Twitter cuts (#62)

April 29, 2016admin 29 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Irony

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

29 Responses to this entry

  • Twitter cuts (#62) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 5:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    His follow-up tweet was pretty funny. He says, “I’m pretty sure at this point I could say, “It’s nice to be nice to people” and some indignant turd would castigate it as virtue signaling.”

    The obvious response to this is: yes, any reasonable person would accuse you of that. Who on earth would randomly say “It’s nice to be nice to people” completely out of the blue on fucking Twitter of all places if they weren’t signalling. This Scalzi guy isn’t exactly bright.

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    I think in such cases the it is probably easier to replace the concept of signalling with feelings and connotations. “It’s nice to be nice to people” translates to “Feel warm fuzzy about this / me: it feels warm fuzzy to treat people in a warm fuzzy way”.

    Relevant: a new site for sjwafe-space communities: http://imgur.com/UrSqcbT

    It’s just that they are REALLY into warm fuzzies, apparently. The scary thing is that even the far, far more normal and respectable lesswrongers are into stuff like hugging each other a lot. The fuck is happening to young people… (I think it is far more normal for a man to desire to feel respected than loved and thus the ideal physical contact is firm handshakes. Not hugs.)

    The opposite kind of feeling-cloud or connotation-cloud would be something like “it’s so metal \m/ to deadlift after you just came back from the shooting range”. That kind of feeling-cloud would actually appeal to me far more except that it, too, seems stupid / lowbrow.

    Then there is the feel smart and smug kind of connotation cloud, “sunday morning, upvote if you are not in church because you are an actually rational person who doesn’t believe in magic sky dads”

    These three seem to be the most common today.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    I thought they couldn’t pack more HIV into a site than Reddit, but obviously Reddit2 has been produced to make fruit-flavored AIDS into a social media reality.

    [Reply]

    alrenous Reply:

    There’s some strong evidence against the “It’s full of AIDS” theory of Reddit.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/

    Obvs the AIDS of Reddit can’t be denied, so there’s something complicated going on.

    TheDividualist Reply:

    What does HIV / AIDS mean in this particular context – as I suppose it is not the taken literally?

    michael Reply:

    youre right studies have shown men value being respected more than loved being an old guy this came as no surprise but its not intuitive to women and makes for stressful post mod familial negotiations women and children dont respect respect.I would like my children to love me but i insist they respect me is a problen in todays world.
    respect is derided in the media along with other male values like honor loyalty valor etc. Hugs have a lot of problems as a handshake or bow substitute they are too intimate for casual greeting I remember when hugging started in the US it was in nyc with what we called eurotrash the nouveau riche wanted to emulate them some euro class and followed suit women particularly which led to men kinda liking the idea of hugging girls one hardly knew pretty soon men were hugging each other, of course the media helped it all along partly subconsciously because theyre fags and partly on purpose cause its for the team and they love humiliating guys so they revel in shit like having the big tough sopranos kiss each other all the time.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Dividualist, you’re still pwned, because the opposite of stupidity is not wisdom.

    You’ve set it up so I can demonstrate it clearly. Not my work, and with pictures:

    http://freenortherner.com/2015/10/23/male-physical-intimacy/

    Not hugs? Don’t be gay.

    [Reply]

    Jesse M. Reply:

    Who on earth would randomly say “It’s nice to be nice to people” completely out of the blue on fucking Twitter of all places if they weren’t signalling.

    Of course if someone randomly said it out of the blue that would be reason to think it was just virtue signaling, but it seems less obviously like virtue signaling for a person to say something like that in response to seeing others being sneeringly not-nice in their style of argument (and attacking the motives of anyone who calls them out on it as an excuse to double down on the not-niceness). Do you think any attempt to advocate for a shift in style of argument is “virtue signaling”? If someone says “an ad hominem isn’t a good argument”, is that virtue signaling, for example? Couldn’t people value more productive debates not because they want to signal their virtue, but because they get annoyed by seeing bad argument styles that lead to exactly the same boring repeated back-and-forths and talking-past-each-other over and over? Can you think of any possible piece of evidence that would falsify (or at least cast doubt on) your belief that someone like Scalzi is primarily motivated by virtue signaling in comments like the ones above?

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    OK…. your whole entire response is saying, “Granted your premises, you’re entirely right! But what if….”

