UpTickInDowngrade

3

UpTickInDowngrade wrote

Satire is a persuasive tool used to highlight moral and political issues through joking or mocking. There is always a risk in it doing more harm than good. It wouldn't be fair to a terrorist victim if they just lost a loved one and then within hours saw someone making satirical jokes about the event. It also wouldn't be fair to the comedian to say that some jokes are off limits or have a delayed start period. Know your audience and consider if you're going to alienate more people than persuade.

4

UpTickInDowngrade wrote (edited )

You could get a retractable tint razer and choose your fabric off the blind spots. You would be limited but youd be safer this way. You get to the safest pieces then you slickly pull out the razer after rolling off the amount you want. cut quick with a look out. Remember, you have to leave the store in order for it to be stealing, so make sure everything lines up to normal as can be and ditch shit over jail time.

An alternate method would be to grab a shopping cart and cut the fabric like you would actually be buying it then find cam blind spots and go from basket to person. You dont have to worry about anti theft alarm stickers, so its what I consider medium to high risk because they will have cameras if their product is worth its weight in salt. I strongly suggest that if you need fabric you hit up thrift stores as it can be very very cheap there though a lot of it can be old and dated. If you need it for something fancier, then be smart about your grabs and triple check where cams might be pointed. They will be your greatest threat to being popped.

3

UpTickInDowngrade wrote (edited )

I am always wondering the answer to this myself. Basically there are a few studies that point to the same conclusions: the smartest people are not the best leaders because there is a knowledge/intelligence gap between them and those that they lead. The gap makes it hard for them to explain ideas in the most impacting manner because they overshoot the audience's ability to keep up. This makes them seem too "ideological." The take away is that somewhere around a 120 IQ and people begin to become less effective because of the lost in translation effect. The studies that I have looked at involving this subject are about leadership but they seem to be very similar to what you are asking. The answer from this perspective could be that you have to explain things mirroring those that you wish to persuade, and when able to, you should use metaphors and allegory to explain ideas. Someone might not have the vocabulary or a working idea of the basics, but if they can grasp a concept explained through examples with symbolisms similar to concepts and ideas that they do grasp, then you could possibly anchor some understanding of one concept to another.

It should be stated that the less intelligent someone is the less likely they will reconsider their ideas about a topic when shown facts that contradict their understanding about said topic. You can present information that proves them wrong and they will be less likely than a more intelligent person to change their stance. They can actually double down and be MORE dedicated to their outlooks after being proven wrong. This makes it extremely hard to persuade someone who isn't very bright, and if they are brainwashed by the right wing manipulation outlets like Fox then it becomes impossible. So who are we trying to convince exactly?

We want to pick our battles well. Our enemy defines us. No point in trying to waste your time on someone who isn't capable of changing their mind, unless you are already beyond persuasion and you must continue to represent your stance. In that case stand against them. Power concedes nothing without a demand.

But for those that can be persuaded, I suggest mirroring them. Approach them as a friend and explain in steps. Don't offer a 70 inch TV view for a closet. I suggest explaining how these bigger countries act to their neighbors. Explain how influence works historically. Tell them simple truths about how empires work. A lot of people can't define an empire. That in itself is a great starting point. I see a huge mistake happen all the time. People get frustrated and offended too easily and they forget all about the basic principles of their own ideology and before ya know it you have two people fighting when they could have found common ground. Compromising isn't the worst thing in the world as long as it is a 2 way street. If you find yourself too frustrated with someone then save it for someone who might be easier to reach. If you know that you have to act because the time for persuasion is over, then act. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot before ya even get in the saddle. With that said... I do feel on a lot of issues we are already far beyond the time to talk. There is no one awake at the wheel. Its all profiteering and the fall out from such. The rip off cruise ship is treading through the icy waters while the crew snores in the hull.

3

UpTickInDowngrade wrote

It depends on how much you buy into the consumer culture. The spectrum of influence and it's persuasive ability relies on a few things. How you were raised is probably the biggest factor. If you grew up in a gated community and your soccer mom carted you around with Disney World stickers on the family van then you might have a lot to shed. If you grew up in a union home of blue collar family members or if you grew up a minority then you may not have much to molt. Consumerism is pointed at everyone. It looks to claw its way into your life no matter your class or background. We are all hypnotized in some way or another.

It is important that we sober up and investigate with honesty. We must observe objectively and know the enemy well. We must break these chains and end these cycles. They build in the fault point. They plan for the failure and resale. They obfuscate and perpetuate obsolescence. They toy with the meaning and joke thru the discourse. They use myths and they game the process with psychological research. They slickly plan it all behind the curtain and shackle the indigenous and export the toxicity until the bubble bursts or they turn cannibal, then it all comes home to roost. We have to expose the worst and commit to stopping and changing as much as we can.

4

UpTickInDowngrade wrote

The only way a linear system with finite resources can continue to function as it destroys the world and people is to use myths and distractions and propaganda and racism with nationalism and influence along the way. When pollution is high lighted the oil companies claim the impact doesn't exist or launch disinformation campaigns based off focus group findings. The play book is similar to the astroturf movement cooked up during the waning years of the tobacco industry and was pioneered by the Koch brothers a decade before they applied what they learned to starting the Tea party. The gun industry has unleashed a slew of mythology based conspiracy theories to counter the magnifying lens passing over their brutal profiteering.

These tactics are not new but they become increasingly dangerous when they are injected into social media where influence can be bought for cheap while capable of being deployed instantly and reaching its targets in a personalized manner. These tactics will be refined as less and less people are able to discern between an advertisement and a new article. The line between the two was thin enough before the internet...further down the rabbit hole we go.

1

UpTickInDowngrade wrote (edited )

There has been a pointed change in the education culture of the USA over the last couple of decades. The idea of using a zero tolerance policy with children is beyond absurd and should be against the law. The indoctrination aspects of school have always been present because the chain of command, but now the extent that it is pursued is brutally crippling in nature. There is an off kilter emphasis on rules and order versus exploration in development, and these sick displays of power go beyond simply streamlining the education experience for the children. These measures reach into the child's home and threaten many households. There is much more at play than indoctrination. Children that have too much fun are quickly reprimanded and very often they are referred to evaluations for behavior problems that end up being "diagnosed" with a disorder that requires big pharma to fix. These are the results of a decaying capitalist society - blanket solutions that wage war with individuality, zero tolerance for the developing and inexperienced, an arm of the state imposing its will on parents and attempting to control them too, privatization, increasing costs for degraded quality, and a general tyrannical approach where rules mean everything while double standards are fair as can be. Children are grouped together by age and their natural talents and interests mean nothing as to what they learn or how they are taught. I can not think of a dumber way to group children than by age. Why not group them by their interests? If children were grouped by their interest or by what they are naturally best at, and then those common interest were catered to, we could see something really radical happen. We would see talents reach new levels and human potential excel.

The arts are always shuffled to the bottom of the deck and given the least funding. They are always the first casualty when its time to make cut backs. Yet they have steered humanity just as much if not more than anything else taught at school. The arts have seemingly always been used as a method of retaining control. Every pope had a favorite artist, and the rulers decide everyone else's taste, and now they control how expressive children can be. Imagine if the arts were paramount to the other subjects ram rodded down children's throats.

Capitalism is intent on controlling all mechanisms of expression. It requires people to be sheep consumers that follow fads and get their taste from authority figures as to what is and isn't good or bad expression. Thats the only way it can have a monopoly on culture manufacturing. The seal of authenticity from a culture authority must be present on the legally obtained copy or else everyone will know you are a weird black sheep that needs to stay away from the cool kids at the Friday night football game. The quarterback is in the top 1%.

5

UpTickInDowngrade wrote

Reality doesn't "come to exist." Matter exists. Our understanding of the physical world is built on layers of investigation, observation, and experimentation and testing. Your ability to conceive the facts of matter depend on your intelligence levels and learned understanding of the subject. A lot of animals can recognize patterns - any animal that can be trained can, to some degree, "recognize" a pattern. Having the ability to recognize patterns allows the animal to detect threats and survive. For a human to see a pattern that is an illusion is not that useful, because it makes the person doing so operate based off a reaction to a fear that is so strong that it has over ridden their ability to investigate the truth and facts of reality. So far there is zero proof of any of the mythologies that people put faith into. Faith is the opposite of logic because rather than arrange the information and arrive at a fact based conclusion people with faith reach an illogical conclusion before they begin to investigate information in the pursuit of truth. These people with faith are told by a religion that they must never question the conclusion lest they be in danger of angering the god they are supposed to have faith in. Religions are dominated by patriarchy and hierarchy. Look into the great chain of being. This was a concept first fleshed out by Aristotle and Plato, but peaked in medieval times among Xtians. The concept codifies the hierarchy of all things from God to angels to humans all the way down to precious stones and dirt. Its been stated that racism is modeled off The Great Chain of Being in some ways, or perhaps the fundamentals of racism borrow from it. Genocide is easier to swallow when you can compartmentalize the victims as less than human savages unfit to live due to their savage ways of life. Native Americans went through genocide because they were supposedly filthy savages. People should not accept these dangerous tools of death - religion, racism, hierarchy, empiricism, etc just because other people don't want to learn and investigate and observe. If you think you can muddy the waters on what religion does to the world by bringing up subjective and objective reality then you are mistaken. This line of apologetic reasoning is stale.

"Oh those people didn't have a better idea, so umm, you sorta gotta give em a pass... which by extension means you have to allow people that believe in god today a pass... cause they just don't know any better, and their hearts mean well!"

Thats the general argument I see from you. The idea that because some people are ignorant they should be allowed into the conversation with those that are not - simply because they "mean well." You nor anyone else is given a pass to participate free of ridicule simply because you aren't "hurting anyone." If you have a point then make it, dont flounder asking obtuse and vague philosophical questions as if that is a debate or argument. I get why you would do such a thing, its a lot like a rebel flag supporter. You know the true meaning, but you have to obfuscate such and offer an alternate meaning as to excuse the truth.

3

UpTickInDowngrade wrote

When reality is too complex the mind can see a pattern that is not really there. People use myths to digest the unexplainable. Thats why there are so many different cultures that arrived at the idea of gods existing. Superstitions have helped humans cope with complexity for a very long time.

5

UpTickInDowngrade wrote (edited )

In many cases religion is a form of resistance. Religions were the perfect answer to bondage. Religions have been the antidote to oppressive measures for thousands of years. Before religion became the jailer it was in the hearts of the jailed and enslaved. Many of the religious leaders and martyrs and prophetic types of the past preached and taught a lesson of revolting. The ideals of a lot of religious teaching is to have compassion... even when it is in diametric opposition of the leaders and so on. Religion was the world's first codification of morals. Before there was written laws, humans were organizing morality into folklore and mythology and spirituality, and this in it self was the first resistance to hierarchy. Before that happened tribalism and hierarchy were the norm. It is a strange idea to consider a point where mythology and "spirits" and "gods" of the wind, sun, air, water etc were all just notions of explaining nature and then through out time those notions evolved into morality, polytheism then monotheism and finally ending up full circle.... a tool to control and excuse plundering and exploitation. The feeling people get from religion (literally the dopamine buzz as it triggers the reward center) coupled with the other instrumental aspects it offers a believer surely has to be a powerful experience if it allows the believer to withstand the cognitive dissonance as they see all the contradictory effects destroying the world around them.