That's right! The subject was cheat codes, and the linguistic fuckery that is more than prevalent in MSM, so much so that Hunter's Laptop was "Russian Disinformation" only until the crime boss could begin pretending to lead the United States. In less upright sectors of the legal profession, it is called "terms of art." The lies we have uncovered (together) are too numerous to review. Their deceptions create dragons, imagined and real, munching mushroom clouds on the world stage. Their stratospheric falsehoods wear legal trappings, sheepskin garbed, traps to hypnotize, pervert, and enslave our sad, opiated, and most of all, unthinking fellow human beings.
I have no doubt that you folks, you, the rational, and the rest who cannot care less about political agendas, have long disspelled the notion that legacy mass communication contain a shred of reliable or actionable information. Simple truths are outstanding mental floss. Try them.
Yes, you are a force for human liberation. But with great Freedom comes great Responsibility. No "RIGHTS" at law can be recognized as valid or enforceable without corresponding "DUTIES." Simplistic aphorisms resonate as applicable truths because they are expressly derived from natural existence, and common experience, not from some synthetic form of hubris. This explains why a semester of introductory economics can be compressed into the saying, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Or more succinctly, "Know Supply and Demand." I would add, "Do the Math."
For
those of us seeking to establish some baseline for determining the validity of news reports through analysis of data sets, here is one, graphically represented in Cartesian
coordinates, expressing degrees of thought and expressions of information and descriptions of events, plotted
along the XY quadrant of a multi-variable function.
Oh, and thanks, Trigonometry.
One look at that chart, and you know, here comes trouble.
This week, I will simply add to our roster of linguistic cheat codes, the ones that slip by so easily amidst the booming buzzing noise of daily life, permeating our consciousness and sub-consciousness. These are the programmed phrases, playing on Repeat, leading future generations to a Never Never Land of snowflake nirvana, where accuracy in reporting is sacrificed at the Altar of the Unthinking, and zombie-like trance of shit posts, dumb tweets, cowardly commentary, and unbeareable hypocrisy. This is the final highlight reel of well-used weasel words that boomers should find particularly irritating, if not outright malevolent.
OK, Boomers.
"Long story short." -- [translation: "Forget
the details."] Making a long story short is a great time saver, and it
is also a way to hide the devil, who as we know hides in details. Or was it god who hides in the details? Oh well, long story
short, watch out if someone is communicating to you, yet finds they
really don't have the time to share important or unimportant details of
the narrative. Real, lasting content is in fact comprised of long
stories. They are called epics. Be epic.
"Thoughts and prayers." -- [translation: "I'm online and I really am a good person."] This phrase has become recognized as the epitome, and early expression of "virtue signaling." So prevalent in the world of online social media, "thoughts and prayers" is a sad by-product of our digitally induced shallowness, whose insincerity is soon to be surpassed by the currency devaluation of the phrase "Thank you for your service."
"Social Justice" -- [actual meaning: "collective retribution"] Justice is experienced on an individual level. The concept of "Social" Justice is mob justice, a shakedown, and a money-grabbing ruse for the race-baiter industry. It is one the biggest frauds out there, and an insult to the proposition that we are judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. If you are a "social justice warrior," leave me out of the guilt-tripping 21st Century revenge fantasy against my counttry. YOU are the real racists. Period. Dot. Fin.
"Follow the Science" -- [actual meaning: "It is immoral to disagree with me."] We decoded this one in a previous post. The realm of science is the least capable discipline to determine social policy. It is the least capable to form precepts to guide benevolent human conduct. "Follow the Science" is the reason we needed the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the classical origin of being "scientific," means being a skeptic, not a sheep.
