User:Woozle/book ideas/Reality Agenda - Revision history

Woozle: moved 101 Things idea to separate page

2016-03-10T22:58:17Z

moved 101 Things idea to separate page

Woozle: /* Variations */ tweaks

2016-03-08T14:25:35Z

Variations: tweaks

Woozle: /* Variations */ snark

2016-03-08T14:04:17Z

Variations: snark

Woozle: /* Variations */ tweaks

2016-03-08T13:20:56Z

Variations: tweaks

Woozle at 13:18, 8 March 2016

2016-03-08T13:18:55Z

Woozle: /* Highlights */ one more thing

2016-01-11T01:05:32Z

Highlights: one more thing

Woozle: /* Highlights */ right-wing lies

2016-01-11T01:03:57Z

Highlights: right-wing lies

Woozle: /* Highlights */ formatting

2016-01-09T16:50:37Z

Highlights: formatting

Woozle: /* Highlights */ lifestyles...

2016-01-09T16:50:07Z

Highlights: lifestyles...

Woozle: /* Style */ reorg so I can add Mysteries of the Thoroughly Understood

2016-01-09T16:47:40Z

Style: reorg so I can add Mysteries of the Thoroughly Understood

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is first-pass at ideas for a book which might be called something like ''The Reality Agenda: why and how American "conservatives" got to be such fucking idiots''
+This is first-pass at ideas for a book which might be called something like ''The Reality Agenda: why and how American "conservatives" got to be such fucking idiots'' (Alternative: something like ''Defying Sanity''; see also {{l/same|101 Things}} for a somewhat different presentation.)
 I can't decide if the title should actually use profanity, but I think part of the approach would be a very pointed and deliberate rubbing-in of just how completely wrong they are, on every possible level &ndash; with emphasis on the moral level. I'm hoping to inspire at least a little shame with regard to the way they let themselves be led by their perceived "leaders", who then abuse that trust in every way imaginable.
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ==Notes==
 The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).
 ==Variations==
-Another way to present it might be ''101 Things Liberals Can't Believe You Still Don't Understand'', inspired by various dysconsertvative memes.
+Another way to present it might be ''101 Things Liberals Can't Believe You Still Don't Understand'', inspired by various dysconservative memes.
 * Example: The "gay island, lesbian island, straight island" argument ([http://draconicnoble.tumblr.com/post/140595390848/ace-pergers-syndrome-theelizabethwinters Tumblr], [http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/this-homophobic-tumblr-post-transformed-into-a-dystopian-lgbti-adventure-novel-and-it-is-amazing/#gs.a_7Nuis Gay Star News]) makes the following mistakes:
 ** Gay people can't reproduce.
@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 ** Being gay is not natural.
 *** Actually, yes: '''5. homosexuality is found in nature.''' Being gay is natural.
-*** '''6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural".''' If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars... (If you really want to complain about something "unnatural", why not start with structured investment vehicles or mortgage-backed securities?)
+*** '''6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural".''' If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars... (If you really want to complain about something "unnatural" that's destroying society, why not start with structured investment vehicles, mortgage-backed securities, gerrymandering, or Fox News?)

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 ** Being gay is not natural.
 *** Actually, yes: '''5. homosexuality is found in nature.''' Being gay is natural.
-*** '''6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural".''' If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars...
+*** '''6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural".''' If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars... (If you really want to complain about something "unnatural", why not start with structured investment vehicles or mortgage-backed securities?)

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ** People not reproducing is a threat to society.
 *** '''2. The population is already too big, so anything we can do to reduce reproduction is a good thing.'''
-*** '''3. Even if we were short of people, and even if gay people couldn't reproduce, gay people are and will always be a minority. There is no shortage of breeders.'''
+*** '''3. There is no shortage of breeders.''' Even if humans were threatened with extinction, and even if gay people actually couldn't reproduce, gay people are and will always be a minority. (But note that both of these "if"s are still wrong.)
 *** '''4. Being gay is not a choice.''' It is innate. Gay people can choose to ''pretend'' to be straight, but you can't just stop being gay -- no matter how many bad reasons you might have for wanting someone to do so.
 ** Being gay is not natural.
-*** Actually, yes: '''5. homosexuality is found in nature.'''
+*** Actually, yes: '''5. homosexuality is found in nature.''' Being gay is natural.
 *** '''6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural".''' If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars...

