rigorousintuition.ca

we basically have arrived at a very interesting debate with two discernible sides: on the one hand we have Mackruiseen, who argues that when an agency tries to associate a politician with a tragic figure, they overshoot their goal of co-optation and land in the zone of detournement. that is to say, rather than neautralize the topic, they actually energize the whole field. on the other hand we have Mr. Manatee, who argues that no matter what the deep potential of such associations may be, that simply by associating the debate topic with an assanine meme the whole field is neatralized. basically, Hamlet=HA HA, Whatever. obviously, depending on your level of cultural awareness, such an association may lead to deeper thinking or alternatively you may be locked into storing the assanine association and nothing more. it's an unsolvable question, actually--regardless of whether some agency thinks they've solved it. to test the theory would involve such intrusive measures as to corrupt the entire social process of meme ingestion itself.

now we come to the issue of Mr. Manatee's methodology. this movie IS obscure. moreover, that interview is more obscure. how were they associated? Mr. Manatee did an internet search. he is a crank or a very young person who thinks that googling this and that is the equivalent of real research, and further that said method, by way of cybernetics, is indicative of objective human thought. the obvious fact is that these theories are contestable on the grounds of detournement brought up by Mr. Mackruiseen, and further that even in their best light, their relevance is strictly limited to digitally based inquiries. the key word is "keyword," a telltale sign of the canalized thinking of the internet generation.

nope. still doesn't work for me--the torture analogy.

what you and i (and Hugh) consider torture would be called any number of more benign names by other people. and those people can back up their names with just as many arguments as we can for what we call torture.

i actually agree with some of Hugh's theories. what i don't like is the wrapping sometimes.

brainpanhandler wrote: I actually found Hugh's use of the torture example appopriate and it certainly forced you to alter your statement after the fact. Even with your qualification you're still not making sense.

Who cares if my necessarily subjective impression of drowning while being waterboarded is an accurate representation of reality or not? It's still fucking torture. That sets a baseline.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I'm not making predictions.

Here is what you wrote here:

I almost posted yesterday that since the new Disney (CIA for kidz!) animated film called 'Wall E' has as central to the plot a space ship called the 'AXIOM,' a distinct KEYWORD HIJACKING of the controversial company called ACXIOM, that I predict former NATO Supreme Commander and war criminal Generalissimo Wesley Clark will be a vice-presidential candidate this year.

The hilariously ironic highlighting of the actual prediction is yours.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:2) You just cited (incorrectly) a SINGLE example meaning to debunk me.
Now THAT is not the way to use the scientific method.

Actually, if a theory makes an incorrect prediction it must be revised or at least the error must be explained. But you are not a scientist and keyword hijacking has nothing to do with science so you are in the clear.

just because you say something, or give something a name, doesn't make it so.

and it also doesn't make it science.

Posting on a messageboard is not science.

Seriously, I'm a John Boyd fan and I'm wondering how the OODA loop was keyjacked -- as far as I know, OODA remains utterly obscure outside of military and biz. circles.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Seriously, I'm a John Boyd fan and I'm wondering how the OODA loop was keyjacked -- as far as I know, OODA remains utterly obscure outside of military and biz. circles.

Probably something to do with Yoda. But I assume the kids learned about the OODA loop the same way I did -- by reading about John Boyd in the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Hugh, where has John Boyd and OODA been Hollywooded?

...Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Obey, One Can Obey"

jingofever wrote:

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I'm not making predictions.

Here is what you wrote here:

I almost posted yesterday that [.....]I predict former NATO Supreme Commander and war criminal Generalissimo Wesley Clark will be a vice-presidential candidate this year.[/size][/color]

The hilariously ironic highlighting of the actual prediction is yours.
.....

See,jf? "I almost posted...that I predict..."

You may have just missed my qualification since it is subtle. No biggie.
Some people hate my fonts and colors but maybe I just need to put them other places.


All the psyops crap in 'Wall*E' is multi-level and very real, including rinsing one of Gen. Clark's biggest keyword liabilities which, for some of us, makes us think of IranContra felon Poindexter at DARPA and Total Information Awareness.

I think you can understand why having Clark's every appearance or mention evoking those things is undesireable to the Warfare State.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:

...Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Obey, One Can Obey"

Bubba Vet

_ _ _


Lay - Yah

waugs wrote:oh gee, thanks. no need to be condescending, jackass.
.....

Apologies, waugs. I'm not as patient with totally false statements as I used to be.

But you set yourself up by saying "everything is subjective."
Perhaps you meant something else. I'm sure you did but I have to respond to what you actually write, don't I?

There is far less subjective mystery to human activity than spooks and charlatans would have us believe.

Most of culture is a matrix of mostly codified and predictable social cues with predictable meanings to specific demographics in a specific context.
Those with specialized knowledge of neuroscience and linguistics can exploit this in ways not realized by the general population.

All of commerce, art, politics, and psyops utilizes this fact.

But everyone I've discussed the OODA loop with, including military think tank knobjobs from VA, pronounce it with "o" sounds -- not Yoda, OOH-DA.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:But everyone I've discussed the OODA loop with, including military think tank knobjobs from VA, pronounce it with "o" sounds -- not Yoda, OOH-DA.

It is a homonym. Not an exact homonym. More of an oronym.
Just like Obi-Wan Kenobi and "Obey, One Can Obey."
This keeps the effect on the subliminal side and tricks parents into accepting this shite for their kidz!

It becomes all too obvious when you realize all of Star Wars was designed as an antidote for Vietnam Syndrome when the draft was ended.

It loads up kidz!with acronyms and homonyms from military culture, primary military recruiting attitudes, and secondary attitudes which are supportive of military recruiting.

Oh, and the Lockheed 104 Starfighter that was known in Europe as "the widow-maker" got turned into the plane that saves the Universe. Pretty good meme-reversal for something that attracts kidz! to war like flies to blood.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: It is a homonym. Not an exact homonym. More of an oronym.

хорошо, Hugh!!

So wait... let me get this straight, Hugh.

You can't answer the question "Why don't keywords enhance memorability" because you aren't allowed to discuss Keyword Hijacking on this board. Right?

But why couldn't you answer it when it was posed a couple weeks ago in the special designated KWH section of the board? I still see zero replies.

If you're so obstinate about your theories being 100% valid, why can't you answer a simple question? When someone makes a conscious effort to avoid confronting an idea for fear that it will shatter their preconceived notions about the world, it's called "denial". "Self delusion" describes it also.