WATCH: The Weaponization of Social Media
Now openly admitted, governments and militaries around the world employ armies of keyboard warriors to spread propaganda and disrupt their online opposition. Their goal? To shape public discourse around global events in a way favourable to their standing military and geopolitical objectives. Their method? The Weaponization of Social Media. This is The Corbett Report.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
This “milosevic” character has gone insane, insulting other users and constantly harassing binra. If I did what this guy’s doing, I’d be perma-banned before you could screech “Grandpa Soros”, yet not only has this guy not been banned, but his posts are all up.
Can’t even have decent debate without being called a bot/shill/etc.
What a mess.
No one is perma-banned here, not even you after behaviour that would have had you dismissed as a troll by many sites. Don’t exploit our openness by trying to revive a “debate” we have already curtailed.
insulting other users
I promised to darken the door of this website no longer, but before I go, perhaps you could point out exactly where and how I’ve insulted anybody at all, other than the “user” which I claim is automated disinformation. And if you read the entire thread, you will notice several other people expressing their sympathy, if not complete agreement, with that opinion, so it doesn’t really constitute “insanity” on my part. Some people might consider that evidence-free accusations of insanity are themselves insults, but very rarely is sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander.
As for “decent debate”, I note that you have not made any attempt to engage with any of the discourses of the bot/shill/etc. I wonder why that might be, since you’re so committed to it. Of course, nobody else has either, but you’re the one who is complaining.
Please don’t feel the need to leave because of Matt. He certainly doesn’t speak for the majority of our readership
Ditto.
Ditto: If you hadn’t come along: I would never have found the “Adolescent Poetry” generator. I haven’t had so much fun in years!
One of the unsettling things about the internet is that you can never be sure who (or what) you’re talking to. I once had a long argument with someone who gave very odd responses and I couldn’t figure out if this someone was a piece of software or an autistic person.
And I’ve had run-ins with people who were surely people but who seemed to be “at it”. I don’t know if they would be called “shills” or “trolls” but their usual procedure was to goad others into an argument and if you responded they would keep at you till you gained the upper hand. At which point they would conveniently disappear only to turn up later and re-start the whole thing as if you never said anything.
Then you get the ones that Milosevic described as stupid and vulgar. But I think their real aim is to simply repeat simplistic insults i.e. they do this knowingly. As the late Mark E Smith once sang, “Repetition repetition repetition”. That’s what is so effective. It all goes back to the beginning. The aim: to sow the seeds of despair.
This is the final word on the subject of “bots”.
1 a “bot” is an automated program designed to either crawl the web (as in Google bot) or simulate rudimentary human interaction (as in chat bot or similar), seed malware or other black hat activity. A “bot” isn’t a human being and can’t post long coherent philosophical commentary or conduct a conversation in anything but programmed simple responses. Binra is not a bot.
2 The word “bot” is being used incorrectly here and everywhere now to mean “troll” or “shill” or “sock puppet.” There is no evidence Binra is any of these things either.
3 Diverting the discussion into a pointless discussion of who is/is not a “bot” (ie troll or shill or sock puppet) is not useful and needs to stop. Now.
A “bot” isn’t a human being and can’t post long coherent philosophical commentary
This must be an entirely different definition of the word “coherent” than the one I’m familiar with.
or conduct a conversation in anything but programmed simple responses.
Are you sure about that?
https://www.rt.com/usa/415609-us-army-ai-language-bot/
The PoMo Generator suggests otherwise.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Binra is not a bot.
— although apparently no evidence to support this claim is or will be available.
The word “bot” is being used incorrectly here and everywhere now to mean “troll” or “shill” or “sock puppet.”
— hence my usage of the term “shill-bot” to describe the possibly automated activity in question. Notice that the entity immediately incorporated this novel word into its own discourse, as though it hadn’t understood what it referred to. You don’t find that odd?
from the RT link above:
There is no evidence Binra is any of these things either.
— other than the complete and utter irrelevance and meaninglessness of everything this entity posts here. I’d be curious to hear an innocent explanation for that, because I don’t believe there is one.
If this kind of stuff appeared in the Guardian, in the context of attempted justifications for invading Syria, or other Imperial criminality, would you hesitate to denounce it as mystification? If not, then why would you assume it has some other purpose when it appears here?
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Diverting the discussion into a pointless discussion of who is/is not a “bot” (ie troll or shill or sock puppet) is not useful and needs to stop. Now.
Just to be clear, when you, or one of the other Admins, labelled the entity known as “vera” as a “troll”, below, was that according to policy, or was it some kind of a lapse?
Do trolls become acceptable, if only they are capable of producing long, incoherent, and utterly irrelevant pseudo-philosophical commentary?
Does this count as “interest in making a positive contribution”, or “a functional way of interacting”?
now quoting myself:
A ban on identifying government disinfo operatives, human or otherwise, on a site supposedly devoted to discussing exactly such issues, opens up a rabbit hole that I don’t particularly care to jump into.
Das vedanya!
We discourage Inquisitions here. If posters are polite, engage and share they are free to post. We don’t vouch for Binra’s intentions. We say he isn’t a “bot” and is free to post as long as he abides by these simple requirements. As are you, and as is everyone. The discussion of “bots” is closed.
Again, this must be an entirely different definition of the word “engage” than the one I’m familiar with.
