[IDEA] Deconstructing Discordianism

[LMNO]

So, why don't we run with it?  What would happen if you took TFY,S to it's logical conclusion?

My first thought is an entire society that does nothing but archive bibliographys...

[AFK]

Yeah, and a society of OCDs. 

[MMIX]

So, why don't we run with it?  What would happen if you took TFY,S to it's logical conclusion?

My first thought is an entire society that does nothing but archive bibliographys...

but surely the opposite would occur - all books would be burned because

"A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads."

[quick reality check {maybe} yes I know that its not a damned paradox just a timely enjoinder to keep you wits about you when being assailed by weasel words - and the weasels who wite them and that's not weasy to say

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

If TYF, S! were drawn to its logical conclusion... in an extreme, of course:

There would be no political parties. Almost no one agrees 100% with their party, often they pick the 'least horrible' option. Talk radio, news reporting etc as we know it would not survive. No one would have assumed Dan Rather had a letter from GWB's boss in the military. Rather, everyone would have been suspicious and many people might have found the font failure for themselves.
However, no one would believe the scientists. Global Warming, Evolution and other large scale systems would be more complex than most people could process (since they weren't trained for it).

When you think about it, it seems that all of us, at least sometimes, don't think for ourselves. Some things are just too weird, complex or out of our area of understanding. In those times, we often take the word of someone else. I personally haven't gone to the poles to measure temperatures. I haven't personally studied each and every fossil we have available and I'm not at all sure I would have any way of drawing conclusions about them.

That could create a very bad place to live for the human population.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No one would really believe anything, because the evidence they were able to access would always be incomplete. Everything would be e-primed... "I consider it possible based on evidence thus far" would replace "I think", and editorials would vanish because, man, that's just one guy's opinion and I haven't researched his sources.

Journalism would be distilled to a bare-bones recitation of documented fact.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Journalism would be distilled to a bare-bones recitation of documented fact.

I am torn... would that be a bad thing, or not?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Journalism would be distilled to a bare-bones recitation of documented fact.

I am torn... would that be a bad thing, or not?

I'm OK with it.

[The Wizard]

I am torn... would that be a bad thing, or not?

It would have both good and bad parts. I mean we wouldn't be able to read Gonzo journalism, which would suck. But we also wouldn't have to worry about conservative/liberal bias crap. Maybe it would be just that people who wrote GOnzo and other biased stuff would have to state that it had a bias...

[LMNO]

However, i would want it hyper-linked to all relevant additional information.


Facts are useless without context.

[fomenter]

i don't get the don't believe what you read logical extension to cant read things? why couldn't you read for enjoyment or to increase the number of views you are aware of but don't believe ?

[The Wizard]

i don't get the don't believe what you read logical extension to cant read things? why couldn't you read for enjoyment or to increase the number of views you are aware of but don't believe ?

Maybe afraid of being influenced?

[fomenter]

i think there is some warning that living in fear is the domain of the grayface (or should be if there isn't)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Interesting... of course, if we all 'TYF,S!' is doesn't necessarily mean that journalists couldn't write editorials etc. After all, they are allowed to TYF,S! as well and there's no law against telling other people what you thought for yourself

Perhaps it would put an end to journalists that survive only because of the True Believers... Bill O comes to mind. If all of his listeners would TYF,S! the majority would likely find too many inconsistencies in his views to think he was worth listening to. On the other hand, someone like HST, is being read explicitly for his opinion (and for recreation ).  That is, people that read HST aren't looking for the Truth, but rather a view of experiences.

I think. So perhaps it would make journalism much more difficult because your audience would expect either 'Just The Facts' (and context for LMNO), OR some unique perception of experiences, ideas etc.

[fomenter]

i think for my self about that thing ratta wrote about the stuff he thought for himself..

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

i don't get the don't believe what you read logical extension to cant read things? why couldn't you read for enjoyment or to increase the number of views you are aware of but don't believe ?

I think there would still be lots of reading and lots of writing, but probably less opinion writing simply because there wouldn't be much of a market for it.

Or, opinion writing would come across much more as data analysis, with lots of citations.