< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Own Your Own Zombie Apocalypse

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19843
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 January 2018 07:38
 
Nhoj Morley - 12 January 2018 05:16 AM

It is not like I don’t know what goes on on Fox News. It is hard not to know. However, that does not prepare one for the real time experience of it.

I have been delving into the Fox News Channel on Utoob searching for material for a project. I’m looking for certain ways of putting things and certain ironies. It was surprising how easy it was to find them. In some cases, I had a wealth of choices from ten minutes of searching. The task still takes a toll.

I had forgotten about the repeating and pounding waves of shudders of horror and disgust. And how, after devastating the intellect, the presentation goes on to upset the primal functions of digestion and sleep.

Just knowing the Foxes are out there in great numbers hoping to eat your brain and make you one of them can unsettle one’s whole life. Boarding up the windows and doors won’t stop ‘em. They can slither up your internet connection and down your old roof aerial. Reading the comments below the videos is something I no longer dare do. Some things are too horrible to see like this bold public admission, “Fox News makes me horny”. They have cornered the necrophiliac demographic.

It doesn’t take long to notice the pattern that Jon Stewart vividly described of the circular self-generating news cycle. Or how, after an anchor makes some brash commentry, once anyone outside of Fox comments about it, it is transformed into a National Issue that the MSM won’t talk about.

Our Pumpkin-in-Chief is the exemplar of Fox’s target audience while also the exemplar of their ideal news source. It is a sort of news hurricane.

I will hack this material to pieces (edit it) for my own nefarious purposes but with a barf bag at my side. Zombie Apocalypse is not a strong enough term to describe this.

The term I like best regarding this phenomenon is “Information Disease.”  It does lead to zombiification.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1641
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 January 2018 08:07
 
SkepticX - 12 January 2018 07:34 AM
Jan_CAN - 10 January 2018 05:17 PM
Nhoj Morley - 09 January 2018 09:32 PM

Can any patron admit to, or cite an example of, anyone ever being convinced of anything by another patron? Or do those damn zombies just keep coming at ya?

Although some of the zombies can be quite scary, I think I’ve been learning and have a better understanding of others’ views.


The irony with these z/xombies is that, at least for the most part, if they’re ignored they’re also powerless to do their thing.

The catch is that we don’t have a means by which to ensure that z/xombies don’t vote—no way to force the conversion to full, present human at the polls.

Just to clarify, the learning in regards to others’ views that I spoke of in my previous post was referring to the differing views of the non-zombie patrons here.  Zombie opinions generally serve only as a warning of what not to do and how not to think, and are often best ignored.  However, IMO, sometimes they should be set straight so as not to influence others who are gullible; also, silence can be mistaken for agreement (not just here but also in RL).  There are times when bad/harmful ideas need to be shouted down.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14595
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
12 January 2018 11:15
 
Nhoj Morley - 12 January 2018 05:16 AM

It doesn’t take long to notice the pattern that Jon Stewart vividly described of the circular self-generating news cycle. Or how, after an anchor makes some brash commentry, once anyone outside of Fox comments about it, it is transformed into a National Issue that the MSM won’t talk about.


This is precisely how the Deplorables have ultimately come to damn near dictate the social climate. Many of them intuitively know how to manipulate non-Deplorables into disseminating their toxic spooge—turning others into at least temporary fellow zombies.

This is why we need to re-frame Deplorable talking points. We need to accurize them—to present them with accurate terms and descriptions rather than re-stating anything in the Deplorable framework to then dismantle it. That’s what we who are so inclined tend to think will be the most effective means of destroying that framework, but in reality it just means it gets repeated and ends up setting the default for how we think about it. It’s these damn human brains that we all (er, sorry) that almost all of us have to work with (at least one human has some other kind of brain to work with—not sure that counts as human though). We’re fellow Deplorable zombies as long as we’re going on about their talking points and their framework.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1641
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 January 2018 12:24
 

In some instances, it seems that people are talking past each other.  Although we must take care not to become zombies ourselves by repeating their mistaken ideas and thus giving them weight, it is also important to express opposing views in such a way as to be understood.  Academic scientific study and publications (e.g. re climate change) are essential, but we also need this information to be communicated effectively to the general public.  We need more scientists like David Suzuki and the late Carl Sagan who can present information to the public in an understandable, believable and exciting manner, who can educate without being condescending.  Some ‘deplorables’ may reject certain information because they hear intellectuals make arguments that they cannot understand and don’t want to believe.  If this information were presented in a certain way, with specific recommendations and with hope that positive change can be accomplished, it is more likely to be accepted.