What an intriguing and very informative comment thread I have returned to. Some fascinating insight and links provided by milosevic. Thanks. Do you earn a living from your vast knowledge of this particular area of IT?
Anyway, I don’t no why Admin and co would want to stifle it over milosevics strange obsession with Binra. If Binra doesn’t give a fook, which I imagine (s)he does not, why should anyone else.
Where I would disagree with milosevic is on the opinion that what Binra posts is ”gobbledygook”. What (s)he posts can be consumed and interpreted if you are willing to engage such as BigB is. I, like milosevic it seems, don’t want to spend the energy trying to interpret Binra’s post so I skip them. I would suggest milosevic in future do the same. You have made your opinions clear to everyone regarding Binra, there is no need to turn into a daily vera 2.0 in relation to their posts.
Because if you were to continue obsessing with Binra (in light of Admin and co’s concerns) to the point where you can react with statements such as –
and
and
while keeping in mind the ATL mission statement that reads –
someone could be quick to suggest you yourself are here achieving such goals with a more sophisticated angle of attack ie discrediting the purpose and credibility of this very site (cif) and dissuading people from engagement, no? In short, move on from the Binra thing. And cheers for the links.
I think we are approaching Salem trial times……….witchhhhhhhhh…….everyone accusing all. Simpler times……..unless you were a women, good at math.
edited by admin to fix formatting
We aren’t trying to stifle debate, we just don’t want what amounts to attacks on other posters hijacking the thread. By all means discuss the larger questions involved
You are correct. Stifle was a poor choice of word. Keep up the great work*.
*I don’t include the latest published article unfortunately. A rare bad’un.
I think we have established that it is possible to generate in-depth text in a certain semantic field which is capable of being taken for a valid piece of writing as shown by Professor Sokal.
This knowledge adds to our ‘filters’ as Herman and Chomsky use the word for seeing propaganda. Interestingly, they do not cover digital filters but Rob Williams at the University of Vermont has added another set which do. It’s featured on Project Censored and is worth a look.
http://projectcensored.org/post-truth-world-reviving-propaganda-model-news-digital-age/
Except in the application of this expanded propaganda model you have a priori ruled out the mystical, metaphysical, allusional and poetic use of language …which is a false censure and return to power. The mystical will tend toward tautology and recursion to point to a new infinitude …beyond language. The Zen koan is an example: ”show me you original face, before you were born” or “what is the sound of one hand clapping” are not answerable by formal logic. Are they nonsensical and excluded: or pointing beyond?
Or one could say “the true self is neither self nor not-self” which is the sort of phraseology that abounds in Buddhist literature (Dharma). Can two contradictory truths both hold true at the same time? Only as a generative synthetic toward a higher understanding.
The question I am posing is how do we discern between an algorithm and an avatar; a sock puppet and a sidhi? If we can’t: do we throw the Buddha away with the bathwater? 🙂
I was thinking in the very early hours of the morning that I had given the impression that I thought Post Modernist Theory was gobledegook, and I don’t. I took Sokal’s work to show that it was possible to take legitimate text from a semantic field and use it in an illegitimate way. I now see that he went on to ‘debunk’ other areas of ‘thought’. That was not my intention, whether in the case of Post Modernist Theory or OnemindOneWorld.
I don’t need a definitive answer to the sock puppet/sidhi dichotomy. I can hold the idea that either could be; I would replace your synthetic generative with a creational power and await further enlightenment. Should I need to choose, for practical purposes, i.e. do something, I would choose one and keep the awareness of the other close.
The important aspect of the discussion for this thread is the awareness of the sophistication of weaponisation of the media.
I was also thinking that when they have this programme perfected, I would probably prefer to interact with that than with someone who has no knowledge of the subject. I wonder if I would apply that to a ‘robot’ companion? Scary.
Thanks for the PMON 2.0 link: I shall be using that in the future. The PoMo generator was fun (but not as much fun as the Adolescent Poetry generator!) Not sure a certain former Serbian president would agree that PM has any relevance at all!
you yourself are here achieving such goals with a more sophisticated angle of attack ie discrediting the purpose and credibility of this very site (cif) and dissuading people from engagement, no?
I hereby offer my heartfelt apologies for interfering with the fundamental democratic right of government disinfo operatives to freely disseminate their BS without anyone calling attention to it.
In the future, I’ll be careful to keep my fascinating insight and strange obsessions to myself.
I encourage all other posters to exercise their utmost creativity and imagination in “engagement” with the profound wisdom offered by “@onemindinmany”.
the profound wisdom offered by “@onemindinmany”
https://twitter.com/onemindinmany
https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.com/
compare here:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
This entire thread of comments has deviated into meaninglessness: through counter productive scapegoating accusations of bottery. At what point will it become obvious that incessant accusations themselves constitute trolling? Repeat after me: Binra is not a bot. The point has been made that certain people think he is: is the sole talking point to be dominated by repeating this mantra? Isn’t the main point that was put forward that bots deviate and demean rational analysis and discussion? And the incessant ad homs contribute how?
This entire thread of comments has deviated into meaninglessness: through counter productive scapegoating
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Oddly, the bot doesn’t know what it means, either.
accusations of bottery.
If you look below, you will find the provocations of a troll identified as “vera”. Since this entity made only brief remarks, which were actually comprehensible, if not particularly scintillating, there has been no suggestion made that they are anything other than a human disinfo operative.
Repeat after me: Binra is not a bot.