    But fine — it isn’t a terrible point you’re making, so I’ll give it a bit of time.

    I actually agree that the alt-right (or whatever) has an immature understanding of signalling, and they selectively accuse people of it. Charging someone with “signalling” is not enough to indict them with anything too terrible. It’s just the sleazy, over-the-top, completely phoney-baloney signalling that people find obnoxious.

    The whole basis of signalling theory seems to suggest that virtually everything in verbal communication is a signal to advertise attractiveness, at least to some extent, and trying to escape signalling is pretty much impossible. The obvious exceptions are things like: you’re dying and need help, you’re drowning and need to be saved, etc. etc. But no one on Tumblr or Twitter has those kinds of problems, so virtually everything they say will be said with some consideration for style, even if it has a concrete purpose. Humans are social creatures, and one only has so much time and space in which to make himself look attractive to others. So to answer your question, yes, I think all of the examples you’re providing are examples of signalling, but in a relatively muted and secondary way.

    As long as we’re talking about the nuts and bolts of debating, I’ll admit that I hate reddit-style debates in which the one debater accuses the other of virtually every logical fallacy in the book: “Whoa, ad-hominem, bro!” “Hey, don’t straw-man me, bro!” “Not true scotsman, bro!”

    Most of the time when these people label the fallacy, they’re attempting to hide their own shoddy argumentation.

    “Ad hominem!” often means, “I’m a sissy and can’t stick to the point, so I’ll attack you for bad manners and derail everything.” It’s also a signal that the person knows some Latin (two words, to be precise), and has read about the fallacy somewhere. The better way to handle it would be to say, “I’ll gladly continue to debate with you, but you need to take some of that bass outta your tone” or something. Something that doesn’t signal being a completely autistic dorkus malorkus (see? I know some Latin, too).

    “Straw man!” typically means, “I didn’t accurately convey my own argument well, I hedged my bets with ambiguous rhetoric, I set you up to misunderstand it, and now I’m going to whine about how unfair you are to me. Boo hoo.”

    “No true scotsman!” sometimes means: “I’m redefining a word disingenuously, but hey, I read Less Wrong. Yay me.”

    “Slippery slope!” is less often used, but you can see why it would sloppily applied.

    Rarely do I find the demonstration of actual logical skill when people point out logical fallacies (for instance, circular reasoning occurs more frequently than it ought to, even in major publications, but it is often difficult to spot.)

    Anyhow, we’re getting off topic a bit, but yes, all of these kinds of points are signalling to some degree. My view is that since signalling is unescapable, it’s preferable to signal *better.*

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 5:22 am Reply | Quote
  • wu-wei Says:

    I thought the whole purpose of Twitter was to *-signal? What else are you supposed to do with a 140 character limit?

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    The original idea was to build a gateway between blogging and text messages (SMS) for people without smartphones – a bit of a third-world focus, getting news out how a riot is going in some backwards place and stuff like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter#Issues_and_controversies

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Make people laugh (preferably out loud). Or would that be wit signalling?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    things like twitter do actually throughout history divide people between wit and virtue signalers wit signalers are always outnumbered but want the fewest to admire them while virtue signalers want the most to admire them

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Optimizing for witticism has the added benefit of suppressing virtue signalling. Even the term “virtue signalling” was invented as a witty counter-signal against the tyranny of miserly bores.

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 6:07 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    It’s an interesting contrast that lefties deny that they are signalling, NRxers *worry* that they may be signalling and thus this is on the Hestia bestof list: https://poseidonawoke.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/is-neoreaction-right-brahmin-signaling/

    Now, if one just looks at it from a neutral but reasonable angle, such as that of lesswrong.com, general cogsci suggests that people should be suspicious about their brains, should be suspicious if they are doing things like signalling or rationalization etc. a bit of self-distrust is a pretty healthy and scientifically valid approach.

    Generally speaking the less people trust themselves / their brains, the more you can trust them.

    Didn’t Edmund Burke wrote something along the lines of “I doubt my ideas the most when they look the most reasonable.” or something of that sort? Can’t find the quote but it was a pretty good one.

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    a bit of self-distrust is a pretty healthy and scientifically valid approach

    This may be the reason, in part, for self-doubt in the arts such as idealization of the melancholic and some self-destructive behaviors.

