By David Futrelle
As I noted the other day, the big thing among right-wing shitposters at the moment is the “NPC” meme — an attempt to insult and dehumanize so-called Social Justice Warriors by declaring them to be, in effect, a bunch of “Non-Player Characters” who respond to everything right-wingers say with a few meaningless catchphrases, much like NPCs in video games.
So, yes, the trolls are trying to convince the world (and, I suppose, themselves) that their opponents are basically repetitive robots by … all using the same insult against them at once. The NPC meme is even more of a self-own than the “cuck” and “soyboy” memes that preceded it.
Now they’ve upped their game — I guess you could call it that? — by creating dozens if not hundreds of obviously fake NPC Twitter accounts to prove that … well, I don’t know what they’re trying to prove, honestly.
I discovered this phenomenon earlier today when a couple of these fake NPC accounts — complete with grey-faced NPC avatars — responded to my original article on the NPC nonsense. Here are their Twitter profiles.
As you can see, they’re not exactly trying to hide the fact that they’re trolls. (I don’t think even these idiots are idiotic enough to think this half-assed trollery is convincing.)
Here are some of Mr. Orange Man’s recent tweets. You might notice a couple of obvious patterns here. Along with the repetitiveness of the posts, most of them are replies to other fake NPC accounts.
I took a quick look at Mr. Orange Man Bad’s profile and saw that he had 70 followers, which is a lot more than one might expect from a throwaway troll account.
So who exactly would follow a completely worthless troll sockpuppet account like this?
Other completely worthless troll sockpuppet accounts. Page after page of them.
What are you even doing, guys? Why go to all this trouble to push a meme that everyone outside of shitposterland sees, at best, as a massive self-own or, at worst, a creepy way to dehumanize your enemies that makes you look a bit less than fully human yourselves? What on earth is the point?
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@Space Battleship Bear,
You’ll have to forgive me for being a bit salubrious, it’s been awhile since we’ve had someone from your, uh, side of the fence here. I’ll try to explain things straight instead of ladling on the sarcasm. I get pretty aggressive near the end there; do try to hold on until then if you can.
That is, in fact, exactly what I pointed out in my last post to you! You’re claiming that you have an objective viewpoint. This line, specifically:
This is a typical pseudorationalist behaviour, in which they are acutely aware of the slights others put upon them but see any insults they themselves might be delivering as either “a joke” or “objectively true” or both.
In this case you’re using the latter, considering your own slight to be “objectively true” whereas anything we say that you might find offensive is just immature slander. In reality, people do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and everyone considers themselves to be justified when they do them, so we need something extra to determine what the truth actually is. That’s what actual rationality is for.
And this response here calls back to the next paragraph I wrote:
Pseudorationalists have many tricks to evade a criticism, this one is common – minimize the critic as “childish”, “stupid” or – well, “NPC” if we want to be meta about it.
You didn’t have to say this line at all, it doesn’t support your position in the slightest. It’s just a minimization. Falls perfectly in-line with pseudorationality, though.
No, I haven’t claimed that you’re a right-winger, I’ve called you a pseudorationalist. I did talk about the right wing of belief a few times, but if you read for comprehension, you’ll find that I always said they were points at which pseudorationalists and right-wingers seem to align together.
I personally believe you’re a centrist, until you give me reason to believe the contrary, because most people are centrists. Centrism has a mealy mixture of right and left beliefs – often the worst of both, but I don’t know you well enough to know your particular brand.
Also – and this is important, follow me now – they aren’t tricks. The things I talked about aren’t deceptions, they’re failures in thinking. Deviations from reality, willful ignorance, etc; all designed to protect the ego from something hurtful. They’re universal to humanity, but pseudorationalism turns some of those knobs up to eleven.
And so if I “did my research” and investigated sources (and disregarded sources that considered the meme to be ridiculous) I’d come to understand this deeper meaning?
(Ignoring, for the moment, that I have done my research and looked at other viewpoints…)
Yeah, that was the fifth point in my previous reply. I’m calling your research bullshit, I’m saying that your “evidence” is nonsense. The proper response to this is to present evidence for evaluation here, but I see you haven’t got anyth- oh, wait, your next sentence might have something, let’s take a loo-
gahaahaahaa-
– sorry, I jus –
eheeheeheehee
cough sorry, mea culpa. I mean, I just have so many things to say in response to this. Here, I’ll hit the highlights.
– Did you know that the reason that the scientific community doesn’t use video presentations in presenting findings or papers is because videos are terrible ways to present evidence, unless the video itself is the evidence?
– Did you know that, while video’s terrible at providing critical evidence, it’s great for convincing people of things that are false?