In regards to views that are racist, homophobic or misogynistic, we need to oppose them by standing firm and running them to ground.  Some things must be held as being socially unacceptable and beyond debate.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3098
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
12 January 2018 14:47
 
Nhoj Morley - 09 January 2018 09:32 PM

... A typical thread face-off could be dramatically staged as two heavily made-up combatants taking turns exclaiming, “Hey, shit for brains! Look in the mirror! You’re a zombie!”

Also typical is the assumption that beliefs are as easy to wipe off as grey face cream or an EXTRA EYEBALL. They plainly are not and that is plainly baffling to the combatants. Less baffling for The Mabus. We can blame alcohol and basement radon or fumes from the water heater. What about my pals Bruce? Or any patron who seems reasonable, intelligent and carries on a demanding profession? Blindspots? Emotional investment? Something beyond our own experience and imagination? Did someone put on some zombie make-up just to rattle the locals?

What could rattle a patron more than being treated like a zombie when they are sure they are not a zombie? How dare you address me as if I were a zombie? Isn’t it obvious who the zombies are?

For any poster with a unique point of view, like me or The Mabus, every day is the zombie apocalypse. Granted, that includes the rest of mankid and not just the forum. For the typical patron, zombies are something you spot in the crowd or discover in the midst of a flurry of patrons trying to metaphorically insert a soldering iron into their ear.

We fight for the survival of our beliefs. Whoops, I mean, firmly reasoned conclusions. This is the war zone.

Can any patron admit to, or cite an example of, anyone ever being convinced of anything by another patron? Or do those damn zombies just keep coming at ya?

From the thread The Owl Guy and I:

“The U.S. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

In this particular venue, it seems to me more fundamentally correct to say that critical thinkers are those who are critical of others with whom they disagree, and couch their disdain in varying levels of pomposity.  Kinda like male peacocks strutting around and shaking their spread tail feathers.  I rather enjoy such displays of pomposity; reminds me of working with engineers.

These are, as you(can be identified in the link) say, subjective and personal spiritual beliefs.  In his second letter to the church in Corinth, in the 13th chapter 5th verse Paul (or someone presuming to write for Paul) says, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.”  These forums and threads such as this one are both convenient and robust platforms for testing oneself.

I don’t find it unhealthy in the least.  On the contrary, it is rather invigorating, stimulating and fulfilling.  As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve seen nothing here that I didn’t use myself when I was an atheist, and some tacks that I used I have yet to see here.  Yet I’m always hopeful to be truly tested.

As I’ve said a number of times, I’m here for my own reasons.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14595
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
12 January 2018 15:41
 
bbearren - 12 January 2018 02:47 PM

“The U.S. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

Does it specify somewhere ... which must agree with or at least affirm BBerean and definitely cannot repudiate BBerean, and cannot agree with or affirm and definitely must repudiate his critics ... ?

Or are you just presuming all of that inherently agrees with your personal perceptions? It seems that would be a very curiously ego-oriented position, especially for an exceptional and humble individual. Of course that does only apply to those with human brains too—can’t speak to those who have, or just use on loan, some other kind.

[ Edited: 12 January 2018 16:10 by SkepticX]
 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5636
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
12 January 2018 16:20
 
SkepticX - 12 January 2018 11:15 AM
Nhoj Morley - 12 January 2018 05:16 AM

It doesn’t take long to notice the pattern that Jon Stewart vividly described of the circular self-generating news cycle. Or how, after an anchor makes some brash commentry, once anyone outside of Fox comments about it, it is transformed into a National Issue that the MSM won’t talk about.


This is precisely how the Deplorables have ultimately come to damn near dictate the social climate. Many of them intuitively know how to manipulate non-Deplorables into disseminating their toxic spooge—turning others into at least temporary fellow zombies.

