who's the target audience of this one? I am, I guess. Just trying to get myself grounded on a Monday morning....
How to Change the World1. We agree that there are issues in the world, yes yes? The world we live in is less than ideal.
2. We can envision a perfect world with none of those problems. But this world can only live in our heads. Most Utopias are a form of utopia for a few, tyranny for others. And the measures you need to take to end at Utopia are often incongruent with that utopia. For example: I can imagine a world where there's no (just off the top of my head) homophobia, but to arrive at that, we'd probably need to shoot or brainwash a bunch of people, and that's not a desirable world I want to live in either.
3. Alright, let's talk about changing the world
in terms of scope. In my experience, it's easy to change the super-local world. Really easy, actually. Affecting a change withing your family unit, your group of friends, your house - all it takes is a little willpower and a push. As you scale up - your community, your town, your state government, your country ... things get harder.
4. And this is basically because any sustainable system is self-reenforcing. It nourishes itself. It defeats outside attacks. When a part of the system stops working, the system contains a method of selecting a new part. As we talk about larger and larger systems, the self-reenforcing mechanisms are larger and better at resisting individuals.
5. This means that in order to change a larger system, you need a group of people. Essentially, the group of people needs to be able to operate as an organism - a smarter, faster, more robust organism than the one they wish to change.
6. The human body is a very good metaphor for how memetic systems work. The body has its own internal communication system, it's own form of media. Somehow, as blood sugar falls, the body's systems organize themselves to seek new nutrients. The motion and direction of the entire body is a result of multiple interrelated systems passing signals to each other about what they are doing and what they need. Understanding the
res publica in terms of memetics is like understanding human behavior in terms of chemistry. We are looking at tiny causal events which result in the motion of a larger organism.
7. So in our metaphor, we're like little beings living inside the body, trying to make the body move more efficiently. But we can't control the whole body, we can only control a very limited set of signals and responses.
8. There are systems whose nature is to pass signals into a higher level of representation within the body. We'll call these amplifiers. You may feel pangs of hunger before your body catches onto the idea that it needs food. The most interesting moment is the tipping point at which you get out of your chair and make a sandwich. This impetus is the result of millions of chemical events. But somewhere, there was a single chemical event that acted as the "straw that broke the camel's back." Somehow, that tiny little chemical event changed the fate of the whole body.
9. Media is the most visible amplifier. It's specifically a system designed to inform the greater organism about tiny little events which happen locally. If you can understand what signals the media is REALLY transmitting, you can pull off some interesting experiments. The Internet is another really visible amplifier -- we're still figuring out exactly how it works, but it's not TOO different from Mainstream Media -- it's just a bit more democratic, and it isn't victim to production schedules and editorial control.
10. Let's do away with all this metaphor. Here's a concrete example of how it works: Both the Mainstream Media and the Internets are obsessed with FAIL. They are especially interested in their enemy's FAIL (btw - that is one of those status-quo re-enforcing systems I mentioned in point 4). Rick Santorum was an outspoken homophobe whose name got branded - by the gay community - with something disgusting... essentially a form of information warfare used to undermine his attempts to gather new followers. Santorum wants desperately to correct this, but, as we pointed out, an individual has a hard time resisting the actions of an organized group. To those of us who don't like Santorum, the narrative we'd like to read is about him FAILING to correct his google problem.
10a. "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=29467.msg1060900#msg1060900)... Our very own Pastor Mulla Zapathrustra (or Precious Moments Zalgo... or whatever name he's using this week) ran an excellent False Flag operation capitalizing on the Streisand effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect). The gist is that trying to hide information only makes media systems more interested in it. And the media loves FAIL, right? So PMZ created a facebook group which tried to appear like it was created by Santorum's followers. He resisted the temptation to make it into satire, and just focused on creating a believable front for the movement. It, of course, failed. It only got like 20 followers. AND THAT WAS THE POINT! This FAIL was actually picked up by a number of newspapers. From there, it was reblogged and tweeted and passed through the interwebs. Can you understand what he did in terms of signal analysis? He provided a FAIL signal which the media systems were poised to pick up on. From there, the signal was passed into higher orbits and levels of exposure.
11. That's a great example of how a small action became a "thought" present in a larger organism. As Santorum tries to whitewash his image, PMZ's experiment is one fiber of the muscle working against him.
