GASM: Wimpout

[Dean]

I'm moving this thread over here from my post on "TFY,S!" at the advice of Joh,Nyx and the good reverend roger, since if this does take off, if stormfront finds out we are behind it, they will be majorly butthurt. Original thread here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=28331.0

My posts from the original thread:

Have you ever been to chimpout.com? Lot of hate, isn't there? Wouldn't it be funny if we could lead their collective rage in a round-a-bout way so that it became directed at themselves? I'm taking social psychology at the moment, and a couple of weeks ago we concluded talking about prejudice, which also happens to deal with how to get rid of prejudice. Here are my notes on the guilt aspect of removing prejudice.

Guilt
1. compunction is the guilt you feel when you have violated your own personal standards. Like when you find out that you have just demonstrated a prejudiced attitude if you see yourself as not prejudiced.
2. guilt by association is when you are a member of a group who has been prejudiced towards other groups. Is more about guilt for something happening in the past.
3. collective guilt is when you are associated with a group who has done something shameful. Is more for guilt for something that is happening now.

On a Discordian basis, this seems like a good thing to do because it takes these raging people's view of the world and twists it on their heads. From a psychologist's standpoint, this is a wonderful opportunity to experiment on humans with the usage of psychological theories to erase prejudice. Highly unethical? Probably. Fun? Possibly. Discordian? Definitely. Requirements? Deep undercover work in the chimpout.com and stormfront.org forums.

Let's analyze each of these three guilt based methods.
1. Compunction: Seeing that these people are blatant racists, it is fair to say that they don't have many collective personal standards. But do they consider themselves gentlemen? Make them realize that they are prejudiced towards women too. The most hilarious version of this would be to make them realize that they are agreeing with you in the hate of a certain group, which you then reveal are white protestants.
2. Guilt by association: Guilt that happened in the past. What have white protestants done in the past that would make them feel ashamed? I'm sure that you can think of a few, lets remind them.
3. Collective guilt: I'm not sure how to make this one work besides exposing a leader of the white power movement as something shameful, like a child molester. However, these people generally have such warped logic that they will say it was the FBI that set them up. I don't really know how to utilize this one, ideas are welcome.

At this point I need to continue writing my paper on prejudice, so I'm going to cut this short. Good idea for a GASM? Suggestions? Criticisms? Outright admonishment? Lets hear it.

Another one from writing my paper on prejudice just now:

Hornsey and Hogg (2000)

When there is a threat to subgroup distinctiveness (superiority), being told that your subgroup has high similarity to other groups increases prejudice, and being told that your subgroup is different than other groups reduces prejudice. When there is no threat to subgroup distinctiveness, being told that you have high similarity lowers prejudice and being told that you have low similarity increases prejudice.



This means that we must tell them either that other races are just as good and intelligent as they are, but all races are very different; or tell them that they are the smartest and the best, and other races are very similar to them.

Also, you are way up in your head, get cracking on the practical ways on how to do it.

A splendid suggestion from the front row. Allow me to elaborate. I was just thinking of this last night and was wondering how I would do it too. I haven't gotten much for the guilt based OMF, but I did think of two ways to do superiority vs. similarity.

Create an account on the websites and introduce yourself as a researcher who has access to paywall academic databases and articles. Then, write a post (including a link to a scientific article behind a paywall with a vague race related name) saying that this article that you found is interesting. At this point, you can post descriptions of either one of two articles, and you can even do both articles in different posts. The first article you would describe would say something about high white superiority and high similarity to other races, such as:

1. Researchers have recently found that although Caucasians have the highest average IQ of all races, they are extremely similar to every other race in several measures of social attributes.

The second article you can do is low white superiority and low similarity:

2. Researchers have recently found that on a race-independent IQ test, the mean scores between all races were not statistically significantly different, however all races were extremely statistically significantly different in various measures of social attributes.

The important part is that the first variable (superiority) is something that can be viewed as having a score that is better than another score, like IQ scores. The second variable, in order to get away from superiority and closer to similarity, must be something which does not have a clearly better score, such as the vague "measure of social attributes".

But if there is any way that this thread can be hidden from google searches, that would be nice since someone will probably try to search up the article abstract, which may lead them back to this thread.

And a nice pasta from Lord Glittersnatch

Did someone say something about trolling stormspags?

Black skin is thick and lush, sensuous to the touch, like satin and velvet made flesh. There's only one patch of skin on a white man's body that remotely compares to nearly every inch of a black man's skin. The first time I caressed black skin, it felt like a luxury I shouldn't be able to afford. I craved it more strongly than Carrie Bradshaw craved Manolo Blahnik shoes. That phrase, "Once you go black, you never go back" is all about the feeling of the skin.