This is why we need to re-frame Deplorable talking points. We need to accurize them—to present them with accurate terms and descriptions rather than re-stating anything in the Deplorable framework to then dismantle it. That’s what we who are so inclined tend to think will be the most effective means of destroying that framework, but in reality it just means it gets repeated and ends up setting the default for how we think about it. It’s these damn human brains that we all (er, sorry) that almost all of us have to work with (at least one human has some other kind of brain to work with—not sure that counts as human though). We’re fellow Deplorable zombies as long as we’re going on about their talking points and their framework.

There will always be people who don’t understand.  Sometimes its us, sometimes its them   (Definition of them>> “People who disagree with me”).

Having an objective and reliable source of information is crucial in decreasing the “thems”.
Having an unrestricted propaganda station posing as a source of objective information will increase the “Thems”.

So the question is:
How can “we” legally neutralize FOX news?

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  742
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
12 January 2018 16:27
 
SkepticX - 12 January 2018 03:41 PM
bbearren - 12 January 2018 02:47 PM

“The U.S. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

Does it specify somewhere ... which must agree with or at least affirm BBerean and definitely cannot repudiate BBerean, and cannot agree with or affirm and definitely must repudiate his critics ... ?

Or are you just presuming all of that inherently agrees with your personal perceptions? It seems that would be a very curiously ego-oriented position, especially for an exceptional and humble individual. Of course that does only apply to those with human brains too—can’t speak to those who have, or just use on loan, some other kind.

Without intending to come across as if I have any loyalty to bbearren (not that that would be a bad thing), or that I am necessarily being critical of anyone in particular, I can’t really say that I find anything objectionable about his overall logic. I’m sure that we would disagree on plenty of other things, for what it’s worth, but it’s futile to try and argue someone out of their faith, and it’s counterproductive to resort to ad hominems.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3098
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
12 January 2018 16:28
 
SkepticX - 12 January 2018 03:41 PM
bbearren - 12 January 2018 02:47 PM

[/url]“The U.S. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

Does it specify somewhere ... which must agree with or at least affirm BBerean and definitely cannot repudiate BBerean, and cannot agree with or affirm and definitely must repudiate his critics ... ?

Or are you just presuming all of that inherently agrees with your personal perceptions? It seems that would be a very curiously ego-oriented position, especially for an exceptional and humble individual.

A bit sloppy with your post quoting there, Skep.

Did you not understand the expressed intention I stated directly?  How did you miss it?  Are you getting sloppy on not only your post quoting, but on your post reading as well?  Note the bold ...

bbearren - 12 January 2018 02:47 PM
bbearren - 19 November 2017 03:40 PM

These forums and threads such as this one are both convenient and robust platforms for testing oneself.

I don’t find it unhealthy in the least.  On the contrary, it is rather invigorating, stimulating and fulfilling.  As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve seen nothing here that I didn’t use myself when I was an atheist, and some tacks that I used I have yet to see here.  Yet I’m always hopeful to be truly tested.

As I’ve said a number of times, I’m here for my own reasons.

By no means do I come to these forums looking for agreement in any way, shape or form.  I’m here to pose the occasional question, make an occasional observation.  Looking for agreement?  Surely you jest.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3098
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
12 January 2018 16:50
 
jdrnd - 12 January 2018 04:20 PM

So the question is:
How can “we” legally neutralize FOX news?

Significantly reduce their marketing value to their advertisers.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14595
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
12 January 2018 19:28
 
ubique13 - 12 January 2018 04:27 PM

Without intending to come across as if I have any loyalty to bbearren (not that that would be a bad thing), or that I am necessarily being critical of anyone in particular, I can’t really say that I find anything objectionable about his overall logic.

Yeah ... give it some time ... heh.

It’s not so much about the logic though, it’s the evasiveness and manipulation mostly. It is subtle, but if you’ve experienced much in the way of manipulative types, or maybe if you’re just keyed into that sort of thing, it’s hard to miss. Without a little history though, patterns often aren’t apparent—probably more true regarding patterns of evasion too.

 

ubique13 - 12 January 2018 04:27 PM

I’m sure that we would disagree on plenty of other things, for what it’s worth, but it’s futile to try and argue someone out of their faith, and it’s counterproductive to resort to ad hominems.

I don’t have a problem with peoples’ faith—at least not inherently. I do have problems with ... well, other problematic behaviors. And in some cases accurate descriptions will likely seem to be ad-hominem attacks. We have a fine example of that in our first cartoon president and his Deplorables—not to suggest there’s much at all else there that’s comparable to the subject at hand.

