minds about you.
When they pledge, you should apologize. Apologize profusely. Admit all your mistakes. Appear as sincere as possible and tell us you have seen your mistakes learned your lesson and will be a good panda from now on. Now write some neutral things. Comment on stuff. Be nice. But you don't need to be smart about it, say dumb stuff, say it some more.. dumber.. a bit more dumb and .. yes! someone disagrees with what you said, now you can explode again. We call this one "doing the Daruko".
- Now work a "hivemind" argument into it, everybody is against you because member X dislikes you
- and he has a postcount of a million
- and is an admin which is why everybody listens to him
- and stole your twinkies
...
we should put this in the "Trolling" section on the BIP wiki perhaps? it contains good stuff for general trolling too
Absolutey, its nice to have it all written down somewhere.
Also Google "site: crookedtimber.org John Emerson" (without the "") if you want to see some high quality work.
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
Um, the agricultural revolution IS technology.
Well, yes... this is the generally accepted paradigm... I guess I'm trying to jump out of it for a sec, and picture a technological society which did not rely on sedentary agriculture from the onset.
Not possible. No surplus food = no surplus population = no room or time for innovators beyond those which offer immediate benefits for gaining food.
This the obvious answer and probably the correct one... I'm just trying to ask the old anthropological questions from different angles. I'm aware of the no time argument, but I'm not sure it has proven correct under cultural analysis of modern day hunter-gatherer societies. They have arguably more free time than we "civilized" prats. Could you clarify the "no room" part tho? Thx.
Well, here's the thing: They have more "free time", but that free time happens to be spent looking out for themselves and their community. They aren't employed, no, they don't have a legal or financial obligation to work as we do, but for them it's something much more direct. For them, it's survival. You don't have much time to be innovative if you're busy watching the kids, looking out for predators and rival tribes, gathering enough food and water to get by, etc.
Agriculture is the cause and effect of societal development. It's a necessary part of the mechanism. And sadly, that mechanism happens to be heirarchal for now. I think hippie communes and the like, as Cramulus suggested, are the best we can have right now in terms of non-heirarchies. The thing is, though, societies like that aren't concerned with technological and societal development so much as personal spiritual development. I think perhaps that's a better basic philosophy. Perhaps.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
The monkey brain is hard wired for authority, leadership, and dom/sub relationships, so it's an uphill battle. I think there may one day be pockets of people who are socialized to get over some parts of their monkey programming. But these will be oasises. Like the hippie communes of the 60s, they can only exist in isolation, and are only a utopia for those that buy in. That being said, it sounds like a nice place to live.
I don't think that model of living will ever gain primacy because there's too much chaos built into humans. I consider myself an upstanding dude, but I can only imagine how I'd act if there were no cops around to regulate my behavior.
Primacy, yeah; see: Huxley's Island
But remember that this wasn't really "wired" into monkey programming until about 10,000 years ago. Historically speaking, homo sapiens were non-hierarchical by nature for a dramatically larger part of our existence; i.e, hunter-gather societies.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:59:13 PM
Just call me VV, double V, or fuckface, or whatever. :wave:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 03, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
2) I think it'll happen naturally as our race matures. Disconnecting "from the chain-of-command mode of thinking and living" is a natural and logical next step.
I like your optimism. :)
That's not optimism. Optimism is knowing that for a long time before that happens I'll be able to sit back and watch monkeys beating each other over the head with increasingly heavy sticks :lulz:
TRUE. May as well have fun while we can.
Cain, I'll copy/paste some bits later on then, perhaps others still want to add to it.
First I worried about maybe it's not smart to put all these hot buttons out there explicitly, but then, trolls are pushing them anyway, and if we couldnt deal with it we're not worthy, possibly it helps us ignoring these red flags better as well.
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 04:22:50 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
The monkey brain is hard wired for authority, leadership, and dom/sub relationships, so it's an uphill battle. I think there may one day be pockets of people who are socialized to get over some parts of their monkey programming. But these will be oasises. Like the hippie communes of the 60s, they can only exist in isolation, and are only a utopia for those that buy in. That being said, it sounds like a nice place to live.
I don't think that model of living will ever gain primacy because there's too much chaos built into humans. I consider myself an upstanding dude, but I can only imagine how I'd act if there were no cops around to regulate my behavior.
Primacy, yeah; see: Huxley's Island
But remember that this wasn't really "wired" into monkey programming until about 10,000 years ago. Historically speaking, homo sapiens were non-hierarchical by nature for a dramatically larger part of our existence; i.e, hunter-gather societies.
Perhaps, but that doesn't matter now because the people who are alive now are hard-wired that way. Just because our ancestors from way back were non-heirarchal doesn't mean modern man is. Point is irrelevant.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:25:43 PM
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 04:22:50 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
The monkey brain is hard wired for authority, leadership, and dom/sub relationships, so it's an uphill battle. I think there may one day be pockets of people who are socialized to get over some parts of their monkey programming. But these will be oasises. Like the hippie communes of the 60s, they can only exist in isolation, and are only a utopia for those that buy in. That being said, it sounds like a nice place to live.
I don't think that model of living will ever gain primacy because there's too much chaos built into humans. I consider myself an upstanding dude, but I can only imagine how I'd act if there were no cops around to regulate my behavior.
Primacy, yeah; see: Huxley's Island
But remember that this wasn't really "wired" into monkey programming until about 10,000 years ago. Historically speaking, homo sapiens were non-hierarchical by nature for a dramatically larger part of our existence; i.e, hunter-gather societies.
Perhaps, but that doesn't matter now because the people who are alive now are hard-wired that way. Just because our ancestors from way back were non-heirarchal doesn't mean modern man is. Point is irrelevant.
I take "hard-wired" to mean that on a biological level our brains have been selected over this 10,000 year period such that they more readily allow for the adoption of the behavioural roles -- is there any evidence that this is the case?
I assumed it was more of a "nurture" thing - aren't social structures solid enough to provide such conditioning?
The major difference being that we seem to be able to switch behaviour patterns quite abruptly when immersed into different environments -- so given the correct foresight, the transition need not be such an uphill struggle.
I don't know man, I was just arguing that the point I replied to is logically irrelevant, because we have evolved since then. Saying that we used to be a certain way is not a counterpoint to a statement about how we are now. Not when it comes to biology, anyway. Of course, I'm probably wrong, but that's how I see it.
I don't think it is an irrelevant point that recent changes may be easier to overcome than ones which are more deeply ingrained into our genetics.
I'm wrong.
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 04:47:45 PM
I take "hard-wired" to mean that on a biological level our brains have been selected over this 10,000 year period such that they more readily allow for the adoption of the behavioural roles -- is there any evidence that this is the case?
Thank you, that is precisely one of the questions that I have. For instance, the ethnically all-encompassing Yeti-born Subgenii population do not seem to possess this presupposed genetic trait. :fap:
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 04:47:45 PM
I assumed it was more of a "nurture" thing - aren't social structures solid enough to provide such conditioning?
This is something I also wish to discover.
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 04:47:45 PM
The major difference being that we seem to be able to switch behaviour patterns quite abruptly when immersed into different environments -- so given the correct foresight, the transition need not be such an uphill struggle.
And if so, it seems like it would certainly be worth working out. Shit, if all else fails, it might make some good fiction. :p
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 04:49:26 AM
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 04:38:19 AM
Ok, then, I'm a noob. What of it? How may I improve myself?
Um, you could re-read the PD (not encouraged), lurk in Think for Yourself, Schmuck (down by the bottom of the forums, where all the gross shit silts up), or you could, you know, think for yourself (dangerous, but sometimes worthwhile).
I'd recommend the second, followed by the third, and throw away the PD. It was written by filthy hippies who had the wrong values.
