Self Defense: OptimizeMe

And this weeks grandstanding insecurity example for whom personal messages aren't good enough is... *drum roll* OptimizeMe Yay!! You win free press! :)

This week's entry is a little unusual in that I still like the guy and every message to him from me has been positive. Just goes to show, some people are mean no matter what you do. Oh well at least he's funny and an excellent troll, he even almost pissed me off, despite my knowing exactly how this works.

On with the show!

I started things off, with this this review...

Apr 16, 10:42am Social hacker of the first order with a bit of a temper issue and loads more cynicism than even I've got. His heart's in the right place though, credit where credit is due.



A living example of the T-shirt, if you're not angry you're not paying attention.

And then sent him a personal message, because I consider it a common courtesy (I'm the only one on SU who does this apparently) to send the person I review the work that inspired my review...

Apr 16, 10:44am

http://optimizeme.stumbleupon.com/review/20045941/



Bravo.



You might like my work.

To which he responded by (as you might have guess given this posts locations) by messaging me in the form of a review, an action SU has yet to provide adequate mechanism of response for.

Apr 17, 6:25am

Come up with your own ideas.

Hehehe... My next personal message to him was as follows.

Since we're going to talk to each other publicly.

http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/03/self-defense.html

Dear OptimizeMe

Hate me all you like I still think you're funny. :)

My own ideas eh?

So you honestly think that I completely missed the objectification of women, of which the sale of children as sex objects is but a small part, until I saw your two paragraphs... yesterday? At which point I figured that now would be a good time to stop whatever I was doing before and copy your work with all possible haste so as to forever plant a flag with my name on it, firmly in the women's rights issue, thus naturally leading to a noble peace prize, high schools named after me, and the respect of women for generations?

As plausible as all that is, no. I've been talking about, and more importantly writing about, this topic for my entire adult life. In fact the portion of my book in question, while posted on scribed a mere few months ago, was written when I was still in my first year of college based on conversation I regularly had in IRC in the mid 90s heh.

This is particularly amusing as roughly half my work as my readers know focuses on human mate selection in America and the west generally, of which the above issue is a substantial part.

Examples are scattered all over my SU account, this blog and my book.

But I recognize the mark of a truly talented troll. You first choose something obvious about the person and then claim the opposite or attack it in someway. Like attacking a retired marine for lack of patriotism or something. Since you don't actually believe it yourself you're free to respond in whatever way you wish to make the other person look foolish for even trying, the subject will often flounder because central traits are often in the mind of the person axiomatic and they have not given any thought to the matter of how to prove it if pressed. Like imagine if someone accused you of not being your gender or race, how exactly would you prove it with words?

I've been on SU for two years and haven't encounter a troll yet, much less a good one. You force people to think. Regardless of whats going on in your head.

Self Defense: parallaxblue

Ahhh, parallaxblue.

(Edit: The day after this post, he changed his avatar to the following, hehe.)







A depressing example of what I used to be. Still, a lot can happen in 7 years, I have hope for the man yet. Despite his flailing tantrums.



They say atheism isn't a religion, and I would generally agree, except in those cases where the advocates of non-faith make no arguments of their own, where they merely adopt a position presented to them from a position of authority parrot it without analysis. This has become frighteningly easy as atheism has adopted all the same techniques of religion for propagating itself. Such as the “how to argue with a theist” type pages. Which are not designed ot be informative so much as a way to make proselytizing easier.



Now I see no point in this. I believe argument and debate are innate skills indicative of personal mental capacity. I'm biased of course, but assuming this is the case then simply borrowing someone else's argument in total, rather than merely agreeing with a point and defending it with your own logic, is just the same to me as quoting the bible (or infidels.org) and considering the matter closed.



One should strive to remain open to new and correct data, this means a degree of incredulity and skepticism yes, but it also means critical thinking, and openness to the possibility of a previous idea being false. Too often the strong atheist camp has associated an open mind with a weak one, and while I agree one should not merely be a robot ready for programming one should also not be a statue incapable of change.



Such is the case of Parallaxblue. A statue if ever I've met one. And quite ironically given the topic of our debate, debating him was exactly like debating an intelligent theist, right down to the knee jerk reaction and the door begin slammed in my face. Closed doors, closed minds.



Rather than risk a requirement for total reassessment of his belief core, or recognition of a personal fault he terminated all possibly of easy contact.



Since my previous message was erased when he invoked this termination, I don't have the comment preceding this one. My previous message was in response to the following review, which he mentions later.

The debate he mentioned is this one.