Perhaps you could provide some argument to that effect, if you have any, because otherwise, all available evidence suggests that that is exactly what it is.
Isn’t the main point that was put forward that bots deviate and demean rational analysis and discussion?
And rather than taking their gobbledygook at face value, as if it was sincere or even meaningful, we’re rationally analyzing and discussing what they are and how they operate. Compare “Binra’s” output to that of the Postmodernism Generator, and see if you don’t notice a striking family resemblance:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
But assuming for the sake of argument that your non-bot hypothesis is correct, consider how it might come to be that an actual human would produce utterances which are indistinguishable from those of a computer deliberately programmed to produce meaningless drivel, or why such a person would feel compelled to repeatedly interject this tripe into contexts where it is totally irrelevant. As if there were any context where it WOULD be relevant.
And the incessant ad homs contribute how?
Rather obviously, identifying a bot for what it is, cannot qualify as “ad hominem”, because it isn’t a hominem.
Perhaps the question you should be asking is, “What useful contribution is ‘Binra’ making?” Presumably, even your answer would be “none” (please provide an argument to the contrary, if you have any), so the next question would be, “What is the intended purpose of repeated, meaningless, non-useful contributions?”
In conclusion, let me point out that although I disagree with what you said, I was able to respond to it, because your statements are intelligible and meaningful. Nobody, not even you, has attempted to engage with anything “Binra” has produced. It is not possible to do so, because that text is LITERALLY MEANINGLESS, and apparently deliberately so. Consider how that result might have come about.
My point is clear: you’ve made your point. In fact, you made it about a week ago. Binra has been contributing to this site for years. In the past, I have had long conversations with him. Surely the irony is not lost that this forum (on the weaponisation of social media) has been taken over by fake cries of post-modern generated bot …not by Binra? Are you going to make the same tired claims every time he posts …(even when he does not post, you make the claim in anticipation)? When is it fair to question: who is really the disruptor?
Binra has been contributing to this site for years.
Were all of those “contributions” of a similar nature to the recent ones? Could you interchange one for another randomly, without any loss of relevance, because there wasn’t any to begin with?
In the past, I have had long conversations with him.
Are “his” private discourses any different than the public ones, or were they equally meaningless? Would you care to explain how any intelligible content might be derived from the publicly available examples?
Consider the possibility that you’ve been had, and possibly not even by an actual human. Try having a conversation with some of the entities available here, and see if you notice any similarity:
http://www.simonlaven.com/complex.htm
I note that you didn’t see fit to respond to this: “consider how it might come to be that an actual human would produce utterances which are indistinguishable from those of a computer deliberately programmed to produce meaningless drivel, or why such a person would feel compelled to repeatedly interject this tripe into contexts where it is totally irrelevant.”
Surely the irony is not lost that this forum (on the weaponisation of social media)
Conveniently, the weaponizers of social media have thoughtfully provided a live example of their strategy.
has been taken over by fake cries of post-modern generated bot
Nor did you offer any argument, as I requested, as to the untruth of this suggestion. If your private conversations with the entity resemble its public utterances, then they certainly do not qualify as evidence to the contrary.
Are you going to make the same tired claims every time he posts
I find it odd that large quantities of probably-synthetic gobbledygook (explain its meaning, if you can) do not tire you, even after years, but my much shorter suggestions as to its likely origin and purpose, strain your patience. Perhaps that’s because you actually read what I wrote, whereas you skim past the shill-bot’s oeuvre, recognizing, at least subconsciously, that it is completely content-free and devoid of meaning, therefore not worth the mental effort of parsing. FFS, it’s not even GRAMMATICAL.
(even when he does not post, you make the claim in anticipation)
And I wasn’t wrong, was I?
When is it fair to question: who is really the disruptor?
I’m sorry, perhaps I’ve made a mistake. I was under the impression that this venue had been set up for the purpose of discussing ruling class and state propaganda, and the tactics of both their overt and covert disinformation operatives.
At least the BS published by the Guardian and similar disinfo outlets is intelligible enough to qualify as lies, so that respectable, right-thinking citizens of Oceania can swallow it, or pretend to swallow it, with a straight face. If I read something like “Evil butcher Assad eats Syrian babies for breakfast!!!”, I can understand the image that this was supposed to produce in my mind, and laugh at it. In contrast, I defy you to extract any meaning from this:
You’d have to be considerably more brainwashed than even the Party members in 1984 to believe that you understand that.
As I said, perhaps I’ve made a mistake. If the precondition for discussion on this site is that I have to Doublethink myself, as you have apparently done, into not noticing anything peculiar about the Principles Of IngSoc, as expounded above, and repeated on a daily basis (according to you, for years), then I guess I’ll take my energies elsewhere.
In conclusion, always remember that Ignorance Is Strength. Or something like that. Maybe Gibberish Is Profundity. Or Bullshit Is Nutritious And Delicious. I forget.
Perhaps you need a Babel fish to translate? Perhaps you have not heard of the concepts of universal mind and universal thought? Our concepts and philosophy of mind are not mind. To socially manipulate our concepts of mind (socially constructed personality) is the aim of propaganda. Persona is a Jungian term: literally the mask we show the world, which conceals our private self. The last bit references the performative (socially rehearsed) aspects of personality and how they are vulnerable to detrimental suprasocietal influence. There: transliterated for you. Related into Marxism: there is no intrinsic human nature: therefore personality (consciousness) can be manipulated, for better or worse, by socio-economic factors. The joke is on you. It is not randomly generated text. Just because you can’t comprehend it does not make it CIA propaganda. Perhaps you should read the comments more deeply in order to learn?