"Trope" -- [???] I am seeing the increased usage of the word "trope" as a shiny debate tool growing in popularity among the internet
generation. A trope was a figure of speech, a metaphor, when the writer employs a word that is used in a non-literal manner, e.g., through irony, hyperbole, liltote (opposite of hyperbole), metonymy, or synecdoche. It is particularly fascinating as, perhaps, the word "trope" is not so much a linguistic cheat, as much as it is a definitional error, and its rise in usage (to dismiss potentially valid propostions before examining the proposition) supports my favorite trope generator: Wittgensteinian analytical philosophy. Put simply, he says that regarding language, Usage trumps Definitions, and not only that, Usage creates Meaning. Humans play Language Games. As I have seen it, some folks think an idea can discredited by calling it mere "trope." Actually, when someone says, "Oh, that's just a trope," they probably intended to dismiss your idea as cliché, and that could be a valid point. But by no means should a concept (or policy preference, for that matter) be dismissed merely because it was expressed creatively. Enough on the difference between "trope" and "cliché." I rant.
In closing, as an homage to being a North Carolinian for 28 years, here is one of my favorite linguistic decodes, courtesy of comedian Jon Reep. If you have lived in the South, you already know this.
So, a great French comedian once said, "Zee timing, she eez evereething."
I Think, Therefore I Drink
Based on that, I think once a week should be the proper dosage of this comic relief, plus or minus a paragraph or two. If you could just help me calibrate it . . . if you don't mind . . . that would be great.
We are hunkered down in the Carolina Piedmont, stocked up with white bread, toilet paper, and almond milk. We got hit by a full inch of snow and sleet, just before MLK Day. Then we got hit again just this weekend.
And the NFL isn't rigged. Hmph.
I can hear my Yankee friends laughing scornfully at the Southern facade, the genteel, neurotic, Prince of Tidesmachismo, panicked at the prospect of driving in icy conditions. It's hard.
Speaking of scornful mockery, I will do my best to never mention or use the disrespectful term "President Brandon." Never again. So how's that working out?
And as for you little vegan fairies, stop drinking so much damn soy milk and grow a pair! Tits or balls, I don't care. Wait 'til this summer -- when I'm 64.
There is a reason for stereotypes, regardless of the hundreds of millions of counter-arguments put forth by We the Feeble, We the Sincere, We the Pitiful Bloggers trying to set the record straight. Pay no heed to the boomer behind the curtain. Most of us are probably a lot like this guy anyway --- insofar as having a penchant for quixotic rants.
Speaking for most older bloggers, I don't want to set the world on fire. People just need to have their say, and . . .
Oops. Strike that.
As a matter of fact, during the Summer of 2020, a small group of younger and extremely energetic "bloggers" actually did try to set the world on fire!
From THE LEFTIST HANDBOOK: "Think like us. Or else."
NOW WHAT?
It's been -- one year since we looked at the "inauguration,"
Five years since they laughed at us for saying "fake news,"
Three years since the living room TV showed a "flu" in China,
But it will still be two years 'til they say "I'm sorry, Boomers."
Did you catch the pop reference? If so, you may not be a true baby boomer. You do, however, have the ability to think in non-linear fashion, bless your heart.
And THAT, in a nutshell, is whatthe "Q" phenomenon was about ... the ability to think in non-linear fashion. The phenomenon was more than a reductivist oversimplification: "something, something, something ... politics stand ... something, something ... I love Trump." God, no.
Many others mistakenly believed it was a quasi-religious cult with dastardly racist(!) intent. On closer examination, the Q "thing" was far above and well-beyond that mean stereotype. Nor was it some "right-wing conspiracy," as it was so gleefully, so erroneously, and so fearfully, characterized.
"Luke, trust your instincts."
And for fuck's sake, don't tell me you are so gullible that you are giving any serious credence to Wikipedia, one of the internet's leading fonts of misinformation.
OK, bye. Come back soon. This topic, any discussion of that letter that rhymes with "cue" the 17th letter, creates weird somatic responses in readers, a neuromuscular, gastrointestinal reflux making pink, purple, lime-green, and blue-haired readers, even ones in pinstripe suits, abort rational thought or wear red baseball caps. Or both. I reckon if a reader is triggered by my rapier wit, I am already BLOCKED, i.e., filtered, censored, ignored, ghosted, and generally will never be heard from again by you. Bye Bye Bye.(Uh, is this a bad time to ask you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe? 😉)
Science ≠ Morality
That's alright. Think of this essay as a less-explosive version of the classic millennial TV series, "Mythbusters," and in today's episode we examine the impact of asynchronous mass communication on various digital platforms manifests in the neuropsychology of users, the failure of ethics in journalism, and the national security implications of those effects, particularly those unique to American culture.
