Jump Start

[Payne]

Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?

And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.

-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"

That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.


is "stupid" too strong a term for that?

No, I don't think it is.

And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.

If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?

You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.

"You gotta be you"

And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.

Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.

[Telarus]

What I'd like to talk about:

• What ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
• Those "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".

Another angle to approach this from is to work backwards from the desired outcome and then tailor the story to specific news outlets.

I'm finding the idea of something being "media worthy" as something a bit too big for me to aim at. Could we break that down into more manageable chunks of media?

I agree, this concept needs to be broken down into manageable chunks. Then we can start to leverage it at specific institutions.

[Doktor Howl]

Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?

And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.

-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"

That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.


is "stupid" too strong a term for that?

No, I don't think it is.

And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.

If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?

You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.

"You gotta be you"

And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.

Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.

WTF?

[Doktor Howl]

No, I don't think it is.

And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post.

You're a cunt.

If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?

Not like your posts were intended to fuck the thread, right?

[Cain]

News organisations don't like to actually present "news".  They like comfortable old, known things in new packaging.  And by new packaging, I mean social network packaging, especially Facebook and Twitter.

For example, that Santorum is a failure, and his followers a joke, and that his name was Google-bombed into a rather amusing joke, are all known things.  Throw in the false-flag op and, well, how could the media resist?  It plays to all of those biases and known things about Santorum, has the social networking website aspect and it is old fail in a new package.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

News organisations don't like to actually present "news".  They like comfortable old, known things in new packaging.  And by new packaging, I mean social network packaging, especially Facebook and Twitter.

For example, that Santorum is a failure, and his followers a joke, and that his name was Google-bombed into a rather amusing joke, are all known things.  Throw in the false-flag op and, well, how could the media resist?  It plays to all of those biases and known things about Santorum, has the social networking website aspect and it is old fail in a new package.

Could you elaborate on the "social networking packaging"?

I'm not quite running at full steam this morning.

[Cain]

Oh, I just mean news networks really seem to like stories where they can include a social network angle.  So if something is happening on Facebook, they seem to like that much more than if it was happening on some random blog or website.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?

And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.

-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"

That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.


is "stupid" too strong a term for that?

I was not dumping on the entire thread and to imply that I was attempting to do anything of the sort is assinine.  I responded directly to what Freeky had said with what I thought was sarcasm, I understand now the difference between sarcasm and stupidity.

Thank you.

And still FUCK YOU! 

Khara, I love you. I think you're awesome, and your volatility is an endearing part of what makes you who you are.

I'm sorry, what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Exactly, literally, what it says. I was having a mushy moment.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?

And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.

-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"

That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.


is "stupid" too strong a term for that?

No, I don't think it is.

And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.

If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?

I pegged it as sarcasm right off the bat. FWIW.

[Payne]

Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?

And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.

-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"

That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.


is "stupid" too strong a term for that?

No, I don't think it is.

And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.

If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?

You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.

"You gotta be you"

And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.

Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.

WTF?

What I actually wanted was that source pic (it's a stalwart of British Broadcasting, Terry Wogan, who is as safe and family friendly as a plate of slightly undercooked chips, with an erection).

I was gonna WOMP my own head onto it, but I didn't have time cause I was already about 15 minutes late for work as it was so I used the old one with your head I did months ago.

[Triple Zero]

Well if it was sarcasm, I didn't pick it up, and my remark was unnecessary. Sorry about that, and having thought about it, it wasn't my intention to upset you, Khara.

Though the remark about hope--before I was informed it was intended as sarcastic--did upset me, I really despise that attitude, hence my strong words.

What I don't understand though, if your remark about hope was actually intended as sarcastic, why'd you take it so personal? It should have been obvious to you I was barking up the wrong tree, so joke's on me right? If I took your sarcasm serious and called that stupid, that means I was talking about the exact opposite of what you really wanted to say--then what's the problem?

Also thanks to Ippy and Howl for pointing out that calling a remark stupid is apparently interpreted as exactly the same as calling the person who said it stupid. Which is completely ridiculous IMO, but if that's the way it comes across, I'll take more care in the future.
How would I say "I think what you just said is stupid, but I don't think you are stupid" without sounding stupid myself?

And I'm just going to assume Paesior is being sarcastic too, even though my detector is apparently malfunctioning.

[Triple Zero]

Also thanks to Ippy and Howl for pointing out that calling a remark stupid is apparently interpreted as exactly the same as calling the person who said it stupid. Which is completely ridiculous IMO, but if that's the way it comes across, I'll take more care in the future.

oh and for the sake of clarity, I don't know, but let me be certain to point out:

when I say that "is completely ridiculous", I do NOT mean that Iptuous is ridiculous, Dok is ridiculous, Khara is ridiculous or any other person is ridiculous.

