By David Futrelle
You may have noticed a strange explosion of highly surreal memes hitting your Twitter home page of late. Blame the Artificial Intelligence-powered meme generator that you can find here, which will happily generate as many weird and baffling memes as you could ever want.
Now, the meme generator is a fairly basic thing, in principle: it takes in hundreds (thousands?) of human-generated memes in a variety of formats before pooping out something it doesn’t understand, but that we humans might.
Given that the AI-meme-generator literally doesn’t know what it’s saying, most of the memes it puts out tend to be a bit puzzling:
And sometimes it doesn’t seem to understand the meme format at all:
But alongside the surreal memes, the AI-meme-generator somehow manages to spit out others that make perfect (or at least only slightly imperfect) sense. I’ve been fiddling around with it for awhile and have been surprised and intrigued by these memes, which seem very much like the memes an actual human might produce on their own.
Indeed, these memes make a lot more sense than many if not most of the Men’s Rights memes I’ve run across (and written about) over the years — despite the fact that the MRA memes were generated by actual human beings who, at least in theory, should know what they’re saying.
Let’s look at examples from both genres — contrasting some of my, er, favorite MRA memes with memes the AI-meme-generator made for me.
Let’s start with this authentic MRA meme:
Apparently the thought process behind this, er, hilarity is: “Women are stupid! And rape is funny! Sharks!”
This AI-generated meme makes a lot more sense:
I mean, who doesn’t enjoy a nice hot dog once in a while?
Here’s an MRA meme taking aim at women in the military:
Contrast that with this cheerful and wholesome AI-generated meme:
Again, the AI hits the nail on the head. Everyone loves to see people talking about their cool stuff.
Here’s a dark and bewildering MRA meme:
I suppose the message here is supposed to be “even if she says she’s not a feminist, she might secretly be one, and falsely accuse you of rape.” But I’m not sure anyone not steeped in MRA-talk could discern that.
Also, why is “radical/white” in ironic quotes?
By contrast, this next AI-generated meme, while admittedly rude and perhaps a bit sexist, is as clear as a (school) bell.
This MRA meme may leave you scratching at your head as you try to puzzle out its strange “logic.”
This AI meme, by contrast, makes so much sense it hurts.
In the world we live in today, who has the patience to wait until you get home to get sloshed?
So why are MRA memes so illogical and incomprehensible? Part of the problem is that reality is not on their side, and so many of their memes only make sense if you’re already living in the imaginary world of the Men’s Rights movement, where black is white and mean, bitchy women rule over all. I know enough about this world from the many years I’ve spent doing this blog that I can usually make some sort of sense of most of their memes, but I still struggle with some of them. It doesn’t help much that many MRAs are bitter bastards choking on their own aggrieved entitlement; their attempts at jokes are undercut by their meanness and their barely developed sense of humor.
The AI may not have a sense of humor, but it’s also unencumbered by all this baggage, so when it pops out with something that’s funny, it’s genuinely funny.
Congratulations, MRA; it’s official now: You’ve failed the Turing test.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
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!
@MansVoice
That sounds more like an assertion than an argument. Can you tell us why you think the Sequences are good? Preferably something more compelling than “I like them.”
Think of it this way. If I want to convince somebody that they should read a particular book, I can’t just tell them “It’s a good read.” I usually identify the author (if the other person has enjoyed other works by the same writer), or talk a little about the themes or the characters or other story elements.
AND if after that, the somebody still doesn’t want to read a particular book, that’s okay. There’s only so much time available, and since my own to-read list is stacked pretty high, I’m not going to try and bully anybody, even if I think the book is the greatest thing ever. I wouldn’t even do that for Pratchett or Austen.
I (and, judging by some of the posts, several others here) did read some of the Sequences years ago, as well as some off-site writings by people associated with LW. At least, I read enough of the Sequences to learn that E.Y. hasn’t deeply studied any of the subjects he talks about. He seems to be a bit well-read on studies that demonstrate the ostensible primary thesis of the site: that humans aren’t rigorously logical all the time but it’s possible to kind of mitigate the negative consequences of that. However, he hasn’t exactly kept secret that (at least, as of when the Sequences were written) he hasn’t studied philosophy, and only knows enough physics to be aware of the many-worlds hypothesis in quantum physics. Apparently people have told him on multiple occasions to just study the subjects he’s talking about so he’s not badly reinventing the wheel, but he’s employed the “fresh perspective” defense that I’m sure anyone who’s argued with a right-wing science denier is familiar with. Despite all that, he’s probably somehow one of the least fanatical/right-wing of the bunch.
I used to think somewhat highly of LessWrong, but then I grew up. Situations that they use to critique libertarianism, like people getting killed because of getting wrong information, or wealth being hoarded by a handful of people who hold valuable resources hostage even at the cost of human lives, are just hypotheticals to them. If they look good at all, it’s because there are lots of even worse ideologies with more social and political power, and anything that effectively critiques those ideologies can feel cathartic.
