Messages

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.

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.

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'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.

"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.

Also, as I said in my original post, I think it's a bad sign that this level of propaganda is required for something as seemingly obvious as keeping a library from shutting down.

Suggestion:  Empty the planet, and repopulate with something that isn't a primate.

Seconded. I vote bears. They're the next best jugglers.

"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.

I basically agree with everything you guys are saying, and once again I think the end justifies the means in this particular case. I'm even fine with "tricking" the people who scream first, ask questions never. I just would have like to have seen some way (maybe a link somewhere in the "about" section or something) for the people who try to actually make sure they're informed on an issue before howling about it to get in on the joke. Otherwise, it's kind  of like writing a mystery novel where the killer is someone who isn't introduced until the final chapter. Also, as I said in my original post, I think it's a bad sign that this level of propaganda is required for something as seemingly obvious as keeping a library from shutting down.

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.

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.

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

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.

Come to think of it, Kingyak is right.  Discordianism is all about SAVING THE WORLD.

So tell me, Kingyak, what's the plan?

Sorry, sometimes I post from the standpoint a human being whose forced to live in this world rather than a Discordian. Didn't realize that was problematic.

I'm just of the opinion that there's already plenty of stupid in the world to provide endless entertainment, so encouraging more for no good reason is just overkill.

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.

please to give example of when rational political discourse has existed

Good point. But I'm pretty sure there's a spectrum of irrationality and we're way the fuck on the wrong end of it.

That's because you aren't serious about having a good time.

FNORD! 23! DISCOMBOBULATED PENIS! PINEAL GLAND!

[Insert random non-constructive hipster cynacism here]

THIS GUY!



Is that better?

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.

please to give example of when rational political discourse has existed

Good point. But I'm pretty sure there's a spectrum of irrationality and we're way the fuck on the wrong end of it.