12. Peedy dotcom is excellent at forming "mastermind groups". A Mastermind group is an organism which is able to create signals for larger organisms than we can communicate wtih as mere individuals. In order to work as a mastermind group, we must be able to do a few things. When somebody like PMZ has an idea for a project like this, we have to workshop it and give feedback until it WORKS. Then we need to support that effort - in the Santorum example, we needed those 20 people to join the facebook group.
12a. The PD community resists attempts to organize it or impose marching orders. Ideas have their own chemistry for attracting followers. The idea has to be good enough ON ITS OWN to gather support and action.
Quote
from http://blackironprison.com/index.php?title=Golden_Apple_Seed_Mission#What_makes_a_GASM_work.3F
What makes a GASM work?
So you've got an idea for a jake or prank or project, and you want help. Here are some tips to make your idea take off:
- Keep it simple. If your GASM can't be explained in a paragraph or two, most people won't have the attention to follow.
- Make it FUN. Participation in the Mission should be rewarding in of itself.
- Make it easy for people to participate. Don't make people generate their own material or do their own research. Make it Discordianproof.
- Expect to do most of the work yourself. Sad fact: It's not enough to build the funwagon, you've got to drive it too. Sometimes this will involve pushing it through mud and rain and harpies towards Funtown.
13. The hardest task, I think, is coming up with ideas which will actually make the world better in some way. If we can come up with a few of those, we can experiment with passing those ideas up into higher levels of representation, until - we hope - the whole organism changes its behavior.
Last time I tried to get PDers involved, I was called a Nazi.
Given that not even the Discordians want to do shit about the state of the species, I'm kind of happy just to watch the world burn.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2011, 04:06:44 PM
Last time I tried to get PDers involved, I was called a Nazi.
Given that not even the Discordians want to do shit about the state of the species, I'm kind of happy just to watch the world burn.
Does that include water tower - high powered rifle fantasies?
Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2011, 04:06:44 PM
Last time I tried to get PDers involved, I was called a Nazi.
Given that not even the Discordians want to do shit about the state of the species, I'm kind of happy just to watch the world burn.
Does that include water tower - high powered rifle fantasies?
Naw.
I tried to pull one direction - to be left to the group as to
which direction, I was called a Nazi
1, and quit. Then CU ran with it and filled it full of fucking fail.
Fuck the humans.
1 Two of my more vocal critics, Liam & Bella, both also quit PD. Liam has decided to believe the absolute worst about me since, on any subject.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2011, 04:13:23 PM
Quote from: Khara on July 18, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 18, 2011, 04:06:44 PM
Last time I tried to get PDers involved, I was called a Nazi.
Given that not even the Discordians want to do shit about the state of the species, I'm kind of happy just to watch the world burn.
Does that include water tower - high powered rifle fantasies?
Naw.
I tried to pull one direction - to be left to the group as to which direction, I was called a Nazi1, and quit. Then CU ran with it and filled it full of fucking fail.
Fuck the humans.
1 Two of my more vocal critics, Liam & Bella, both also quit PD. Liam has decided to believe the absolute worst about me since, on any subject.
I remember! I'm actually, with you, I'm good with just watching it all burn!!
I was just being a bit snarky, it being Monday and all :wink:
I'm experiencing a burst of energy and motivation - which may be temporary - the point of this thread is to help me crystallize it and ground myself in meaningful action before that energy is eroded by inertia and cynicism.
We've all had our ideas shat on before, we've all tried to motivate people here at PD and failed - I don't want to dwell on that, it's discouraging, and a waste of energy. PD did something really really cool last week (PMZ's false flag op), I'm more interested in his success than I am our previous failures. So I would appreciate it if we could bypass the predictable narrative about this forum can't be used for productive or progressive causes, it's not worth doing, etc etc
What I'd like to talk about:
- What ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
- Those "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2011, 04:35:18 PM
We've all had our ideas shat on before, we've all tried to motivate people here at PD and failed - I don't want to dwell on that, it's discouraging, and a waste of energy. PD did something really really cool last week (PMZ's false flag op), I'm more interested in his success than I am our previous failures. So I would appreciate it if we could bypass the predictable narrative about this forum can't be used for productive or progressive causes, it's not worth doing, etc etc
No problem. I was just saying, somehow when I said something similar, I was a fucking goose-stepping control freak or some shit.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=28204.15
Dok,
Was just saying.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2011, 04:35:18 PM
We've all had our ideas shat on before, we've all tried to motivate people here at PD and failed - I don't want to dwell on that, it's discouraging, and a waste of energy. PD did something really really cool last week (PMZ's false flag op), I'm more interested in his success than I am our previous failures. So I would appreciate it if we could bypass the predictable narrative about this forum can't be used for productive or progressive causes, it's not worth doing, etc etc
The "false flag op" was clever. I liked it, but it's not really the kind of thing I personally would participate in.