I like the PD, and the more I think about and read about this Discordianism shit, the more I can pick out the formerly obscure bits of wisdom in it. I recommend reading it, then waiting a few years and reading it again. It seems like stupid crap the first time, but later, with more context, it actually has meaning hidden in that hippie crap.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 03:12:43 PM
Discordian troll thread?
okay okay okay okay okay lemme tell you how to troll this forum proper:
Come in and be a little big smug. Use a few philosophical terms. show a little bit of ontological territorialism, then get defensive when people call you on it.
When people sense that you'll flip out if provoked, they won't be able to stop themselves from disagreeing with you. Eventually you'll have four replies to each of your posts.
Eventually they'll start telling you to fuck off and leave. Which, of course, you won't do because they're doing exactly what you wanted them to do - wasting their time replying to you. They will, of course, continue telling you to GTFO and kill yourself. You won't. People will eagerly anticipate your next posts, pressing Refresh until you finally reply.
You may want to step back for a second and consider what's really going on here. Are you ruining the board by sucking up all the "energy"? Or are you feeding the sharks the blood they crave? The key is persistence. At first, they will enjoy telling you to die. Over time, they will start to mean it.
This is really a test of patience for both parties. Because the responses you'll be getting will be kind of boring. You will feel like you have no reason to go on. But you must perservere! And we, on this board, must continue to drain lulz from you by provoking you into emotional whirlwinds. If you don't do that every so often, we will lose interest. So don't play too guarded, you actually can't troll us effectively without taking a few wounds. It takes blood in the water to make sharks frenzy.
Some classic, time tested opening gambits.
-talk about anarchy
-try to explain Discordia as if someone misunderstands it
-accuse people of being dogmatic
-reply to roger when he's good and pissed
there are tons of others, I'm sure somebody can fill in the blanks
Endgame: at some point, somebody will say "PLEDGE", which means they are suggesting everybody takes a pledge to not reply to you anymore. This is actually the most effective tool we have against trolls. We seldom sucessfully use it because it's too fun to provoke someone, and it only takes one person ignoring the pledge to screw it up for everybody else. The best way to avoid the pledge is to show a little "promise" - meaning, admit that you're wrong once ever three arguments or so. Occasionally show that you can be a cooperative poster. If you're both helpful and destructive, people won't be able to make up their minds about you.
It would be easy for PD not to fall for these traps. But they won't. We have a weird sort of love affair with destructive disorder. This is, after all, the Worst Forum on the Internet.
THIS POST
should be emailed to every user who signs up.
I can't help thinking that giving away the cheat-sheet would, in time, lead to more advanced forms of trolling. Though this would probably be better than the boring/predictable trolls which currently knock half-heartedly at the door.
Bonus - being able to say, oh, that's just another troll of type B(3)(iv), and providing a link, could be fun.
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 05:36:45 PM
I can't help thinking that giving away the cheat-sheet would, in time, lead to more advanced forms of trolling.
I call it meta-trolling
:troll:
I'd love to see some more advanced trolling around here. DK was fun and exciting for a while because he was actually GOOD at it, unlike almost all other trolls that come here, and I could respect that, and learn from it. Being successfully trolled
Another amazing troll from days of yore, back on Usenet, was Ms. Pnoopie Pnats, who could send newsgroups into weeks-long paroxysms of rage with prolific typos and misused swear words. It was truly a thing of beauty. I loved that woman.
Anyway, I was really posting to say that I think that there are human behaviors which are hard-wired but which flip on and off like breakers under different environmental circumstances. Humans do intrinsically have a hierarchical nature, which is part of our nature as social animals that live in a family unit, but the willingness to follow an extremely detached and abstract hierarchy is not unlikely to be related to population density. We seem to become somewhat infantilized at high population densities; less independent, and more eager to follow abstract parental figures in the form of government.
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on November 03, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
Um, the agricultural revolution IS technology.
