More on Eliza
This concept intrigues me and I’ve been exploring it somewhat further; The idea that the left is using chatterbots to troll conservative websites would not surprise, and though I doubt there is any kind of coherent thought or intention involved, I do think that the group has drifted in that direction.
Witness:
the typical troll will come into a post thread, or a chatroom, or a message board, and do a driveby comment condemning X.
People in the arena will either agree, or refute the trolls point, and rather than deal with the refutation the troll will
a: Change the point of discussion, disregarding the fact that he has just had his ass handed to him
b: Complain that the “other guy” did the same thing only it was worse,
c: use the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” argument to try to use his detractors own points against him
d: Whine that his point of view is being oppressed because he’s been banned, and call his detractors nazis/socialists/fascists without any kind of understanding that it is his own behavior that most indicates the malevolence he is accusing others of.
e: Ad hominem.
the community will refute whichever argument he makes, and it will continue until
a: The collected group gets tired of the childishness and buggers off
b: The troll dies of old age, or
c: Someone goes to the troll’s house and ties a stocking around his neck.
I could easily write code which would follow these rules, almost anyone could.
At no point is there even the remotest attempt to have a conversation, because any human being capable of reason will, upon being shown that his points are fallacious and asinine, change his point of view instantaneously. The troll will never engage and attempt to actually understand what he is being told, for fear that facts which interfere with his worldview will surface and blow his shit out of the water. So he goes into troll mode, and follows the above rules with flawless precision.
Terminator movies scared us all with a vision of a future that showed computers taking over the world by teaching computers to think like, or even better than, humans.
the scary part to me, is not that computers will learn to be human, but that humans have learned to act like computers- and have forgotten the most basic rule of computing: GIGO.
So when you get a troll on your blog, recognize that it is simply a meat machine, programmed with garbage to spew a message of stupidity despite all attempts to reason with it.
Call him/her Eliza, and kick them out.
12 comments Og | Uncategorized
Really. If your blog software doesn’t enable you to ban users, get some that will.
M
because any human being capable of reason will, upon being shown that his points are fallacious and asinine, change his point of view instantaneously
If only it were so.
People have amazing levels of attachment to irrational beliefs, and will cheerfully ignore their being shown to be false – while being quite capable of reason in other areas.
Sad, but entirely true.
“while being quite capable of reason in other areas.”
The capability for reason is binary, not analog. Either you are, or you aren’t. If you aren’t in one area, you aren’t in other areas. You may seem reasonable in X and be unreasoning in Y, but it’s only an illusion/.
I like smacking them with a newspaper.
Do you roll the newspaper, or fold it?
Maybe it’s just the Chicago influence, but I prefer a rolled telephone book.
Do it just right and it won’t even leave marks….
um, wrong as usual, bone.
I locked the redbone thread because you choose not to have a reasoning discussion. If you think you can, I’ll unlock it, but I have my doubts- in all those comments you never once even bothered to pay attention to a thing I said except to say how wrong I was, and how right you were. So the discussion is over.
Reason is binary because it is. It is not a quote. It is not a theory. it is not a belief. It just is.
Yes, it is fine. The point being, you can’t piss in comments and expect not to be called on it. You base everything you know on feelings, and that gets us all nowhere.
Here’s a little hint to get you closer to the clue button:
Your statement:”Republicans did not address the spending addiction when they had the majority” is fallacious on it’s face, for multiple reasons.
1: Define republican. You can’t, because there’s no definition that’s demonstrably true even for a minority let alone a majority of republicans, except “Members of the republican party”. By any meaningful definition, republicans are enormously fragmented.
2: Define”Did not address” what do you mean by address? do you mean help grow the economy? well, they DID that. Do you mean set fire to the democrats? They didn’t do that. And they did, or didn’t do, any number of other things. Address in this case cannot be specified and therefore cannot be applied.
3: Define “Spending addiction”. Do you mean spending for roads? public works? Military? What precise spending would you have curtailed? Should we just lop 50% off the top? Would any house or senate be able to do that, or anything like it?
4:I will define “While they had a majority” As I pointed out, there was a short period of time when the house AND senate had a majority of republicans. And as we have demonstrated, not all republicans are the same or even remotely similar except in label only. THAT was the ONLY TIME THEY HAD A MAJORITY. Having a majority in the house wihtout a majority in the senate is meaningless, because anything the house would do the senate would undo.
So the statement, as I have said before, and have now proven, is fallacious and meaningless on so many levels as to be laughable. I may not have “proven” it to you, but that’s because I use “Facts” and not “Feelings”. Try to land that pretty plane on some feelings sometime.
I’m only having this discussion with you at all, bone, because you’re a good guy, and you deserve a decent discussion. But I will not have a discussion based on feelings, only on facts. You can say “That’s your opinion” all you want, but you have to understand that when I discuss anything I don’t deal in opinions.
Now you’re just being a fucking idiot.
Arms: Weapons or impliments of war.
Bear: To posess or utilize
Infringed: To have encroached or impinged upon.
These words in these context have very specific meanings.
You can apologise and enter the discussion reasonably,answer the questions posed above or you can go piss up a rope.
On a side note, Raygun has paid me a visit, come on over and spread the love.
Hah! Have fun with it, Guy!