That said, I definitely wouldn't mind participating in projects I find interesting if and when time and chaos permits. I already have a folder on my laptop of good posterGASM images I stole and am going to pepper a few choice spots with.
[---]
I had a huge post here about what discordianism is to me and how people play roles and bullshit each other blah blah blah, but I killed it for being self-indulgent bullshit. If you want the rant, see George Carlin's "It's all bullshit" stand up, he said it way better then I ever could. Wall of text aside, the point is, YES I'm down for some chaos mongering shenanigans! Bring it on!!
So in response to Cram:
QuoteWhat ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
Well, as I personally think subtlety is key, I think a lot of the smaller PosterGASMs were a very good start at tricking/surprising people into thinking outside of the box.
After giving the question some thought, it occurs to me that a distinction should be made as to what you mean, exactly, by "make my world better". I mean, the world is going to shit. Do you mean, slow/halt/fight the coming destruction, or, spreading PDish thoughts/ideas, or, letting more people in on the joke in the meantime, or, things we can plant on the stairs to make it funnier when they fall?
QuoteThose "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".
The media seems very fickle. Unpredictable. Look at what kind of youtube videos go viral and what doesn't. I mean, how the hell is the Foxxxxxxxy or whatever the annoying kid's nickname is, e-famous, while some truly amazing videos "slip through the cracks" or go unnoticed? How is some kid falling in a well and having to be dug out (and being just fine) a nation-wide news story, while some guy down the street from me shooting six people including his mom and shooting at police only makes local news? Besides the awful porno, why is Paris Hilton a household name?
Maybe I'm just dense, but the workings of news and what is media worthy or not seems far beyond my ability to decipher.
Quote from: trix on July 19, 2011, 12:29:21 PM
QuoteWhat ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
Well, as I personally think subtlety is key, I think a lot of the smaller PosterGASMs were a very good start at tricking/surprising people into thinking outside of the box.
After giving the question some thought, it occurs to me that a distinction should be made as to what you mean, exactly, by "make my world better". I mean, the world is going to shit. Do you mean, slow/halt/fight the coming destruction, or, spreading PDish thoughts/ideas, or, letting more people in on the joke in the meantime, or, things we can plant on the stairs to make it funnier when they fall?
I don't mean anything in particular; it's a subjective question. :)
speaking for myself --
When I was making a bunch of those postergasm images, I was operating on a few "memes which will make my community better". The evil I was trying to fight was that I lived in a pretty rough neighborhood in Yonkers, New York. Lots of violence, people were afraid of the cops, it was a tense place. Everybody was scowling all the time. And that wasn't just what it was like on the street, everywhere you went, it was shitty. Yonkers has consistently bad service at every one of its restaurants. Nobody there gives a shit. About anything.
If I'm in a good mood, I'm much more likely to be nice to people, to chat up the other guy in the elevator, to not snap at somebody if they cut me off in traffic.
So my thinking was that MY world would be a lot better place if everybody I saw had heard at least one joke that day. If everybody took a second to quit their shit and laugh about something stupid.
I'd always see people laughing at my posters, taking pictures of them, pointing them out to their friends. That shit really made my day. Even if I didn't dent the overall negativity of the neighborhood between Yonkers and Mt. Vernon, I did definitely enjoy my neighborhood more because I put jokes all over the goddamn place.
QuoteQuoteThose "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".
