Do you ever get the feeling that the only thing that matters to a news article, or any other article made that isn't hosted by the media giants, is the headline itself? What about when you are sucked into viewing the article and then there is hardly any substance to the content that reflects the headline?
I know it is a marketing technique to pull in unsuspecting victims through catchy phrases and also controversial words, especially in regards to satire. I think it is something funny when seen on a forum site and I think it is offensive when it is done by the media giants. Perhaps the reason why I see a difference is because the media giants don't need to do it while individual people have to. The reason is stark after all, because the media giants already have a big following of sheeple who mindlessly stare at the TV or let their radio blast in the air with fervent loyalty that incites hysteria if you tell them any opposing truth. Whereas the common individual is overlooked in favor of the next ridiculous meme circulating. It is a sad method when you think about it, the giants use this psychological trick to further push their biased agenda onto the masses while the common individual is trying to incite thoughtfulness to prepare you for their 'volunteer' service of informative research.
I find it very fun to play with subliminal messages. It has more to do with how I can turn a good friend into an enemy without their conscious approval or how I can incite emotional outrage over something that is literally harmless to everyone. However, it doesn't mean I am not well aware of the affinity people have to material things because of subliminal messages they are pulled in by or that they perpetuate subconsciously.
I don't like to blame the common person for being lost in subliminal advertising, but I'm becoming increasingly despondent to the attitude of people who can't point me to sources of information even though hey swear up and down by the information they speak. I have no doubt that many people think the same thing of me, which they have every right to do so, I find it ironic that most people aren't willing to ask me to give them my sources for their own benefit. Then again, most people see information that is relevant and they disregard it purely out of a misguided sense of superiority which is just a manifestation of a cognitive disorder called dissonance.
Take religious nuts for instance.. You could show them all the empirical evidence of what you are talking about, not conclude on what the evidence is, suggest that there be further investigation, and even be open to hearing a rebuttal against the information.. Yet somehow you're nothing more than a hedonistic terrorist to peace and should be silenced for the good of human kind. Yes, I include Evolutionists in the realm of Religious nuts, because they favor supporting evidence so much that they can't even deconstruct my postulation of what I have a problem with let alone admit there are holes to their theory.
With that said, we can pretty much include many people who fall in the middle of Religion vs. Science.
When does an individual lose their coherency and become a convoluted mess? I used to think it was whenever there is a lack of clarity to explanation or a refusal to cooperate with proper logical inference. Now I'm starting to think that it is whenever someone concludes their information to be irrefutable or when there is a total absence of openness to possibilities.
I don't consider myself religious, by a long shot, for reasons of sanity that has always separated me from blind followers. However, I take the scholarly approach to my Spirituality and am able to admit that I don't have an orthodox view that is a matter of tradition as opposed to analysis. I may conclude on certain aspects that haven't been well proven, but I don't push it onto other people as a matter of fact as opposed to intuitive inference of my own perception. Which is why I am quick to let someone know when what I believe is subjective or a matter of faith. Furthermore, I at least listen to opposition without arguing a bunch of mundane rhetoric
Ah hell.. Am I doing that right now?
Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes even between the words.. At worse, between each letter...
This is not always a good thing for anyone. Aside from being able to come up with a book that is separate from the simple statements you're reading, there is the aspect of being totally lost in your dissonance. It is ok to disagree with someone or something. It is not ok to do it without some kind of explanation, no matter how intuitive or linear it is in your own head. To say that there is a fundamental problem, in your own head, that isn't fundamentally unexplained in itself is akin to willful ignorance.
If you're going to argue against a politician, at least maintain continuity in your personal affairs. If you're going to bash a religion, at least respect the people who don't bash your own. If you're going to spread rhetoric against your neighbor, at least talk the full truth that includes the positive things.
The same should be applied in the practice of reading things.. If you get so bent out of shape over one obscene word, you probably are victim of successful satirical usage. If you confuse an inflammatory headline as being the body of an article that explains why you should be outraged, you probably can't remember the exact words of the article that literally agrees with your emotions.
Yes, it is that simple. So don't be simple minded by being caught up with frivolities like bickering children.
If what I'm saying makes you feel defensive, try looking inward towards the cause. If you don't believe me about how common this seemingly innocent sense of misguided perception is, look around at different Ads and ask yourself why you feel extreme agreement or extreme disagreement.
You might find yourself already stuck in the whirlpool of brainwashing.
It's not too late to get out.