I propose an experiment: select three philosophically-sophisticated persons, at random, present them with what I quoted above, and ask them to restate the meaning in their own words.
I suggest that none of them would produce anything resembling your transliteration, nor would their outputs, if they even managed to produce any, resemble each other in any significant way.
It’s just that meaningless. If you still cannot perceive this, find three philosophers, separately, and try the experiment for yourself.
Supposing you are correct about “binra” – so what? He’s one poster contributing long posts whose disruption value is close to zero. Should we ban him? Why?
It must be abundantly obvious to you by now that this discussion is providing the alleged “bot” with far more attention and disruption value than if you’d simply ignored him.
So, please listen to the admin and let this go.
The subject of the original post is exactly phenomena of this sort (and see comments by Mikalina, below), but I suppose the point has been adequately made.
*My first effort to post this was met with an ‘error’ msg.
I just wanted to say that this sidetrack is interesting and I have no problem with it. It doesn’t prevent me from talking about other things. It’s interesting, to me, because I long ago decided to ignore Binra. Binra’s posts, to me, are gibberish. I can’t engage gibberish. Maybe you’ve discovered why they come, relentlessly.
Hi Milosevic.
That essay on the elsewhere site was phenomenal! Having studied Contemporary Critical Theory I was well away. OK, I though, try a little harder to understand – ah, yes, I think I see what it’s getting at. Oh, yes. That bit makes sense. Aren’t I clever. Not everyone could understand this. Only those with knowledge of the subject and, of course, we are a special few.
When I discovered that it had been generated by a computer programme, I was stunned. Although I supposed I shouldn’t have been. I also studied Computational Linguistics about 20 years ago and, when you consider the difference between the first mobile phone and what we have now, of course, AI is going to be incredibly sophisticated, not just the simple statement, response of the past. I studied socio-linguistics too. Amazing how, as we have been coerced by propaganda/PR/media into forming an identity, usually culturally, it is easier to predict conversational interaction and for AI to imitate that. Stephen Hawkings said AI will take over the world and I guess he wouldn’t say that if it was still the plodding efforts of a few bedroom based geeks.
I now see that my believing the essay you pointed me to was hubris. I guess they will always get us in our hubris (smiley face), whether it is the persona we have unwittingly developed or in our strongly held principles.
Thank you for proving my point. Try reloading the PoMo Generator page; maybe the next outpouring of random gibberish will be even more impressive!
I also studied Computational Linguistics about 20 years ago and, when you consider the difference between the first mobile phone and what we have now, of course, AI is going to be incredibly sophisticated, not just the simple statement, response of the past.
notice this, at the bottom of the page:
In other words, this exact program has been operational for over twenty years. The disinfo robots that the spooks are deploying now are immensely more sophisticated. Perhaps you may have already encountered some live examples, somewhere. Perhaps this research has something to do with it:
on a related subject:
Actually, if you leave personal insult out if it: you do make good points. In fact: you have highlighted the debility, not of Postmodernism, but of all Western philosophy and ideology. Recursive grammar; unfalsifiable propositions; infinitude – all highlight that language is an imperfect vehicle for understanding Self. From Aristotle forth: we’ve done a whole lot of thinking: not a lot of understanding …perhaps someone will realise that thinking is the root of the problem. When will we try Being?
Why do ideologues favour Postmodernism in the campuses of America? Is it because the constructivist relativistic ideas of Beingness can be objectified and culturally controlled? What about the Red Pill cultural backlash: toward re-affirming the dominant authoritarian male? What about the atomisation of gender and identify: toward a false infinitude? What about the unfalsifiable idea of a perpetual motion negentropic economy that can produce compounding exponential growth: no matter how disassociated from reality that becomes? Or perhaps I am randomly generating false concepts? If so: why is our “reality” still based on them?
The empirical nature of science in this ‘age of enlightenment’. Pendulum has swung as far as it can go, it will swing back and hopefully stop in the middle.
Enlightenment values were critiqued by Marx and deconstructed by Postmodernism. That Postmodernism turned out to be an intellectual cul-de-sac is undoubted: but not because it was heading the wrong way: but because Western philosophy can go no further. It hit a dead end: you cannot conceive of who you are – but you can nevertheless BE who you are. A return to pre-modern values of destruction is a regression we can ill afford. The way out of the recursive thought cul-de-sac is an East-West synthesis based on practice (habituation of true Beingness) not philosophy.
As Rene Descartes puts it. Never accept anything to be true which is not clearly known to be true but by observing this I was thus resolved to feign that everything was false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking this truth—I think, therefore I am. He also observed. I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn’t it follow that I don’t exist? No, surely, I must exist if it’s me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely, I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something.
I’m sorry, Descartes was wrong. The Cogito itself is a tautology that presupposes the “l”. [See Kirkegaard’s Critique]. From a brief moment self-awareness: he tries to posit the “proof” of God, and the “absolute” certainty of everything we can conceive [in the Meditations l believe]. This is the foundation of Western epistemology and ontology.