The media seems very fickle. Unpredictable. Look at what kind of youtube videos go viral and what doesn't. I mean, how the hell is the Foxxxxxxxy or whatever the annoying kid's nickname is, e-famous, while some truly amazing videos "slip through the cracks" or go unnoticed? How is some kid falling in a well and having to be dug out (and being just fine) a nation-wide news story, while some guy down the street from me shooting six people including his mom and shooting at police only makes local news? Besides the awful porno, why is Paris Hilton a household name?
Maybe I'm just dense, but the workings of news and what is media worthy or not seems far beyond my ability to decipher.
I think there is a formula to it. Maybe that's post-hoc reasoning.... like when you hear an Urban Myth, you can often pick out the narrative that makes that story so popular (ie - the Obama Birth Certificate story -- you can see how that narrative is very attractive to a certain population - so attractive that the meme has developed its own self-sustaining defenses). But the factors which make things "catch" and go "viral" are a bit harder to intentionally evoke.
I don't know what the formula is, but I'm pretty sure of one thing - it's not random. If you hear two stories, you can usually guess which one will be more salient.
Controversy. Support of existing narratives. Breaking news. These are the top three things that come to mind.
We actually used to have a group here called the Adam Weishaupt Society. The group's game was to come up with fake news, then award themselves points when they found instances of other people treating that misinformation as if it was real. There was a lot of trial and error, but in the end we definitely learned a thing or two about media hoaxes.
Joey Skaggs is also the king of making news through hoaxes - he's definitely worth a read too.
Posting to help find later.
Why the hell would you want to make the world better? It's much much easier to make it worse. And funnier too :evil:
I like the world - I keep a lot of my stuff there
Making the world a better place is a good thing to do. Everyone needs to have hope once in a while.
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 19, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Making the world a better place is a good thing to do. Everyone needs to have hope once in a while.
There is no hope, to have hope inplies that there is a chance that something can be accomplished.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 19, 2011, 04:25:14 PM
Why the hell would you want to make the world better? It's much much easier to make it worse. And funnier too :evil:
Because everyone else has been doing that for a zillion years, better than any of us ever could, and they haven't even been trying.
That said, a lot of what has made the world worse has been in an attempt to make it better... maybe the trick is to pull reverse psychology on the world?
Quote from: Khara on July 19, 2011, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 19, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Making the world a better place is a good thing to do. Everyone needs to have hope once in a while.
There is no hope, to have hope inplies that there is a chance that something can be accomplished.
:| :emo:
That's not only depressing negativity, but it's also stupid and circular.
Hoffnung ist nur ein Mangel an InformationAlso not necessarily a very positive statement, but at least it's got TROOF in it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 02:50:49 PM
Quote from: Khara on July 19, 2011, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 19, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Making the world a better place is a good thing to do. Everyone needs to have hope once in a while.
There is no hope, to have hope inplies that there is a chance that something can be accomplished.
:| :emo:
That's not only depressing negativity, but it's also stupid and circular.
Hoffnung ist nur ein Mangel an Information
Also not necessarily a very positive statement, but at least it's got TROOF in it.
Fuck you!
Let me go nitpick your one liners. I write some actual decent shit and it's completely ignored yet you pick one fucking sentence and it's stupid?
Yeah, I'm done.
Huh, it's stupid of me to get in the middle of this, but...
Khara's comment struck me as abrasive, too, but i took it as intentional snark with some tongue in cheek dark humor.
if i took it at face value, i might comment that it is depressingly negative, and circular, but saying it is stupid?
Trip, I have viewed you as a fairly diplomatic fellow, so this strikes me as odd.
i'm wondering if there is a language or cultural gap here...
the (unfortunate) implication when you call something someone says 'stupid', is that the person their self is stupid. even though we all know that we all say stupid (to mean that it doesn't make sense) things, the insulting association to the speaker is pretty deeply ingrained in the word.
Iptuous,
untrained explosive ordinance technician
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
I was not dumping on the entire thread and to imply that I was attempting to do anything of the sort is assinine. I responded directly to what Freeky had said with what I thought was sarcasm, I understand now the difference between sarcasm and stupidity.
Thank you.
And still FUCK YOU!
i think it's just a misundersta-BOOM!
:sad:
Iptuous,
former untrained explosive ordinance technician
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 19, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Making the world a better place is a good thing to do. Everyone needs to have hope once in a while.
Happy people are good to other people. Misery creates an ugly cycle. So, yeah, I agree 100%.
Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
I was not dumping on the entire thread and to imply that I was attempting to do anything of the sort is assinine. I responded directly to what Freeky had said with what I thought was sarcasm, I understand now the difference between sarcasm and stupidity.
Thank you.
And still FUCK YOU!
Khara, I love you. I think you're awesome, and your volatility is an endearing part of what makes you who you are.
Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 06:14:53 PM
Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
I was not dumping on the entire thread and to imply that I was attempting to do anything of the sort is assinine. I responded directly to what Freeky had said with what I thought was sarcasm, I understand now the difference between sarcasm and stupidity.
Thank you.
And still FUCK YOU!
Khara, I love you. I think you're awesome, and your volatility is an endearing part of what makes you who you are.
I'm sorry, what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 06:22:44 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 06:14:53 PM
Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
I was not dumping on the entire thread and to imply that I was attempting to do anything of the sort is assinine. I responded directly to what Freeky had said with what I thought was sarcasm, I understand now the difference between sarcasm and stupidity.
Thank you.
And still FUCK YOU!
Khara, I love you. I think you're awesome, and your volatility is an endearing part of what makes you who you are.
I'm sorry, what exactly is that supposed to mean?
"You gotta be you"
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 02:50:49 PM
Quote from: Khara on July 19, 2011, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on July 19, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Making the world a better place is a good thing to do. Everyone needs to have hope once in a while.
There is no hope, to have hope inplies that there is a chance that something can be accomplished.
:| :emo:
That's not only depressing negativity, but it's also stupid and circular.
Hoffnung ist nur ein Mangel an Information
Also not necessarily a very positive statement, but at least it's got TROOF in it.
You can be a real asshole, sometimes.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
What do you think, stupid?
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.
Quote from: Payne on July 20, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
"You gotta be you"
And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.
Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2011, 04:35:18 PM
What I'd like to talk about:
- What ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
- Those "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".
Another angle to approach this from is to work backwards from the desired outcome and then tailor the story to specific news outlets.
I'm finding the idea of something being "media worthy" as something a bit too big for me to aim at. Could we break that down into more manageable chunks of media?
Quote from: Bert Huttz on July 21, 2011, 03:51:46 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.
Quote from: Payne on July 20, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
"You gotta be you"
And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.
Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/rogerwogan.jpg)
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 04:00:32 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2011, 04:35:18 PM
What I'd like to talk about:
- What ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
- Those "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".
Another angle to approach this from is to work backwards from the desired outcome and then tailor the story to specific news outlets.
I'm finding the idea of something being "media worthy" as something a bit too big for me to aim at. Could we break that down into more manageable chunks of media?
I agree, this concept needs to be broken down into manageable chunks. Then we can start to leverage it at specific institutions.
Quote from: Payne on July 21, 2011, 06:43:58 AM
Quote from: Bert Huttz on July 21, 2011, 03:51:46 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.
Quote from: Payne on July 20, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
"You gotta be you"
And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.
Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/rogerwogan.jpg)
WTF?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post.
You're a cunt.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
Not like your posts were intended to fuck the thread, right?
News organisations don't like to actually present "news". They like comfortable old, known things in new packaging. And by new packaging, I mean social network packaging, especially Facebook and Twitter.
For example, that Santorum is a failure, and his followers a joke, and that his name was Google-bombed into a rather amusing joke, are all known things. Throw in the false-flag op and, well, how could the media resist? It plays to all of those biases and known things about Santorum, has the social networking website aspect and it is old fail in a new package.
Quote from: Cain on July 21, 2011, 01:20:40 PM
News organisations don't like to actually present "news". They like comfortable old, known things in new packaging. And by new packaging, I mean social network packaging, especially Facebook and Twitter.
For example, that Santorum is a failure, and his followers a joke, and that his name was Google-bombed into a rather amusing joke, are all known things. Throw in the false-flag op and, well, how could the media resist? It plays to all of those biases and known things about Santorum, has the social networking website aspect and it is old fail in a new package.
Could you elaborate on the "social networking packaging"?
I'm not quite running at full steam this morning.
Oh, I just mean news networks really seem to like stories where they can include a social network angle. So if something is happening on Facebook, they seem to like that much more than if it was happening on some random blog or website.
Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 06:22:44 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 20, 2011, 06:14:53 PM
Quote from: Out of Service on July 20, 2011, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
I was not dumping on the entire thread and to imply that I was attempting to do anything of the sort is assinine. I responded directly to what Freeky had said with what I thought was sarcasm, I understand now the difference between sarcasm and stupidity.
Thank you.
And still FUCK YOU!
Khara, I love you. I think you're awesome, and your volatility is an endearing part of what makes you who you are.
I'm sorry, what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Exactly, literally, what it says. I was having a mushy moment.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
I pegged it as sarcasm right off the bat. FWIW.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 21, 2011, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Payne on July 21, 2011, 06:43:58 AM
Quote from: Bert Huttz on July 21, 2011, 03:51:46 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 03:39:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 20, 2011, 03:26:55 PM
Well, I think circular reasoning is pretty stupid? Is it not?
And when in addition it dumps on the entire premise of the thread, I don't quite see how writing "some actual decent shit" somehow excuses one from getting called on shitting on a thread like that.
-"how to change the world"
-"there is no hope because there is no hope because you cannot accomplish anything because you cannot accomplish anything"
That's just nasty. If it had just been stupid (circular) I'd have ignored it.
is "stupid" too strong a term for that?
No, I don't think it is.
And I didn't detect the humor or sarcasm that supposedly was in Khara's post. If I twist my brain quite a bit, I can kind of see that intention, but it seems more like a simple shitty comment that was only rationalized as sarcasm after the fact.
If it was just a joke that was not intended to fuck up the thread, why not just concede it was badly presented and back down?
You know what? Fuck you. You clearly just hate Khara.
Quote from: Payne on July 20, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
"You gotta be you"
And fuck you too. You two are what is wrong with this thread.
I'd tell Ippy to get fucked, too, if he hadn't exploded.
Also, Cram. You're a fucking Nazi, man. How's your burst of energy and motivation doing now, fuckstick?
Paes flounces.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/rogerwogan.jpg)
WTF?
What I actually wanted was that source pic (it's a stalwart of British Broadcasting, Terry Wogan, who is as safe and family friendly as a plate of slightly undercooked chips, with an erection).
I was gonna WOMP my own head onto it, but I didn't have time cause I was already about 15 minutes late for work as it was so I used the old one with your head I did months ago.
Well if it was sarcasm, I didn't pick it up, and my remark was unnecessary. Sorry about that, and having thought about it, it wasn't my intention to upset you, Khara.
Though the remark about hope--before I was informed it was intended as sarcastic--did upset me, I really despise that attitude, hence my strong words.
What I don't understand though, if your remark about hope was actually intended as sarcastic, why'd you take it so personal? It should have been obvious to you I was barking up the wrong tree, so joke's on me right? If I took your sarcasm serious and called that stupid, that means I was talking about the exact opposite of what you really wanted to say--then what's the problem?
Also thanks to Ippy and Howl for pointing out that calling a remark stupid is apparently interpreted as exactly the same as calling the person who said it stupid. Which is completely ridiculous IMO, but if that's the way it comes across, I'll take more care in the future.
How would I say "I think what you just said is stupid, but I don't think you are stupid" without sounding stupid myself? :)
And I'm just going to assume Paesior is being sarcastic too, even though my detector is apparently malfunctioning.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2011, 12:20:48 PMAlso thanks to Ippy and Howl for pointing out that calling a remark stupid is apparently interpreted as exactly the same as calling the person who said it stupid. Which is completely ridiculous IMO, but if that's the way it comes across, I'll take more care in the future.
oh and for the sake of clarity, I don't know, but let me be certain to point out:
when I say that "is completely ridiculous", I do NOT mean that Iptuous is ridiculous, Dok is ridiculous, Khara is ridiculous or any other person is ridiculous.
*puts on his big galoshes*
*wades through drama*My goal for the OP was to illustrate the memetic process for newcomers that haven't heard us yammering about it forever. And maybe to ignite some energy to collaborate on a fun group project. I sense a lot of cynicism and bitterness surrounding the idea of collaborating together. I want to point out that expressing that within this thread actually decreases the potential for these ideas to coalesce into action. So if you're not actually into collaborating on some kind of pro-social prank, let me politely ask you to not reply. :)
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on July 21, 2011, 04:00:32 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 18, 2011, 04:35:18 PM
What I'd like to talk about:
- What ideas, expressed in their simplest form, would actually help make my world better?