Use Ockham's Razor, apply the scientific method, stay smart and skeptical, and I promise you will overcome the initial barrage of auto-reflex impulses subconsciously telling you to reject what boomers (or your elders) say, just because a particularly effective content creator from somewhere on Sullivan Street has captured and cornered our cultural narrative utilizing this ... this ... accursed symbol from the Latin alphabet ---
"Brought to you by the letter Q."
So, back to school. Classical scientific method originated from Cartesian Philosophy, within the discipline called Skepticism. Descartes was a younger contemporary of Galileo, the person generally accepted asthe central figure of the Scientific Revolution. And you may already know the word "science" derives from the Latin word meaning "knowledge." I'm not sure why, but I just noticed that I over-italicize things. Anyway, the first step in using the classic method of applied science is to ask a question. Yes, you too, can be a conscious, critical thinker like me. That was condescending. Sorry about that. Or am I?
Oh, Ram Eye
But seriously even without Adam, Jamie, Grant, Kari, and Tory's help, we should be able to agree that proper science seeks to discover or create Knowledge, not to establish moral constructs.
Think of Science as the Yin. The Yang, the necessary opposing principle of scientific inquiry is Humanism, which seeks to define and prescribe the moral conduct of human beings. Thus, I contend that amorality, the absence of moral proscription, is a definitional, fundamental element of pursuing and having "faith" in the scientific method. Science alone is a grossly imbalanced non-humanistic enterprise.
Think of Sheldon Cooper. He's a really (really) smart character. Great theoretical physicist. To be honest, though, he is a horrible person. Great scientist. Total asshole. And we're talking legendary asshole.
Anyway ... Insofar as that absence of morality's imperatives predicates applied science . . I think . .
er . . .uh . . . wait . . . oh my . . . I'm trying not to digress . . .
really . . . trying . . . not . . not . . . oh, no . . .
... ARGGH ... shiiitt ...
the memes beckon ... the memes . . . the damn memes . . .
What were we talking about? ... oh yeah, Science. Or was it the letter cue?
Shit. I'm already approaching my word limit, which means attention spans wane at this point of the essay. Let us boil it down to the FACTS, and then we can move on to the cure for cancer . . . I mean, the Corona virus, er . . . uh, excuse me . . . I meant, the common cold. Someone stop me.
Definition #1: "Q" was a user handle of a person(s) who posted messages on the internet from October 2017 to December 2020. That user has not been conclusively identified.
Definition #2: An "ANON" is simply an individual human citizen of no particular nationality, ethnicity, or social standing, who "gets," that is, has read, understands, and acknowledges the intrinsic content of the MESSAGE, i.e., the medium, which is -- the Internet.
Definition #3: Distinguishing from the first two definitions, "QANON" is a resultant vector. It is a descriptive noun, invented to capture and communicate to non-readers something they have not personally experienced, but is occurring in the offline world. "QANON" is a MSM entity, borne through manipulation of language, primarily by corporate network gatekeepers, a noun adjunct modifying a manifestation that has had tangible and significant psychological, spiritual, cultural, political, and global impact. The manifestation, the phenomenon, is more simple --- real Anons are people who have read Q posts, and have "heard" the content (well, technically, they "read the message") and have encouraged others, readers and non-readers alike, to think for themselves and make up their own minds regarding the messages. The term "QANON" was put into popular vernacular to be intentionally pejorative and misleading.
That's all, folks. We're talking about asynchronous multi-vector content messaging
. . . and bullies. (Hat Tip: Nikola Tesla and H.G. Wells)
Like Mercutio, I dislike binary political constructs, formal organizations (save the Bar), and their 501(c)3, 501(c)4 quislings. A lot of boomers have been online before AOL and BBS. We had dial-up the internet on x286 processors. We can spot a shill from ten hyperlinks away.