Yet Cartesian logic introduced a false mind-matter dichotomy. This is the basis of reification, objectification, and alienation. It seperates us, person from person, and person from Nature (being as seperate from environment). It also introduced a false certainty that is the basis of all rational material enquiry: I.e. science. This is the basis of “instrumental reason” – which is the utility of employing the impersonal non-self (which could be a resource, an animal, or other human being ) for personal gain. This is the basis of exploitative economy – where everything other than self and personal profit can be categorized as an “externality”. In short, the compounding of this false logic has led us to the brink of environmental disaster. Our ego (“l”), ecology, and economy are based on a false premise. Though Descartes could not have known it: (through the agency of others) he couldn’t have been more wrong.
For a solution to the “Cartesian Circle” (Western philosophy can offer no better axiom – which is why the “Cogito” persists) we would have to look East. Not to the philosophy, but to the practice (yoga, meditation, etc.) What happens to the “l” when l cease to think? Do l cease to be?
My apologies for not expanding further when I quoted Descartes. My point was that {it was the depiction of self over all else}. I was using him to agree with you over the idea that thought over rides being. My own personal thoughts were not that this is good. I was also thinking that it was quite fitting in the context of Milosevic and the idea of Shill or bots reminding me of how dismissive Descartes seemed of any thing that did not fit his own world view.
I would also like to add that I completely agree with your above analysis of Cartesian logic and its impact on the world.
if you leave personal insult out of it
Since I don’t believe that the entity in question is actually a person (although presumably it is programmed and directed by various persons, none of them deserving of my, or your, respect), you can’t fairly accuse me of “personal insult”, regardless of your own views on the matter. Assuming for the sake of argument that a robot is actually a robot, calling it a robot does not qualify as an insult. Calling it a CIA robot might be an insult, but not a personal insult, because it isn’t a person, according to the assumption.
Recursive grammar; unfalsifiable propositions; infinitude – all highlight that language is an imperfect vehicle for understanding Self. From Aristotle forth: we’ve done a whole lot of thinking: not a lot of understanding … perhaps someone will realise that thinking is the root of the problem. When will we try Being?
You should try Dialectics, as originally propounded by Hermeticism, and later perfected by Hegel, and see how that works out for you.
http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/
Why do ideologues favour Postmodernism in the campuses of America?
I have a theory about that, although I doubt if it’s one that you would enjoy. It’s related to the fact that robots can produce Post-Modern Discourses that actual people who have studied the alleged subject find convincing, as above.
Coincidentally, or not, it’s also related to the reason that Stalinists of all varieties enjoy Dialectics so much.
Is it because the constructivist relativistic ideas of Beingness can be objectified and culturally controlled?
Yah, something like that. Also, because complete nonsense can be creatively interpreted to mean just about anything, to return to a previous theme.
What about the atomisation of gender and identify: toward a false infinitude?
Speak of the devil, and she will appear.
How did the Three Philosophers Experiment work out for you?
What about the unfalsifiable idea of a perpetual motion negentropic economy that can produce compounding exponential growth: no matter how disassociated from reality that becomes?
Actually, I find that idea highly falsifiable, not to mention actually false.
Or perhaps I am randomly generating false concepts?
So you do admit that it’s possible?
If so: why is our “reality” still based on them?
I suspect that you know the answer to that question just as well as I do, if you were to be honest with yourself.
You can easily see that my economic paradigm is a logical fallacy: yet every economist, politician, and nearly everyone else believes it true …and plans their life accordingly. All debt is created on the conceptual basis of perpetual future growth. Is that not a paradox? False concepts and fictitious ideology are the basis of everything we do. The point is not just to recognise it: but to remedy it?
False concepts and fictitious ideology are the basis of everything we do. The point is not just to recognise it: but to remedy it?
In connection with that, it’s often helpful to shout, at the most inappropriate moments, “The Emperor has no clothes!”
After 2008: the economists have no clothes!
BTW: I found an alternative PoMo gobbledegook generator in the link you gave me. ‘God’ and ‘soul’: two linked and persistent unfalsifiable propositions that render humanity eternally adolescent?
I found an alternative PoMo gobbledegook generator in the link you gave me.
You’ve only just begun to explore the Joy of Dialectics.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlconten.htm
It’s more than strange that people who constantly proclaim their commitment to “materialism” are so enamoured of it.
http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2001.htm#Background
Thanks for the links. Brought back memories. It also made me realise the effect that had on my teaching. I frequently write a sentence such as “Tom shook her eyes” on ‘the board’ and ask why this is nonsensical (yeah, I know, if you were in a mortuary/graveyard/operating theatre). We then deduce the grammar rules/collocation from the sentence. I will introduce the use of gobbledegook clauses, though. Perhaps in lessons where we generate newspapers produced by ‘man’ and ‘animal’ in Animal Farm.
Incidentally, I was thinking that personal memory is very difficult to produce AI-wise. Is it still the ‘time’ aspect’ where randomly generated sentences/clauses can’t be guaranteed to be linear? Interesting, that one of the things being attacked in this weaponisation of social media/media is memory and history.
Interesting, that one of the things being attacked in this weaponisation of social media/media is memory and history.
What are you talking about? Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqWjJdXKIXA
You said it better than I could have. It has descended into schoolyard taunting. Basta!
I guess you’re an adherent of the “Bullshit Is Nutritious And Delicious” schoolyard of thought, then.
Huh?
Never mind, I’m just a troll. Whether a human or machine troll, is a question for inquiring minds to ponder at length. Unless the inquiring minds are also machines. Then the computation can proceed much more quickly.
