book burning party looks like something Discordians would do

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I thought this was great when I first saw it, but something about it bothered me. I think it's the fact that the idea ultimately revolves around getting a bunch of uninformed slacktivist types worked up about an issue they have little or no understanding of (see also Kony). While it might be a good strategy in some specific situations (and I'm really glad they got to keep their library open), this kind of appeal to easily-outraged low-information "activists" is almost like an admission that rational political discourse is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, that might be true.

Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree more. It was about jumping on the opposition's bandwagon with an exaggerated version of their actual agenda in order to shift the discourse away from the misdirect to taxes and back to the issue at hand. And it worked.

I am disheartened by your apparent perception that those who engaged and participated in this are nothing more than "uninformed slacktivists". It makes it sound like you perceive other people as mostly a pack of manipulable idiots, but frankly I think that says a lot more about you than about them.

[East Coast Hustle]

I don't think I agree with kingyak in this particular instance, but I think that most people ARE a pack of easily manipulated idiots.

[kingyak]

I thought this was great when I first saw it, but something about it bothered me. I think it's the fact that the idea ultimately revolves around getting a bunch of uninformed slacktivist types worked up about an issue they have little or no understanding of (see also Kony). While it might be a good strategy in some specific situations (and I'm really glad they got to keep their library open), this kind of appeal to easily-outraged low-information "activists" is almost like an admission that rational political discourse is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, that might be true.

Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree more. It was about jumping on the opposition's bandwagon with an exaggerated version of their actual agenda in order to shift the discourse away from the misdirect to taxes and back to the issue at hand. And it worked.

I am disheartened by your apparent perception that those who engaged and participated in this are nothing more than "uninformed slacktivists". It makes it sound like you perceive other people as mostly a pack of manipulable idiots, but frankly I think that says a lot more about you than about them.

Actually, I think my problem is kind of the opposite (if I didn't make it clear enough in the initial post, I'm still trying to pin down exactly what about this doesn't sit quite right with me--I normally love seeing this kind of thing work). I think it boils down to the way the delayed reveal forced people who actually try to understand what's going on before getting butthurt into the same boat as people who constantly get outraged about things just because the internet tells them to. I realize that without the dishonesty the trick might have been short-circuited before it got big enough to get results, but at least with the Tea Party people can figure out they're being manipulated and lied to if they're willing to make an effort to understand what they're railing about. In this case the only indication that book burning isn't the real agenda is the fact that the position is so extreme, but nowadays it's just too hard to tell between satire and honest dumbfuckery for that to function as a reliable indicator.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I thought this was great when I first saw it, but something about it bothered me. I think it's the fact that the idea ultimately revolves around getting a bunch of uninformed slacktivist types worked up about an issue they have little or no understanding of (see also Kony). While it might be a good strategy in some specific situations (and I'm really glad they got to keep their library open), this kind of appeal to easily-outraged low-information "activists" is almost like an admission that rational political discourse is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, that might be true.

Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree more. It was about jumping on the opposition's bandwagon with an exaggerated version of their actual agenda in order to shift the discourse away from the misdirect to taxes and back to the issue at hand. And it worked.

I am disheartened by your apparent perception that those who engaged and participated in this are nothing more than "uninformed slacktivists". It makes it sound like you perceive other people as mostly a pack of manipulable idiots, but frankly I think that says a lot more about you than about them.

Actually, I think my problem is kind of the opposite (if I didn't make it clear enough in the initial post, I'm still trying to pin down exactly what about this doesn't sit quite right with me--I normally love seeing this kind of thing work). I think it boils down to the way the delayed reveal forced people who actually try to understand what's going on before getting butthurt into the same boat as people who constantly get outraged about things just because the internet tells them to. I realize that without the dishonesty the trick might have been short-circuited before it got big enough to get results, but at least with the Tea Party people can figure out they're being manipulated and lied to if they're willing to make an effort to understand what they're railing about. In this case the only indication that book burning isn't the real agenda is the fact that the position is so extreme, but nowadays it's just too hard to tell between satire and honest dumbfuckery for that to function as a reliable indicator.

So you are anti-mindfuck as a method for getting people to think or shift their perceptions?

OK.

[kingyak]

Not at all. I just don't like the idea of mindfucking people who've done nothing to deserve it.

[LMNO]

They're human, aren't they?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not at all. I just don't like the idea of mindfucking people who've done nothing to deserve it.

What does "deserve" have to do with it?  I still get MF'd occasionally, and I'm usually grateful when I realize it.

ETA:  These folks were going to condemn a library, rather than take a mild tax increase.  Who would need a MF more?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Is there ever such a thing as not enough stupid?

Is there ever such a thing as too much stupid?

Too much is ALWAYS better than not enough.

[kingyak]

Not at all. I just don't like the idea of mindfucking people who've done nothing to deserve it.

What does "deserve" have to do with it?  I still get MF'd occasionally, and I'm usually grateful when I realize it.

ETA:  These folks were going to condemn a library, rather than take a mild tax increase.  Who would need a MF more?

But the MF wasn't directed against those people, it was aimed at people who don't like the idea of burning books. From what I can tell from the video, the MF didn't so much change teabaggers minds as get non-teabaggers to the polls. Now that I think of it, that's probably another reason the whole thing bothers me, since IMO "issues" voters, no matter how well-intentioned, tend to cause more harm than good.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not at all. I just don't like the idea of mindfucking people who've done nothing to deserve it.

What does "deserve" have to do with it?  I still get MF'd occasionally, and I'm usually grateful when I realize it.

ETA:  These folks were going to condemn a library, rather than take a mild tax increase.  Who would need a MF more?

But the MF wasn't directed against those people, it was aimed at people who don't like the idea of burning books. From what I can tell from the video, the MF didn't so much change teabaggers minds as get non-teabaggers to the polls. Now that I think of it, that's probably another reason the whole thing bothers me, since IMO "issues" voters, no matter how well-intentioned, tend to cause more harm than good.

It was in fact directed at those people, to show them that there is no functional difference between taking books away from the public, and just burning them.  And the target was the non-teabaggers.

And it worked.   

[kingyak]

OK, I think I'm starting to see where we're talking past each other here. You seem to see the MF as targeting people who were against the tax until they were shown that shutting down the library would have pretty much the same effect as burning the books. My impression is that it mainly targeted people who were either for the tax from the beginning or completely uninformed about it, but would have been for it if they knew. Again, I think the outcome was a good thing (assuming the "issues" voters didn't accidentally vote in somebody who's going to do something much worse than shutting down the library while they were there). My main problem is that the page kept its real agenda under wraps until right before the election, which suggests that the organizers felt that using the book burning message to get people to the page then hitting them with the real message wasn't enough. In order to get people to act, they needed to make sure the righteous furor over an imaginary threat was at a fever pitch.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

OK, I think I'm starting to see where we're talking past each other here. You seem to see the MF as targeting people who were against the tax until they were shown that shutting down the library would have pretty much the same effect as burning the books. My impression is that it mainly targeted people who were either for the tax from the beginning or completely uninformed about it, but would have been for it if they knew. Again, I think the outcome was a good thing (assuming the "issues" voters didn't accidentally vote in somebody who's going to do something much worse than shutting down the library while they were there). My main problem is that the page kept its real agenda under wraps until right before the election, which suggests that the organizers felt that using the book burning message to get people to the page then hitting them with the real message wasn't enough. In order to get people to act, they needed to make sure the righteous furor over an imaginary threat was at a fever pitch.

It makes no sense to target the teabaggers; they are fanatics, and will not be swayed.  The object here was to counter the teabaggers' propaganda with propaganda of their own.  Was it over the top?  All propaganda is.  At some point, you have to make a decision...Sin a bit, or lose with a halo.  In other words, you can get in the gutter and fight with the whores, or you can hand everything over to the teabaggers and congratulate yourself on a sparkling clean ethical code that also happens to ensure the worst outcome for everyone.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

OK, I think I'm starting to see where we're talking past each other here. You seem to see the MF as targeting people who were against the tax until they were shown that shutting down the library would have pretty much the same effect as burning the books. My impression is that it mainly targeted people who were either for the tax from the beginning or completely uninformed about it, but would have been for it if they knew. Again, I think the outcome was a good thing (assuming the "issues" voters didn't accidentally vote in somebody who's going to do something much worse than shutting down the library while they were there). My main problem is that the page kept its real agenda under wraps until right before the election, which suggests that the organizers felt that using the book burning message to get people to the page then hitting them with the real message wasn't enough. In order to get people to act, they needed to make sure the righteous furor over an imaginary threat was at a fever pitch.

It makes no sense to target the teabaggers; they are fanatics, and will not be swayed.  The object here was to counter the teabaggers' propaganda with propaganda of their own.  Was it over the top?  All propaganda is.  At some point, you have to make a decision...Sin a bit, or lose with a halo.  In other words, you can get in the gutter and fight with the whores, or you can hand everything over to the teabaggers and congratulate yourself on a sparkling clean ethical code that also happens to ensure the worst outcome for everyone.

This. We're in a war of propaganda. The truth being a casualty is a foregone conclusion. There's no way to resurrect the truth, because the truth is whatever the winner says it is anyway. There is no such thing as an "objective reality" when it comes to propaganda, and trying to get people to think critically and objectively in large numbers is a fool's errand. Enlightenment never happens when there are more than one or two people in a room, and usually even one person is too large a crowd for enlightenment.

Leave moderation to the losers. If there's one thing this century has taught me so far, it's that extremism must be balanced with violently overcalculated counter-extremism. That sounds like I'm shitting you but no. It's the truth: this is the New Way. And it's the ONLY way to win.

[Cain]

All good politics is, more or less, ethically dubious on some level.  The contest for power is a dirty, dirty game, and often the very best political moves are the ones which bring about the most moral condemnation.

[Cain]

What I'm saying is, if there is no blood on the ground, and no families of your political enemies starving to death, you're probably doing OK.