I'm a lot like you.
Not many boomers hang out on the so-called "dark web," although I concede that shit on 4chan and 8chan can get pretty dark. But we're way past cat videos.
Here's the point. To discredit certain informational content, because you don't like the source is simply killing the messenger. It's bad form.
Processing information nowadays, with the massive reach of modern telecommunications technology, demands that users be their own psychological filters. The sources might be lying. Everyone seems to be lying. Online messages are not useful until properly and accurately received. We are programmed to receive. After one receives (sees, reads, or hears) the message, only then can one decide whether the content resonates - True.
We are programmed to receive.
Here's a useful analogy, themovable-type printing press. It really was the Internet of the 15th Century. Gutenberg published the Latin Vulgate. That was, in fact, the actual content, the message in the medium. The Reformation was a cultural phenomenon that came about because of technology, because content became self-filtered. Individuals had to learn to read content that for centuries had been spoon-fed by Father Pete or Friar Tuck or Sister Mary Elephant. Likewise, from 2017-19, we have experienced the Q "thing" with differing degrees of tolerance, humor, fear, and yes, Love.
Your digital device = Gutenberg's press, right?
Now what?
Heck, movable-type printing explains how 600 years later, a Catholic Filipino raised in an American military family identifies as "born-again Protestant polytheist" despite years of institutionalized learning from anally-retentive sadistic nuns, and enduring false accusations of chemically-induced mental illness, overcoming shame of being cast as an inferior heretic who should instead be making proper tribute by confession, by eating wafers and drinking wine with celibate, globalist, perverts in robes reeking of incenst. Spell-check is so wrong.
Dark web, indeed. How's your "compliance" now, Agent Smith?
Mainstream sources (friend, you are now far far away from the mainstream), those entrenched, anti-American forces, apparatchiks protecting their bureaucratic Swamp turf, for whom free spirits and independent thinking pose an existential threat, respond to Q messaging with ad hominem fallacy, followed by implementation of the Saul Alinsky playbook, maliciously characterizing thought-provoking and intelligent content as something "spooky," something to be immediately dismissed as nonsensical and pointless.
Yes, it is valid to point out the cryptic nature of the Q posts, the messages, their inchoate character. And it is correct to say reading the posts are almost or exactly like reading your horoscope. That is a moot point. As with everything internet, there will be encryption. Them's the rules. (sic) "Would you like to play a game?'
For the sake of Science, or more specifically, Social Science, ask this:
How did non-linear, cryptic posts on some innocuous internet message platform used primarily by masturbating teenagers evolve into a consciousness-raising, race and gender inclusive, global movement that allegely threatens the existence (and operations) of the "Deep State?"
Why would powerful internet platforms and corporate network broadcasters censor the content of some dude or dudette's rambling internet posts? Jesus, have you been on the internet lately? Admittedly, the corporate gate-keeping could be done better, and by better I mean worse.
What is more puzzling is this -- the extent to which Anons (not QAnons!) are vilified as unintelligent, and violence-prone, when 99.9% of civic violence since 2017 has been carried out by their opposition.
"But what about January 6th?" you say.
And to that I say, "What-About-ism is intellectually dishonest."
And reasonable minds can agree. Special Counsel Durham's work is not done yet. The midterms lurk.
Put it another way. What IDEAS pose the biggest threat to the world's most powerful elite, not just in America but throughout humanity? Science has been completely divorced from Morality, yet people with little or no knowledge of Virology or Immunology talk and act as if they truly believe they are morally superior to people who are just uncomfortable in face diapers, or who don't want to participate in a genetics experiment, or simply don't like needles.
Even if the abyss between Morality and Science is philosophically irreconcilable, what makes the reconsideration ofmoral precepts so frightening to certain factions in the War of Ideas?
Well, I'm hungry. It's time to end this.
Mark 8:36
"We understand you don't like our censorship policy. But it's for people's safety."
"Fuck off, Liars."
It's not too late, America. Step up. We didn't start the fire.