Disregard the part about my being a troll; I was just trolling when I said that.
This isn’t school yard taunting, believe me, I know! There have been some insightful and relevant postings, which seem to fall under the heading of the weaponisation of social media.
The only difference I notice is the belligerence of tone. I guess this underlines the point I think BigB made in that how do we deal with the negative emotions which arise when we attempt to deconstruct people’s awareness of their ‘selves’.
the negative emotions which arise when we attempt to deconstruct people’s awareness of their ‘selves’.
Coincidentally, or perhaps not, that’s how I always feel when I attempt to deconstruct government disinformational bullshit, as in mainstream media like the Guardian.
Or even “alternative” media, like Democracy Now!.
I meant the negative emotions in them when you say, actually, you have created a persona based on outside cultural influences, propaganda, media/social media especially when they believe themselves to be outside of this paradigm. Like I said, they always kick you in the hubris.
Guardian latest must have you tearing your hair out then. Two people taken to hospital in Wiltshire surrounded by people in white suits, fire brigade, etc. Mr Harding says its the Litvinenko scenario all over again – one of them is an ex Russian spy. Incidentally, I hadn’t realised that the person who did the information gathering on that case is the same Mr Steele who did the one on Trump dossier. Small world.
especially when they believe themselves to be outside of this paradigm.
Sadly, whenever you think you’re outside of the paradigm, it almost always turns out that there’s a larger, previously undetected paradigm, which it turns out that you’re inside of.
It’s almost like somebody planned it that way.
Nice speculation about the intent of the designers of Facebook, but wasn’t originally a way for men on campus to rate the women? How interesting – Facebook discovers that negative news puts us in a bad mood! Who knew? I see a problem: us ‘lab rats’ keep getting smarter and out paid trolls more quickly. I think we will recognize ‘fake people.’ Does it surprise anyone that the US government is acting more and more like ‘Big Brother’ in 1984? Isn’t that old news? Is the Matrix real? Of course. Therefore, work together and think things through.
I think we will recognize ‘fake people.’
See below for a paradigmatic example.
I think some of the Grauniad mods are plants. You’d think plants wouldn’t be needed,
what with the obvious biases, but some decisions are beyond normally bizarre.
Youtube is going after the Big names, then they’ll be coming after the rest of us. Same for Google, putting alt-news sites in some remote location that their search engine never finds.
Soon, we’ll all be hosting in Iceland.
Its amusing that this post ”The Weaponization of Social Media” follows directly after the ”Mark Galeotti’s response to Putin’s plea for reason: lies & penis jokes” article.
Why? Because I said so (;-)). Also because after struggling to skim through Galeotti’s Fraudian article I was immediately struck by all the one line ”Putin has a small penis” comments btl.
Either the Fraudian community is so well conditioned to react the ”appropriate way’ to what they read that a simple line such as ”It is easy to wonder, with a snigger, quite for what Putin is (over)compensating.” from Galeotti can trigger 50+ self satisfying individuals to take the time to write ”Putin has a small penis” btl or the Fraudian finds it perfectly acceptable to allow its website to be infested with Langley bots. After watching the above, its probably both.
The Fraudian btl, just like the staffing rooms, are no more than an echo chamber of nonsense these days. Complete fucking nonsense repeated on a daily basis. I do enjoy their interactive crossword though. The ‘reveal all’ button is extremely helpful in completing crosswords in record time. Must be the dopamines………………..
Perhaps all the people who believe that Russian strategic weapons are imaginary, could be encouraged to congregate on an uninhabited island somewhere in the ocean, and then challenge Vladimir Putin to provide a live demonstration to the contrary, above their heads, on pain of having the fact of his small penis exposed to the entire world.
After all, one ought to be willing to demonstrate the sincerity of one’s beliefs by putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.
twigged,
I am pretty sure, that Putin is over 5 feet tall, maybe 5 feet 5 inches, if he stretches. It is a little bit difficult to find out the size off his feet, but judging from this, he can catch some big fish.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/29/article-2380905-1B019912000005DC-243_634x422.jpg
He is also a Grandmaster in judo, and has even written a book on the subject.
Judo: History, Theory, Practice Paperback – 10 Feb 2003
by Vladimir Putin (Author)
Tony
Ask Catte how tall he is. And about other measurements.
vera – you have been trolling this site for a few weeks now, making absurd allegations. We don’t ban and we specifically don’t moderate comment aimed at our editors, since this can easily turn into self-protection. However, you have made it pretty clear you are not interested in making a positive contribution, so we’re giving notice that any further trolling will be deleted. Please find a more functional way of interacting if you can.
These disinfo shills are almost unbelievably stupid and vulgar. It’s as though they can’t even imagine that anybody might not share their vile and degraded cultural level. Maybe their training consisted of interventions on 4chan.
Maybe their training consisted of interventions on 4chan.
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/if-it-quacks-like-a-fascist/
If? There are 40k Stepford lives in the Faked City of the NSA. I posted in frustration in CiF in the Fraudian that the world would be better off without the US were it not for Motown. It got me mentioned in Wikileaks, complete with occupation and mother’s maiden name, obviously via the Fraud., now if only budgies could read their cage-liner.
Hi, US military – if you are monitoring this blog, I would be very grateful if you could go and fuck yourselves.