 

And I had the socially acceptable explanation for my craving. I used that paucity-of-available-white-partners rationale to explain my relationships with black men for several years. A white woman past forty is often passed over by her white-male contemporaries. She goes younger or ethnic or foreign-born or down the socioeconomic scale or darker or she spends lonely nights at home with her cats. Black men are happy to get the babe they couldn't have when she was twentysomething and fertile. The laws of the marketplace do prevail. It's not me, it's themthem being the white guys who weren't after me anymore, or so I claimed.

 

That's a lie. The truth is, I attract about the same percentage of available white men my age (and far younger!) now as I did when I was thirtyand that's not including the unavailable white men who want to play around anyway.

 

Enough white men want me that I was hardly facing enforced celibacy, but I don't want them.

 

I want black men. They want me. We look at one another and exchange a visible frisson of sexual energy in the lingering glances. And our attraction is based first on race. We are not those couples who "happen to fall in love" with someone of a different race or more purposefully come together but out of some greater sense of interracial understanding and respect. Not as politically-correct men and women do we seek one another out. The Internet has made it a lot easier for us to find each other now. Men advertise: ebony seeks ivory. Women write: seeking tall, dark, and handsome. Very dark. We are not the same people who say: Race is not important. It is important to us. We have race-specific desires.

 

Even in a time when nearly 40 percent of single Americans have dated outside their race, that deliberate seeking of the specific other makes some people, especially black women, damned mad.

 

We are what they denigrate and castigate: white women and black men who choose one another because of our racial differences. They resent our taking their men. Black men are two and a half times more likely to marry a white woman than a black woman is to marry a white man. Black women can point to that statistic in justifying their wrath. But in truth, black sisters, we're after the sex, not the ringand these guys aren't the marrying kind anyway.

 

Yes, the sex!

 

The woman who goes after black men is a variant of sex journalist Susie Bright's "white bitch in heat," a woman who puts sex first even though women aren't supposed to do that. According to one school of thought, white women turn to black men when their sex drives kick into higher gear and their social inhibitions recede into the rearview mirror. It's a "yes, baby, now I'm ready for you" reaction.

 

When we get to the "yes, baby" place, they know it, and they are ready and waiting for us. Black men have more energy, style and edge than white men. They know how to flirt, a nearly lost art among the rest of us. A black man is so damned sexy because he knows how to make a woman feel sexy.

 

Black men have something white guys don't have anymore: confidence in their masculinity, their sexuality. They clearly know they're men. White men appear to be waiting for the latest sociological research study to let them know if they are men or not. Yet black men are gentlemen, something else white men no longer are. They make me feel like a woman, both respected and desired. I can let go of my inhibitions, my need to control, when I am with them. How many white men can treat a woman like a lady and ravish her too?

 

I often felt in my White Period that only during heated sex does that little layer of air bubbles between me and the world pop and disappear, leaving me open to intimate connection. It takes a lot of friction for two white people to get that close. These black men, so alive with erotic electricity, cut through the bubbles with a touch, a caress, a kissand they free meand I can truly touch them. I am like a pampered passenger in a Porsche with an expert driver at the wheel. I know I could suggest a route change, but I never really want to do that. On the other hand, the last time I had sex with a white man, we slogged along a bumpy road in a really old VW, the driver like the typical bumbling tv husband who would neither ask for nor accept the directions he badly needed.

 

My current lover, a handsome businessman, seduced me via eye contact at a neighborhood bar while I was eating burgers with a friend. Without saying a word, he paid the compliments, asked the questions with his expressive eyes. He didn't move over to sit beside me and ask if he could buy me a drink until he knew the time was right. Both soft-spoken and assertive, he has impeccable manners and charm. I was kissing him in a cab 30 minutes after that drink.

 

On another night in that same bar, a different black man, an artist, knelt and kissed my knees.

 

I am sure there must be some black men who aren't good in bed. Personally, I have not experienced one who isn't. (True, I am not dating down the socioeconomic ladder, but I didn't do that when I dated white either, so the racial comparisons seem valid and fair.) They look better than white men, they touch and kiss and make love better than white men. Statistically, their penises are only a fraction of an inch bigger on average, but they seem bigger and harder.

 

White men over 40 have lost their waistlines and their zest for lifeif they ever had it. They carry resentments, grudges and extra pounds in their basketball bellies. Perhaps a good part of that bloat is unhappiness. Even the thin ones look flabby somehow and deeply aggrieved. They nurse the smallest perceived slight longer than their double shots of Scotch. Surely our culture as much as biology turns them into softer, spongier, less-interesting versions of their youthful selves just at the point where women and black men and other minorities are emerging strong. Society overvalues the white man, leaving him angry and bitter when he realizes, around age 40, that he's not all that.

 

With the exception of some Italians, white men don't turn me on anymore.

