Be Prepared for the Cognitive Infiltration of ATS in the Wake of Arizona Shootings

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by christina-66
Excellent op and excellent thread.

The op conclusion, that we should be aware ATS discussions will be infiltrated by 'big brother', does have a silver lining. Members of this board will have the opportunity of presenting an argument in the knowledge that the points made may filter up to tptb.

Who knows while they're here maybe we can even show a few of them 'the light'.

There's nothing to fear for ATS or for individual members I would suggest. Boards like this are more likely to be used to gauge peoples' concerns and perspectives. That collated information in turn would be utilised to identify the most effective means of introducing us to new social/economic/political concepts.

There is a lot of validity to what you wrote and shared above.

This is not a paranoia thread, and I am not promoting fear or paranoia, but simply anticipating what would be a likely government response in the wake of this situation.

The Internet does in many ways represent the pulse and group think of the masses, and the government would be foolish to not consider it and pay attention to it when it comes to long range planning and trends.

Despite some posters insistant misrepresentations to the contrary this thread is not about paranoia and fear, but simply anticipating a new environment, as you mention a response from the government, based on the actual thinking taking place within society.

Thanks for sharing.

Yes it is, and it's called: "waffling." You see it all the time on the media; politicians use it when they don't know the answers asked by "bright-minded" media professionals when they have "hit the nail on the head," and the politician does not want to answer a question which is usually polarized in nature.

It's called "Beating Around The Bush" or "Hymn-Hawing Around," or as you call-it, "Deflection."

Answering a question WITH a question is hardly useful unless the question is of such a magnitude which in order to stimulate the questioning party to "think the problem out by themselves."

Media Do Have Effects, so be mindful of them.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Answering a question with a question is a control element highly trained sales people and others who need to maintain control employ to sieze control of a conversation.

It not only deflects away from areas of objection and contention, but 'leads' the person and the conversation to the areas that have the most value for the person vieing for control.

When it comes to predictions of what might transpire in the future, the shrewdest people avoid predictions as the best laid plans of mice and men often turn out for naught.

Sadly when it comes to 'western' thought, almost any and every issue, no matter how simple gets polarized into a two sided coin, of pro and con, yes or no, good or bad, etc, etc. So having a quality conversation about the more central and pertinent grey area in between gets problematic as a result.

It's no reason not to start a discourse and conversation but it's likely to often degrade along those lines during it's course.

Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps the "Title" of this thread makes one "think" paranoia?

Follow me here, because when I read the title, I think "STATEMENT," which if delved-into further, should lead to more discussion and causes and finally a conclusion which ties the title and the body of work together.

The most common error I find here with members is they write the most "sensationalized" titles and the body of the thread is very skewed and misrepresented. Obviously, not many have taken "Online Journalism 101" and while a few threads do "chunk-it up," many do not, and readers usually "click-to" the next thread or title which captures their attention.

You have about 2 seconds to capture a reader's attention on a site or thread, and if the reader is bombarded by "jumbled-up and ill-formatted text," they will move-on and you'll lose their attention.

Tips:

1. Title the thread accurately and concisely.
2. Chunk-it up in easily digestible portions.
3. Make it accessible to the reader - lead them to info like "bread-crumbs."
4. Use as many diverse links as you can with different "key-words."
5. Proof and Re-Proof; you want your article to be accurate.

In conclusion, I hope this might help those who have an interest in better writing and online journalism.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by trekwebmaster

 

Answering a question with a question is a control element highly trained sales people and others who need to maintain control employ to sieze control of a conversation.

It not only deflects away from areas of objection and contention, but 'leads' the person and the conversation to the areas that have the most value for the person vieing for control.

When it comes to predictions of what might transpire in the future, the shrewdest people avoid predictions as the best laid plans of mice and men often turn out for naught.

Sadly when it comes to 'western' thought, almost any and every issue, no matter how simple gets polarized into a two sided coin, of pro and con, yes or no, good or bad, etc, etc. So having a quality conversation about the more central and pertinent grey area in between gets problematic as a result.