No worries though—our exchanges are generally few and usually very brief. I’m not easily provoked.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14595
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
12 January 2018 19:33
 
Jan_CAN - 12 January 2018 12:24 PM

In some instances, it seems that people are talking past each other.

There isn’t really such a thing as actually talking/conversing with a zombie though. That’s kind of a definitional thing ... no?

If genuine discussion happens it means, by definition, that you’re not trying to communicate with a zombie.

I guess there may be exceptions with xombies though.

 

Jan_CAN - 12 January 2018 12:24 PM

Although we must take care not to become zombies ourselves by repeating their mistaken ideas and thus giving them weight, it is also important to express opposing views in such a way as to be understood.

... by the target audience (in which it would make no sense to include a zombie), or possibly the recovering (i.e. former—and perhaps future) zombie.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1641
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 January 2018 07:23
 
SkepticX - 12 January 2018 07:33 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 January 2018 12:24 PM

In some instances, it seems that people are talking past each other.

There isn’t really such a thing as actually talking/conversing with a zombie though. That’s kind of a definitional thing ... no?

If genuine discussion happens it means, by definition, that you’re not trying to communicate with a zombie.

I guess there may be exceptions with xombies though.

 

Jan_CAN - 12 January 2018 12:24 PM

Although we must take care not to become zombies ourselves by repeating their mistaken ideas and thus giving them weight, it is also important to express opposing views in such a way as to be understood.

... by the target audience (in which it would make no sense to include a zombie), or possibly the recovering (i.e. former—and perhaps future) zombie.

When speaking about talking past each other, I was thinking about the public discussions about climate change.  (I still need to learn how to better explain my statements.)  It seems to me that the intellectual nature of the scientific arguments is going over the heads of some people and therefore not being easily accepted.

When zombies appear here at the forum, sometimes they should be ignored and they will just go away.  However, there are times when I think there should be a response in order to counter particularly bad or harmful ideas.  IMO, this can sometimes be done by simple correction using facts and strong statements, hopefully in such a way that does not start a debate that only gives further encouragement.  The reason for this is not to change the zombie’s mind, but because there are others out there (not just forum members) who are reading and listening (as seen by ‘Total Guests’ numbers), those who may still be forming their ideas.  The young and/or impressionable need to hear the best arguments and learn how to think; they can’t do that if bad ideas are allowed to go unchallenged.  We should try to prevent creation of future zombies as much as possible.  At least we can try.

 

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  742
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2018 08:02
 
SkepticX - 12 January 2018 07:28 PM
ubique13 - 12 January 2018 04:27 PM

Without intending to come across as if I have any loyalty to bbearren (not that that would be a bad thing), or that I am necessarily being critical of anyone in particular, I can’t really say that I find anything objectionable about his overall logic.

Yeah ... give it some time ... heh.

It’s not so much about the logic though, it’s the evasiveness and manipulation mostly. It is subtle, but if you’ve experienced much in the way of manipulative types, or maybe if you’re just keyed into that sort of thing, it’s hard to miss. Without a little history though, patterns often aren’t apparent—probably more true regarding patterns of evasion too.

Point taken. I am familiar enough with obsequious manipulation (to say nothing of my own manipulation by way of ambiguity) to recognize that things are quite seldom what they seem.

ubique13 - 12 January 2018 04:27 PM

I’m sure that we would disagree on plenty of other things, for what it’s worth, but it’s futile to try and argue someone out of their faith, and it’s counterproductive to resort to ad hominems.

I don’t have a problem with peoples’ faith—at least not inherently. I do have problems with ... well, other problematic behaviors. And in some cases accurate descriptions will likely seem to be ad-hominem attacks. We have a fine example of that in our first cartoon president and his Deplorables—not to suggest there’s much at all else there that’s comparable to the subject at hand.

No worries though—our exchanges are generally few and usually very brief. I’m not easily provoked.

Alright, you may have just talked me out of blindly defending faith (punny stuff) without being aware of the more general patterns of behavior through which said faith is contextualized.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14595
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
13 January 2018 08:11
 
ubique13 - 13 January 2018 08:02 AM

Alright, you may have just talked me out of blindly defending faith ...


Heh ... I’ll add that to my resume, putting the accomplishment on par with the cartoon president getting North and South Korea together again.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 >