Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:MemeShock

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Yay![edit]

This is awesome! I have my very own hate page now! Thanks everyone! Unfortunately I'm not as popular as Karl Rove yet, but who knows maybe some day. :D Johanan Raatz

The whole notion is intellectually dishonest and batshit crazy enough to get picked up by neocon pundits. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if your wankery actually took off. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. It treats its target audience (which includes other neocons) like marks. I doubt they will appreciate that. Tetronian you're clueless 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No, most of the neocons in MemeShock are part of management.Johanan
Lol at "hate page." Nice to see hyperbole isn't confined to the left.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoever said it was? Remember, according to the right Obama is a socialist/facsist/communist/Muslim/spawn of Satan/all around evil dude. Tetronian you're clueless 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More sections[edit]

I think we need a section analysing how the memes are constructed. For example the word bigotry is bandied about a lot because it get a strong emotional reaction. On the other hand entrenched bigotries are described as social realities, in other words, "it is just the way things are don't fight it". I had another section idea like spotting memeshocks, but I forgot were that was going. - π 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole of meme shock is hyperbole. - π 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, now that we've raised their profile they'll be all over NPR next week. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Politically correct language[edit]

Interesting. This would seem to have obvious parallels with the linguistic definition of politically correct language, as it seems to be an attempt to mould thought by moulding language.--BobNot Jim 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep trying to say the same thing. However, this is not a parallel to the older concept, but a derivative of it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Political correctness and MemeShock could not be more different. Politically correct language arises as an effort to creat NEW ways of thinking: when every word to refer to a people or a practice carry some kind of crude or negative implication (e.g., in America, "negro" carries with it the history of how a race was treated terribly for hundreds of years), the creation of new language or terms gives people the ability to speak in a way they couldn't before: neutrally. Maybe this wasn't the best example, but the points I'm trying to make is that by adding these words to our language, more specific and more varied thoughts can be expressed.
MemeShock is, by confession of the founder, in pursuit of the exact opposite goal: "if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal..." User:ZoetropeUser talk:Zoetrope 07:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"Politically correct language arises as an effort to creat NEW ways of thinking." Bunk; we were certainly able to think in terms of equality before anyone ever invented political-correctness. Political-correctness instead aims to stomp out the "old," "bad" ways of thinking. The "killer app" for politically-correct language, gender-neutral terms like "flight attendant," remove expressivity from the language.
"MemeShock is, by confession of the founder, in pursuit of the exact opposite goal..." No, it is in pursuit of the exact same goal: thought control. And the idea of political-correctness is not liberal, but Marxist in origin. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It's just political correctness -upside down. The idea is to take what the Marxists do and give them a taste of their own medicine. --Johanan Raatz
I think it's a tactic of all political groups - not only extremists of the left or right but everybody in between - to try to manipulate language to their own ends. Think of "pro life" and "pro choice". The military has a whole host of phrases along the lines of "collateral damage" to attempt to put their actions in a positive light.--BobNot Jim 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm showing my bias here, but, in the case of 'pro choice', that term is actually more accurate than 'pro abortion' - the people who are 'pro choice' don't want everyone to have abortions at every opportunity, they simply don't want the option of abortion to be removed. As for political correctness in general, yes, there is a danger of it being abused to try to carry out 'thought control', but the simple fact of the matter is that there are certain words that have baggage with them, like 'negro' or 'nigger', due to historical events or past usage, and new words or phrases are needed to replace them that don't have that baggage. Political correctness is an attempt to do exactly that, merely one that some argue has gone too far, or has been hijacked for other purposes (such as the military using the term 'collateral damage' when they actually mean 'civilians being killed' or 'civilian deaths'). MemeShock, conversely, is blatently designed from the ground up as an attempted form of thought control. 92.22.191.133 15:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Language manipulation is used by anyone with a need to spew bullshit. However, it is usually only extremists who, after making the new language, try to stomp out the use of the old language.
As far as political correctness is concerned, there is a bit of a "chicken and egg" problem with the BON's point: the desire not to be offensive has become tied up with a Newspeak agenda whose promoters have actually done more than anyone else to promote the image of unwords as "offensive." When I look at publications from the 1960s, I see arguments for civil rights and equality that use the term "Negro" without any offense. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course all of this assumes that changing the language actually does change the way people think. If I remember correctly this was the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis which suggested that certain ideas could only be expressed in certain languages, and consequently certain thoughts could only be thought in certain languages. I imagine "Newspeak" of 1984 fame was based on this idea. Personally I don't buy it. --BobNot Jim 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither do I, but that does not change the intent of those who do. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. (Actually it's somewhat strange to find us on something like the same side of a debate LX.) I also note that there is a full debate on this topic which I hadn't noticed and which may have gone beyond this point anyway.--BobNot Jim 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of language, I wish these Murkans'd get foetus spelled right: I want to edit it every time I see "fetus". I am eating Toast& honeychat 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That's funny I'm exactly the same in reverse. Whenever I see "foetus" rather than "fetus" I find it mildly irksome. I keep thinking of pronouncing it "foe"-tus. That said I find both spellings of the word to be a somewhat dehumanizing way of refering to an individual in a fetal stage of developmentJohanan Raatz
I prefer "larvae", "maggot", or "parasite" depending on context. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Then you're obviously a gynocentric bigot. I can't believe you'd say something like that. What a disgusting thing to say. Go away and come back when you grow up. Johanan Raatz
Wow, how rude. You pick your words, I pick mine, and you call me names? Obviously, you are a paternalistic asshole. Please feel free to return when you grow up, you arrogant meme-pushing jerk. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You haven't asked for my advice, Johanan, and here is a freebie all the same: Before saying stuff like that, spend more time getting to know your interlocutor. You may be surprised to find that your intuition will develop into something swift and accurate, but this transient moment leaves me thinking that there is a lot of room for improvement there.
I prefer "live tumor" unless there is someone with enormously fragile feelings in the room. Simple emotional lability consequent to pregnancy doesn't count. Sprocket J Cogswell 05:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Popularizing"[edit]

That's not the right word, and you're removing valuable snark. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete this shit[edit]

Low activity FB group with nearly zero influence. It's owner's pseudointellectual thoughts are almost funny enough to merit documenting, but not quite. --Marlow (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion[edit]

Result: Inconclusive Zero (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's still open for a hat to be thrown in I'd actually agree with the deletion reason. They may have been relevant a while back but keeping the article is just necessary posterity. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 11:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion has been added. If some more opinions are thrown in, I'll reconsider it's deletion. Zero (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Result: Delete Zero (talk - contributions) 04:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)