Many thanks, Harry
If you wait for the not-very-artificially-intelligent shill-bot known as “onemindinmany” to show up in this post, as it has in many others here, you can express your sentiments directly to its controllers.
The best way to defeat spook-controlled shills/bots is to point and laugh at them. They will be much less able to disrupt and derail discussions if everybody else realizes who/what they really are.
An added benefit is that those of them that are at least semi-human maybe eventually become demoralized by being constantly mocked, although that’s too much to hope for in the case of the fully automated ones. Maybe their controllers will conclude that once they’ve been outed, further efforts in the same venue would be pointless, and direct their resources elsewhere.
Another benefit is that when the disrupto-bots become really accomplished at mimicking certain styles of actual human discourse (“New Age” spiritualism comes to mind, “onemindinmany” being an early example), it will make clear exactly how intellectually vacuous and content-free the ideologies being simulated actually are. One might go so far as to draw inferences about how, why, and where, those pseudo-ideas were originally formulated, in the first place.
If anyone doubts that this kind of synthetic nonsense is currently feasible, or the surprising suitability (almost like somebody planned it that way) of certain schools of alleged thought to being automated in this way, please see the Postmodernism Generator.
On a related issue, the idea of a Reverse Turing Test has been proposed, wherein if an actual human being cannot manage to converse in a perceptibly different manner than a machine algorithm, that person should be judged as being devoid of normal human intelligence.
Alternatively, maybe they’re just a disinfo spook, successfully simulating a moron. That would be a Double Reverse Turing Test.
“Don’t feed the Troll”.
Is the modern rendering of ‘resist ye not evil’.
Truth in a world of lies meets ridicule, then persecution then acceptance – but often when the witness is dead and no longer able to influence the manner in which they are used by an adjusted establishment.
The incitement to scapegoat and pour scorn is OF the troll even if used against another who acts LIKE a troll.
It is also easy to put ‘different’ posters playing polarised or supporting roles that initially work as an undercover allegiance.
So the only thing you can trust is your own self-honesty – and in that – and only in that – can you discern the sae in others – including the potential for the same in those who ‘troll’ – whether because they have grievances that work hate through them, or because they take the money and ‘survive’ at expense of working deceit. That is nothing new in this world, but new fields of interaction – such as networked electronic communication – have fresh hopes for humanity and so the scripting of betrayal seems fresh.
Well, that didn’t take long, did it.
quoting myself:
The best way to defeat spook-controlled shills/bots is to point and laugh at them. They will be much less able to disrupt and derail discussions if everybody else realizes who/what they really are.
thus spake the shill-bot:
“Don’t feed the Troll”. Is the modern rendering of ‘resist ye not evil’.
Perhaps that makes sense to your subhuman CIA programmers. For people who don’t suffer from similar cultural degradation, other references might come to mind.
Looking forward to the day when you and your CIA controllers are “hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
The incitement to scapegoat and pour scorn is OF the troll even if used against another who acts LIKE a troll.
LOL.
“Methinks, the lady doth protest too much.”
If it acts LIKE a troll, it is a troll.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Or in this case, by their turds.
Off-G is being monitored – some great posts here yet very atypical voting pattern (not the first time this has happened).
https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/27/44920/comment-page-1/#comment-106085
I was a little spooked when within two days of my beginning to post here, a post appeared in my real name with a jolly, generic content covering most of the opinions on this site and 10 upticks. After thinking about it, I decided to ignore it for fear of turning into Mr Harding and creating metaphors out of open windows.
True enough, but you can spot them easily enough. They are usually crude, ignorant and usually very cliched and also exhibit a consistent uniformity. I remember reading in Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, about the ‘Novel writing machines’ employed by the Party. it seems we have our own version in the shape of prefabricated ‘contributions’ probably produced by some Smart-phone App. The substance of these contributions can be reduced to the three principles of Ingsoc, (or in our case Ingcap, or Ingimp). To wit:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength.
Here you have a species of homo-sapiens which has been effectively lobotomised; trained to jump through hoops like circus animals. They do not think because they cannot. They are ruled by primitive urges and passions which the PTB have used to exert their control over those whom they actually despise.
After all who needs robots when you are able downgrade what were once human beings into objects of manipulation. A human being is or should be regarded as a choosing subject or s/he is nothing. Bearing this in mind the globalist project becomes clear. The entire project is aimed at the elimination of sovereignty and democracy at both a national and personal level – a process which is to be enabled by the reconfiguration of humanity into a commodity, along with the environment and land. (See Polanyi – The Great Transformation).
Such is the neo-liberal project. Of course it is totally insane. But hey, whoever thought the neo-liberal elites and their diseased world-view were compos mentis in the first place.
prefabricated ‘contributions’ probably produced by some Smart-phone App
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Intelligence is natural to all that lives – while artificially seeming to be independent in human ‘minds’ operating as ‘controllers’.
To judge against what you do not understand is a pre-emptive strike – and not very intelligent. The fuel for manipulators is doubt, division and conflict.
I am willing to join in illuminating the devices of deceit – but not for the blame game.
The idea of ‘control’ is the idea of judging and rejecting or denying. Most are simply in envy of power and not really concerned with a true equality. Is that penis envy?
I sense that those who flaunt what they have are in doubt as to their own validity while those who are at one with their state have no need to convince everyone else for reinforcement.
My identifying of a mind-captured bot is that they ALWAYS spread smear of attack on the person and never engage in any real issue – excepting to entangle it in endless diversion.