 

That admission puts me in the same category as the older man only interested primarily or exclusively in young women. While women my age scowl and frown at these aging, Upper West Side Boomers pushing strollers as the hand of the thin, blonde wife 20 years their junior rests lightly on their arm, I feel a kinship with the old goats. We are the same, me and that bald white guy, drawn to the exotic other, not caring that the object of our desire has no childhood memory of a Kennedy assassination or a typical WASP Sunday dinner of over-roasted beef, lumpy mashed potatoes and soggy vegetables.

 

Analyze the roots of attractions all you wantlike scientists have doneand you won't come up with a perfect explanation for why we crave what we do. Desire rises from our depths and is gloriously oblivious to the good opinion of others. Yet until recently, I pretended that my lust was an equal-opportunity craving, because that seemed like the right thing to do.

 

Halfway through the first glass of wine in my last date with a white man, I realized that little clouds of sadness and self-pity were regularly fluffing off his psyche like the dust clouds kicked up by that dirt-smudged "Peanuts" character as he walks through Charlie Brown's life. This guy was at least mildly depressed, and I wanted to tell him to exercise, lose weight, trim the combover and get interested in something outside yourself. I would have walked out on him immediately, but he seemed to expect that. I couldn't deliver the blow to his ego proffered like the naked neck of a martyr to the ax. My Southern cousins would describe his general demeanor as a "hangdog air." Into the second glass of wine and glancing longingly at the exit, I wanted to hang that dog myself when he mentioned that his face was flushedI hadn't noticedbecause he'd taken a Viagra "just in case."

 

What did he think would entice me more: That he assumed sex was probable because I'm a sex journalistor that he would need chemical help if sex did occur?

 

I cannot even imagine a black man bungling an attempted seduction in such a sad way.

 

That was my last token white guy. I recently came out of my racial-preference closet and told my friends, "I love black men. I'm not attracted to white men over 40, and I'm not dating them anymore. Really, it's not them, it's me.

 

Nobody was surprised.

Copy and paste until righteously butthurt.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think what Roger meant was don't base it out of PD at all, but I could be mistaken.

I, personally, don't think this is a particularly good idea, just as a heads up.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm moving this thread over here from my post on "TFY,S!" at the advice of Joh,Nyx and the good reverend roger, since if this does take off, if stormfront finds out we are behind it, they will be majorly butthurt.

And by "butthurt" we mean, "We'll have 200-350 screaming Nazis here within a week."

We've discussed this, Dean.  Why are you doing this?

[East Coast Hustle]

No trolling stormfront from PD.

This is not a rule because it's so buttfuckingly stupid an idea that it would be like making a rule that you can't stick your head in a meatgrinder. But don't do it.

[Dean]

No trolling stormfront from PD.

This is not a rule because it's so buttfuckingly stupid an idea that it would be like making a rule that you can't stick your head in a meatgrinder. But don't do it.

I'm moving this thread over here from my post on "TFY,S!" at the advice of Joh,Nyx and the good reverend roger, since if this does take off, if stormfront finds out we are behind it, they will be majorly butthurt.

And by "butthurt" we mean, "We'll have 200-350 screaming Nazis here within a week."

We've discussed this, Dean.  Why are you doing this?

I see your points. Would it make a difference if it were regular racists (from chimpout) instead of militant white supremacists (from stormfront)? Or is it generally a bad idea overall to stir the racism nest?

and "We've discussed this, Dean.  Why are you doing this?"? You sound like my father. Perhaps not the best way to get your point across.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You sound like my father. Perhaps not the best way to get your point across.

I don't care.

[Sister Fracture]

You sound like my father.

Your dad is probably a really cool guy, then, because MY dad would have threatened to kick me out of the house the moment I dared form my own opinion.

Roger, of course, is being incredibly patient with you, and treating you like a human being.

[Cramulus]

What's the goal?

-To piss of racists? this will accomplish that, and if you piss off enough of them, they'll fight you back. So it's not something you should initiate from here.
-To fight racism? This won't accomplish that. A racist's reaction to this will be to reinforce his position. You give them an opportunity to respond with their own racist blathering - in doing so you you have increased the amount of racist noise.


a good attack doesn't come from head on - it's subtle, it comes from the side, and it meets no resistance.

In psychic kung-fu, the best stance is not to meet your attacker head on, but slightly askew. Start off by understanding the angle they’re coming from – understand their world view, the things which motivate them. Try to get inside their headspace, agree with their reality. This will help you detect flaws or contradictions in their beliefs. Ask questions which lead to more questions. When they are confused, their reality is most malleable. This is the best moment to suggest a new course of action, one that is on a slightly different angle than their previous one. Get them to imagine themselves doing what you want and it solving their confusion. Then let them go, moving along a new vector.

more notes here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26428.msg938995#msg938995

[Dean]

What's the goal?

