Daily reminder: not beating your partner is "controversial"

[Kurt Christ]

This thread has sooo moved me I've officially changed my username in solidarity.  I'm going to tie ribbons to my trees tonight.  What color should they be?  

Chartreuse

[Captain Utopia]

Absolutely not. All I am claiming is that spreading a meme which encourages people to believe that they almost certainly (11/12) hate women on some level, seems entirely likely to do more damage than a meme which encourages people to believe that while this might be true for an older generation, that they have a personal choice.

And I'm claiming that you're wrong. I think that most people exposed to the memebomb will react with "That's awful, and even if it is true, it doesn't apply to me." That would then subtly encourage them to be less misogynistic, in order to prove (if only to themselves) that the asshole who thinks most men hate women is wrong.

Well now you're claiming a deeper insight on "which way this phrase will influence people on the grand scale"!

So now we're even, I can relax while you describe your logic as to why the events will occur in the way you describe, and definitely not in the way which I do.

My sticking point: you say that most people will feel compelled of their own accord to evaluate the meme against their own actions, and that this will be more effective than a meme which is specifically constructed to evoke this evaluation.

Well, if I argued the reasons more eloquently (I won't argue that I argue poorly), would that change anything in your mind?

Probably not, on account of you being wrong. Taking a harshly cynical stance on how mind-bogglingly stupid and easily led people are does not make you right.

At least now I am not alone in arguing poorly.

How is what I suggest "harshly cynical" and "wrong", when compared to something like the advertising industry?

[Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ]

I LOVE RAPE

[Captain Utopia]

So we shouldn't get too hung up about the far reaching moral implications of certain statements unless you really think that language is mind control. And if you do, (cram wiggles his fingers, implying a magic spell) STOP THINKING THAT.  

Why should I not think like that? Everything I've seen points to that conclusion. I think it's mostly without intent - with the big exception of advertising. And the construction of other phrases to make people think in certain ways. Etc.

Wait, so saying something and exposing you to an idea will make you significantly more likely to do what the idea suggests, even if you find it offensive or already disagree with it? Cool!

If an idea jives enough with your current memeset, that it is absorbed without further consideration, then it has been partially successful because it has not been rejected.

You are wrong, admit that I'm right.
You are wrong, admit that I'm right.
You are wrong, admit that I'm right.
You are wrong, admit that I'm right.
You are wrong, admit that I'm right.
You are wrong, admit that I'm right.



Is it working yet? Based on your understanding of human nature, I should already be halfway towards convincing the whole world that I'm an expert in every subject ever.

You're attempting a strawman. See above.

[AFK]

Hey Cainad, should I buy stocks or bongs? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Basically, what Enki said. People may be pretty fucking dumb, but your own reaction to it should provide a clue as to how other people will react to it. I'm pretty sure more people will react with "WTF, that's horrible" than "LOL yeah, that's totally true."

That is horrible. That is a fact. There is no way out.

At least with the age-divide angle, you encourage people to wonder "am I like those men aged 40+ who hate women, or did I just give myself permission to act differently?"

There are an awful lot of us who are over 40, though. Is there some particular reason you think men over 40 are more misogynistic, or more deserving of being left in a bubble of perceived misogyny? It certainly hasn't been my experience.

For that matter, I think most people will read that and have a conscious moment of thinking it's fucked-up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is Fictionpuss the same guy who thought a chain email hypnotized him?

[Cainad (dec.)]

Hey Cainad, should I buy stocks or bongs? 

I would recommend putting your money in vestments.

[Captain Utopia]

Basically, what Enki said. People may be pretty fucking dumb, but your own reaction to it should provide a clue as to how other people will react to it. I'm pretty sure more people will react with "WTF, that's horrible" than "LOL yeah, that's totally true."

That is horrible. That is a fact. There is no way out.

At least with the age-divide angle, you encourage people to wonder "am I like those men aged 40+ who hate women, or did I just give myself permission to act differently?"

There are an awful lot of us who are over 40, though. Is there some particular reason you think men over 40 are more misogynistic, or more deserving of being left in a bubble of perceived misogyny? It certainly hasn't been my experience.

The reason for picking 40 is that it evokes the Us Vs. Them mentality - people in their 20s will be developing their relationship habits and are more likely to be close to people in their 30's than 40's. People in their 40's are most likely to have developed a natural immunity to the meme from the fact that they are more likely to be settled into their lifestyles and behaviour patterns - generally speaking they are less impressionable. Someone in their 40's saying "it's not true" to someone in their 20's is less likely to be believed than someone nearer their own demographic.

Of course, this is all handy-wavey fappery rather than science.

So I don't believe the meme, I just added an age-divide in there because of the tendency of younger people to reflexively rebel against what their elders do. It's a relative rather than absolute thing - I tried to improve the existing meme by making it less dangerous, and I do think it's more likely to be positive with that modification.

Almost entirely irrelevant to all of this, is the fact that it's likely to have absolutely no impact on anything ever, either way.

For that matter, I think most people will read that and have a conscious moment of thinking it's fucked-up.

It's the internalising that happens afterwards that gives me pause. But without a way to measure it either way, I guess it's mostly speculation.

[Captain Utopia]

Is Fictionpuss the same guy who thought a chain email hypnotized him?

To be fair, I think it did.

To be fair, this might not surprise anyone.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

christ.  how does this keep happening?

input time:

I think it is a good memebomb.  it is not something that is likely to be internalized because it bounces off other "memes"... fuck it.  it bounces off other ideas and social constructs already planted within us.  The majority of people read that statement and the "sexuality inequality is wrong!" idea fires up (call it a meme if you must), so they have an adverse reaction to the memebomb and this influences the way they act, because now they have two associated ideas about sexual inequality.  The first is "sexual inequality is bad!" the second is "women deserve it - wait I don't want to be like that fucko..."

It's basically reverse psychology, but fictionpuss seems to be interpreting memebomb here as an actual ideal, rather than what it is, which is a statement design to provoke a response, which then may lead to an ideal being reinforced, whether it agrees or disagrees with the original statement is dependent on the individual.

e.g.

"END THOUGHT CRIME; STOP THINKING"

is unlikely to stop people from thinking.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Absolutely not. All I am claiming is that spreading a meme which encourages people to believe that they almost certainly (11/12) hate women on some level, seems entirely likely to do more damage than a meme which encourages people to believe that while this might be true for an older generation, that they have a personal choice.

And I'm claiming that you're wrong. I think that most people exposed to the memebomb will react with "That's awful, and even if it is true, it doesn't apply to me." That would then subtly encourage them to be less misogynistic, in order to prove (if only to themselves) that the asshole who thinks most men hate women is wrong.

Well now you're claiming a deeper insight on "which way this phrase will influence people on the grand scale"!

So now we're even, I can relax while you describe your logic as to why the events will occur in the way you describe, and definitely not in the way which I do.

My sticking point: you say that most people will feel compelled of their own accord to evaluate the meme against their own actions, and that this will be more effective than a meme which is specifically constructed to evoke this evaluation.

My logic (by which I mean speculation based on my limited understanding of people) is that people will think twice about it (that being half the point of a memebomb), rather than going "durr yeah men hate women and women think they deserve it."

Sure, some assholes will probably accept it at face value, but those people were probably already assholes.

Furthermore, I would argue that the memebomb is constructed to cause one to evaluate one's own behavior. Because it sounds so awful, it jarrs with people's existing thought patterns and makes them think. A blunt, assertive, and controversial statement is indeed more effective than putting out the whole thought you want people to think in meme form. Planting the beginnings of an idea is far more compelling than dumping the whole idea into someone's head.

If I saw a poster or other medium with a pithy message that more or less translated to "Think about whether or not you're a misogynist... well, are you?" I would react with "Nope, now please leave me alone. I already know misogyny is a bad thing, I don't need you telling me about it." And that would be basically the end of it, and then I would make a misogynistic joke just to be an asshole (although that last bit is just me).

If I saw something that essentially said "Pretty much all men are misogynists and pretty much all women accept it" I would more likely think "Hey, fuck you! I'm not a woman-hater!" and then I would spend more time thinking about my own behavior towards women.

These are not merely facts; this is cold, hard, wild speculation.

Well, if I argued the reasons more eloquently (I won't argue that I argue poorly), would that change anything in your mind?

Probably not, on account of you being wrong. Taking a harshly cynical stance on how mind-bogglingly stupid and easily led people are does not make you right.

At least now I am not alone in arguing poorly.

How is what I suggest "harshly cynical" and "wrong", when compared to something like the advertising industry?

You seem to think that people are so monstrously stupid that reading the phrase "most men secretly hate women, and most women secretly think they deserve it" will influence them towards greater misogyny. That's pretty damn cynical, and I think it's wrong. Advertising doesn't enter into it.

christ.  how does this keep happening?

Because PD.com FUCKING RULES.


For the record, I think all of this has been worthwhile discussion. Even the dickery. Fictionpuss, regardless of how totally wrong he is, has given me something to think about: are we responsible for the effects our memebombs might have? It's a worthwhile question, although my answer is still "not really, no."

[Roaring Biscuit!]

yes, i think that as these memebombs are the closest thing Discordians have to televangelism, we're doing pretty okay, on the not being twats front.

What I mean by that is, a memebomb does not try to influence people to think in a certain way, but tries to influence them to think about the way they think.  Which is probably a good thing, because to change the minds of people who would Think For Themselves, and continue to be arseholes, we'd have to start being very unDiscordian*.

*or at least in my vision of Discordia, which may vary massively from everyone elses.

[Captain Utopia]

I think it is a good memebomb.  it is not something that is likely to be internalized because it bounces off other "memes"... fuck it.  it bounces off other ideas and social constructs already planted within us.  The majority of people read that statement and the "sexuality inequality is wrong!" idea fires up (call it a meme if you must), so they have an adverse reaction to the memebomb and this influences the way they act, because now they have two associated ideas about sexual inequality.  The first is "sexual inequality is bad!" the second is "women deserve it - wait I don't want to be like that fucko..."

Why the hesitation to call a "meme" a "meme"? If we were talking genetics, would you say "in humans the unit of replication is the gen... the aspects of DN... squiggly spirally stuff which..". It seems absurd to attack every use rather than every misuse.

You miss the part about internalising the belief that those statistics say something about the rest of society. Eater Of Clowns was arguing yesterday that conformity defines reality - right here. Am I wrong to bring that sociological aspect into this? We disagreed on the mechanism, but agreed upon the effect.

It's basically reverse psychology, but fictionpuss seems to be interpreting memebomb here as an actual ideal, rather than what it is, which is a statement design to provoke a response, which then may lead to an ideal being reinforced, whether it agrees or disagrees with the original statement is dependent on the individual.

I think that when you have something which may or may not increase actual instances of domestic abuse, then you do have a responsibility to think it through - I'm not comfortable just washing my hands and saying "it's all just a sociological experiment".

[Captain Utopia]

My logic (by which I mean speculation based on my limited understanding of people) is that people will think twice about it (that being half the point of a memebomb), rather than going "durr yeah men hate women and women think they deserve it."

Sure, some assholes will probably accept it at face value, but those people were probably already assholes.

So there's no responsibility to be bared by enabling them? Even when you know that's going to be part of the result?

Furthermore, I would argue that the memebomb is constructed to cause one to evaluate one's own behavior. Because it sounds so awful, it jarrs with people's existing thought patterns and makes them think. A blunt, assertive, and controversial statement is indeed more effective than putting out the whole thought you want people to think in meme form. Planting the beginnings of an idea is far more compelling than dumping the whole idea into someone's head.

If I saw a poster or other medium with a pithy message that more or less translated to "Think about whether or not you're a misogynist... well, are you?" I would react with "Nope, now please leave me alone. I already know misogyny is a bad thing, I don't need you telling me about it." And that would be basically the end of it, and then I would make a misogynistic joke just to be an asshole (although that last bit is just me).

I agree with your conclusions. However, I was arguing for an age-divide element to encourage further thought, not an explicit "think about" direction to further thought.

If I saw something that essentially said "Pretty much all men are misogynists and pretty much all women accept it" I would more likely think "Hey, fuck you! I'm not a woman-hater!" and then I would spend more time thinking about my own behavior towards women.

These are not merely facts; this is cold, hard, wild speculation.

I appreciate it. I suspect we may be disagreeing for the sake of disagreement though, because I don't see much difference in our opinions. There's a wider difference in your opinion of what my opinion is (hence the strawmen), but that's natural.

How is what I suggest "harshly cynical" and "wrong", when compared to something like the advertising industry?

You seem to think that people are so monstrously stupid that reading the phrase "most men secretly hate women, and most women secretly think they deserve it" will influence them towards greater misogyny. That's pretty damn cynical, and I think it's wrong. Advertising doesn't enter into it.

I meant, in what way is it cynical?

Advertising works. It uses similar techniques to burrow ideas into peoples minds. Why is it irrelevant?