Here we have the stumbleupon equivalent of taking your ball and going home or painting rules in big sloppy letters on the side of your clubhouse to piss off the cooties infested neighbor girl. And that is why it's being posted on this page, because this type of behavior in spirit is precisely the same as speaking to a person via a review, because no response can be made.



It's the same as covering your ears and then shouting at a person like children often do. 'I'm not listening poopie head!' Some things it seems we never out grow.



In all fairness this blog is probably just as childish, perhaps the equivalent of tattling. :)

You don't have permission to message this user.

This is the message it shows at the top when someone is blocked. Generally people send a little stab and then block a person so they cant respond, a cheap and effective way of getting the last word. But in this case I have a blog post dedicated to cataloging my responses to such underhandedness.



In any case, here we go. My reply.

10:56am Who has intentionally insulted who here? I'd say that by sharing your "honest" opinion of me, you're the one who was provocative and insulting in the first place.

You misunderstand what an insult is. I simply informed you of my feelings towards you. As I said in the reply that you wiped, I find it hilarious that in order to be treated civilly by you I have to both agree with everything you say and personally like you. I didn't realize being open about how I feel was such a taboo. Similarity #834,656 with the faiths you claim to hate.



Why honest in quotes? You think I'm lying?

And completely unwarranted provocation, I might add, since I did not insult you at all during the course of our debate.

You want a cookie? Of course you didn't, a debate is about an exchange of ideas, which is why I kept my personal feelings and opinions to myself, until our debate had concluded, at which point I had a bit of respect for you and felt you deserved to know how I felt about you as a matter of courtesy. Again, how dare I. I'll remember to lie to the next atheist I debate, to preserve their delicate sensibilities.

There was no reason for you to make that comment besides your own immaturity.

We're all children right up until we die, I intend to spend my life learning and playing. What you call maturity I call stagnation. I merely thought you deserved the truth even if you are a moron in my opinion.



But I realize what you mean, you feel it was rude/inappropriate/childish to say something that I knew would not be accepted with a smile. But that's a sophist trick, by that logic anything I say in opposition to you could be painted as rude or insulting, which is very much like the concept of sin, or that idea that religion is above debate. You have no right to control what I believe or say. You also have no right to lie about what I am.



Compare what each of us did. You made it a point to exaggerate your negative perceptions of me beyond all reasonability. An insult by definition is such an exaggeration, I merely expressed a negative opinion, I did not exaggerate one whit, what I typed is literally what I believe.



I was not trying to make you look any more foolish than I believe you actually are. Conversely, you know for a fact that I don't stand there and talk to myself in the mirror as the comic would suggest, nor is our debate a trivial Internet argument blown out of proportion, as your serious business link would suggest. A concept which I brought up first I might add with the enterprise/death star reference. Thief. We were talking about the the future of human psychology and the fundamental nature of our universe, no trivial matters.



Let me guess, now that you've been soundly trounced and had your pseudo-logic shown to be the baseless faith that it is, the debate no longer counts, its not serious, it's just the Internet, it's not like you actually have to reassess things now, you weren't really trying anyway, right? Are you sure I'm the one who's emotionally under developed?



You may think your opinion is trivial deep down because you don't have a foundation grant or a lab coat, but I suffer from no such classist and self defeating perceptions. My opinions are just as valid as Plato or Dawkins. And merely because they appear on the Internet does not trivialize them. In short the Internet in many cases is indeed serious business.

All I did in that review was point out what you yourself had already done: namely that you felt it was necessary to share your personal opinion of me after our debate, even though you must have known that any normal person would feel insulted if someone called them pretentious. It was a cheap shot, meant to provoke me, and very immature of you to do so.

As above, this is not your opinion of me. It is a mischaracterization intended to ridicule. In vengeance for, and greater than, the harm you felt I caused you. You merely want to win. I merely wanted to be clear and honest. I expected you to dislike it. I did not expect you to have a tantrum over it, I expected a reply of equal honesty.

Even though we disagreed (and still do) on whether or not God exists, I had respect for you until I read your comment at the end of the blog post.

*sigh* Still trying to straw man me, boy you're bitter. I'll ignore the low blow.



Again, in order to avoid begin insulted by you I have to both agree with you and like you or have a high opinion of you. But I don't, which in your mind makes it fair game to lie about my nature. Why don't you just call me a child molester too, or claim that I rape dead dogs or something. That's the same family of action you took, but I don't think you realize it.



Again, what I said about you is what I think to be true, what you said about me, neither of us thinks to be true. You want people to laugh at me, and for me to hurt, I wanted you to perhaps recognize a personal flaw and attempt to grow past it. In effect I said 'hey, your zipper is down', and you effectively said 'screw off pompous dimwit'. You understand? I'll bet my readers do.