…This kind of sounds like centrists in general, actually…
Look, MansVoice, can you please answer some of the in thread questions and comments directed at you?
I’ve been known to dip my toes into LW, but I work 9 hour days reading, and if I’m going to read for fun during the week it’s going to be FUN reading, dammit, not “let me read the entire bloody Sequences because this one dude on the inter-webs thinks there HAS to be a passage or two that prove his intellectual superiority.”
I don’t have time or interest for your pseudo-intellectual BS.
Until you answer questions and comments from the far more patient folks in this thread directly with a better answer than “READ ALL THIS” or “Y’ALL ARE MINDKILLED”, I’m gonna go back to ignoring you and enjoying the space-pondering, or maybe reread some Louis McMaster Bujold.
Examples of better answers include (but are not limited to):
* providing direct links to sources supporting your claims.
* anecdotes (anecdata) from your own experience (marginal but acceptable as illumination for where you’re coming from)
* explanations of logic behind conclusions, including brief descriptions of the assumptions required for the logic leaps
* almost anything that isn’t what you’ve been doing.
Cool? Cool. Great.
@Contrapangloss
I have no hopes that he’s going to talk to anyone going forward, but the one person on the thread with a male nym. He knows he’s been licked and his pride is too overweening to let him acknowledge that.
@An Impish Pepper:
That meshes with what I’ve heard of him. A lot of LessWrong must look to serious philosophers much like ‘physicists doing biology’ does to folks like PZ Myers. “Why yes, that is an elegant and obvious solution. It’s so obvious that we tried it over a century ago and found out that it didn’t work. And here’s all the research since then which details exactly why.” Heck, I’m sure most people in any field have had to deal with the self-declared know-it-all.
It’s part of the whole Dunning-Kruger constellation: people who know they’re intelligent and who have deep and detailed knowledge of one field, stepping into a field where they only have shallow knowledge and expecting everybody there to be surprised and amazed by their ‘fresh’ insights. (Which, as noted, are often not fresh because they don’t have enough knowledge to realize that other people looked at that idea long enough ago that its failure is common knowledge within that field.)
It seems to overlap a bit with ‘white savior’ syndrome based on some of the comments about the Lord of the Flies precursors. Not to mention the whole ‘the people for whom this is an interesting bit of hypothetical intellectual discussion shouldn’t be arguing with people for whom this is actually life or death’ aspect that comes up, especially in economics.
I’m sure there’s an ‘elegant and obvious’ solution to all this, and it wouldn’t at all be like any of the previous failed attempts. (Like the way that ‘intelligence tests’ for voting were primarily used in the past to disenfranchise the poor and immigrants…)
Policy of Madness, I’ve generally been disinclined to respond to your posts because they are, basically, stupid. I have already implicitly addressed your criticism of the Tinder article. Go back and read more carefully if you missed it.
Oh, come now! You don’t have to be coy and hide behind a veil, peeking out just to flutter your eyelashes at me! You can be explicit in explaining how the sampling problem is actually not a problem. I’m a scientist; I can take words on a screen. Do go on. I anxiously await your takedown of my takedown.
@Snowberry :
One of the problems with Battlefield Earth (apart from, y’know, everything else) was that the aliens, who have superior technology and superior strength to ours, come a helluva long way to conquer Earth and…. enslave humans and make them break rocks. Maybe I missed some bit where they confirm they’re just doing it for the cruel lulz, because I kept wondering why they’d bother. That’s be like if I needed something built, and my method was to stand over a hundred gerbils and crack a whip.
@Moon Custafer
Make them break rocks for GOLD. Which … see Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan’s reaction to gold in Barrayar (specifically the scene when she’s traveling with her father-in-law for the Emperor’s birthday). As a scientist from an advanced culture, she thinks of gold as “pretty” and “occasionally useful” for its properties but she doesn’t start slavering over the gold coins her father-in-law is carrying.
@Victorious Parasol:
Oh, I forgot it was for gold. Heh. I prefer E. E. Doc Smith’s Triplanetary, written decades earlier, which mentions in passing an alien civilization whose spacecraft needs lead to function, but it’s one of the rarest elements on their planet….
@MansVoice
That’s a weak, intellectually dishonest cop out and pseudorational statement that doesn’t actually address the responses, argument or thesis of Policy of Madness or frankly any of the other commenters, myself included.
This only give credence to the fact that your an intellectually dishonest and lazy person who has no actually argument or position to defend on their own. If Policy of Madness’s thesis or counter argument has something factually wrong, incorrect or otherwise “not solvent” in it’s logic and conclusion; it’s your responsibility as a participant of social discourse to unpack and explain your reasoning and your position and explain “why” this is the case.