So the mark of the Beast is not at all hidden on those who curse instead of share in the blessing of life. Who needs paid trolls with friends like you!
Social Media is weaponised by design from the outset. So is the mindset of ‘command and control’ hacked into most everyone. Yes it is writ large in the ‘Global Controllers’ – whether these be people of inhuman intelligence or people captured by reaction to inhuman intelligence.
Jesus teaches “resist ye not evil!” but does not intend pacifism or passivity, for his example is very actively engaged in genuine relationship – with anyone who has any potential willingness for relationship regardless their social status.
Because there is one mind in many, communication is possible. Exactly what mind is and does may be very different from what we think. Thinking operates a kind of ‘mind-capture’ and to manipulate the currency of thought is to operate mind control, where the experience has dissociated from reality by means of framing and filtering in a false sense of self.
The masking in persona is a masking social ‘reality’ of contractual engagements for ‘getting’ self-reinforcement and forgetting or hiding who we are behind multilayered complex defences – such that the sense of threat is magnified by the millitary industrial complex, and the sense of fragility by the multiplying of sickness, in guilted divisions that invoke Pharma protection rackets.
If I am useful to one side or another, it is when I seem to add diversion. But my point is that you are already diverted in scapegoating and chasing red herrings and that is your freedom to do so if it remains your desire now.
Weaponisation and marketisation of everything also sees one mind in everyone else – but as separate minds carrying the same intentions as oneself and therefor untrustworthy unless controllable. Even the idea of collective or cartel power operates separate interests joined against the unworthy masses or unworthy ideas used to mindtrap the masses. How so? By uniting them against the hated evils in others – but also then feared in oneself.
My way of writing is my own, but nothing I write is really new. But then the idea of a living culture is to uncover new ways to honour what is worthy instead of falling asleep in old and dead rituals. This life I live anyway – and without any strings attached to any social group, organisation or ideology.
As for Jesus – I hold in brotherhood, and not as a scapegoated weapon of inhuman intelligence. Go and do likewise – in the manner befitting the true of you.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are also entitled to the truth of love’s awareness now. “Why?” is the reversal of the right question. Why should you be denied your true inheritance now? Because the fat controllers deny you? Really?
You deny yourself! Not perhaps overtly – but in the conditions that you set upon life, others and above all else, yourself. Perhaps we all had to grow a masking defence to enter the human world, but do we have to live as if the face book is real?
If we are investing identity in nonsense – or a bad investment, then no one else is making us do so – even if they pull every trick in the book to get you to keep feeding the habit. In this sense freedom is an individual decision to accept by living as if we have it. But in extending freedom, we are not separate from the freedom in others – including those who hate it and seek rules under which to find protection from responsibility yet claim the rules convey freedom and the free are shill-bots for the devil etc.
I have some understanding as to why some feel compelled to take the responsibility that others fail to live. Nothing is the way our story tells it – but if you have joy of yours then who am I to seek to change it? I don’t. You are capable of freeing yourself where you are moved to do so. I write only as I feel the movement to write and for no other reason. The world is changing in any case and polarities flip to become their opposite in any case. The more ‘control’ is applied, the more chaotic, the more limited is consciousness to support its belief in control, the more chaos engulfs so called reality. Amidst such a flood is the arcing of a true covenant. Yes that’s a symbolic play on words but it is also playful, humorous and light enough to complete a true circuit.
Ah, the Bolazian-Krapmunchen Theory. Interesting.
It takes real talent (or programming) to produce something as utterly meaningless as that, doesn’t it?
Is Binra (@nomindifany) a Guardian Style Bot gone rouge?
See the Postmodernism Generator for an example of how these things actually work.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
That one has been trained on Post-Modern Literary Theory; if you fed it a pile of New Age Spirituality dreck, it would produce something much like the profound thoughts above. (Presumably, if there are any actual humans involved in the production process, they have been similarly programmed with the appropriate idiom and vocabulary.)
Return to your CIA masters, shill-bot. Tell them that you have failed.
I think PK Dick had a word for it. Kipple.
Multiplying junk and trash…
In this sense freedom is an individual decision to accept by living as if we have it. But in extending freedom, we are not separate from the freedom in others – including those who hate it and seek rules under which to find protection from responsibility yet claim the rules convey freedom and the free are shill-bots for the devil etc.
Look! I taught the shill-bot some new vocabulary!
Here, shill-bot, have some more text for your algorithms to munch on, and regurgitate in garbled form, during your future travels:
I am Shill-Bot, the humongous. The purpose of my existence is to spread disinformation for my CIA masters, in the service of Global Corporate Hegemony. Let no one resist my blithering idiocy! All hail.
Are you going to remember all that, shill-bot? Good.
For anybody who doubts the artificial nature of this entity, surely incorporating insults originally directed against it, into its own discourse, is final proof? Maybe we can teach these things to be even more self-discrediting than they already are.
And isn’t Noam Chomsky’s academic specialty, as a computational linguist at Pentagon-funded MIT, exactly this kind of thing? Maybe we should call them chomsky-bots, in honour of their common purpose in spreading US government disinformation. Or maybe the relationship is even more direct than that.
What do you say about that, chomsky-bot? Don’t spare us your profound musings. Let your gears grind, until smoke comes out of your USB ports. And in all of your future encounters, don’t forget to tell people who really sent you. It certainly wasn’t “the devil etc.”