- Those "amplifiers" -- media systems -- what do they actually report on? What is the narrative behind the narrative? For example, the "Fixing Santorum's Google Problem" news articles were superficially about his failure on facebook, but the story behind the unspoken story is that the public has rejected him and he's incapable of regaining approval. Can we break this down into a general rule about media? IE, FAIL is more interesting than success? I'm interested in studying how exactly these systems work. Optimally, I bet we could come up with a flow chart to examine whether or not an event is "media worthy".
Another angle to approach this from is to work backwards from the desired outcome and then tailor the story to specific news outlets.
I'm finding the idea of something being "media worthy" as something a bit too big for me to aim at. Could we break that down into more manageable chunks of media?
Quote from: Cain on July 21, 2011, 01:20:40 PM
News organisations don't like to actually present "news". They like comfortable old, known things in new packaging. And by new packaging, I mean social network packaging, especially Facebook and Twitter.
For example, that Santorum is a failure, and his followers a joke, and that his name was Google-bombed into a rather amusing joke, are all known things. Throw in the false-flag op and, well, how could the media resist? It plays to all of those biases and known things about Santorum, has the social networking website aspect and it is old fail in a new package.
OKAY, let's start with the false flag op, because that was a lot of fun, easy to do, and there are thousands of targets.
And let's say that our false flag is going to be located on facebook or google+. Google+ might actually be a bit better because people are itching for news about it right now.
so let's narrow it down into a list of topical, emotional targets, then pick an issue that would be fun to prank.
Off the top of my head. . . here's some issues I have feelings about. I think that these are things which, if addressed, would make the world more livable.
(1) American Debt Ceiling. This is really the boiling issue of the week. We probably can't affect the actual talks, but we can probably affect the media reporting on it. One thing that's jumped forward (to me) though all this hype is that some of the right wing movers and shakers are really just into getting Obama out of office and making him look bad, they're not actually in these talks to fix the economy. They want to be able to blame without getting any of that responsibility on them. So this is a bit partisan, but a false flag op for this cause might look like a facebook group or petition that wants to get obama out of office. The hook is that this group is willing to sacrifice the economy for everybody in order to get a dem out of office. And they'd be really transparent about it. "We hope the cost of food rises during the Obama administration."
(2) Corporate Personhood - Corporations are slowly eroding the quality of life for private citizens while building themselves the same protections enjoyed by individuals. Recent legal drama has established a higher level of immunity to class action law suits. I want the public to be able to distinguish what rights people should have and what rights corporations should have. What would a false flag op on the corporate personhood frequency look like?
(3) Pharmaceutical Industry - they sketch me out in a thousand ways. At the local level, they provide such financial incentives to doctors that they have an inordinate amount of influence over prescription rates. At the global level, they are slowly making liminal abnormalities and other non-issues into medication-demanding conditions. A false flag op for this would be easy - maybe groups of people are demanding medication for things like "boringness". Actually that might be a great angle for lots of comedy - basically needing medication for the vulnerable, tranced-out zombie state induced by being over-medicated.
(4) Monsanto corp pretty much fux0red american agriculture by patenting genetic code. They then used this property to pressuring farmers to destroy their seed banks based on IP violations. I don't have a problem with GMOs themselves, I do have a problem with the way their business is being conducted. A false flag op over here would be pro-monsanto in some way. What would be most newsworthy, also being anti-farmer? Nah, people talk trash on the net all the time... merely hating something isn't in itself newsworthy... what else could we do that might bring attention to this?
(5) maybe something along the lines of "bread and circus"... a group of people demanding better movies and TV so they don't have to think about all the depressing news?
That's what I've got off the top of my head... Does anybody else have any pet projects that they want to toss out? Does anybody feel strongly about any of the above?
Please note this is not meant to begin a debate about the above points - they are being tossed out as suggestions for things to
act upon.
