Ontological warfare: Difference between revisions
expanding examples
No edit summary |
(expanding examples) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Examples: | Examples: | ||
* 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. | * 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. | ||
* Music piracy and software piracy. Copying music privately was not always the major crime that current law makes it out to be (DMCA). | * 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]]. | ||
* A hypothetical attack against the [[ | * 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. It is because of this vulnerability, especially to [[funded troll]]s (such as those from [[Wikimedia]] who regularly attack Consumerium and those they even suspect of contributing to it or sympathizing with it), that [[Consumerium Research pilot]] must employ some [[stress test]]s. | ||
* [[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 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." | * [[Newspeak]]. "we shall make [[thoughtcrime]] literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it." Most obviously, when [[Wikimedia]] censors any debate on whether a [[sysop]] can actually be a [[vandal]] using slightly different arguments and tools, the debate on [[sysop vandalism]] is quashed and deleted, rather than being moved to the [[w:Wikipedia:]] policy space for debate. This proves the intent of [[Wikimedia]] to simply silence questions about the objectivity of its [[sysop power structure]]. In their view the terms "sysop" and "vandal" are exclusive opposites. Thus only the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] can ever be expressed. | ||
See also: | See also: | ||