As for your analysis of my personality based solely on my avatar.. well what can I say? With no evidence other than my avatar, you then leap to conclusions about my personality. Such hasty and inaccurate judgment speaks for itself, and it doesn't reflect well on you at all.

I have a great deal of evidence other than your avatar, or are you admitting that none of your arguments were your own and that your blog is devoid of content? You may wish to think that all I have to go on is your photo, but that's not the case. My opinion of you is well founded, and not trivially based as yours is, on our degree of mental parity, or personal enjoyment of each other. Not to mention years of experience in the field of human observation. Your knee jerk reaction merely confirms my position. Quick to judge, slow to change.

You have lost my respect. I have nothing more to say to you, and any further messages from you are now being ignored.

Fair enough, as we agreed before you took your ball and went home, history will be the judge. I just wanted to make my position clear for the record. And although you've posted and then ignored me insuring that I cannot respond. You're welcome to respond to this at any point.

Self Defense: Helsinkip

Helsinkip: They are advocating sex with children, you stupid wanker - but you admire their openness. Well good for you. Prick. News flash, legally speaking children are property and on-citizens. Want to show me the statute that says "children are property" - and what the FUCK does "on-citizens" mean, exactly? .

First of all they are advocating the right to have sex with children, which is significantly different. What you claim is like saying pro choice people encourage abortion. But I wouldn't be too shocked if drivel like that came out of your fingers as well. What I actually typed was non-citizens.

Which would you rather have? A squad of honest pedophiles that you know exactly who and where they are, or a group doing their level best to hide what they are and perhaps infiltrate our schools and churches? You're the type of moron that would have voted for prohibition, or sold popcorn at a witch burning. In order to control a thing you must first find a thing. Society's reaction to pedophilia, becomes moot if you've driven all the pedophiles into hiding. Why has it not occurred to any of you froth mouths that the FBI is probably monitoring that page?

Can you grasp the concept that you may in fact be helping the people you claim to hate?

As to children being property, I ask what jurisdiction would you like? Or is federal custody law good enough? Children have almost no rights. How many of them would continue to risk their lives in school if it were not a law? You're simply ignorant of the realities of life in America. And you're so addle-minded that you've forgotten what it was like to be a child. Fortunately for them some of us remember all too well.

Beyond all that is my core point, Free Speech means Free, period the end. You don't get to shut people up just because you find their opinion detestable. And conversely, they don't get to shut you up. That's how that is supposed to work.

Go watch demolition man to see the end of that slippery slope. If you start controlling speech pretty soon everything's illegal. Your ignorant lynch mob version of democracy makes my skin crawl.

Self Defense: Agent-fisher

Agent-fisher: How wrong was I, huh? He also likes using private PMs without permission. http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-pedophilia-to-free-speech-in-5.html And a screencap proving it: http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn185/agent_fisher/Exibit_A.jpg.

I don't need your permission to post my own words. You have no right to censor me, but given how our argument started I don't expect you to understand that. Others will.

Are you so ashamed of your own position? I'm rather proud of mine. Because I have confidence in its validity. If you have the desire to hide yours perhaps you should think about what that means. And don't play the martyr, this whole thing started with you triumphantly announcing your fascist hatred of free speech.

What is that screen cap supposed to prove?

You waived your right to protected conversation when you clicked send. I am not your priest, I am not your lawyer. If you don't like that, you have the right to remain silent.

Wake up kid, this is called the Internet.

Self Defense: Agent-fisher

Agent-fisher: How wrong was I, huh? He also likes using private PMs without permission. http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-pedophilia-to-free-speech-in-5.html And a screencap proving it: http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn185/agent_fisher/Exibit_A.jpg.

I don't need your permission to post my own words. You have no right to censor me, but given how our argument started I don't expect you to understand that. Others will.

Are you so ashamed of your own position? I'm rather proud of mine. Because I have confidence in its validity. If you have the desire to hide yours perhaps you should think about what that means. And don't play the martyr, this whole thing started with you triumphantly announcing your fascist hatred of free speech.

What is that screen cap supposed to prove?

You waived your right to protected conversation when you clicked send. I am not your priest, I am not your lawyer. If you don't like that, you have the right to remain silent.

Wake up kid, this is called the Internet.

Self Defense: Geckotape

Geckotape: You know, two strikes. Saying pedophilia is the least of children's concerns, as compared to exploitation in the media? You know what, fuck you. Fuck you fuck you fuck you. Taking sex from a child destroys their mind, the body to follow. There is no greater harm you could do to a person. Fuck you. And fuck you.