You have done this and have in fact waffled, red herring, made unsubstantiated and unsupported assertions without facts to back them up, presented self aggrandizing opinions as fact, and side stepped counter argument that left said counter arguments unadressed (although given your refusal to respond and address any of those counter arguments; it leaves the counter arguments unchallenged and on the table and give credence to their strength of factual veracity) and never even bothered to even try and argue or explain your position, reasoning or thesis and instead done the antithesis in craven fashion. I have seen these tactics before and they are often done by people who either cannot logic, or whom willfully refuse to engage in good faith discourse for the sake of bad actor, partisan agendas and pushing misinformation and other craven intents.
And you call us the one’s who are “Mind-Killed” (nonsense rhetoric that it is)… and yet you have actively refused to actually string a cogent thesis together. This is why I and everyone else is saying you are engaging in psychological projection and why your a proponent of pseudo-logic, pseudo-rationality and pseudo-science and why your a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
@Moon Custafer
I read the book long ago, but I probably wouldn’t have remembered the gold if I hadn’t recently seen a YouTuber’s dissection of the movie.
I’ve avoided the movie, in part because I remembered having to force myself to finish reading the book. I kept hoping it would get better. Since then, I’ve gotten a lot better about giving myself permission to stop reading a book that is bad, boring, or simply not to my taste. Life’s too short.
@An Impish Pepper
That this person believes his own random insights are more valuable than the combined knowledge of two entire fields of study does not fill me with confidence about his method for mitigating human bias.
@Gaebolga
It has to be an all inclusive club! All gender identities, all orientations, all people who love people for being who they are without putting unrealistic expectations on them.
I still just want to know how looksmatching works. If beauty is truly objective, it really should be an easy question to answer.
I still just want to know how looksmatching works. If beauty is truly objective, it really should be an easy question to answer.
Sorry if this ends up being a duplicate.
I still just want to know how looksmatching works. If beauty is truly objective, it really should be an easy question to answer.
@ Vicky P
Ah, thank you for that; I’ll use that for a bit of night time viewing later.
I’ve just recently found that guy. I like a lot of his videos. I’ll be
blatantly plagiarising themusing them for inspiration.@ mansvoice
I’m glad you put argument in quotes. As others have pointed out; it’s not an argument it’s an assertion.
If I was to turn up in court and say “Your Honour we have a winning case. If you read through the bundle you’ll see for yourself.” I’ll be having to explain to the client why they’re paying costs on an indemnity basis.
You should be able to make your case by pointing to no more than three pieces of evidence (two is better, one is best) and explaining how they support your contentions.
Surely if you argument is that much of a slam dunk, then you won’t have any problem doing that?
@Alan Robertshaw
Ah, but you see, he is such a master of logic that he doesn’t even have to go that far, he just has to assert it and it’s true. /s
In all seriousness, he’s become far less entertaining.
@WWTH
I’m curious as well, but some things we may never know…
At best, LW people seem to believe that thinking by itself is a substitute for learning.
One of my “favorite” personal experiences dealing with Dunning-Kruger types:
I was participating in a religious discussion online, people from a wide variety of backgrounds and faiths (or lack thereof). It had actually gone really well, since it was mostly describing our experiences rather than debating anything.
A wild asshole appeared, starting the with usual declarations that we were all stupid and delusional (including the nonreligious folks taking part, somehow).
He then laid this Truth Bomb on us:
“Have any of you theists even heard of J, the MAN who existed and wrote the Bible?”
In one sentence, he combined a moronic misunderstanding of Documentary Hypothesis, profound ignorance of what is in the Bible, what various Christians believe about the Bible, and the history of the Bible, with absolute certainty the he was delivering a Great Truth that we had never even HEARD of before, with the clear implication that it would shatter our delusional little minds.
But he still put more work into “debating” than BoysWhine here has.
*Clarification due to spelling error:
MansVoice Has not attempted to actually address the responses, argument or thesis and have in fact waffled, red herring, made unsubstantiated and unsupported assertions without facts to back them up, presented self aggrandizing opinions as fact, and side stepped counter argument that left said counter arguments unaddressed and never even bothered to even try and argue or explain his position, reasoning or thesis and instead done the antithesis in craven fashion.
Ignoring troll for a moment
My husband has tested negative for covid 19 and is out of isolation now. I don’t know if i said that or not but there is some happy news in my family.
@Lainy
Good to hear that your husband’s tested negative. How’s he feeling?
@naglfar
In his own words “like a humvee ran me over. Then saw that they ran me over then and backed up to make surw they got me. Then all got out of the humvee and started kicking me in the chest”
Though he’s dramatic when he gets a regular cold.
@ Vicky P
I watched that video. He’s just so good. Interesting to see Eve too. I normally can’t face watching her videos. She’s in a ‘Magic Circle’ firm; and that’s a culture so alien to me I find it physically disturbing. To do with billable hours; which they actually talk about in the video. Brrr, shudder.
I suppose I should get on with a few more videos myself. I’m currently still on my walking jag; but I could do some more outdoors ones I guess.