    [Reply]

    Jesse M. Reply:

    “Now, if one just looks at it from a neutral but reasonable angle, such as that of lesswrong.com”

    Seems odd that you would first say the right is better at this sort of self-distrust than “lefties” and then point to lesswrong.com as a model to follow, when the surveys of their community they used to do every once and a while showed them as statistically pretty leftist (35.5% liberal, 30.7% socialist in this survey, as opposed to 26.7% libertarian and only 3.9% conservative). I’d say that if you find yourself drawing black-and-white contrasts between the virtues of the right and the cognitive deficits of “lefties”, if you follow the lesswrong.com creed of not putting too much trust in your own brain, you should consider that there’s a possibility this is just rationalization/confirmation bias based on us vs. them style thinking. Personally I think the characteristic of worrying that one is only backing a position for social reasons like virtue signaling or us vs. them rationalizations is more a characteristic of high systematizers, nerds of the type Robin Hanson describes here, rather than being strongly correlated to one’s political beliefs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 8:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Alan J. Perrick Says:

    I particularly like that Mr Scalzi’s name sounds like a sort of infection you’d catch.

    B-but… Italiano!

    My point exactly.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Eco’s “Ma gavte la nata” seems apt in his case. http://everything2.com/title/ma+gavte+la+nata

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 9:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Who on earth would randomly say “It’s nice to be nice to people” completely out of the blue on fucking Twitter of all places if they weren’t signalling.

    As usual with liberals, it is not the truth-value of a statement in abstraction, but how the statement is being used as a tool of public image control.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 12:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    That NRx/alt-right has brought its tools of analysis into the brighter edge of mainstream thought is a very exciting development. Cathedral narrative control requires obfuscation of means to remain effective…methinks it’s already over at this point, we’re just watching the inevitable unwinding.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Ive been thinking that too but dont think the narrative will collapse without a orchestrated meme war, reason took down religion by appealing to cognitive elites and deriding irrationality, religion fought its way back by perverting what were once reasonable assertions into again religious assertions, science reason has progressed to a point where there perverted reframes are no longer tenable. You start not at the top of the power structure but at the top of the cognitive structure you humiliate the people who know better they already know the truth and you work your way down cog elites are competitive. But this is just a little battle there will be no collapse but there is a very near point of no return the cathedral must be seized its a great system just needs direction it gives euros who evolved demotism the illusion while giving elites great power to do almost anything. The dark enlightenment is fighting smoke with smoke it needs to be organized and directed

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    >> but dont think the narrative will collapse without a orchestrated meme war

    This is already ongoing, swing by /r/The_Donald on reddit some time. The memes coming out of the alt right are crushing stale Cathedral memes. Anyone who is smart, edgy, funny, who has intellectual integrity and awareness of what is happening in the world, and is not a bought and paid for globalist shill is moving rightwards.

    >> there is a very near point of no return the cathedral must be seized its a great system just needs direction

    Yea…the infrastructure isn’t going anywhere, but the Cathedral memes are close to death. The Cathedral *is* those memes. The oligarchy of course will adjust and re-purpose the infrastructure, and do what it has to do to maintain power, which is maintain legitimacy. It will be forced to re-calibrate and defer to rightist memes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 12:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ananda Hohenstaufen Says:

    The corrupted mind cannot even see the starting point of ethics – or bad ethics.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 4:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jehu Says:

    One thing about virtue signalling is that it is really tiresome. Its like a bunch of Germans in a WWII era movie saying ‘Sieg Hiel’ after everything, or even, just randomly with no preamble. It is eminently mockable and should be, like it is in the old Donald Duck cartoon of WWII propaganda fame.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 7:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    Slightly relevant, PZ Myers’ prog blog is always good for a laugh, and the comment section is an illuminating glance into the depths of madness. He and his hangers-on are the logical conclusion to the spiral:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/19/the-dork-endorkenment/

    Funniest / least self-aware comment:

    “Are these guys ever going to learn that just because you can shit on someone else, doesn’t mean you’re an exceptional person?”

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 11:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    Why does every SJW nu male have a cartoon of himself as his profile pic

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 29th, 2016 at 11:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • A Googler Says:

    John Scalzi’s Google Image search result is the perfect depiction of a 21st century feminine man child.

    He is either making a goofy face like a child, or a soft gentle face like a woman.

    Men have never presented themselves in this way, in history.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 2nd, 2016 at 6:07 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment