Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theorists like to think that any belief that goes against mainstream thought must be right. It's as if their points of view come from a deep hatred of the mainstream rather than interest in the truth. The other possibility is that they just get great joy from feeling that they know something the majority of other people don't. So like dummies they create cognitive biases in order to make this wish come true.

For example, the theory that 9/11 was an inside job is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream. As a result, conspiracy theorists put in a lot of effort in assembling as much half-assed evidence as possible in order to make it seem like the government was behind it.

And when doctors recommend vaccinations, conspiracy theorists claim that doctors aren't really experts because they are only telling you what they have been taught. Okay, fair enough, but then who should people listen to instead? Some guy off the street who thinks he has it all figured out? And not someone who has a formal education? But a formal education is just brainwashing says conspiracy theorists. Okay, fine, but then how do you explain technology, planes, cars, machines, etc? Aren't they based on scientific principles? And can't these principles be learned? And if not in formal educational institutions then where? So from this you can reasonably assume that not all information that comes from the mainstream is wrong, or biased, or a lie, as some conspiracy theorists like to believe. Now, although some of the mainstream messages are wrong, such as politically correct dogma and corporate bullshit, the key is in figuring out what is crap and what isn't rather than just use a big brush to label things good or bad.

Conspiracy theorists love to mentally masturbate over their ideas and a rejection of their ideas (to them) means you are not a "critical thinker", who has been brainwashed by society. But this is just a use of shaming language, something they accuse the mainstream of using, rather than a presentation of rational argument. Conspiracy theorists love to present themselves as "alternatives" but are just dummies who act cult-like in the way they communicate and try to convince people of their point of view, sometimes using carefully cherry-picked arguments, bolstered sometimes with select YouTube videos containing cherry picked sound bites and video clips, with some dummy talking in the background. And sometimes there is "conspiracy music" also playing in the background, in order to make the arguments more convincing. However, if you look closely at the videos there is no real substance, just vague information which could mean anything. For example, a guy pulls up beside a government building in a black car... what more proof do you need says the idiot conspiracy theorist.

Monday, 20 July 2009

Judging Men By Their Shoes

Dumb people think that shoes say a lot about someone. They use the "sole profile" to assess someone's entire personality.

Women are the prime culprits in this ridiculous evaluation process. It is one of the weakest, and yet most embraced, means women have to evaluate men.

For example, a woman might judge a man's ability in bed based on the type of shoes he wears, and how he puts them on. Apparently this gives her all the information she needs to decide what kind of lover he is.

You think it would make more sense to just talk to someone, or better yet get "involved" with them, to find out the truth of the matter. But that's what smart people would do, and that's not what we're talking about here.

And what if someone doesn't care that much about making shoes a priority, because he has better things to worry about? So you can't really judge one aspect of their lives to make conclusions about a different aspect because they are not weighted with the same importance.

Another possibility is that a man will learn about "proper footwear" to fool the ladies, just to get his foot in the door, and to their dismay they find out that he doesn't measure up. You see, there's this thing called lying and misrepresentation which many men have used to fool many women.

But dumb women won't acknowledge this because in their narrow field of view they are always right. They have a habit of judging things based on limited information and only on what they can directly see in front of them.

So not only are they dumb, but lazy too.

So why do some women put so much emphasis on footwear? Probably because it's related to fashion, and because they themselves have a thing for footwear. Therefore, they project the importance they place on footwear on to the importance men should place on footwear. So in their minds they are justified in judging someone based on what they would be thinking when that person does something shoe related.

Just think, there are some women who become dating coaches, teaching women all they need to know about men based on their shoes and shoe habits. These women are experts at finding patterns where there are none.

A person with such entrenched dumb-ness will (when proven wrong) twist and distort the facts in an effort to validate what they're already thinking.

So you see, women who habitually judge men by their shoes are impossible to reason with, and are quite incurable. They are simply so in love with their (selective) powers of observation that they would never entertain the existence of real data that proves them wrong.

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Moderating Internet Forums

Dumb people love to feel powerful with little or no accountability, and the internet gives them plenty of opportunity to do this. This is unlike the real world, where incompetence is harder to hide.

Just having the title of moderator is enough for any dumb person to drool with delight.

However, smart people know that having power online means shit. But dumb people see it as a way to "flex" muscles they don't actually have.

Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, dumb people can cause all sorts of problems. And when people complain about their actions they immediately adopt a classic defensive posture; you'd think you were making fun of their breast or dick size.

Not knowing how to rationally explain themselves, dumb moderators hide behind nonsensical forum policies and address complaints by referring people to these policies — it's easier to do this than explain themselves in a way that makes sense.

With no checks and balances in place, some go on to become very heavy-handed, banning people based on a whim.

Plentyoffish (POF) is one of the worst places for moderator abuse of power. POF moderators are comprised of social rejects, insecure retards, and all sorts of individuals with personality issues, who use the internet medium as carte blanche for their recklessness. The moderators on POF love to delete forum threads that don't follow certain narrow and retarded standards, calling it "democratic" with the stipulation that the only vote that counts is theirs. They also love to ban "problem members" for ridiculous periods of time, such as until 2020, or even 2050 (if they're having a particularly bad day).

Even calling them on their dumbness won't work, as they'll just delete you for being a nuisance. Drunk on having this kind of power, this is no doubt met with extreme satisfaction on their end, probably accompanied with copious amounts of drooling plus cackling.

The problem is compounded if a group of dumb moderators are working together, who police the forum like retarded nazis who don't have the intelligence to be nazis in real life.

So how do dumb people become forum moderators in the first place? It's because smart people normally don't care to do it, as they've got better things to do. This leaves mostly dumb people who are left to take on the role. It's an opening for people who are not deriving satisfaction from their own lives in the real world, but finally have a chance to show who's boss in the virtual world.

Behind every shit head moderator online is a fucking idiot in real life.

They frequently use "intelligence boosting" tools to make themselves appear smarter online than they actually are; tools such as a thesaurus, which can fool others into thinking that they know their shit and are therefore well suited to the title of "moderator".

Another virtual advantage is that they can avoid real-time responses. Dumb forum moderators usually don't respond to grievances or complaints right away (since their mental capacity is limited). They can take their time to cut-and-paste "intelligent" sounding phrases from various sources (in addition to using a thesaurus). This will enhance the "abstractive" quality of their responses to make it seem like they know what they're talking about.

Furthermore, you will never get a personalized (direct) response from these moderators. They will always veil their response in "forum policy" snippets, and if you question it they'll just tell you that the "rules" apply to everyone (meaning that everyone gets screwed equally).

The best way to avoid these types of moderators is to only use forums that have a limited and select number of users. This keeps the number of required moderators low, and makes it more likely that the moderators will be a select group, chosen by the webmaster, who himself is (hopefully) not a dummy.