h a l f b a k e r yMay contain nuts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Mass is generally interpreted in the sense of being a large
number.
A mass muderer in that sense kills a large number of people.
However, in another sense mass refers to the social mass where
regulation of behaviour is induced through attraction or
repulsion
to the mass. A mass murderer
therefore becomes unstable in
the
attractive and repulsive forces of the mass.
This can be very complex because the social physical effect of
these very real but diffuse forces are manifest nervously and
psychically.
The
self regulating mass forms by the social process of inclusion and
exclusion. As a general rule social inclusion is rewarding, and
exclusion is punishing. Society massifies as people accept these
rewards and generally avoid these punishments.
However, social physics is only capable of general rules, as the
"social" is a generalization from the aggregate of many parts. An
excluded person or part from the mass *becomes* a punishment,
or
in other words an example is made of that person. A mass
shooter
therefore reifies the mass by violently rejecting it, its parts, its
norms, its values. The logic
here
is massification occurs by the increasing inertia of inclusion by
the
coefficient of the repusion of examples of its exclusion. The
mass
shooter in violently rejecting these forces increases the
coefficient, increasing the mass's attractive inertia, but reduces
the number of parts by the number of casualties.
Demassification, or mass breakdown, as a physical invention in
the
realm of materiality and not theory, would resolve to halt mass
killings by counteracting the coefficient of repulsion accelerated
by mass murderers, and also generally reducing social
massification by reducing social group reification based on a
reduced impetus for acculturation in general which is closely
tied
with the industrial demands of political economy and reflected
in
the mass media and schools.
As the mass is not just parts, but also norms and values that
order and organize those parts, mass inclusion has to be
disincentivized. Therefore, the institution of popular culture
must be depopulated. Obviously political economy relies on the
institution of popular culture for mass marketing, so this
institution is inherently a social organization of low entropy due
to constant energy invested in its mintenance. Breaking down
popular culture will be difficult because any efforts will
antithetically be unpopular, but overcoming this challenge will
start the process of dereification. That is, not creating
solidarity out of aversion to unpopularity of norm violation and
rule breaking.
Experiments
https://en.wikipedi...iki/Behavioral_sink Humans are the only animals that voluntarily squeeze too many of themselves into limited space. [Vernon, Sep 26 2013]
[link]
|
|
Wasn't there an episode of the X-Files about this ... ? |
|
|
so the idea is to prohibit gatherings of greater-than-n for non-sanctioned purposes ? yeah, that always goes over good. |
|
|
The episode about demassification to stop the wave of
mass killings? Moulder and Scully were in a race against
time to depopulate popular culture, but Moulder was
vaguely paranoid that his own actions were being
recorded for a popular TV show by an alien race, and
broadcasting it in time in another dimension that had
ramifications on their present dimension. So the only
way to stop it was to cancel the X-files, but in order to
do that Moulder had to be abducted by the aliens first,
to take on the real life agency of David Duchovney (sic)
and ask for too much money, and then he horribly dies
somehow and is written out of the show, but then
Skynet sends in an aged T2000 to try and recover the
shows ratings, but viewers couldn't get off on the idea of
him and Gillian Anderson doing it, so the show ended,
only mildly disrupting popular culture? I'd say mission
successful anyway, that was a prety good episode. |
|
|
No, not limit group size, but to stop mass behaviourism. |
|
|
He has a point. Non social species rarely engage in mass killings of their own species, and while conflicts may be brutal they are usually one-on-one affairs. So here's the plan guys: Go feral. Choose a nice spot, maybe a hill top, or forest ravine. Pee on everything. If anyone comes into your pee zone scream at them, throw rocks, fight if needed. When you get the urge to mate add a bit of perfume or something, maybe some mense. Make sure they don't stick around. Also don't let your kids stick around, after they are weened, kick them off of your territory. |
|
|
// Go feral. Choose a nice spot, maybe a hill top, or forest ravine. Pee on everything. If anyone comes into your pee zone scream at them, throw rocks, fight if needed. When you get the urge to mate add a bit of perfume or something, maybe some mense. Make sure they don't stick around. Also don't let your kids stick around, after they are weened, kick them off of your territory. // |
|
|
Fine, except [UnaBubba] has Prior Art on that ... |
|
|
Mass euthanasia of a significant proportion of the world population is the necessary first step in implementing any plan like this. |
|
|
mass euthanasia is normally an unacceptable practice, however releasing disextincted dinosaurs into high population centres would provide a reasonable tradeoff. |
|
|
No it's not euthanasia, it's about mass behaviourism, or if
you like bee-hive-you're-in-ism. Dancing together or
stinging intruders, looking at things with buggy compound
eyes of multiple subjectivities, no just one's own but what
he thinks and what she thinks etc. |
|
| |