It's no reason not to start a discourse and conversation but it's likely to often degrade along those lines during it's course.

Thanks for sharing.

Your assessment is very true, with the assumption of "those being in control of a subject are rational and forthright." When "those" in control are unskilled or ignorant, well we see how "cross-hairs" translates to the general public, after a tragic and often-unrelated incident happens; a media nightmare.

Using "LOGOS" is and can be very dangerous. To label a group with a "LOGOS," can inspire "nationalism" or symbolize something sinister, like the use of the Swastika, which had no negative connotation until AFTER Hitler and the NAZI regime.

This is very important concept as Republicans and Democrats try to win members for their respective groups. The "Tea Party" movement has yet to define itself to be anything other than what it is. And I'll let each individual figure-out their own interpretation. Most rational people refrain from "jumping into bed" with less than equitable movements, unless the price of inaction is so great as to lose their own self-respect.

With labels and titles, branding, and membership loyalties as they are in this country, it is painful to realize lives are lost when these "LOGOS" are taken to the extreme.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


I think it's a very broad definition of paranoia you are wishing to employ if you believe that statement to be true.

In reality though the Orginal Post is well laid out in an orderly and foundational progression with building block elements to support it's premise.

If people avoid reading what is a mildly lengthy original post (for me) and wish to enter the discussion without fully reading or considering what's been written in the Original Post they are certainly free to do so, and I am certainly free to refer back to what was written in the Opening Piece that they might have overlooked for any reason.

The great news is a vast number of members will read the opening post, and join in, in a quality discussion.

Yet I am curious as to why you feel the title is misleading, or the Original Post poorly written as it's more than abundantly clear that many of the posters to date feel and have stated other wise?

Further have you found the time to read the original post on the Thread from a year ago and to do any independent research on Cass Sunstein. A simple Google Search will turn up a lot of information on the man, his books and writing, positions and career, and is actually essential background if a person is going to fairly consider what is in fact play here.

I can mention it all day long, and encourage people to do their own honest research, but you can only lead a horse to water and you can't make them drink.

As stated previously, the thread is not based on a paranoid belief, it's not based on a wild or random notion.

In fact it's based on a Government Official's own well documented desires, and goals, previous examples of government conduct, and sound reasons why the government would consider attempting to implement these things at this point in time.

Personally I consider it humurous that rather that discuss those things you would like to give tips on how to write threads, while continuing to attempt to plant a seed that the thread is about something it sure isn't.

Topic is Cognitive Infiltration of the Internet as envisioned by Cass Sunstein and the likelihood as to whether the Government may choose to attempt to implement it in the wake of the Arizona Shootings.

It is in fact as legitimate and timely a discussion as the day is long, why some people would choose this thread to discuss anything but, is well frankly a curiousity that I don't think will escape the critical minds of some of ATS's more observant and astute members.

Great article Proto! S&F. I vote it should be stickied! Not that my vote counts..

I do take issue with the older workers snapping up entry level jobs part though. Being of the aforementioned category and out of work since 2009 and sending out thousands of resumes and not receiving a single response as of yet along with several colleagues seems to dispel that idea. Employers are afraid they will have to pay me to much so they hire youngsters instead. I have removed any reference that might give away my approximate age as best I can in hopes of at least getting a response or interview but looking at work history they will know I am no youngster.

Still if someone posts a job they will get 500 resumes over night so no matter who gets the job there is still an inordinate amount of brash youth out of work and frustrated as you point out.

In reality though the Orginal Post is well laid out in an orderly and foundational progression with building block elements to support it's premise.

If people avoid reading what is a mildly lengthy original post (for me) and wish to enter the discussion without fully reading or considering what's been written in the Original Post they are certainly free to do so, and I am certainly free to refer back to what was written in the Opening Piece that they might have overlooked for any reason.

I was not referring to the body of the work; the title of this thread is a bit sensationalized, but I was making a generalized statement about all member's titles and threads.