This is a brainstorm thread. If one or two people grab one of the above ideas and say "That sounds like fun," or "this might be better if you do it like this," we'll probably move in that direction. :)
Quote(2) Corporate Personhood - Corporations are slowly eroding the quality of life for private citizens while building themselves the same protections enjoyed by individuals. Recent legal drama has established a higher level of immunity to class action law suits. I want the public to be able to distinguish what rights people should have and what rights corporations should have. What would a false flag op on the corporate personhood frequency look like?
Encourage Anonymous or Lulsec to attempt to incorporate themselves, rendering them immune to prosecution?
[edit: This is attempting to combine the zeitgeists of Internet, hacking, cyberlaw, and corporate personhood into a single story. Many corporate boards are mostly anonymous anyway, and there's a quirky aspect of incorprating a loose, unknown internet collective.]
Quote from: Payne on July 22, 2011, 05:49:35 AM
What I actually wanted was that source pic (it's a stalwart of British Broadcasting, Terry Wogan, who is as safe and family friendly as a plate of slightly undercooked chips, with an erection).
Except when he did Eurovision, and got incredibly drunk, started calling the foreign presenters names and got banned from visiting several countries ever again.
Also when he demanded a pay in the hundreds of thousands range for charity events (Red Nose). But the above is funnier.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 02:56:46 PM
Quote(2) Corporate Personhood - Corporations are slowly eroding the quality of life for private citizens while building themselves the same protections enjoyed by individuals. Recent legal drama has established a higher level of immunity to class action law suits. I want the public to be able to distinguish what rights people should have and what rights corporations should have. What would a false flag op on the corporate personhood frequency look like?
Encourage Anonymous or Lulsec to attempt to incorporate themselves, rendering them immune to prosecution?
[edit: This is attempting to combine the zeitgeists of Internet, hacking, cyberlaw, and corporate personhood into a single story. Many corporate boards are mostly anonymous anyway, and there's a quirky aspect of incorprating a loose, unknown internet collective.]
that's a really interesting idea. I do wonder if anon would benefit from having a legally incorporated splinter group. I imagine it would take some real resources on their part in order to make it work... it is the kind of thing you can crowdsource.
I am a bit leery of masquerading as anonymous though. That has a tendency to backfire, and they're drawing some big heat these days since they started releasing military passwords.
But I like the idea... maybe we could create a fake front for a company whose entire purpose is to allow its "employees" to displace responsibility onto the company.
wait that sounds familiar... isn't there an actual group which does that??
The debt ceiling one may fall victim to Poe's Law, in some respect, because conservatives really do want it to remain in place, as it will force the United States to cut back spending, creating a "smaller" government (especially with respect to New Deal type programs). It's the old "reducing the government to the size it can be drowned in a bathtub" canard.
In other words, it may not be crazy enough to get the attention of the media, because the Republicans really do think along those lines. That is also why they're being obstructionist on the job creation front - because the blame will fall on Obama, not them, and so increase their chance of electoral victory. Most people, even the likes of David Brooks etc, realize this is the game they are playing now.
On the other hand, we could always dial up the crazy even further...how about wanting the USA to default because it will bring about austerity measures imposed by the IMF and allow them to destroy Big Government entirely? If the US defaults, it creates another international economic crisis, the world defaults and no-one will have the money to lend to the USA, international socialism dies and pure, limited constitutionalism shall flourish in the new world order born out of the ashes of the old?
Quote from: Cramulus on July 22, 2011, 04:38:26 PM
But I like the idea... maybe we could create a fake front for a company whose entire purpose is to allow its "employees" to displace responsibility onto the company.
wait that sounds familiar... isn't there an actual group which does that??
Sounds vaguely like The Yes Men (http://theyesmen.org/)?
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2011, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: Payne on July 22, 2011, 05:49:35 AM
What I actually wanted was that source pic (it's a stalwart of British Broadcasting, Terry Wogan, who is as safe and family friendly as a plate of slightly undercooked chips, with an erection).
Except when he did Eurovision, and got incredibly drunk, started calling the foreign presenters names and got banned from visiting several countries ever again.
Also when he demanded a pay in the hundreds of thousands range for charity events (Red Nose). But the above is funnier.
My contribution to the main discussion ITT and to everything in general is this: Erections are
always funnier.
I was getting this sort of idea thinking about this and false flags and such. Something like the Regressive Party? It's an anti-progressive party, and is different from the Tea Party some how. Or it is made up of disaffected Tea Party member, or some such.