Editing Ontological warfare

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Ontological warfare''' is a kind of [[w:information warfare|information warfare]] that engages [[the enemy]] with a series of attacks against its 'Being' or [[ontology]], including
'''Ontological warfare''' is a kind of [[w:information warfare|information warfare]] that engages the [[enemy]] with a series of attacks against its 'Being' or [[ontology]].
its language, culture, belief system, even its tests for success.


One such attack is a protocol attack known as '[[w:embrace, extend and extinguish|embrace, extend and extinguish]]'.
One such attack is [[namespace]] pollution.  


Another example is [[w:namespace|namespace]] pollution, whereby a valuable word or phrase is consumed, its meaning replaced with something trivial. For consumerium, this means every consumer must be vigilant to protect the meaning of words such as "[[organic]] from being redefined.
Another is a protocol attack known as '[[embrace, extend and extinguish]]'.


To [[consumer analysis]], an ontological shift in thinking can produce a shift in spending habits. Corporations attempt to identify with or invent generic names, eg: [[ketchup]] and yet control the [[market]].  
To [[consumer analysis]], an ontological shift in thinking can produce a shift in spending habits. Corporations attempt to identify with or invent generic names, eg: [[ketchup]] and yet control the market.  


Examples:
Examples:
* The edit wars on a [[wiki]], suggesting that an [[ontology]] is a [[point of view]].
* The idea that corporations have the same rights as individuals, effectively giving them more rights due to greater financial resources.  
* The idea that corporations have the same rights as individuals, effectively giving them more rights due to greater financial resources - an example of violating the [[no confusion with group entity]] rule and creating a [[God's Eye View]] from which corporations and individuals have assumed attributes in common.  This was established over a long period of time by successive court rulings.
* War on drugs.  Drug use and sales was not always the major crime that current law makes it out to be. But you can still go to the drug store and get your prescription filled.
* Music piracy and software piracy.  Copying music privately was not always the major crime that current law makes it out to be (DMCA).  The idea that "stealing cable" is a theft equivalent to stealing a tangible [[infrastructural capital]] item like a bicycle is deliberately unexamined for its appropriateness as a [[conceptual metaphor]].
* Music piracy and software piracy.  Copying music privately was not always the major crime that current law makes it out to be (DMCA).
* War on drugs.  Drug use and sales was not always the major crime that current law makes it out to be. But you can still go to the drug store and get your prescription filled - so it is a war on certain drugs and drug dealers but not others.  This unexamined assumption obscures the similarities between corporate drug creators and basement drug creators, their propensity to create [[addiction]] and other [[dependency]], and the cooption of [[authority]] in one set of drugs but not another.
* A hypothetical attack against the [[consumerium buying signal]] might attempt to alter its [[tests for success]]. This would lead a [[culture]] down a slippery slope of [[unethical products]] until any [[ethical spending]] becomes something no human can do.  
* A hypothetical attack against the [[Consumerium buying signal]] might attempt to alter its [[tests for success]]. This would lead a [[culture]] down a slippery slope of [[unethical products]] until any [[ethical spending]] becomes something no human can do.  
* [[political correctness]]. Post-traumatic stress disorder is the eventual term for what was originally known as shell shock, and it turns out to be much easier for companies to market pharmaceuticals to.  
* [[political correctness]]. Post-traumatic stress disorder is the eventual term for what was originally known as [[w:shell shock|shell shock]], and it turns out to be much easier for companies to market pharmaceuticals to.  If it is a "disorder" it is medical and should be paid by [[medical insurance]].  If it is "shock" resulting from "shells" then it is obviously a military thus public problem to deal with.
* [[Newspeak]]. "we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it."
* [[Microsoft]]'s [http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Articles/GNU.mspx referring] to a so-called "degradation of the software ecosystem", hijacking [[ecological metaphor]]s and redefining them to favor itself, seems to have prompted some [[free software]] activists to build a [http://gnumes.nornia.org/ mythological response] with such elements as "GNUmes", "vampires" and "the [[flora]] and [[fauna]] of the [[noosphere]]". Overall, this use of [[conceptual metaphor]] is quite offensive to these who see an [[ecosystem]], up to and including the Earth itself, as a life-sustaining mechanism deserving of every protection physically possible, and worth risking death to protect. ''See [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Software_ecosystem&oldid=9789 en: Disinfopedia: software ecosystem] and [[Avoid extending metaphor]] for more on this.''


See also:  
See also:  
*[[w:revisionism]]
*[[adversarial process]]
*[[w:adversarial process]]
*The [[edit war]]s on a [[wiki]], suggesting that an [[ontology]] is a [[point of view]].
*[[w:Memetics]]: [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html Memetic Lexicon], which can be read as a taxonomy of strategies for ontological warfare
*[http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html Memetic Lexicon], which can be read as a taxonomy of strategies for ontological warfare
Please note that all contributions to Consumerium development wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later (see Consumerium:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)
Retrieved from "https://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/Ontological_warfare"