Further have you found the time to read the original post on the Thread from a year ago and to do any independent research on Cass Sunstein. A simple Google Search will turn up a lot of information on the man, his books and writing, positions and career, and is actually essential background if a person is going to fairly consider what is in fact play here.

I really don't want to search for another thread a year ago; why even write an article if supporting links to works are not included? This defeats the entire reason for even writing.

Personally I consider it humurous that rather that discuss those things you would like to give tips on how to write threads, while continuing to attempt to plant a seed that the thread is about something it sure isn't.

You can be humored if you wish, but the fact remains media do have effects, even though you are stooping to the level of attacking me and information presented with an "Ad Hominem" fallacy and using diversionary tactics to "skew" my intentions or reasons for stressing the need for correct writing techniques; it is relevant. You are proving my point with continued postings.

Topic is Cognitive Infiltration of the Internet as envisioned by Cass Sunstein and the likelihood as to whether the Government may choose to attempt to implement it in the wake of the Arizona Shootings.

Cognitive Infiltration, let's see... Exactly what is this term? Perhaps a definition to refresh reader's minds on what exactly you are trying to convey would help? This is just another term for "Saliency" or "Being Salient." To take the term literally, would mean "Forced Thought or Thinking." Again saliency is important in this regard.

It is in fact as legitimate and timely a discussion as the day is long, why some people would choose this thread to discuss anything but, is well frankly a curiousity that I don't think will escape the critical minds of some of ATS's more observant and astute members.

It is and this is exactly why I commented and why I stress the need for better writing and skills. Some readers might not understand or realize how and why their thinking is being manipulated.

reply to post by hawkiye


It's never my intention to offend, though in this particular case, I am parroting talking heads and journalist from London, Europe and the U.S., when it comes to their own summations on the prospects for the young in the present global economy.

The employment market is tough all the way around, Fewer companies are hiring, and they certainly can be discerning as to who they hire in such a favorable employers market.

No doubt each individual company has it's own preferred type of applicant based on it's own business model and plan, but if the mainstream media is to be trusted in this regard, it would seem that the younger workers, especially those with no or very limited experience are loosing entry level position jobs that older more experienced workers who would not normally be applying for them at all, are.

The employment market in general is abysmal and the truth is that it really does represent a clear and present ongoing danger to the government as it continues to slump.

That's the main point I was trying to make there.

While the media and the government love to gloss things over and manipulate statistics to paint a rosey picture when and where ever possible, the truth is they aren't ingnorant to the potential repurcussions of a mass of chornically unemployed people, who might be tempted through financial hardship and deprevation to turn to black market enterprises and or other forms of crime to get by, including acts against the government born of the frustration felt by some who feel their prospects for the future are dismal at best.

Right now it's just the crazies, but in the past year we have seen a man fly his small airplane into a IRS Office, a shooter at the Pentagon, and a now a Congress Woman and Federal Judge gunned down.

Statistics tend to show that those more likely to engage in such a determined politically or personally motivated act are either older people in the Senior Citizen range who often have nothing left to live for, or younger people who have yet to fully live, who can't easily imagine what they do have to live for.

With a declining Tax Base, chronic unemployment, and violence against the government becoming more frequent, I know if I were the government I would certainly be concerned.

The obvious remedy for us the people is more jobs, higher wages, a vibrant economy, but in absence of being able to provide those things, and this is a lingering situation where to date the government has failed to provide those things, then well you need other viable alternatives to better protect yourself as an institution and your employees.

That's what I am anticipating as being the next step for the government, enhancing their security by paying better attention to what might in fact 'appear' to be the breeding ground for people who are acting out in violent ways against it.

From the man who shot up the Holocaust Museum a little over a year ago, who back in the 1970's invaded the Federal Reserve in Washington DC and took hostages at gunpoint simply so he could have his say in Federal Court regarding the Federal Reserve, to most of these other more recent acts, they are by and large being carried out by alternative minded people, and in some cases bonified conspiracy theorists.

So considering that, where would you seek to engage and interact with such people?

The local Biker Bar, or here online on conspiracy sites where they discuss their theories and pick them up from?

I can't believe some people are finding the math so hard to do on this one!

Thanks for posting my friend, and I hope things improve on the employment front for you in short order.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


lol, but its realistic assessment. These people from all those networks and alphabet agencies will be coming with here wasting our time, filling the board like usual with rubbish date threads, and such.

The news at least is debated here, and its not there job to tell us after us reading our threads what to think.

They key to all of these social ills is simply education. If we, as a nation, stressed the necessity of a college education as fundamental, we will have more intelligent and reasoning individuals. Some believe that the government or court officers do not want intelligent juries or constituents who can discern fact from fiction is very popular. While one side may like this ideology, and the other dislike it, the fact remains the more intelligent a society becomes, the more benefit it has to it.

Now this is just an opinion, but we have generations of factory workers, handing-down their "ill-formed ideology" to their children, who tend to "believe" and adopt it. In the first place, "beliefs" are first principles and cannot be proven logically. Try and tell that to overzealous religious members. You'll see how "salient" their beliefs can and are.

I continue to stress that education is the first and most important aspect of our society in which we need to build-on. No matter how much money has to be spent, every child should be sent to college, no matter who or where they are in this country. Education is the answer AND the more diverse it is, the better.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


No offense taken my friend. Just relating my personal experience which of course may not necessarily apply across the board.

On another note I think what you are suggesting in the OP is already in effect to some degree and this incident will only serve to step it up. I don't see a need for them to appeal for legality as it is not illegal for them to read and post on such forums now. I would also think they would not want to make it an official public policy and tip thier hand to thier tactics...

Also the man power it would take up in this climate of "lets cut the budget" superficial as it is would not go over well in congress. However paying for this from the slush funds seems right up thier alley.

Hey I just thought of something maybe I could apply for one of these positions...

reply to post by neformore

And the first post is, frankly, McCarthyism. It suggests that anyone who doesn't tow the "conspiracy" line is some form of paid for poster that is infiltrating the board for nefarious purposes.

I don't think it suggest that at all, but your perception is your reality. The truth is I think as we all know I routinely interact with members who are skeptics or not conspiracy believers, and you would be hard pressed to see me accuse of anything other than being agenda driven.

Frankly I don't care if someone is agenda driven, paid, a government agent, a housewife, garbage man, or part time carpenter or rabi.

I dissect each post to see if I like and can agree with the thinking behind it, I either do or I don't.

If a serial killer tells me that the sun comes up at dawn, well that's a true statement, the fact that he is a serial killer makes absolutely no difference to me. Just the validity of the statement.

Now what did I really say in the Opening Post, that some agenda driven posters are intent on causing trouble on the site. I could point to many examples of banned members who did, but of course we don't discuss specific banned members or the reasons for their banning, but both regular members alike and Staff Members are generally aware of who they are and the occurences that led to them being banned.

In reality what I said, was if there is a uptick in people with an agenda infiltrating the site, excersize patience so you aren't part of the problem.

Now how that has gotten misconstrued into what you are suggesting, is well a matter of conjecture and speculation that I won't bother with, but trying to tell a person who knows what they meant, says what they mean, and mean what they says, that it is otherwise, well, it's just pretty silly.

I can see people with objections or questions wanting clarification, once that clarification has been provided a half dozen times, and the only people talking about these negatives, are the people who imagined they were present, well...

Skeptics, alternative thinkers and different perspectives are welcome on ATS. It should not be intimated that they be labelled in any manner other than that of a site member who has joined of their own free will. Anything else is divisive and causes problems.

And no where have I said they aren't welcome or intimated that they be labelled in any manner other than that of a site member.

In fact for those who are or are fairly considering the topic of this thread, what I am talking about primarily is an actual official act by the United States Government that would create a new Federal Agent or Employee, who's specific job by formal job discription would be Internet Agent.

This has not happened yet, nor is their any absolute gaurantee or certainty that it would.

But should it happen, and a Government Employee is authorized to identify themselves as such and act with prescribed powers invested in them by the Government, then well, that's an entirely different bird, and guess what Agents of the TSA are not simply 'concerned travelers' hanging out at the airport, or 'concerned airport employees' no my friend, they carry a badge, and a title.

An Internet Agents likely will too.

Please don't anyone be afraid to actually delve into the real topic of this thread, do a little research and see what it's all about.

Concerns are in fact being noted, but concerns alone don't dismiss the very sound thinking involved in why we might be looking at such changes in the future.

Another type of poster welcome on ATS is the Conspiracy Theorist, I am one of those, and believe me when I publish a thread, I know exactly the precise purpose behind it and am willing to explain it in exhaustive detail.

Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by hawkiye

On another note I think what you are suggesting in the OP is already in effect to some degree and this incident will only serve to step it up. I don't see a need for them to appeal for legality as it is not illegal for them to read and post on such forums now. I would also think they would not want to make it an official public policy and tip thier hand to thier tactics...

They would if they want actual enforcement powers, the power to censor, ban, question or detain or charge internet posters.

Such a system would not start out that way, just the same way the TSA didn't start out bombarding people with dangerous radiation and groping their genitals to get on a plane.

You get your foot in the door, and as people become accustomed to one set of policies then you expand on them and take it to the next level, wait for them to acclamate and do it again.

It's happening in other public domains like airports and government facilities so the notion that it could happen here on the Internet is neither proposterous or paranoid.

Thanks my friend.

reply to post by andy1033


It may be "realistic" to a person, but is it practical to an entire population?

This is much like polling Republicans on their opinion of who is going to win in the next election; it's not practical unless you are a Republican.

I don't think being "realistic" is the right term. The nature of the term implies "being less than real." I would ask: "Is it practical to assume."

Again, work it out as a valid argument:

Premiss 1 - Socrates is a man
Premiss 2 - Men are Mortal
Conclusion - Socrates is mortal

Premiss 1 - Crazy people don't need guns
Premiss 2 - Everyone is crazy
Conclusion - We must ban guns.

See how the second argument is fallacious? It's not guns that kill people; it's people who kill people with guns. Guns are just the catalyst, an object used by a subject who kills people.

Look around and you'll start to see all kinds of "fallacies" being pushed around and into the public eye and mind. Know what's fallacious and what is logical and valid or you'll be fooled forever.

All about Fallacies

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by neformore

 

And the first post is, frankly, McCarthyism. It suggests that anyone who doesn't tow the "conspiracy" line is some form of paid for poster that is infiltrating the board for nefarious purposes.

I don't think it suggest that at all, but your perception is your reality. The truth is I think as we all know I routinely interact with members who are skeptics or not conspiracy believers, and you would be hard pressed to see me accuse of anything other than being agenda driven.

Frankly I don't care if someone is agenda driven, paid, a government agent, a housewife, garbage man, or part time carpenter or rabi.

I dissect each post to see if I like and can agree with the thinking behind it, I either do or I don't.

If a serial killer tells me that the sun comes up at dawn, well that's a true statement, the fact that he is a serial killer makes absolutely no difference to me. Just the validity of the statement.

Now what did I really say in the Opening Post, that some agenda driven posters are intent on causing trouble on the site. I could point to many examples of banned members who did, but of course we don't discuss specific banned members or the reasons for their banning, but both regular members alike and Staff Members are generally aware of who they are and the occurences that led to them being banned.

In reality what I said, was if there is a uptick in people with an agenda infiltrating the site, excersize patience so you aren't part of the problem.

Now how that has gotten misconstrued into what you are suggesting, is well a matter of conjecture and speculation that I won't bother with, but trying to tell a person who knows what they meant, says what they mean, and mean what they says, that it is otherwise, well, it's just pretty silly.

I can see people with objections or questions wanting clarification, once that clarification has been provided a half dozen times, and the only people talking about these negatives, are the people who imagined they were present, well...

Skeptics, alternative thinkers and different perspectives are welcome on ATS. It should not be intimated that they be labelled in any manner other than that of a site member who has joined of their own free will. Anything else is divisive and causes problems.

