http://www.upworthy.com/burn-the-libraries-down-kidz-can-learned-stuff-on-there-oan?g=4&c=cp1 (http://www.upworthy.com/burn-the-libraries-down-kidz-can-learned-stuff-on-there-oan?g=4&c=cp1)
Reminds me of a few of the political facebook things.
did you see the video?
to me it seems like it was a good strategy, it saved the library ffs
I AM REPLYING TO DIS HERE FREAD.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 09:19:25 AM
did you see the video?
to me it seems like it was a good strategy, it saved the library ffs
Risky, though. Heightening the contradictions seems to more frequently result in the extreme event actually happening, rather than there being a backlash preventing it.
On the plus side, I now have a nice, shiny link to annoy Teabaggers with. "You know who else threw book burning parties?"
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 09:19:25 AM
did you see the video?
to me it seems like it was a good strategy, it saved the library ffs
I agree. I was applauding 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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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
The US Presidential election of 1800, where noted Enlightenment philosopher and polymath Thomas Jefferson faced off against noted Enlightenment philopsopher and lawyer John Adams.
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Um. Moving backwards:
Obama/McCain
Bush/Kerry
Bush/Gore
Clinton/Dole
Clinton/Bush
Bush/Dukakis
Reagan/Mondale
Reagan/Carter
Carter/Ford
Nixon/McGovern
Nixon/Humphrey
LBJ/Goldwater
JFK/Nixon
I still haven't hit anything rational...
Also, when has "rational political discourse" ever been amusing...or even effective?
Does this mean that the overwhelming majority of the populace is easily manipulated by crafted messages and propaganda that play on their emotions?
OH-
NO!
PARADIGM SHIFT!
BUBBLE BROKEN!
I HAVE BEEN BLIND AND NOW I CAN SEE!
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 22, 2012, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 22, 2012, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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! :bankster:
Is that better?
Quote from: kingyak on June 22, 2012, 05:46:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 22, 2012, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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! :bankster:
Is that better?
Yeah, whatever.
Quote from: kingyak on June 22, 2012, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 21, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
I don't know.
We haven't quite gotten to the point yet where Teh Joos!!121!! are repsonsible for everything wrong in the world.
It's a low standard, sure, but we're beating it (barely).
Come to think of it, Kingyak is right. Discordianism is all about SAVING THE WORLD.
So tell me, Kingyak, what's the plan?
Maybe I could start a Facebook petition.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
Maybe I could start a Facebook petition.
C'mon TGRR. That doesn't work. A snappy twitter hashtag is the way to go.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on June 22, 2012, 06:06:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
Maybe I could start a Facebook petition.
C'mon TGRR. That doesn't work. A snappy twitter hashtag is the way to go.
Well, we have to do SOMETHING. I mean, there's billions of stupid, squabbling primates out there that need to be SAVED FROM THEMSELVES. Granted, they have a track record of brutally killing anyone who tries, but we MUST, as Discordians, throw ourselves under the clattering treads of The Machine™, because
the primates aren't acting rationally.
It says so, right in the Discordian Charter. Somewhere. I think.
#wemustdestroythemsotheycanbefree
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 22, 2012, 06:14:57 PM
#wemustdestroythemsotheycanbefree
Damn straight. Better start with hipsters like me.
You fuckers ran him off.
:crankey:
How am I gonna know how to save the primates, now? I am but a cynacle (sic) hipster. I cannot do this on my own.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 06:02:21 PM
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.
ONLY GOOGLE+ CAN SAVE US NOW!
Quote from: kingyak on June 22, 2012, 06:19:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 06:02:21 PM
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.
"Too much is always better than not enough."
- Some hipster.
Is there ever such a thing as not enough stupid?
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 22, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
Is there ever such a thing as not enough stupid?
Depends what your motivations are, I guess.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 01:09:14 AM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Um. Moving backwards:
Obama/McCain
Bush/Kerry
Bush/Gore
Clinton/Dole
Clinton/Bush
Bush/Dukakis
Reagan/Mondale
Reagan/Carter
Carter/Ford
Nixon/McGovern
Nixon/Humphrey
LBJ/Goldwater
JFK/Nixon
I still haven't hit anything rational...
I'd make a case for Eisenhower. Of course, you can see where it got him.
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 22, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
Is there ever such a thing as not enough stupid?
Is there ever such a thing as too much stupid?
The more stupid there is, there more there is for me to exploit to my advantage. I understand that some people don't see the world as a zero-sum game, and that's OK because it fits in nicely with the previous sentence.
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 23, 2012, 04:50:06 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 23, 2012, 04:50:06 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Not at all. I just don't like the idea of mindfucking people who've done nothing to deserve it.
They're human, aren't they?
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
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?
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on June 23, 2012, 01:21:11 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 22, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 05:20:58 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 07:17:19 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 05:20:58 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: v3x on June 26, 2012, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 07:17:19 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 05:20:58 PM
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.
"Extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice."
- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, testifying before congress, 1964
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2012, 07:29:44 PM
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.
This.
The point about waiting until the election was close was to keep the momentum going, and to ensure they had maximum attention before revealing their message. If they had started with the punchline ("closing libraries = burning books"), they would have been crushed and trampled by the teabaggers. They would have gotten no traction. Remember, they were broke, and couldn't spend millions of dollars on traditional advertising. They waited until they had maximum mindshare* before the reveal. And I just want to point out that they didn't actually trick anyone into voting yes, because they revealed their true intentions before the election. They told everyone, prior to polling, "this is about saving the library, not about burning books." If that is manipulation, it's one of the mildest forms I've seen.
*sorry, I'm at work. These things spill out.
Also, grabbing your opponent's agenda and running off with it is a time-honored Discordian tradition.
When I was in Boston with the East coast spags, we happened to be on the common for the Gay pride thingie. There was a bunch of sour "counter-protestors" ( :? ) there, holding up badly worded religious signs. Rather than taunt them for being bigots, I took issue with the signs as not being Christian enough.
They were prepared to be taunted by LGBT folks, they were not prepared to be called out as sub-standard fanatics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 07:36:10 PM
Also, grabbing your opponent's agenda and running off with it is a time-honored Discordian tradition.
When I was in Boston with the East coast spags, we happened to be on the common for the Gay pride thingie. There was a bunch of sour "counter-protestors" ( :? ) there, holding up badly worded religious signs. Rather than taunt them for being bigots, I took issue with the signs as not being Christian enough.
They were prepared to be taunted by LGBT folks, they were not prepared to be called out as sub-standard fanatics.
They just didn't love Jesus enough to use a dictionary . Very sad.
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2012, 07:53:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 07:36:10 PM
Also, grabbing your opponent's agenda and running off with it is a time-honored Discordian tradition.
When I was in Boston with the East coast spags, we happened to be on the common for the Gay pride thingie. There was a bunch of sour "counter-protestors" ( :? ) there, holding up badly worded religious signs. Rather than taunt them for being bigots, I took issue with the signs as not being Christian enough.
They were prepared to be taunted by LGBT folks, they were not prepared to be called out as sub-standard fanatics.
They just didn't love Jesus enough to use a dictionary . Very sad.
"Jesus saves from hell."
Apparently, Jesus keeps his office in hell.
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.
"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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:19:15 PM
"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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:15:53 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:19:15 PM
"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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:15:53 PM
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.
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.
Go ahead, pull the other one. Next you'll be telling me that Taylor Swift's popularity isn't soley based on her songwriting skills and vocal ability.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:42:33 PM
Go ahead, pull the other one. Next you'll be telling me that Taylor Swift's popularity isn't soley based on her songwriting skills and vocal ability.
Balls. She's the next Nina Simone.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:19:15 PM
"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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:19:15 PM
"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.
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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:40:47 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
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).
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:40:47 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:40:47 PM
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.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:40:47 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
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.
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...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:56:40 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
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.
does your dilemma come from if its ok to manipulate people for good things?
a type of means dont justify ends?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
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.
You wouldn't.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 09:11:48 PM
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.
Not quite, but the first part is in the ballpark. It's not so much that they're not allowed in on the prank as that there's no way for those who do their due diligence to find out what's really going on before they start screeching about something that, as presented, deserves to be screeched about.
Sure there is. They could ask the event organisers if they are serious, or if they are using hyperbolic rhetoric to make a point.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on June 26, 2012, 09:21:39 PM
does your dilemma come from if its ok to manipulate people for good things?
a type of means dont justify ends?
It's more about the people being manipulated than the manipulation itself. I'm perfectly ok with manipulating the people who are willing to give up their library for a small tax cut AND the people who came to the page and started screaming about book burning without ever bothering to look beyond the sign and the surface of the FB page. Just seems like there were probably at least a few people who Did Everything Right (TM) and still ended up making jackasses of themselves anyway.
And I think I mentioned before that in this case, I think the ends justified the means.
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2012, 09:29:21 PM
Sure there is. They could ask the event organisers if they are serious, or if they are using hyperbolic rhetoric to make a point.
True, but that still requires some indication that they're nos serious, and line between hyperbolic rhetoric and rhetoric these days is pretty thin.
cant keep everyone happy, if they let people know it was exageration with a plan... howmlong till a jackass ruined the operation?
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..."The dullest tools in the toolshed failed to put 2 and 2 together!":omg:
"And people USED them!":cramstipated:
C O M I N G T O A F O R U M N E A R Y O U
(http://i.imgur.com/zVJpo.jpg)
S T A R R I N Gkingyak
:lulz: :fnord: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
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.
You wouldn't.
Just try me, old man.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 10:18:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
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.
You wouldn't.
Just try me, old man.
Yeah. But first I have to finally get around to filming something.
TGRR,
Nuclear Option, Dare Me To Drive?
Quote from: Net on June 26, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
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..."The dullest tools in the toolshed failed to put 2 and 2 together!":omg:
"And people USED them!":cramstipated:
C O M I N G T O A F O R U M N E A R Y O U
(http://i.imgur.com/zVJpo.jpg)
S T A R R I N Gkingyak
omg
can't breathe
omg
Wow, I didn't realize I was that upset about it. I really need to learn to control my temper.
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:15:53 PM
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.
DIG IN
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:42:33 PM
Go ahead, pull the other one. Next you'll be telling me that Taylor Swift's popularity isn't soley based on her songwriting skills and vocal ability.
Balls. She's the next Nina Simone.
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :crankey: :crankey: :crankey:
BLASPHEMY!!!
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:39:01 PM
Quote from: kingyak on June 26, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 26, 2012, 08:19:15 PM
"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.
You know, when I've been had
and had in a way that sways me
the reveal lends me greater respect for the ones who pulled it off, and not a sense of betrayal.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on June 26, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
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.
No you did NOT
It was only a temporary reprieve.