Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
"Not baked goods, Professor; baked bads!" -- The Tick

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                         

How to Seize Friends and Mentally Conquer People.

a book to trick the disenfranchised into reintegration
  (+6)
(+6)
  [vote for,
against]

Much as terrorists are trying to recruit the angry disenfranchised, kooks (no offence to any one here) this book would attempt to trick misfits into learning personal skills and reintegrating into normal society.

It could cover topics such as:

DESTROYING THE ENEMY's (argument) in a debate.

SEIZING ATTENTION: with engaging and semi-logical statements

STRIKE AT THEIR HEARTS (with a positive attitude and warm smile)

YOUR SECRET WEAPON (a chapter on the benefits of antipsychotic medications)

bob, Oct 23 2014

Wikipedia: Ethical Egoism http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ethical_egoism
[rcarty, Oct 25 2014]

Totalitariansim and fascism http://www.britanni...435/totalitarianism
[rcarty, Oct 25 2014]

Nietzsche and Utilitarianism a paper http://muse.jhu.edu...29/29.1anomaly.html
[rcarty, Oct 25 2014]

Orwell - Fascism http://orwell.ru/li...lease/english/efasc
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless...use the word with a certain amount of circumspection" [rcarty, Oct 25 2014]

Weaponized THC http://www.cracked....ut-true-conspiracy/
Now there's a Happy Bomb! [LimpNotes, Oct 27 2014]

[link]






       Better of consulting the Borg, they have it down pat these days...
not_morrison_rm, Oct 23 2014
  

       Problem: what if the terrorists use their new powers to convert everyone (peacefully) to Islam?
DIYMatt, Oct 23 2014
  

       Note: this Idea have been improved somewhat.
bob, Oct 23 2014
  

       //such is not cowering in a corner or killing people in the name of the god someone told him to believe in.   

       Communism, science, money, freedom...do these count as deities?
not_morrison_rm, Oct 23 2014
  

       Who are the disenfranchised, [bob]? Just curious.
pertinax, Oct 23 2014
  

       //Who are the disenfranchised..?   

       Those without a franchise? Considered the Dynorod one, but don't have the bum cleavage for it.
not_morrison_rm, Oct 23 2014
  

       I'm more concerned about how we came to have a category product:weapon: bomb: happy.   

       (marked-for-tagline)   

       " Note: this Idea have been improved somewhat "
normzone, Oct 23 2014
  

       This is too funny. It is rather amazing! "I'm more concerned about how we came to have a category product:weapon: bomb: happy."
blissmiss, Oct 23 2014
  

       Communism requires a great deal of faith. Faith that your fellow countrymen are being their most productive and not trying to skim anything off the top.   

       Oddly, freedom has similar sorts of issues.
RayfordSteele, Oct 23 2014
  

       I believe that treon and beanangel were both fond of the happy bomb concept in one form or another. The category has a noble history cannot be measured by its elective use.
WcW, Oct 23 2014
  

       //Faith for the sake of it has no utility.   

       I have great faith in my complete lack of faith.   

       Yours faithfully,
not_morrison_rm, Oct 24 2014
  

       //I'm more concerned about how we came to have a category product:weapon: bomb: happy.//   

       And oddly, not a single idea in this category belongs to [beanangel].
ytk, Oct 24 2014
  

       Howcome no one's ever done the (P)resident Evil line..
not_morrison_rm, Oct 24 2014
  

       //Faith for the sake of it has no utility.//   

       What do you make of Sartre's conception of Good Faith and Bad Faith?
pertinax, Oct 24 2014
  

       Well, a hat ... or a boat .... or a paper aeroplane ... or what's that little Origami figure that Gaff leaves outside Deckard's apartment at the end of Blade Runner, a camel ?   

       // Who are the disenfranchised //   

       Nobody important, is who.
8th of 7, Oct 24 2014
  

       Certainly not anybody who counts.
ytk, Oct 24 2014
  

       This is a madness methodology, like when someone says he has a method to his madness. I guess from the category choice, the idea is "being a time bomb" for the contemporary radical who doesn't want to cause pointless injury and death, but at the same time wants the threat of the guerrilla fighter to remain in an anarchic polarity to the state, but in a diagnostic grey area between politico and psycho.
rcarty, Oct 24 2014
  

       More interesting would be a book that connects How to Win Friend and Influence People to ethical egoism, early anglo-american liberal thought, Beacon Hill established contemporaneously with Hobbes as historical benchmark, the ethos reflected in Carnegie's book basically advocates putting your ego aside for long term ego benefit vis-a-vis social contract.   

       This poster's idea is an unethical egoism anyway read the link.
rcarty, Oct 25 2014
  

       That's the starting point for psych-ops. Sort of a political psychology. For example [lurch] in the the ebola immunity idea presented a utilitarian argument against my egoism. Utilitarianism being at least Orwell's perception of a fascism. Fascism of course can refer to any number of increasingly meaningless things, not just Nazis. This is conceivably a fascism because individuality really becomes a function of acceptance by others. If you look at his statement it is almost an exact word for word representation of utilitarianism in the link. Everyone can be profiled this way. If you read the link, you'll see that most political ideologies are reducible to a standard psychological orientation.
rcarty, Oct 25 2014
  

       Bob/ This is a bit short for a book proposal.   

       As a movie script it is just about the right length.   

       Dale Carnegie's book is likely out of copyright, so you should feel free to borrow and twist that for your book proposal. Good luck.   

