I noticed another interesting aspect of pro-State brainwashing. A lot of people, when they talk, don't bother to pay attention to their listeners. For example, when my parents talk to me, they say the same things over and over again. I don't bother listening. They don't even notice that I'm not listening to them. I can't say "I'm not interested in what you're saying.", because then they get offended.
The origin of this behavior comes from three locations:
- school
- TV
- wage slave jobs
State teachers don't bother to pay attention if their students are listening. They assume that the students have an obligation to be interested, no matter what the content.
For most people, TV is the vast majority of their interpersonal relationships. TV is completely non-interactive. The TV speaks, and you just listen. When speaking to other people, you follow the model set by TV. You speak, without paying attention to whether the other person is listening.
In a wage slave job, a lot of time is spent in boring meetings. The employees have an obligation to act as if the meeting is interesting, even if it's a waste of time.
When a State-licensed authority figure speaks, his audience is obligated to pay attention. It is completely one-way communication. The audience is expected to act interested, even if it is boring.
Contrast that with a good standup comedian. A good standup comedian is expected to notice if his audience is laughing or paying attention. If you're really bad, the audience will heckle you.
Contrast that with the Internet. I specifically choose which sites to read. On my blog, it's semi-interactive. I answer questions from readers, but I still exercise some editorial control over the content. If I were a comedian writing for the NY Times, I'd get practically zero feedback from readers. A newspaper publishes "letters to the editor" but that is a fnord. Letters are carefully screened before being published. If I wrote the NY Times asking "Aren't taxes and stealing the same thing? Who needs a government anyway?", I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be published. If I wrote a journalist directly, I probably would not get a response; the letter probably would get filtered out by a receptionist. On a blog, I get direct feedback from readers.
As a public speaker, you should pay attention to your audience. If I attempted "promote agorism via standup comedy", I might have an explicit "questions from the audience" segment. Most mainstream media shows don't have such a segment, because they are only providing an illusion of openness. Most "call-in" shows screen the calls. Most mainstream media personalities can't think on their feet, and need a pre-scripted conversation.
This is an interesting aspect of pro-State brainwashing. A speaker with State-backed authority assumes, by default, that his audience is interested. The audience has an obligation to pay attention or pretend to pay attention. The State-licensed authority figure has no obligation to say anything interesting.
1 comment:
I'm pretty sure you're probably right that if you published questions such as "aren't taxes stealing that they wouldn't publish it, but I'm actually not entirely convinced. There are people that tend to succeed in things when they actually seek out proof, they run tests and case studies. It's easy to be convinced of something and be completely wrong. To think something is a good fnord when it's evil, or vise versa. Wor to think that we are making money off our blogs and maxximizing revenue when it's not even close to being true. It's only under intense studies when we actually have to go through failure that we learn. We have been conditioned against testing in this manner. We're taught that a test is only for people to test skills they already have, not fail repeatedly on the same test in a short amount of time, figure out which test got an "A" and continue to use that model of behavior so success is destined to occur.
I think you MAY* be surprised to find that they do publish it... However, I think that they will certainly put some spin on it, and probably bash you for even considering that statement. They will use it to Fnord ythe rest of the public "if you ask questions like that, you will pay", or the metaphor which is more effective fnord. "stick out like a nail, and you get hammered"
I see tons of internet videos pointing out the fnords, and questioning taxation. It is very rare for them to get removed, and even if they do, it's usually only after it cracks 100,000 views.
The point is, I don't think spreading a message that the system is broken is as forbidden as you think, and I don't think asking questions will be resulted in a negative outcome. It's rare, and is a case of fnord like john kerry speach and the don't taze me bro.
Post a Comment