[Cramulus]

*puts on his big galoshes*

*wades through drama*

My goal for the OP was to illustrate the memetic process for newcomers that haven't heard us yammering about it forever. And maybe to ignite some energy to collaborate on a fun group project. I sense a lot of cynicism and bitterness surrounding the idea of collaborating together. I want to point out that expressing that within this thread actually decreases the potential for these ideas to coalesce into action. So if you're not actually into collaborating on some kind of pro-social prank, let me politely ask you to not reply. 

What I'd like to talk about:

• What ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
• Those "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".

Another angle to approach this from is to work backwards from the desired outcome and then tailor the story to specific news outlets.

I'm finding the idea of something being "media worthy" as something a bit too big for me to aim at. Could we break that down into more manageable chunks of media?

News organisations don't like to actually present "news".  They like comfortable old, known things in new packaging.  And by new packaging, I mean social network packaging, especially Facebook and Twitter.

For example, that Santorum is a failure, and his followers a joke, and that his name was Google-bombed into a rather amusing joke, are all known things.  Throw in the false-flag op and, well, how could the media resist?  It plays to all of those biases and known things about Santorum, has the social networking website aspect and it is old fail in a new package.

OKAY, let's start with the false flag op, because that was a lot of fun, easy to do, and there are thousands of targets.
And let's say that our false flag is going to be located on facebook or google+. Google+ might actually be a bit better because people are itching for news about it right now.

so let's narrow it down into a list of topical, emotional targets, then pick an issue that would be fun to prank.

Off the top of my head. . . here's some issues I have feelings about. I think that these are things which, if addressed, would make the world more livable.

(1) American Debt Ceiling. This is really the boiling issue of the week. We probably can't affect the actual talks, but we can probably affect the media reporting on it. One thing that's jumped forward (to me) though all this hype is that some of the right wing movers and shakers are really just into getting Obama out of office and making him look bad, they're not actually in these talks to fix the economy. They want to be able to blame without getting any of that responsibility on them. So this is a bit partisan, but a false flag op for this cause might look like a facebook group or petition that wants to get obama out of office. The hook is that this group is willing to sacrifice the economy for everybody in order to get a dem out of office. And they'd be really transparent about it. "We hope the cost of food rises during the Obama administration."

(2) Corporate Personhood - Corporations are slowly eroding the quality of life for private citizens while building themselves the same protections enjoyed by individuals. Recent legal drama has established a higher level of immunity to class action law suits. I want the public to be able to distinguish what rights people should have and what rights corporations should have. What would a false flag op on the corporate personhood frequency look like?

(3) Pharmaceutical Industry - they sketch me out in a thousand ways. At the local level, they provide such financial incentives to doctors that they have an inordinate amount of influence over prescription rates. At the global level, they are slowly making liminal abnormalities and other non-issues into medication-demanding conditions. A false flag op for this would be easy - maybe groups of people are demanding medication for things like "boringness". Actually that might be a great angle for lots of comedy - basically needing medication for the vulnerable, tranced-out zombie state induced by being over-medicated.

(4) Monsanto corp pretty much fux0red american agriculture by patenting genetic code. They then used this property to pressuring farmers to destroy their seed banks based on IP violations. I don't have a problem with GMOs themselves, I do have a problem with the way their business is being conducted. A false flag op over here would be pro-monsanto in some way. What would be most newsworthy, also being anti-farmer? Nah, people talk trash on the net all the time... merely hating something isn't in itself newsworthy... what else could we do that might bring attention to this?

(5) maybe something along the lines of "bread and circus"... a group of people demanding better movies and TV so they don't have to think about all the depressing news?

That's what I've got off the top of my head... Does anybody else have any pet projects that they want to toss out? Does anybody feel strongly about any of the above?

Please note this is not meant to begin a debate about the above points - they are being tossed out as suggestions for things to act upon.

This is a brainstorm thread. If one or two people grab one of the above ideas and say "That sounds like fun," or "this might be better if you do it like this," we'll probably move in that direction. 

[LMNO]

(2) Corporate Personhood - Corporations are slowly eroding the quality of life for private citizens while building themselves the same protections enjoyed by individuals. Recent legal drama has established a higher level of immunity to class action law suits. I want the public to be able to distinguish what rights people should have and what rights corporations should have. What would a false flag op on the corporate personhood frequency look like?

Encourage Anonymous or Lulsec to attempt to incorporate themselves, rendering them immune to prosecution?

[edit: This is attempting to combine the zeitgeists of Internet, hacking, cyberlaw, and corporate personhood into a single story.  Many corporate boards are mostly anonymous anyway, and there's a quirky aspect of incorprating a loose, unknown internet collective.]

[Cain]

What I actually wanted was that source pic (it's a stalwart of British Broadcasting, Terry Wogan, who is as safe and family friendly as a plate of slightly undercooked chips, with an erection).

Except when he did Eurovision, and got incredibly drunk, started calling the foreign presenters names and got banned from visiting several countries ever again.

Also when he demanded a pay in the hundreds of thousands range for charity events (Red Nose).  But the above is funnier.