Well, yes... this is the generally accepted paradigm... I guess I'm trying to jump out of it for a sec, and picture a technological society which did not rely on sedentary agriculture from the onset.
Not possible. No surplus food = no surplus population = no room or time for innovators beyond those which offer immediate benefits for gaining food.
This the obvious answer and probably the correct one... I'm just trying to ask the old anthropological questions from different angles. I'm aware of the no time argument, but I'm not sure it has proven correct under cultural analysis of modern day hunter-gatherer societies. They have arguably more free time than we "civilized" prats. Could you clarify the "no room" part tho? Thx.
Yeah. A tribe has no room for someone who isn't directly contributing to the immediate survival of the tribe.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 03:12:43 PM
-reply to roger when he's good and pissed
I'm not pissed. Just hateful and bitter.
Quote from: A giant cock mongler on November 03, 2009, 03:05:58 AM
post like so:
Any Law & Order fans around these parts?
I prefer watching Caruso on the YouTubes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948&feature=player_embedded
YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Quote from: Cramulus on November 03, 2009, 05:48:26 PM
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 05:36:45 PM
I can't help thinking that giving away the cheat-sheet would, in time, lead to more advanced forms of trolling.
I call it meta-trolling
:troll:
Thats what has actually happened.
we still get the odd white noise level 1 or 2 trolls but every so often a thetan level 7 class troll comes by and BOOM!
I don't troll PD directly, I just equip trolls to capitalize on our stuffy and clannish tendencies. :lulz:
It's sort of like how the article on pinealism (http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Pinealism) really just outlines exactly how to piss us off. For some, it will be a helpful guide. For others, it will be a path to endless entertainment.
I started to write a Choose Your Own Adventure (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/Adventure/index.php?title=Page_496) about trolling PD but totally dropped it when I realized how much work it was going to be. Anybody is free to run with it though.
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/Adventure/images/e/e7/Meatscape_splashpage.jpg)
I was thinking about doing something like this the other day. But just now, noticing the pink-already-clicked-links, I guess this is where I got the idea from.
I think the approach I had in mind was a bit more meta though - like the way "well I wasn't being serious" usually mutates into "ha - socialological experiment".. I'm sure with enough thought there's a tree-like structure to which makes sense of the mapping. So each set of pages would deal with another categorisation of troll.
That sounds entertaining!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:33:36 PM
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
I hold out hope that while a civilisation may run on opinion, you can aim to increase how much of that opinion is influenced by fact-based data.
Creation science, thinking with your gut, etc, etc.
If the internet makes it easier for a civilisation to recollect its own past stupidity and put that in terms of current events, which I think it does, then I think that path leads closer to the goal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2009, 03:33:36 PM
Quote from: FP on November 03, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
The ability to share/correlate/advertise facts on the internet hasn't quite reached its full potential, but I think it will.
Twitter.
I see twitter as equivalent to flagpole sitting (http://images.google.com/images?q=flagpole+sitting) - a new technology is used as a toy until gradually the novelty diminishes and then people go about their lives. So much of twitter seems to be the "part of the cool crowd", I don't see what other appeal it has which will out-last that.
Technically speaking - the fact that we have the technology to transmit and keep updated with so many small elements of data, is quite a stunning achievement. Sociologically speaking - the fact that its usage spreads virally through human networks is also interesting.
Practically speaking - we haven't found a good use for it yet.
bullshit.
there is no better possible use for any technology than being able to keep people updated on a minute-by-minute basis when I'm pooping, and twitter allows for that.
I use Twitter mostly as a marketing tool. I Tweet several times a week about cute jewelry I find on Etsy in order to get the jewelry artists to follow me (hoping I'll Tweet about them next) and then once a month or so I Tweet that I just put up some new beads. The jewelry artists are more likely to check my site because I've been promoting them, and my sales increase.
but what color was your morning dump?
It was blood red.
Is that bad?
That depends on what you've been eating.
So in your case, it probably isn't bad.
Don't go to a doctor.