– Go take a look at WWTH’s link. I mean, you care about racism, right? You don’t want to align with racism, right?
– You know that TPUSA is just an opinion source, yes? All the actual facts they report on? come from Reuters, BBC, CNN, etc. They give you a couple of facts gleaned from actual reporting as a poison pill to make you swallow their opinions as if they were facts as well.
– You know that based on the “evidence” you’ve provided we can reliably say you’re conservative, and at least neutral if not supportive of fundamentalist christianity, yes? TPUSA is the pet project of Charlie Kirk, for whom apparently railing against atheists apparently doesn’t pay the bills as well as it does, but coddling conservatives has become very lucrative.
Come on, you can do better. Evidence that this “NPC meme” is more than lame trolling, and not just some opinion piece video. If it’s so true, you surely must have something you can provide?
(Oh, and Dave Rubin is hot garbage in a suit, just so you know ;D )
Aah. And we end with another minimization. A palette cleanser, don’t you think?
Real talk, my duck.
I engaged with you with sarcasm in the beginning, and others engaged in more sarcasm and with hostility, because we’ve all read this before.
In your reply, you engaged in almost all of the behaviours I pointed out to you in my previous post. “you people write nonsense,” “I’m talking to children here,” “it’s an observation.” They are literally the same words as your fellow travelers, line-for-line. You’re saying the exact same things they are, falling into the exact same potholes, showing the exact same cognitive blind spots.
Almost like you’re all drawing from the same script. Almost – and again, follow me here – almost like you’re a bunch of NPCs.
Which we’ve actually joked about here, in the past. This ain’t new, you’re not blowing minds or rattling cages. Difference between us and you here is that we joke about it, have a chuckle, and move on with our lives. It’s funny, but not worth effort beyond that. We have lives to live. You guys? You make dozens of twitter accounts, grind out pages of sad MS Paint art, and sneer at anyone who doesn’t laugh along.
We have things to do with our lives, and at the end of the day if one of you NPCs shows up and actually engages? We engage with their ideas. Sure, we’ll do it angry, but that’s generally because they’re the same assholes who call for throwing people out of helicopters or taking away abortion rights, and those are things worth getting angry over.
You guys? You cry foul, tone-police, and drop links to shitty hour-long opinion videos in lieu of actual argument. You have nothing.
Sharpen your teeth, space bear. Show some of that ursine spine you allude to having. No videos – use your words, tell us why we’re wrong, tell us why we’re a bunch of NPCs. Show us what you’ve got in you.
Or bark ineffectually into the air before slinking back into the shadows.
Prove me right, either way.
The reason I call the posters of this meme childish isn’t just to be insulting and mean. I chose the word very deliberately. It’s because the meme is inherently childish.
It shows a complete lack of understanding that other people have inner lives and thought processes leading to their conclusions. This isn’t one of those things you can declare both sides do either. The left actually spend quite a bit of time dissecting the right wing mindset and the sociological factors behind right wing movements. A lot of us understand people on the right quite well. I’ve never seen a similar effort on the right. Nobody on the right has ever tried to talk to me personally and find out where I’m coming from. It’s just assumed that we must be crazy. Or welfare moochers. Or want to destroy western civilization. In other words, you make the assumption that we’re merely NPCs to be mowed down as you move your way towards a glorious Galt gulch white ethnostate. The reason I know that you, Space Bear are on the right is because you have displayed no understanding of what our positions are and what the terms we use mean. It’s a classic right wing trait. Feel free to show me otherwise if you like. Show you’ve developed a theory of mind. Show you can discuss political issues like an adult and I’ll treat you like one.
Another reason I call those that use the NPC meme childish is that you’re literally playing that game that kids play when they want to annoy the crap out of someone. The shadow or mimic game. The one where the obnoxious child repeats verbatim everything the other person says. Only instead of repeating the things we actually say verbatim, you repeat what the strawprogressives that live in your head are saying. You’ve weaponized a silly game that kids play when they want to annoy big sister. The meme doesn’t change minds or draw fence sitters to your side. All it does is annoy us and reassures the real audience of fellow righties that it’s okay to not view us as humans with inner lives. The meme itself will not cause war or violence, which is why we’re not outraged as you guys claim. We do understand it’s a joke. The problem is, jokes like these contribute to a culture in which violence against outgroups is becoming increasingly socially acceptable. You are mockworthy, but noting the increase in right wing violence over the last decade, troubling all the same. Again, feel free to show me otherwise. Show me that it’s not a joke meant to dehumanize. I’ve engaged you as though you’re a grown up with well thought out positions. Show me you’re worthy of it. Or don’t. I’m happy to go back to mocking you.