-To piss of racists? this will accomplish that, and if you piss off enough of them, they'll fight you back. So it's not something you should initiate from here.
-To fight racism? This won't accomplish that. A racist's reaction to this will be to reinforce his position. You give them an opportunity to respond with their own racist blathering - in doing so you you have increased the amount of racist noise.


a good attack doesn't come from head on - it's subtle, it comes from the side, and it meets no resistance.

In psychic kung-fu, the best stance is not to meet your attacker head on, but slightly askew. Start off by understanding the angle they’re coming from – understand their world view, the things which motivate them. Try to get inside their headspace, agree with their reality. This will help you detect flaws or contradictions in their beliefs. Ask questions which lead to more questions. When they are confused, their reality is most malleable. This is the best moment to suggest a new course of action, one that is on a slightly different angle than their previous one. Get them to imagine themselves doing what you want and it solving their confusion. Then let them go, moving along a new vector.

more notes here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26428.msg938995#msg938995

This is what I am trying to do with the superiority/similarity method. First you say that research agrees with what they think (whites have higher iq, even though this is not true) and then subtly smack them with the made up measures of similar culture. This circumvents their logical mind by using psychological effect to change their racism instead of normal argument.

The idea isn't to run in and say "FEEL GUILTY!" The idea is to use effects from psychology research to change the stereotype (cognitive schema) directly, instead of going through the logical route, which is compromised by the very existence of the cognitive schema (stereotype). Usually people can put up resistance to ideas if they know that the idea is going to come at them and are prepared for it, but by leading with the "accepted" research that white iq is higher, they legitimize the research in their head before they end up reading the rest of the research about similarities. So in that way, they aren't expecting the attack that will come, which they won't even perceive as an attack. IF they accept the research as maybe being true, then the damage has been done to their schema.

So in the end, I'm trying to tie in research on persuasion with research in prejudice reduction. And as for my two cents, I don't think that chimpout members at least will even perceive this as an attack, and if they do, are unlikely to trace it back to here.

[Cramulus]

I see what you're going for now. It's a good general idea. One sticky point may be that you're making anti-racist claims on academic grounds... where I think people are probably racist for emotional/territorial reasons, not academic reasons. The academic reasons get hauled in when they're asked to justify overt racism, but they're not the cause of the bad attitude.

Frankly I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that you can really change in people if you're only interacting with them online. You need to draw them into a really introspective, human moment... tough to accomplish via forum.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If they were rational, they wouldn't be racists.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

If they were rational, they wouldn't be racists.

TROOF!

Also.....

No trolling stormfront from PD.

This is not a rule because it's so buttfuckingly stupid an idea that it would be like making a rule that you can't stick your head in a meatgrinder. But don't do it.

I would read that last line as the last word.....  personally.....

[Dean]

I see what you're going for now. It's a good general idea. One sticky point may be that you're making anti-racist claims on academic grounds... where I think people are probably racist for emotional/territorial reasons, not academic reasons. The academic reasons get hauled in when they're asked to justify overt racism, but they're not the cause of the bad attitude.

Frankly I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that you can really change in people if you're only interacting with them online. You need to draw them into a really introspective, human moment... tough to accomplish via forum.

Your sticky point is a huge problem for conventional academic arguments against racism. The reason why racists won't accept academic research is because their schema is interfering with their logical processing. My method will hopefully bypass their logical centers all together. That is what the research on this method of prejudice reduction suggests anyway. However, if they don't accept the research at all, then that is a problem that will mess up the method, which is why I tried to tie in racist research conclusions into the abstract that I will present.

About your introspective moment, this is definitely what would be the best to do, however it is almost impossible to do over forum, as you said. What I'm trying to go for with this is the same kind of stuff advertisers do. They don't make you have an introspective moment where you say "you know what, i really need that shower cleaner in my life", they try to convince you (mostly) through non-logical methods that prey on your subconscious. The introspective moment would convince you pretty much fully at a single point in time that racism is wrong, but since that is so hard what I am trying to do is change them tiny amounts with each post so that cumulatively their schema is reduced, making them more vulnerable to logical arguments (and the actual state of the world). Perhaps if their stereotypes can be reduced subconsciously a little bit each GASM post they see, we can instill a more general change in the community.

[Dean]

No trolling stormfront from PD.

It's not trolling. It's trolling....WITH SCIENCE!

But really, this doesn't count as trolling in my mind. Advertising? Maybe. An unethical social psychology experiment? Perhaps. But not trolling.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm not saying don't troll them, I'm saying don't involve this site in any way, shape, or form. That includes hotlinking images from here, clicking links that will leave a referral trail, using screennames that will bring this site up if they are searched, etc.