... let's break it down a bit to look at the underlying forces...
why is it legal/relevant to become 'public demonstrators' of a cause? is it just me or do allot of demonstrators seem not befitting the arguments they propose? momentarily take the tea party, occupy wall street, national association of women, or the athiest convention proponents. some of the people present in any of those movements/conventions have ideas and concerns which are really articulate, and possibly/arguably well founded enough to warrant public exposure. however many conventions operate on a fallacy focused on internal popular views, which creates a circle jerk or think tank rather than an honest attempt to make views public and withstand scrutiny. the formal speakers at such conventions are generally from one sole side of the discussion. also many of the non-formal speakers are baited into inarticulate Q&A (due to the questions not being answered by the formal speakers) and they often aren't able to present their argument/response in a coherent/consistent manner. this means the people who do the noble act of exposing themselves to the opposition's opinion can get really mixed results in how well the opposition is supported/articulated/argued, regardless of its actual merit.
technology could help the public discussion without being abrasive to individuals/groups. it could make a "C-span 2". which deals solely in the formal rhetoric of non-representative (not elected) political bodies/movements to allow public discussion rather than the inarticulate misunderstandings presented by the popular boobs of congress. at present one can't call congress out on the publicly presented misunderstandings because there isn't the medium, and the average person on any topic knows about as much as their congressmen, which is why they like the congressmen.
when two people try to discuss the formal or colloquial interpretation of what the other advocates, hostilities will fall and falter. the other side isn't "them" as much as "Francine". this occurs because the arguments are focused not at personal success via 'winning' the debate but which person supports and defends their position best. put another way, a debate should be two highly articulate people having a public conflict attempting to marginalize the other argument's veracity through a doctoral dissertation level of criticism and humor. the audience should be able to tell who is playing the straight-man (comedic reference) during the debate. "do you think we came from monkeys?! is your grandmother a monkey?" should be responded to with "she isn't quite that old", and then a discussion about what evolution says in simple terms. science denialists in general would best be handled in this lighthearted manner.
"if that chart means global warming is true, then why is there snow?"
"that is like asking why it is shaped like a hockey stick rather than a bikini bottom, after all it is getting warmer and the bikini have to go somewhere, so why not the chart? climate change is a bit more complex than turning on a stove..."
see what i'm advocating is secular discussion where the more prevalent views get the 21st century soap boxes. this is the opposite of not buying a product because you disagree with the sentiments uttered, because the opposition get a chance to defend themselves. one might argue that by investing in propoganda the major players might be playing a different game, and to be fair, they are. the game probably isn't the game you think. in business you want customers, advocating slightly controversial topics creates consumer loyalty. remember the backlash of oreo's gay support and the double backlash against the 'idiots' claiming to boycott oreo? Oreo and nabisco made a calculated move about how consumer loyalty and demographics were shifting. it wasn't a haphazzard support of a minority view, that would have been a bad investment. similarly the investments in anti gay propaganda was the same type of move but with opposite demographic support. it was likely a similar 0.000001% of profit expense to create brand loyalty and get more money through sales.
it is something that various 'bad companies' might shift on, and by blacklisting them into having to maintain the position to target that same demographic, rather the change, one might retard the social progress. the idea of this app/program is bad on every possible level of comprehension.
...
here is a fitting personal example, you are probably reading the proposal with the bias that the 'news' and advertising has a ton of swing power/potential. you likely also note, as money can buy that exposure to ideas, and exposure to an idea has more impact on support of the idea than merit-- so one can effectively buy votes and elections. but should they be able to? and does the attrition attempt fix the problem of the rich having way more impact on elections than the thinking poor, or does it fight fire with fire through a 'scorched earth policy'? that fix is precisely what my highly stylized secular debate channel focuses upon.
the 'exposure increases sales' concept assumes that 'exposure to ideas/preferences' is a valid commodity which can be put up for sale, and regulated. however, one can do the arguably far barter of exposure to your own preferred ideology right along side whatever is popularly considered to compete with it on that topic. as long as the speakers address the problems one another notices, we retain our secular identity. without it, as the program and political advertising portend, we become over enamored with tribal corporatism.
what i advocate isn't a very dangerous political move. it isn't an attempt to starve out someone's voice through attrition; it isn't a literal act of economic war. it is literally the antithesis by sharing the same stage and seeing if their arguments could be better than my own by earnestly asking questions and pointing out potential problems. ex. "how is one pro-life and pro-war?"
so, people would have to donate to set up a website and later a TV channel to broadcast the discussions. to increase viewership one would have to lower the impact of under-schooled (in comedy at least) intellectuals who take themselves too seriously by having comedians or bands do non-related material in breaks. this makes the lectures themselves 'commercial like' based on topical issues (think super bowel commercials). the funding would have to be "crowd sourced" complete with PBS style pledge breaks and preferential treatment to people who pay to subscribe to the channel. one would also need to develop a psuedo-siri to get themes/topics for discussion, rather up to date.
the question then is one of societal character, not utopian ideal. do we as a people want to pay a fair amount to do things right? or would we rather pay little and try to take the easy way out? replace the bridge, or fix with duct-tape?
do we care more about being right, or the 'Truth', or progress through honest dialogue? there will be people calling one another an idiot, and some will call the claims argued 'simply preposterous' but it is a far better method of allowing intercourse than our diatribe based debauchery, let alone the program proposal. and it is far more noble to have people try to hear the arguments against them and fail civility, than to pretentiously argue from ignorance through the backhanded attacks on largely disinterested corporations.
...
using the software is not to be steamrolled politically. to declare that marketing is so contemptible you will not buy a marketed product. you become 'one million moms', de facto.
to fix the system we must fix the system. to fix the system we can't take the worst of the existing system; copy, invert and paste it, and claim it is now better. the systemic fix has to replace a large part of the system; it can't merely add a single small element.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment