#Politics2023 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mineofilms · 1 year ago

Text

War of Bantha Poodoo

Israel vs Palestine - My opinion is probably different of it than most. I already posted a blog on this topic about two weeks after the events of 10/7/2023. I took those two weeks to heavily research the disdain both groups have for one another, in that blog, as if I were a freshman in College again, doing a research paper on the subject. If you all want the history lesson you are going to have to read that blog. I am not going to regurgitate it in full here. I cover a lot of what happened before 10/7/2023 there. Here, I am more focused on one Government that is considered by most World Governments as a terrorist group invading another Government that is a sovereign one. Killing its innocent citizens, kidnapping the ones they didn’t kill, murdering of young children and the raping of Israeli women and have that act celebrated as some sort of important claim to independence for Palestinians. Most agree this is and was a horrible act committed but there is a faction that feels the Palestinians of Hamas are just for executing these actions in this fashion. The blog on the history and my feelings up to that point can be found below.

—See— —Eradicatio— Latin for Eradication https://mineofilms.me/121-2/ —Historical Topics That Are Relevant, See—

• 1000 BC – Roman Empire rebranding the territory Palestine. • 1923 – Britain. When we finally get to “modern-day.” • 1948 – "al-Nakba" – Creation of the state of Israel. • 1967 – 6-Day War. • 1987-1993 – The First Intifada. • 2000-2005 – The Second Intifada. • 2018 – The relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem.

There is quite a lot of back and forth by both sides. Both sides are not innocent here on how it came to this. Cause and Effect has had, and will have, its say when the dust settles, if the dust settles. History says, it will not settle any time soon. These people have an over 1,000+ year rich history of hatred towards one another; along with stretches where they lived together without much conflict. Much of the sentiment stems from the aftermath of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. As I said, read that blog for the history regurgitation. I came to the conclusion that there isn’t a whole lot of difference between this struggle and our own binary positions, specifically with American politics being so polarizingly binary: yes/no, us/them, good/evil, right/wrong, left/right, zero/one, gay/straight, black/white, man/woman, Jew/Muslim, Life/Death. You get the idea. Sources are biased, especially ones from the legacy news media from both left/right sides. Both are spinning their takes as political pandering of right/wrong vs what right/wrong actually are.

All of a sudden our society in the 2020s treats right/wrong as a subjective experience. If I would have said that back at Venice High School in 1996, they never would have allowed me back into the school. I personally will not accept right/wrong as a subjective experience. That right/wrong are definitive things that have definitive meanings. Not subjective ones. I will not concede the concept of right/wrong is based on my mood and how people talk to me in the morning after sleeping two hours and I haven’t even pissed yet. It should never require a master’s degree in ‘semantics’ to understand what right or wrong is. Why Right/Wrong are now as difficult as reading/interpreting the law? We all may never know. We can speculate all we want, but is that speculation subjective or objective? I am seeing a whole lot of things out in our everyday society, mainly from and on the INTERNET, coming from mostly large cities, and younger people who really do not have an intellectual grasp on this subject; that are basing their opinion on subjective experiences/feelings on the matter. Where the last thing we should be doing as a species is pandering to subjective feelings. Anyone can look at a map and say: “oh, these two groups are not going to play well together in the sandbox.” It’s literally a sandbox they are fighting over. Nothing grows in the sand. Not even hope. We can only think retrospectively that in 1948 they never should have allowed these two groups of people to be so close to one another. Retrospectively, I do not know how anyone thought this was a good idea?

The more we are ALL supposed to know…

The Pro-Palestinian movement has picked a terrible opportunity here to use ‘rhetoric’ as ‘semantics’ to gain sympathy towards their cause. I never learned much about the Palestinian struggle. I wasn’t interested. I am still not very interested. I looked into this because I wanted to comment on it and I needed a solid understanding of both points of view. Now in order to really understand this FK’n mess we need to define a few words here. There needs to be a clear understanding of what these words mean and represent.

—Context— —Rhetoric— —Semantics— —Shall We Begin—

Context – often overlooked… The linchpin of meaningful conversation… Dictionary-defined as the circumstances surrounding a statement. Understanding what's really meant. Without it, conversations turn into chaotic word games that go in circles or nowhere at all.

• Sometimes Start Fights… • Sometimes End Friendships… • Sometimes End Marriages… • Sometimes Creates Drama Where None Existed Before… • Supposed to Create Logical UNDERSTANDING…

To engage in meaningful discussions, 'context' must take center stage. It's not just background details; it's the key to unraveling the maze of misunderstanding communication at all. Intention and Context may not be one in the same, all of the time, or even some of the time. If you do not have an understanding of the contextual value of something the opinion you may have from that lack of understanding may not actually represent what you want it to represent.

Rhetoric – A classic definition of ‘rhetoric’ is the art of persuasive communication or the study of effective persuasion and speaking. It involves using language and various communication methods to influence an audience or individual. However, it's important to note that ‘rhetoric’ isn't just about playing with words to manipulate others. It's about honest and effective communication, aiming to persuade based on the merits of your argument rather than relying solely on magic tricks with words. ‘Rhetoric’ should be used ethically and persuasively to convey meaningful ideas and engage an audience. ‘Rhetoric’ may involve other means of communication to influence others, either orally or in writing. It encompasses various techniques and strategies for convincing, motivating, or engaging an audience through the skillful use of language and persuasive tactics. ‘Rhetoric’ is not limited to just persuasion but also includes elements like the organization of arguments, the choice of words, and the appeal to emotions, logic, and ethics to make a compelling case. Talking or writing in a way that's really good at convincing people about something. It's all about using words and other ways of speaking or writing to make people believe what you're saying. It's not just about talking nicely, but also about arranging your ideas, choosing the right words, and making your audience feel something, think something, or trust you more.

So, it's basically about being really good at talking and writing to get your point across.

Nothing in that definition says that the person’s merit has to be based on actual evidence-based facts, merely that the person or group spewing the ‘rhetoric’ is good at articulating words in such a way they could convince an audience that 1+1=3 and the human race has had it wrong for thousands of years. It is important to note that ‘rhetoric’ doesn’t mean or even imply that the information being presented is accurate data. Only that the argument has structure ‘to possibly sway’ public opinion on the argument. When used out of context as ‘semantics,’ disguised as ‘rhetoric,’ you could have a completely false narrative, with bull shit data and “pseudo-facts,” whereas, the word ‘pseudo’ literally means “made-up…”

Semantics – The classic definition of ‘semantics’ is the study of meaning in language, which includes how words and symbols represent concepts and how they relate to one another. It focuses on understanding language at a fundamental level.

If someone is using ‘rhetoric’ and trying to pass it off as ‘semantics,’ it's essential to clarify the difference. ‘Rhetoric’ involves using persuasive techniques to influence an audience, often focusing on style and the emotional impact of language. ‘Semantics,’ on the other hand, is about the actual meaning of words and their relationships. So, it's important not to confuse the two. If someone is more interested in persuasive language, they might be leaning towards ‘rhetoric,’ but ‘semantics’ is about the core-elements and concepts of meaning in language.

Now that we know what these three words mean we can actually talk about this stuff.

In politics, it's as if the entire landscape has succumbed to binary thinking, obscuring the subtleties of complex issues. ‘Rhetoric’ lacks a three-dimensional approach to understanding, focusing on concrete facts, evidence, and genuine knowledge. However, concepts are thrown out there claiming to be ‘semantic’ in nature. A terrorist group, that claims to be a Government for its people, illegally invades a sovereign country, kills 1500 of its citizens and capturing another 237. Sexual assault on women and killing of children on top of that is somehow being spun as a good thing for freedom. If that happened in the United States there would be a massive hole where the group that perpetrated this once stood. However, for some reason because there have been bad choices by both groups over the years, on how to deal with one another, and each other’s grievances. It is ok to commit outright terrorism and because this group his hiding among the public of the area they control that they should be given some sort of immunity or special treatment. Morally, they are expecting Israel to play by a special rulebook while Hamas and Palestine play by their own or openly break the rulebook that is supposed to be followed during situations like this.

Israel is very capable of handling this on their own, at their own pace. They really do not need the United States’ assistance here with the physical part of this conflict. We would only need to intervene if other Palestinian Governments decided to join forces and attack Israel, specifically Iran. Iran has been attacking US military installations in the area for some time now and most of it is not being reported. Israel has been prepping for this war for a while now and were just waiting on their version of 9/11 to get the war going. Israel is one of the most heavily protected boarders on the planet. A cock roach couldn’t shit within 1,000 feet of the boarder without the IDS (Israeli Defense System) detecting it. How exactly did Hamas soldiers in paragliders and hundreds of missiles have made it past the IDS and the Iron Dome Missile Defense System? Could they have allowed this to happen? I do not know… Israel may very well sacrificed its own citizens as an excuse to commit this eradication of Hamas. Is that fair?That isn’t for me to know and even if they did, what business is it of ours? Both sides really do not want peace. Both sides prefer it this way. I was told that if I am neutral that I am part of the problem. Being Neutral here is not part of the problem. Choosing sides, however, is a huge part of the problem. It’s in their actions, perhaps not their words directly. However, Palestinians are not shy about their true feelings here about how/what/why they hate Israel.

I am overly exhausted watching people who are supposed to represent all of us use emotional arguments (subjective-feelings) from ALL peoples to handle problems that need more logic, common sense, and critical thinking and less political pandering and emotional feelings without allowing factual data into the argument. You cannot argue or debate ‘semantics’ with “political pandering rhetoric” and expect people who use logic, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills to accept that ‘rhetoric’ as ‘semantics.’ Go back and reread those definitions. ‘Rhetoric’ does not have to include factual information. ‘Semantics’ is about the actual meaning of a word or the phrases. The actual meaning would be based on factual information. ‘Rhetoric’ only needs to appear factual. To argue or debate using “political pandering rhetoric” as if it were ‘semantics’ can be misleading and will not be accepted by those who rely on logic, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills to analyze language and its actual, real, meaning.

INDEED, a rich history to say the least between these two groups of people. It is not entirely fair what we have here and I do feel for the non-violent-disposed-innocent-Palestinian people that are suffering and would have no issue living in a community with their fellow Jew. However, their argument is null and void when their resolve is to wipe Israel and Jews off the planet, rape girls, kill old people and behead babies. Granted not all Palestinians are filthy baby killers or Jew haters. However, it is heavily implied and Israel, who is the only democratic state in the region is just turning the other cheek here. Is it fair? No… Is it right or just? Subjective…

I say this a lot; that a thing is not deserved. However, it is earned. Cause and Effect… Both sides did the causes to warrant the effect. No one in the area and culture deserves this. However, they earned it… They did the “hard” work to get here. If Mexico was labeled a terrorist group, they should be, and then a sub group from Mexico that are Mexicans, and say they represent all of Mexico, attacked United States citizens on US soil. How do you think the USA would react to this? 10/7/2023 happened. On 10/8/2023 The Gaza Strip would have been a nuclear wasteland. Is that reaction warranted? I really do not know. Really, I don’t… I know that if it were me, I would have made an example out of this area so that all groups in the area now know, definitively. “F**K AROUND AND FIND OUT…”

There is a potential here for this conflict to get so out of hand that World War III could start. Just like in Star Trek their fictional-reality of Earth’s World War III, a series of events happened that help to kick off the war. In that reality it was the Eugenics Wars, which seem, now, not to be wars at all, but more like political conflicts and when the dust settled the World Powers then went to war, years later that left the Earth a near wasteland till the events of Star Trek: First Contact and Warp Speed being invented. The logic is sound that if Iran decided to get even more involved than they have been that this could be the event that kicks things off. However, it wouldn’t be Iran that literally started this war but the one’s that pushed over the first domino. One side says Jews/Israel and one side says Hamas/Palestinian/Muslims. So we’re back to that binary mechanism again. You are trapped in a room. Air is free… However, you must choose the odor in which you breathe. Your choices are Pooh or Piss. You must choose one or the other. You cannot NOT choose or you cannot have a third choice. If you want air at all you must pick the odor from the binary choices given. Now choose… That is my whole point. “I’m neither a DEMOCRAT nor a REPUBLICAN.” Binary information systems are only logical if both sides of the coin keep believing one side is right/good and the other is wrong/bad. Once you eliminate that as the-be-all-end-all it is very easy to see a triangle as a pyramid, a sphere rather than a circle, and/or the puppet master pulling the strings of the coin’s favor. Is it a heads or tails? Piss or Pooh? No other options exist! What say you? What do we know about this process of taking binary mechanisms literal? It is never that simple, nor will it ever be, but we still play the pretend game that we have a choice. People ask me all the time what side I am on. I am on the side of logic… Bad answer if ones’ believe good/bad, right/wrong exist as the only choices.

I am afraid we may just be going in that direction of a bigger conflict. This might not be so much World War III but perhaps just part of this “great reset” I keep seeing here and there. The question I have is if this does get worse and the USA does get involved; is the United States of America going to finally layout its technological advantage we have on the planet? Are we gonna continue to play it like we are not really capable of handling things like a war anymore? I feel like, if we wanted to, we could squash this pretty quickly once we lower the veil on our actual and real technological military might. We absolutely do not have the stomach for it politically anymore. However, the toys we show off to the global stage are not the actual toys we would use in a major conflict with other militaries that say they have comparable military power. I don’t know much about this international stuff. I felt like we should have gone back to isolationists at the turn of the century and lock the borders down, shoot on site if anyone tries to cross over illegally. I know that isn’t a popular take but it is what I think we should have done, be doing currently. America first… Then we can try to save the world… I know that if one side plays dirty, why is it a surprise when the other side does the same thing? On 10/7/2023 Hamas broke “The Geneva Convention.” However, for some reason that fact isn’t just overlooked, it is downright ignored by the Pro-Palestinian contingent of young people in the United States protesting.

As we mush on with this communication there will be more instances where Israel has tried to make peace and most of Palestine has rejected and walked away from negotiations every time. If anyone wants to prove me wrong at something they have to match what I have presented. They have to show me where/how/why/what I am wrong about. Simply saying I am wrong and then calling me names because you may not be happy with what I got to say doesn’t change what I am saying as right/wrong. Just from your point of view of subjectivity. They have to have some logic to it. If it’s just ‘rhetoric’ trying to be ‘semantics’ it will show. It will come out. Staying neutral is my protest against both groups who use ‘rhetoric,’ religion and social media to garner a response from all of us. I refuse to play into that binary game. I am not intimidating… Others are just the intimidated. There is a difference. I am not mean, hostile or aggressive. I am direct, honest, logical and assertive. That makes weaker minds uncomfortable. It is not ME that makes them uncomfortable, my LOGIC challenges their comfort. I might as well be a Jew in the eyes of a Palestinian or Pro-Hamas supporter and therein lies the problem. I will not be less for anyone so they may feel superior and feel better about their situation. I am not wired that way. I never was… Other’s weaknesses are not my weaknesses just like my strengths are not their strengths and vice versa.

On 10/30/2023, alternatively the day before Halloween, sometimes called “Devil's Night,” or known as “Mischief Night;” the well-known American conservative political commentator, author, lawyer, and public speaker, Ben Shapiro, was invited to speak at the Oxford Union which brought a ton of backlash from protesters. Ben spoke in depth, as always, on the conflict taking place in Israel and Gaza at the famed hall. Below is a very important exchange here with a Pro-Palestinian Woman. This conversation is full of ‘rhetoric’ being claimed as ‘semantic’ in nature. What Ben did here is, almost effortlessly, like a Savant Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man.” Almost emotionless, breaks down the points where both Pro-Palestinian sentiment fails and why Hamas is failing. He does it with logic and common sense, but also a little cutthroat ruthlessness as he should be. 10/7/2023 happened. People, with lots of FK’n money, are pissed off AF… The Jews want Hamas’s heads on sticks, all lined up for Palestine to take notice and as a warning of future attacks. Israel is using this attack as an excuse to bomb how they bomb and make those heads appear on those sticks. Yes, civilians are caught up in the crossfire, they are, but so what? Israel is within their rights to do so. Is it fair? Is it right? Is it just? No… Of course not. Pro-Palestine says Israel is targeting innocent citizens, where Israel is saying it isn’t purposeful that Hamas is using innocent citizens as human shields. Hamas should give up. If they really care about Palestine, the cause, and care about peace they must surrender. That is the only way this ends with some of them left alive. Israel no longer gives any FKs. Ok, some FKs… Ben breaks it down on the whys where the woman stumbles over her words and tries to make loose connections from a limited or unrepresentative set of evidence, which can lead to inaccurate or biased beliefs. See, "hasty generalization" or "jumping to conclusions." This type of logical fallacy where someone draws a broad conclusion from a limited or unrepresentative set of evidence, which can lead to inaccurate or biased beliefs and Ben throws it right back in her face. It's important to encourage logic, critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning to avoid falling into cognitive traps like this. Very rarely do people get a drop-mic moment against Ben Shapiro. The man is a wizard debater and always comes overly prepared.

The exchange is about 2-3 minutes and I implore everyone to watch it if they actually want a real opinion on this conflict. I may write an entire blog on this exchange due to it being a great example of using ‘rhetoric’ displayed as ‘semantics,’ with the expectation the ‘rhetoric’ being spewed is based on real facts on the subject. This maybe important down the road if the conflict continues to grow. So we will see if I ever get around to writing this in full or not. I have my own thoughts on the specifics of the conversation. The points here are very important and are associated to my first blog on this subject, this is likely, my last blog on the subject. I need to move onto other things but this was an interesting exchange and I feel like the points are very important…

Ben Shapiro at Oxford: https://youtu.be/-1NFirxhXWE?si=8HrOgXfN5YEfICaK&t=638 A Brief Summary of the Main Points of the Debate:

Pro-Palestinian Woman:

• Israel’s justification in the deaths of civilians due to 10/7/2023. • Rhetoric on what Israel has done to Palestine. • Rhetoric on Israel does the same thing as Hamas. • Rhetoric on Gaza being densely populated by Palestinians. • Rhetoric on the death toll of Palestinian children in Gaza by Israeli attacks. • Rhetoric on where are the children supposed to go. • Rhetoric on moral equivalency of the death toll comparisons. • Rhetoric on this isn't a conflict, this is one-sided ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. • Rhetoric on Britain wasn't bombing civilian targets during World War II. • Rhetoric comparing Israel to the Nazis for how they are conducting operations. • Rhetoric on Israel killing civilians for the past 75 years. • Calls out Ben for his responses. • Answers Ben’s question to her; on there would not be a Palestinian state. • Answers Ben’s question to her; all of Palestine but not for the destruction of Jews. • Semantics on Palestinians and Jews living under one state with equal rights for all.

Ben Shapiro:

• Semantics on death toll and cost of war. That is just a reality of life in war… • Asks question on moral difference between what Hamas does to civilians vs war. • Asks question on Hamas’s immunity being in a densely populated area of civilians. • Semantics on Hamas’s violation of the Geneva Convention. • Asks semantic question on moral difference between World War II civilian casualties. • Semantics on that Britain did actually bomb civilian targets in World War II. • Semantics on is it just to commit 10/7/2023. • Semantics on Israel does not purposefully kill civilians, Palestinian terrorists do… • Rhetoric on if Israel put down their guns tomorrow there would be a second Holocaust. If the Palestinians put down their guns tomorrow there would be a Palestinian state. That is the reality… • Asks woman question on “Which part of Palestine is occupied?” • Response to woman’s question with: thanking her for expressing her full genocidal intent for the Jewish people living between the river and the sea. • Rhetoric answer to woman’s question on a one state where those governing the Gaza Strip where currently zero Jews live could work or not.

My Interpretation of this Section of the Debate:

I mean Ben’s not wrong here. He is just calling a spade a spade. I still do not agree, verbatim, that Israel is totally innocent on how we got here. Cause and effect, but they have tried over the years to ease tensions and have offered many proposals over the years to attempt to have more stability in the region between the two groups. Violence... This... This is ALL what Hamas and groups like Hamas understand. To the people that say violence never sorts out problems. Tell that to these two groups of people. It's all they know. For all the word salads of ‘rhetoric’ that the Pro-Palestinian sentiment is spewing. What Ben says here is correct. A Free-Palestine needs to separate itself from Hamas, groups like Hamas or their argument will not be heard. They are sort of like the Republican Party, as a whole, in that respect. They cannot unite. There are a bunch of smaller groups within the main group with their own understanding and goals. They end-fight to death with one another and then you get sprinter groups pulling a 10/7. If Pro-Palestine didn’t doubled-down on stupidity over trying to unite with Israel to get rid of Hamas and other Terrorist groups like Hamas. This story would have a much different ending. Now innocent people have died. More innocent people will die. That doesn't scream narcissistic-sociopathy or anything...

Ultimately the Palestinians have rejected just about ALL attempts at a peaceful resolution over the years.

—See— • 1937 – Peel Commission. • 1947 – Jerusalem Internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). • 1993 – Oslo Accords. • 1998 – Wye River Memorandum. • 2000 – HUD Barracks and the Second Intifada. • 2008 – The Annapolis Conference, Olmert’s offer.

Every single peace deal that has been proposed by Israel, the United States of America, the United Nations or anyone else has been rejected by the Palestinians. The alleged reasoning for this is Palestinian groups, Governments, countries in the region do not accept that there should be a Jewish State anywhere in the region of Palestine. As long as that's the case there's literally nothing to argue about from the perspective of Israel. They are a sovereign country just as the United States of America is and should be allowed to defend its borders, attack other countries who plan, sneak attack them, openly murder 1500 of its innocent civilians, in their own territory, take 233 of them, at last count, herd them into tunnels, rape the females and massacre the children and babies without the World pointing fingers at them as “Evil People.” Based on that criteria who seems evil here? Not all Palestinians want the death of Israel. However, many of them do. Many of them, this is their way of life.

• They use ‘rhetoric’ as ‘semantics.’ • They use other phrasing and subjectivity to justify their stance on Free-Palestine.

What we are not doing very collectively is point out that this sentiment is really about the destruction of Israel as a sovereign state by any means necessary. Have we all forgotten 9/11 so soon already? Does the average American still look at Muslims without suspicion? There is an idea of peace, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real peace, only an entity, something illusory, and though we can hide our cold gaze and we can shake our heads and feel love, hate and maybe we can even sense our lives may actually be comparable: we simply are not there. We are not listening. We have all the characteristics of human beings—flesh, blood, skin, hair—but our tendencies to depersonalize is so intense, had gone so deep, that our normal ability to feel compassion had been eradicated, the victim of a slow, purposeful erasure of humanity, life, love and then death. We are simply imitating reality, a rough resemblance of human beings, with only a dim corner of our minds, bodies and souls functioning.

“Is evil something you are? Or is it something you do?” ~Patrick Bateman in Bret Easton Ellis’s, American Psycho

War of Bantha Poodoo by David-Angelo Mineo 11/9/2023 4,865 Words

1 note · View note

mineofilms · 1 year ago

Text

Two-Step Flow Theory for Idiots

One of my many mantras is… “Do not get upset over which you cannot control.”

STOP and think about that for a second. What do you actually control? Not what you believe you control, but what you know you can actually influence in your favor by your will... The world is changing… We are living this change… Change is never pleasant… The INTERNET gives everyone a voice, and that voice is loud… However, just because something is loud does not make it good or right. Volume is not a measurement of quality and it never was, ever…

“There’s a concept called “two-step flow-theory” and what it says is that there are precious few original thinkers in the world and because most people feel like they have to have an opinion on everything because that's the world that we live in at the moment but very few people can be bothered to do original thought and do the research. People just take on the opinion of whoever their favorite thought leader is…” ~Chris Williamson

"Two-Step Flow Theory" is one of those ideas that some folks think explains how information spreads, especially in the age of social media. In the world of “two-step flow theory,” there are these so-called "influencers." They're the ones who are “in the know,” or at least they want you to think they are. These “influencers” are like the gatekeepers of Cool Kids Information. They get their hands on the latest news, trends, or ideas, and they decide what's worth sharing with the rest of us peasants. Here's the kicker though… These “influencers” are not necessarily the experts in the field, a field or any field. Nope, they're just regular people with a knack for gathering attention. They could be your aunt sharing conspiracy theories on Facebook that the Earth is Flat or that self-proclaimed guru on Instagram who's always trying to sell you life-changing mentorships, products or discounts on their Only Fans page. “Two-Step Flow Theory” wants you to believe that these “influencers,” aka salespeople, are the standard for trendsetting. That their opinion is not only the correct one, but also if you do not follow their suggestion you will fail if you do it on your own. They preach, you must NEED their help. For a price… According to this theory once the rest of US, gullible masses, get a taste of their digital wisdom, we consume it. We take their word as the gospel and run with it. What this theory conveniently forgets to mention is that we're not a bunch of mindless zombies. Well, a lot of us aren’t. I have also seen many that are…

We still have our own critical thinking skills, don't we? We still use LOGIC don’t we?

“Two-Step Flow Theory” essentially suggests that information goes from “influencers” to the masses without much reflection or skepticism. It paints us as passive consumers who are easily swayed by what our so-called, “leaders” tell us. Let's be real here. We're not just sheep following the herd. We question, we fact-check, and we don't blindly accept everything that comes our way because someone who appears cool on the INTERNET says so. In today's world, where everyone has access to information at their fingertips, it's time to realize that we're not that easily influenced.

Look at all the binary sentiment lately. Just define CONTEXT for example…

'Context' – often overlooked… The linchpin of meaningful conversation… Dictionary-defined as the circumstances surrounding a statement, 'context' is your golden ticket in understanding what's really meant. Without it, conversations turn into chaotic word games that go in circles or nowhere at all, but will drive you mad.

• Sometimes Start Fights… • Sometimes End Friendships… • Sometimes End Marriages… • Sometimes Creates Drama Where None Existed Before… • Supposed to Create Logical UNDERSTANDING…

In this first age of social media sensationalism, 'context' often gets buried beneath the pursuit of shock value. The pursuit of hearts, likes, follows, subs, comments, feedback, engagement and attention. The pursuit of us vs them, good vs evil, right vs wrong, left vs right, zero vs one, gay vs straight, black vs white, man vs woman, Jew vs Muslim, Life vs Death. To engage in meaningful discussions, 'context' must take center stage. It's not just background details; it's the key to unraveling the maze of misunderstanding communication at all. Intention and Context may not be one in the same, all of the time, or even some of the time. If you do not have an understanding of the contextual value of something the opinion you may have from that lack of understanding may not actually represent what you want it to represent. This has to be one of the worst ways social media has impacted our lives, our thoughts, our communications as of late…

—And It’s Maddening—

In a world where information flows freely, it's crucial to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. Don’t you think it is about time we give ourselves more credit for being critical thinkers who do not simply follow the lead of self-proclaimed “influencers?” So, remember, you're not just a passive follower – you're a discerning individual who can separate fact from fiction, no matter how influential the source may be.

—If it’s Too Good To Be True it Usually Is—

According to the “Two-Step Flow Theory” the majority of these trendsetters lack original thinking abilities. In today's society, where it is expected to have an opinion on everything, people tend to adopt the viewpoints of their preferred “thought leaders of the week club” instead of engaging in original thought and conducting thorough research themselves. Monologues/Reaction videos from other "Two-Step Flow Theory” practitioners; which is what other thinkers say and regurgitate as the thinker’s beliefs, as their own original ideas without even looking into the validity of said concepts. That is exactly the kind of people you do not want to follow to learn anything about on any subject. They have their own goals, which is to convince you of whatever it is they are spreading out there as truth.

Truth is a point of view to them, not a real tangible thing.

When someone forms an opinion based on a very limited or small sample of data and makes assumptions to generalize their viewpoint, it's often referred to as "hasty generalization" or "jumping to conclusions." This is a type of logical fallacy where someone draws a broad conclusion from a limited or unrepresentative set of evidence, which can lead to inaccurate or biased beliefs. It's important to encourage logic, critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning to avoid falling into this cognitive trap.

“Two-Step Flow Theory” practitioners will use pseudo-logic and pseudo-intellect to jump to conclusions. They will make assumptions based on the very little. Often present rhetoric as semantics. Debate using subjective feelings and use that as pro-evidence for their argument to be correct, even when it clearly is not correct. Hurting someone’s feelings because what you said in the debate is true, but they do not like that answer. They will attempt to argue but that argument does not make your point of view any less true. It’s still true. Context is key and this is another thing “Two-Step Flow Theory” practitioners will do. Take things out of context and use it as "their evidence" against you. Again, they present rhetoric, pseudo-logic, pseudo-intellect as evidence, semantics, and (airquotes) “FACTS” against your logic, even if your logic is sound and your evidence is correct.

Two-Step Flow Theory for Idiots by David-Angelo Mineo 11/9/2023 1,238 Words

0 notes