       ( Wonder witch Hollywood bimbo will get the lead ?)
popbottle, Oct 25 2014
  

       //Utilitarianism being at least Orwell's perception of a fascism//   

       So ... where does Orwell say this, [rcarty]? Or are you just dropping random names? In that case, Lao Tsu and Spinoza think you're full of it, and Nietzsche tells me he's coming round to beat you up.
pertinax, Oct 25 2014
  

       Given how the main quote attributed to Orwell about fascism is that it is a mostly meaningless word ( which I provided, see link), it has to be inferred that his dystopic vision of utilitarianism, is something. I'll provide a link to totalitarianism to provide an easy link to fascism, and let Mussolini make my argument for me. I don't have to make an argument you'll agree with, I need only make an argument that other anti-utilitarians, which I assume the poster is, will agree with. As for Orwell, the link says he would approve if it was used with "a certain amount of circumspection".   

       My interpretation of Nietzsche is not incorrect. You would actually find both of us beating you up.
rcarty, Oct 25 2014
  

       //You would actually find both of us beating you up.//   

       I'll lay an extra place for tea - meanwhile, you do seem to be conflating utilitarianism with totalitarianism. Do you see them as somehow the same thing?
pertinax, Oct 26 2014
  

       Yes that is the degree to which I oppose utilitarianism. It is a tyranny of the majority. Is it actually a totalitarianism? Not to everyone's perception no. I don't just look at fascism as a statism, but also as anti-individualist social behavior. Consider in social situations that an individual provides some utility to others. When a person declines social invitation, thus withdrawing his utility, he may encounter utilitarian fascism where his act of individuality will be disparaged.   

       Consider that computers and the Internet and cellphones are a utilitarian development. They certainly appeal to the consumer demand for utility. Also consider that they embody some of the surveillance aspects of the utilitarian regime of pan-opticism. That consumer, or utilitarian behavior alone can cultivate a mass surveillance system makes me think that utility should not be the object of central focus.
rcarty, Oct 26 2014
  

       //utility should not be the object of central focus.//

What then do you propose? I am of the opinion that social systems develop and are adopted because they work. If a single perfect system could be developed, it would be readily adopted, because, being perfect, no one could resist it.

And from that point of view, I examine the chaotic collections of systems that do exist, and say... oh wait... it is already perfect, just not uniform throughout.

I've come to the conclusion that all are anarchists. That we willingly, if not begrudgingly, coexist with our peers under the social systems that we are a part of. That, although we may occasionally change those systems, as individuals, we generally find some utility in them and wish them to persist. A phenomenon similar to Stockholm Syndrome at times. And being a collection of individuals preserving that utility, we easily see contrarians as a threat and deal with them accordingly, just as we would a foreign nation. The greater the contrast, the greater the threat.

From this my thoughts on fascism are that it is highly effective, that it most nearly meets my definition of a perfect system, and that it often does so with terrible cruelty and violence. Please tell me you have devised a viable alternative.

+ on the idea.
LimpNotes, Oct 26 2014
  

       Why would you want an alternative to terrible cruelty and violence ? After all, they're directed at the "other", not you, and being terrifyingly cruel and violent seems to be quite enjoyable for some humans, particularly when it's encouraged by their peer group and superiors.   

       The only objectors are "others" and that's because they're the victims, so that's OK, isn't it ? (<- not a rhetorical question).   

       The problem with Totalitarianism is that it seeks to suppress dissent. But this effectively stifles social and technical advance, since all great theories (plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, paper money) start as heresy against the accepted norm.
8th of 7, Oct 26 2014
  

       //What then do you propose? //   

       Perhaps it is "Situationist" to not propose any sort of social mediation by any object. Maybe even Situationism fails in that regard. After all some sort of object must account for the requisite inter-subjectivity of that exclusive group, that the Spectacle alone would not account. I suppose my idea bee-hive- you're-in -ism is a proposal, if not just a joke.
rcarty, Oct 26 2014
  

       <8th>
The problem with terrible cruelty and violence is that it is never-ending. Once you run out of "others", you need to look for them, and you find them within your own ranks. Suddenly "others" becomes "us" and the utility of this system to the individuals deteriorates, and with it, the protection they provide. Collapse is inevitable.

Plus I take the view that this system is already in effect, and has been since the beginning of history, and the various factions we call nations, are the result of this inevitable fracture.

As for the stifling of enlightenment, I think and feel that an ignorant person can live just as happily as the enlightened, and under an ideal system, would. This might be largely irrelevant. I do not have a proposal for the alternative ideal system I am asking for.

  

       <rcarty> I interpret your bee-hive-you're-in-ism idea as a form of re-education camp, or perhaps like reintroduction program for returning a tame animal to the wild (except in reverse). Like taking a prisoner, and instead of keeping them with other prisoners, isolated them from such and keep them with model citizens. Like Tom Cruise in that Last Samurai movie. Is that correct?
LimpNotes, Oct 26 2014
  

       That idea is so halfbaked, I don't think there is any point searching for any meaning in it. It's really just sort of a Nietzsadfachian comment on the ethos of utilitarianism or maybe an ethical egoism.
rcarty, Oct 26 2014
  

       In that context it is excellent. You are right, my search for meaning is getting in the way. I will read your idea again when I am in a state of mind to truly appreciate it, probably after heavy drink.
LimpNotes, Oct 26 2014
  

       //problem with terrible cruelty and violence is that it is never-ending   

       I don't have a problem with that problem.
not_morrison_rm, Oct 27 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle