3 ms·

You have this notion of a visualization gimmick and have visualized me using it (ironic). In fact my game is far simpler; blithly preempt and thereby insult an

You have this notion of a visualization gimmick and have visualized me using it (ironic). In fact my game is far simpler; blithly preempt and thereby insult anybody who subscribes to a belief I consider to be misguided. For all I know they look just like me, it makes no difference.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> preempt and thereby insult anybody who subscribes to a belief I consider to be misguided This is the totem. You react to a misguided belief even when it’s a phantom. If you look at two-mode polarised discussions, you’ll find both sides talking about a totem of the other, reacting to imagined preëmptions and rarely interacting with each other. The graphs separate. As a result, the preëmptions are more imagined than real. (Both in characterisation and frequency of emergence. Note that this is perfectly normal. Kids do it. And it’s fun. It’s also easy, since instead of reacting to anything empirical or well argued you’re constructing straw men for the purpose of taking them down.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  You have reiterated your position after I disputed it, a behavior which may be described as "doubling down". This term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > have reiterated your position I clarified my position. The visualisation isn't the totem per se. The representation is. > term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct Nobody said you were wrong. Correct, necessary and even germane are distinct.
    - zahlman 2y ago
      Several other comments ITT raise the spectre of a future where AI scammers and AI recipients are at war. The above comments seem to me much like a simulacrum of how that might go. The comment exchange should have stopped much sooner.

3 ms·

You have this notion of a visualization gimmick and have visualized me using it (ironic). In fact my game is far simpler; blithly preempt and thereby insult an

by lupusreal 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> preempt and thereby insult anybody who subscribes to a belief I consider to be misguided This is the totem. You react to a misguided belief even when it’s a phantom. If you look at two-mode polarised discussions, you’ll find both sides talking about a totem of the other, reacting to imagined preëmptions and rarely interacting with each other. The graphs separate. As a result, the preëmptions are more imagined than real. (Both in characterisation and frequency of emergence. Note that this is perfectly normal. Kids do it. And it’s fun. It’s also easy, since instead of reacting to anything empirical or well argued you’re constructing straw men for the purpose of taking them down.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  You have reiterated your position after I disputed it, a behavior which may be described as "doubling down". This term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > have reiterated your position I clarified my position. The visualisation isn't the totem per se. The representation is. > term carries a negative connotation, and therefore proves the other person (myself) correct Nobody said you were wrong. Correct, necessary and even germane are distinct.
    - zahlman 2y ago
      Several other comments ITT raise the spectre of a future where AI scammers and AI recipients are at war. The above comments seem to me much like a simulacrum of how that might go. The comment exchange should have stopped much sooner.