Does it bother you that you've completely misunderstood what I said? Or are you happy to label me a monster without regard to the veracity of that claim? I think I already know the answer.

What I said was that the web page is the least of children's problems. Not rape. And as to no greater harm, I think you're over stating the matter. If forced to choose would you really pick death for your own child rather than statutory rape? If so I think that indicates an atrocious level of morbid preoccupation with sex.

I personally would rather be raped by deception and live to potentially seek vengeance than be murdered.

Internet tough guys and fighting like a man.

This is going to be so much fun. Here is my first exchange with a cyber thug of 2008. Enjoy :)
----------

joethepeacock1:50pm Aren't you adorable, with your whole schitck of how awful marriage is to the concept of love...

For the record, that "bitch" I was sitting with would probably crush your jaw and break your arm in a reverse-armbar before you had the chance to pull that pretend gun you want to shoot her with.

Internet tough guys like you crack me right up.

I have no idea who you are or what you're talking about given your inability to cite a source, and that, makes this whole exchange all the more entertaining.

Since I don't have the slightest clue who you are or what provoked this I'm going to treat you conceptually. You are now every chest thumping “Internet badass” that has ever tried to use verbal descriptions of violence to impress themselves or anyone else.

Ironic that you would call me exactly what you've shown yourself to be. My online presence has my real face and full name and to my understanding the Internet tough guy thing requires anonymity.

So anyway, after my jaw is crushed and my arm is broken etc. Would you then poop in your hand and toss it at me as well? :)

It amazes me how some people doubt we've descended from chimps given your kind of behavior.

I can only assume this is how you guys solve your problems irl, and so often in fact that your first instinct is to try it online as well. You chest thump, and stomp around, and the adults around you let you have your way like some sort of rampaging toddler too big to be put to bed.

I mean really... Do you seriously expect that to work on the Internet? Am I supposed to be cowed into submission on the basis of imaginary violence? What is the desired reaction here? Am I to cry and beg your forgiveness? Perhaps lock all my doors and peer out my windows in abject terror of the righteous thrashing I've apparently earned at the hands of what I can only assume is your girlfriend? Or perhaps I'm supposed to reconsider my whole world view based merely on an abstract threat and thank you for enlightening me?

I'll bet you weren't even thinking that far ahead, if indeed you were thinking at all. Of course what you really want is a response in kind. You want me to antler bash with you and send back a message along the lines of “I'Ll STMOP YOUR ASSS FAG!!!!” so you can feel like you've won some sort of contest.

Am I right?

I hope this response won't be too much of a disappointment, but being that I'm clearly as far in advance of you, and most likely your mate, intellectually, as you are claiming to be in advance of me pugilistically, it's the only kind you're likely to get.

You see, you've not pissed me off personally. In fact you've given me about 20 minutes of entertainment. That's how long it took me to stop laughing, and then post this response to my blog.

I'm not tough. Nor did I ever claim to be. You see, I'm an adult and I haven't had to use violence since the 7th grade. I find that people only use the body when someone's mind fails. I surround myself with mature and intelligent people, and I act accordingly, and so fighting isn't a big part of my day except in the verbal sense.

I don't mean role played imaginary wrestling matches where I get a reverse arm bar, (whatever the hell kind of spandex-clad redneck-ballet crap that is), like you clearly indulge in, I mean the real fight, the one that matters, the clash of ideas.

I wish you were aware of how silly you look, others soon will be.

Since you brought up firearms, I'm going to use this opportunity to speak about “fighting like a man” which is a phrase I can easily imagine your type using. What you and your ilk don't seem to understand is that the whole point of a fight is to win, and the whole point of a weapons is to insure that win.

A weapon is by definition an unfair advantage. If I felt that my life was in danger you wouldn't have a chance to respond if I had any control over the situation at all. Thats how a weapon, any weapon, works. Be it claw, spear, firearm, arrow, cunning, or intelligence. A tiger has stripes, and a lion is yellow so he can back-stab his prey.

Humans are predators and are thus designed to hunt, not defend against being hunted.

You don't use a weapon for an antler bashing ritual. This is not pistols and paces at dawn. Notice that even in real life antler bashing rituals, the males never try to impale their competitor. Your ignorance of the fundamental nature of competition is telling.

I'm proud of who I am and what I have to say, and if you and those like you took 30 seconds to consider it critically, rather than thumping your chest like a primate in heat, you might either come to agree with me or find a flaw I have missed, in which case at least one of us would learn something

From my perspective its obvious that you and your kind despise your life, are deeply insecure about yourselves generally and are angry at those like me for pointing out the naked emperor. You'd rather walk around looking like a total moron so long as everyone around you is scared to point it out.

Cheers. :)