And no where have I said they aren't welcome or intimated that they be labelled in any manner other than that of a site member.

In fact for those who are or are fairly considering the topic of this thread, what I am talking about primarily is an actual official act by the United States Government that would create a new Federal Agent or Employee, who's specific job by formal job discription would be Internet Agent.

This has not happened yet, nor is their any absolute gaurantee or certainty that it would.

But should it happen, and a Government Employee is authorized to identify themselves as such and act with prescribed powers invested in them by the Government, then well, that's an entirely different bird, and guess what Agents of the TSA are not simply 'concerned travelers' hanging out at the airport, or 'concerned airport employees' no my friend, they carry a badge, and a title.

An Internet Agents likely will too.

Please don't anyone be afraid to actually delve into the real topic of this thread, do a little research and see what it's all about.

Concerns are in fact being noted, but concerns alone don't dismiss the very sound thinking involved in why we might be looking at such changes in the future.

Another type of poster welcome on ATS is the Conspiracy Theorist, I am one of those, and believe me when I publish a thread, I know exactly the precise purpose behind it and am willing to explain it in exhaustive detail.

Thanks for sharing.

This is funny.

Why hire a bunch of internet agents to do all this and that when I can just plainly say:

Your reasoning is flawed and fallacious - it's a fallacy since you have not proven the argument by valid logic and reason.

Far-Fetched Hypothesis

This is the fallacy of offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations.

Example:

Look at that mutilated cow in the field, and see that flattened grass. Aliens must have landed in a flying saucer and savaged the cow to learn more about the beings on our planet.

Faulty Comparison

If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, you commit the fallacy of faulty comparison or the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Example:

We gave half the members of the hiking club Durell hiking boots and the other half good-quality tennis shoes. After three months of hiking, you can see for yourself that Durell lasted longer. You, too, should use Durell when you need hiking boots.

Shouldn’t Durell hiking boots be compared with other hiking boots, not with tennis shoes?

Faulty Generalization

A fallacy produced by some error in the process of generalizing. See Hasty Generalization or Unrepresentative Generalization for examples.

NOTE:

If you'll notice in a previous post, I too, am guilty of a fallacy of logic..."hasty generalization." about members writing styles and threads posted, as well as content. Even though my style looked good, my logic didn't follow logic and therefore can be invalid.

Not all media will tell you the truth, as I have. But you see how well we all jumped on the bandwagon behind a "common cause." This is salient when we all have a group purpose. The more important our purpose is, the more salient is is to the group. Anyone else could have cared less and disregarded it.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Actually I hate to break it to you but no matter how big or bold you make the text, Cass Sunstein, his books and policy papers are well documented, so are past enactments of new laws in wakes of violence against the government and so is the shooting in Arizona.

Not sure where you are failing to register any of this, great news, don't much care!

Thanks for posting.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Another brilliant OP, PT. And dead-on, imho.

S&F,

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Are you so "narrow-minded" to your topic that you close your mind to certain things which are very relevant to this subject? Keep on closing your eyes to things that you don't want to acknowledge, I don't need to read the book, I have studied this topic for years and have several degrees in it.

Or perhaps you'd like to see my credentials first before I post for approval? You would think a person would desire discourse from anyone on a topic which has relevant tie-ins? Consider the converse; if you specialize your thread to the point that no one has any idea of what you are trying to say and do not post anything?

You'd think that any topic which relates directly would be welcome?

I guess not. But my advice for you is simple. Do not become so personally and emotionally attached to any or your work or art, because you will be critiqued and not everyone has all nice things to say about it.

Constructive criticism is the best teacher, but first, you'll have to learn how to not take things personally and accept other's viewpoints and opinions, otherwise, you'll end up being so emotional and then everyone will think you are a nutcase or just plain stupid.

Originally posted by trekwebmaster

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

This is funny.

Why hire a bunch of internet agents to do all this and that when I can just plainly say:

Trust me on this one...


Trust me on this call, he is no agent, he is like you, typing away from the comfort of his surroundings. So i guess that assumption is more or less shot down. Next ?

Peace.