book burning party looks like something Discordians would do

[kingyak]

"Informed"?  Like, "are they really going to burn books"?  That's... silly.

The information was out there.  This signs said, [paraphrase] "Vote to close the library on the 20th.  Book burning party on the 23rd".  The connection was there from the start.  You're saying that the voters needed their hands held.

Maybe our difference here is geographical. Where I live, the likelihood of a sign like that meaning exactly what it says is at least as high (and probably a little higher) than it being a clever propaganda tool.

Wait, what?  Your point is that the signs didn't reflect their intentions?


Their point is that if the library closes, you may as well burn the books.  Which is exactly what their signs said.


Are you mad at their use of nuance?

Until the reveal, there wasn't any way to know for sure that nuance existed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Informed"?  Like, "are they really going to burn books"?  That's... silly.

The information was out there.  This signs said, [paraphrase] "Vote to close the library on the 20th.  Book burning party on the 23rd".  The connection was there from the start.  You're saying that the voters needed their hands held.

Maybe our difference here is geographical. Where I live, the likelihood of a sign like that meaning exactly what it says is at least as high (and probably a little higher) than it being a clever propaganda tool.

Wait, what?  Your point is that the signs didn't reflect their intentions?


Their point is that if the library closes, you may as well burn the books.  Which is exactly what their signs said.


Are you mad at their use of nuance?

Until the reveal, there wasn't any way to know for sure that nuance existed.

Normally, I'd laugh at that statement...But this has been a weird century.

[LMNO]

I'm kind of flommoxed here.  Their point was to show that closing the library = burning books.

They put up signs that said close the library and burn the books.

So you're upset that they didn't actually want that to happen, even though the signs indicated their beliefs?

[kingyak]

I'm really having trouble spotting the problem here.

It's not like all of human history didn't revolve around HUGE propaganda efforts to get people lined up behind something.

For example:  World War I german soldiers were neither Huns, nor did they make soap out of French babies.

Again, it's a really tiny, subtle problem that I haven't quite fully worked out the details of myself yet. It just seems kind of unfair to anyone who was a supporter of the library to begin with, was responsible enough to do their homework before joining into the outrage-a-thon, found no indication that the page wasn't serious, and then found out they'd been screaming for no good reason. Maybe I'm giving humans too much credit by thinking that was more than a handful of people.

[kingyak]

I'm kind of flommoxed here.  Their point was to show that closing the library = burning books.

They put up signs that said close the library and burn the books.

So you're upset that they didn't actually want that to happen, even though the signs indicated their beliefs?

Now you're just trolling (I hope).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm really having trouble spotting the problem here.

It's not like all of human history didn't revolve around HUGE propaganda efforts to get people lined up behind something.

For example:  World War I german soldiers were neither Huns, nor did they make soap out of French babies.

Again, it's a really tiny, subtle problem that I haven't quite fully worked out the details of myself yet. It just seems kind of unfair to anyone who was a supporter of the library to begin with, was responsible enough to do their homework before joining into the outrage-a-thon, found no indication that the page wasn't serious, and then found out they'd been screaming for no good reason. Maybe I'm giving humans too much credit by thinking that was more than a handful of people.

You're also not being very serious about having a good time, IMHO.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm kind of flommoxed here.  Their point was to show that closing the library = burning books.

They put up signs that said close the library and burn the books.

So you're upset that they didn't actually want that to happen, even though the signs indicated their beliefs?

Now you're just trolling (I hope).

Why do you say that?  There ISN'T a difference between making books unavailable and burning them.

[LMNO]

I'm really having trouble spotting the problem here.

It's not like all of human history didn't revolve around HUGE propaganda efforts to get people lined up behind something.

For example:  World War I german soldiers were neither Huns, nor did they make soap out of French babies.

Again, it's a really tiny, subtle problem that I haven't quite fully worked out the details of myself yet. It just seems kind of unfair to anyone who was a supporter of the library to begin with, was responsible enough to do their homework before joining into the outrage-a-thon, found no indication that the page wasn't serious, and then found out they'd been screaming for no good reason. Maybe I'm giving humans too much credit by thinking that was more than a handful of people.

Any reason to think that any initial supporter of the library, and who were that passionate about it, wouldn't have been involved in the first place?  The video says "we" quite often.

I'm kind of flommoxed here.  Their point was to show that closing the library = burning books.

They put up signs that said close the library and burn the books.

So you're upset that they didn't actually want that to happen, even though the signs indicated their beliefs?

Now you're just trolling (I hope).

I don't know for sure.  I'm still trying to figure out what's upsetting you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

All I know is that I got away with my response to the Taylor Swift thing, because Nigel wasn't here and the page moved on.

[kingyak]

I'm really having trouble spotting the problem here.

It's not like all of human history didn't revolve around HUGE propaganda efforts to get people lined up behind something.

For example:  World War I german soldiers were neither Huns, nor did they make soap out of French babies.

Again, it's a really tiny, subtle problem that I haven't quite fully worked out the details of myself yet. It just seems kind of unfair to anyone who was a supporter of the library to begin with, was responsible enough to do their homework before joining into the outrage-a-thon, found no indication that the page wasn't serious, and then found out they'd been screaming for no good reason. Maybe I'm giving humans too much credit by thinking that was more than a handful of people.

Any reason to think that any initial supporter of the library, and who were that passionate about it, wouldn't have been involved in the first place?  The video says "we" quite often.

Good point, but without knowing much about the community or the size of the group involved, I don't know if you can assume that.

I'm kind of flommoxed here.  Their point was to show that closing the library = burning books.

They put up signs that said close the library and burn the books.

So you're upset that they didn't actually want that to happen, even though the signs indicated their beliefs?

Now you're just trolling (I hope).

I don't know for sure.  I'm still trying to figure out what's upsetting you.

So am I.

[LMNO]

It sounds like you feel it was "unfair" to keep people who would have enjoyed being part of the stunt "out of the circle of cool kids" pulling the gag.

[LMNO]

All I know is that I got away with my response to the Taylor Swift thing, because Nigel wasn't here and the page moved on.

Don't worry, I'll quote the post sometime she's around.

[The Johnny]

In this summers thrilling suspense movie, where a posters nebulous insights towards the ethics of mindfucking bring about internal conflict and mutual accusations of trolling...

[kingyak]

I'm kind of flommoxed here.  Their point was to show that closing the library = burning books.

They put up signs that said close the library and burn the books.

So you're upset that they didn't actually want that to happen, even though the signs indicated their beliefs?

Now you're just trolling (I hope).

Why do you say that?  There ISN'T a difference between making books unavailable and burning them.

Agreed. But there was no way to confirm that the group putting up the signs was actually opposed to both until they revealed except for the ridiculousness of teabaggers celebrating lower taxes by burning the books from the library they'd shut down. I'm not sure that the concept is ridiculous enough to set off any "maybe this is propaganda" alarms.

[The Johnny]

does your dilemma come from if its ok to manipulate people for good things?

a type of means dont justify ends?