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:18, 8 March 2016
Line 63:		Line 63:
	==Notes==		==Notes==
	The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).		The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).
		+	==Variations==
		+	Another way to present it might be ''101 Things Liberals Can't Believe You Still Don't Understand'', inspired by various dysconsertvative memes.
		+	* Example: The "gay island, lesbian island, straight island" argument ([http://draconicnoble.tumblr.com/post/140595390848/ace-pergers-syndrome-theelizabethwinters Tumblr], [http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/this-homophobic-tumblr-post-transformed-into-a-dystopian-lgbti-adventure-novel-and-it-is-amazing/#gs.a_7Nuis Gay Star News]) makes the following mistakes:
		+	** Gay people can't reproduce.
		+	*** '''1. Yes, gay people can reproduce.''' It just doesn't happen accidentally.
		+	** People not reproducing is a threat to society.
		+	*** '''2. The population is already too big, so anything we can do to reduce reproduction is a good thing.'''
		+	*** '''3. Even if we were short of people, and even if gay people couldn't reproduce, gay people are and will always be a minority. There is no shortage of breeders.'''
		+	*** '''4. Being gay is not a choice.''' It is innate. Gay people can choose to ''pretend'' to be straight, but you can't just stop being gay -- no matter how many bad reasons you might have for wanting someone to do so.
		+	** Being gay is not natural.
		+	*** Actually, yes: '''5. homosexuality is found in nature.'''
		+	*** '''6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural".''' If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars...

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ** '''Right-Wing Lies''' (see [https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/gc5Zi here] for more likely material)
 *** "pro-life" advocates don't actually give a damn about anyone's life
 *** "right to work" laws take away your bargaining power and don't give you any rights
 *** Myth: "political correctness" is a problem, and it's mainly from the Left

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ** '''Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless'''
 *** Rich dysconservatives are always telling us we should work for less money -- and dysconservative voters lap it up. Why?
 ==Notes==
 The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 *** Bill O'Reilly doesn't know how tides work. We do. Why doesn't he? Why does anyone take him seriously?
 *** Ben Carson probably also provides some good material.
-*** '''Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless'''
+** '''Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless'''
-**** Rich dysconservatives are always telling us we should work for less money -- and dysconservative voters lap it up. Why?
+*** Rich dysconservatives are always telling us we should work for less money -- and dysconservative voters lap it up. Why?
 ==Notes==
 The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 It also might make a good gift for those relatives you're fond of as people but can't stand to be around when they start talking politics. (coughcough)
 ===Style===
-Where possible, I would try to use analogies and metaphors involving other things that most people are familiar with. Vehicle metaphors (especially cars) seem to be especially good for analogizing the behavior of complex systems:
+Where possible, I would try to use analogies and metaphors involving other things that most people are familiar with. Vehicle metaphors (especially cars) seem to be especially good for analogizing the behavior of complex systems -- see Highlights below.
 I would try not to talk down to the audience, while still keeping the basic level of conceptualization at a more or less middle-school level. (Perhaps sidebars for more nuanced information. Also, easily-typeable links to web articles with sources and/or more depth.) ...and being absolutely straight with them that they're being duped and controlled by people who just want to use them. If [http://rall.com/2015/12/14/trump-namecalling-hillary-clinton-stupid-loser short (but highly judgemental) declarative sentences] are what reaches the Right, then let's not be afraid to use them: Your ideas are stupid. You're being used. You're destroying America and the world.
 ==Notes==
 The first version of this proposal was posted in a private discussion [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/YYVWVbEAVor here]. Responses there mainly objected (a) to the idea of trying to change anyone's mind (not a primary purpose, as noted above), and (b) to the idea of restating myths in order to argue against them (personal experience indicates that this is necessary and useful).