I did not ask you to agree with TPUSA. I asked you to observe the actions of people in the video. These actions are the meme. I did not notice this video because I follow TPUSA. I noticed it because it went viral due to the behaviour of some activists who acted like robots. There are several other videos like this, but this one was the first that came to my mind.
FFS read above! LOOK AT THE ACTIONS THAT CREATED THE MEME! You people write absolute dribble.
Yes please go look at this thing. I am asking you nicely. I am asking you nicely because you are the butt of the NPC meme-joke!
I’m done here. You people don’t want to understand how actions created a joke. You keep replying to me with numerous pages of nonsense dribble. Its amazing that you can turn a simple video reference into pages of false assumptions and nonsense arguments. Its almost like you are programmed to do it…
@Bear,
So it’s the latter, then.
Sorry, if you don’t understand it well enough to say them clearly without flapping your hands at a propaganda video, I don’t have much of a reason to give your beliefs much credit. Go ahead and ad-hominem at us all you like, it doesn’t make your position any stronger. Your upset is no replacement for evidence.
Roar, roar, slink into the shadows. That’s what I figured.
@AlexReynard,
You idiots always say the same thing when you come in here. “you’re so outraged, that’s why we do it, you’re funny.”
I’d tell you how we aren’t outraged, we’re mocking you, but I already know how that ends. Have seen more than enough robots like you toddling into the chat.
Sigh. They’re all so boring!
I think you meant drivel.
I would genuinely enjoy seeing right-wingers being made to truthfully and articulately explain leftist views. In as much detail as they can manage.
@Diptych:
I actually think they did, and the twitter mess referred to in the OP is the result.
@dumbasstroll:
As usual with trolls of this flavor, every accusation is a confession.
Diptych,
Numerous times here, trolls have been asked to define socialism or radical feminism. They never, ever answer. I too, would enjoy seeing a right winger forced to write credibly sourced essays on the topic.
They always seem to just define these things as “someone I don’t like.”
I’d like that too! But I don’t hold out much hope. They can’t even properly define their own beliefs.
Like, seriously, if they were to examine their own beliefs closely enough to define them consistently, they’d fall apart under the contradictions. The survival of those beliefs requires that the adherents don’t have a habit of looking too close.
At least, that’s my best guess! I’d be happy for Bear or
Boring Johnson #314 or whoever to prove me wrong, though.
“define socialism ”
Marx defined his program in one sentence:
“The abolition of private property.”
To the extent you do not completely abolish private property, maybe you could call your socialism “socialism lite.”
The infamous 10 Planks of Marx’s Manifesto are as follows:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.”
The more one knows the facts about socialism, and understands it in theory and has knowledge of it in practice, the more one hates it with a passionate intensity, unless one is a psychotic megalomaniac who wants to use socialism to control and oppress people.
That’s odd. Most of it sounds good to me, with the following exceptions:
3. Let some personal effects be inherited. But not vast fortunes.
4. Who decides who is a “rebel”? Emigrants should be able to take what’s theirs that isn’t bolted down.
6. Bad idea all around. Centralized communication is a huge temptation to engage in censorship, whence “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And centralized transportation is an engineering single-point-of-failure. But do nationalize infrastructure like the roads (already government-owned in much of the west), railroads, power grid, and network backbone and lease capacity on these.
7. Again too centralized, I think. But workers should own the tools they use, and collectively the workspace and bigger equipment they work in/with, and the company they work for. As for “waste lands” and soil, those should probably have been a separate item. What are “waste lands”? Some significant land must be left to nature, including for species-selfish reasons such as we need the ecosystem services. Agricultural practices that build rather than deplete topsoil must become predominant, though, there I agree.
8. Obligation to work = slavery. But work should earn you some additional spending money, on top of some sort of basic income guarantee or something. And maybe there should be an obligation to work for a company to own shares in the company, see 7 above. And by work for is meant actual work, not some make-work desk job in “middle management” or above.
9. If anything the opposite: we should heavily urbanize. Dense cities with sparse countrysides makes for much more efficient transport, as most will be intracity and the rest can mostly occur along rail corridors. And then more land can be left to nature or put into agricultural production.
10. This is the one item that most of the west has now implemented as standard. Extend it: free education, period, at least within someone’s demonstrated aptitudes and interests (plus the mandatory curriculum, which should include a lot more civics and non-academic life skills and a lot less rote repetitive crap — enough to understand what you’re automating when you use a computer or a calculator, though).
Orange Man Bad! Animation https://youtu.be/O9xLb01gNh8
Well, Chester Molester, you sure showed us.
TROOOOLLLLL in the dungeon!!