logicp_writings/covidism/Activating_Biases.md

Activating Biases

Just as the order of words or the order of operations in an information stream affect cognitive behaviour and predisposition towards particular biases, so too are the orders of relevant topics and learnings preceding an event or proposition.

The proposition in question is the jab and the activists, socialists and pronoun people having all had theirs. The only BLMers who haven't are some of the street dwelling grass roots variety of which none of you whiney, middle-class he/hims comprise.

This will be called coincidence, or a matter of reading my own cognitive biases into the observations, but I don't think so. Clearly, there is a visible element in mainstream whereby black culture is made to appear to perceive the jabs as being something that favours them, and is even something which is withhel dfrom them by white supremacy. Again, this doesn't mean black people are more liekyl to take it, but that pockets who are younger, middleclass and in metropolitan areas who have the means to consume political content are very likely to be more aggressively targeted by a prevailing media narrative.

But also, activists in general: group participation which makes your survival more viable - what could be more compelling to an activist?

Survival to Murderous

There appears to be some deeply-seeded contempt hidden amongst the veil of acceptance and togetherness. Theirs is a togetherness which, when presented, is a special offering - a gracious offering. They expect, however, that whenever a proposal must be accepted or agreed to by others, that whatever precludes the other frmo accepting is due to selfishness. If they aren't to fulfill a duty that would otherwise be an act or a gesture of togetherness and acceptance, then it was completely a misunderstanding on your part. You raen't to be listened to or reasoned with. You should have no expectation that others should wish to have you in their inner-circle because you don't meet the requirements - you don't support the same ideology, you don't praise the same symbols and values, you don't play our games - you don't blend in - you don't submit to the same delusions - you give us cognitive dissonance - you give people anxiety - you did things in teh past and you haven't repented and admitted your moral failures.

Whatever the case may be, their club of togetherness is exclusive in that you must prove that you believe in togetherness. The principle itself isn't evident, ebcause we have hijacked the language and erected complex requirements as a consequence. Since you aren't able to meet those requirements, we will apply the genuine definitions of language, but only in use towards expressing your failure. Never to confirm or clarify our use of that same language.

And then it becomes murderous. I warned you all of the Great Flood and informed you perfectly as to what it is you must do in order to prepare, but you didn't listen. You have never listened, and your continued failure constitutes support for our own faith in our righteousness.

Only Bad News Counts

We could se so perfectly through exchanges of scientific advisors to the government that good projections are left out of their reports. Why? Because neutral or mundane risks don't need to be addressed and resolved through explicit action. We need the power to act.

Escalating Language (Winter of death by WH)

My, what an escalation of language to see first world counties predicting death for its own citizens. It sounds either:

• Incredulous, because there are so many factors which make predictions of this type unreliable, such as the expectation that ecosystems normalize. One could rationalize by saying "They're just using effective mesaging", and I would say that anyone who thinks this way is probably someone with little to offer, unless they are trying to be funny.
• They know something, such as coming loss of life and they are hoping to a) genuinely warn people b) cover the deaths of jabbed by creating a narrative c) they wish to maintain a state of fear. This is probably the most plausbile, because they can get away with it

Implications of this is not necessarily anything good at all.

1. It doesn't increase uptake (okay, good)
2. It increases division
3. It reduces trust
4. It normalizes death of citizens
5. It reinforces obedience by all those who are genuinely afraid of the virus

It just seems like the narrative needs to be maintained. It will be interesting to see if all other western nations make the same statements to the press.w

//******************* 2nd Draft

Covid Revisited

• Collectivist bias towards receiving the COVAX jab
• Only exception being those who, in the realm of ideals, consider their group as being eternally separate
• Visible element in mainstream black culture to show them as favouring jabs that are "withheld" from them - this narrative appeals to younger, politically aware cohorts

• Activists like acting out group participation, because it is their fundamental goal

  Survival to Murderous

  There appears to be some deeply-seeded contempt hidden amongst the veil of acceptance and togetherness. Theirs is a togetherness which, when presented, is a special offering - a gracious offering. They expect, however, that whenever a proposal must be accepted or agreed to by others, that whatever precludes the others from accepting it is due to selfishness and belief about positional advantage. If they aren't to fullfill a duty that would otherwise be an act or gesture of togetherness and acceptance, then it was, in the best case, a misunderstanding on your part, or it is evidence of your malevolence. You cannot be reasoned with unless you accept a new goal. You cannot expect to be permitted into others' inner circles because you don't meet the requirements of: supporting ideology, praising symbols, playing the right games, blending in aesthetically, submitting to proposed delusions (because you posit that they are such), avoiding the invocation of cognitive dissonance and anxiety in others, and lastly not having done things in the past for which you haven't adequately repented by taking on the new goal.

Whatever the case may be, their club of togetherness is exclusive in that you must prove that you eblieve in togetherness. The principle itself isn't evident, because we have hijacked the language and erected complex requirements as a consequence. Since you aren't able to meet them, we will apply the genuine definitions of the language, but only in use towards expressing your failure. Never to confirm or clarify our use of that same language.

And then it becomes murderous. "I warned you all of the Great Flood and informed you perfectly as to waht one must do to prepare. I told you of the Great Plague that was upon my people, including you, but you mocked me and let my people suffer, thus you are no longer one of them. You have never listened and your continued failure brings to the world a destructive transformation that, upon bearing witness to, is adapted to constitute support for our own faith in our righteousness. That we see you suffer in agony in a universally harmful manner informs us that we must do what we can to save the world from such a fate, igniting our righteousness.

Bad News Counts

We could see so perfectly through the exchanges of scientific advisors to the government that good projections are always left out of reports. Why? Because neutral or mundane risks don't need to be addressed and resolved through explicit action. If we act in tandem with more Critical possibilities, the better outcomes will be achieved. In fact, failing to achieve the better outcomes is always evidence that our methodologies haven't been properly executed.

Escalating Language

Winter of Death!

• Incredulous, because there are so many factors which make predictions of this type unreliable, such as the expectation that ecosystems normalize. One could rationalize by saying "They're just using effective messaging", and I would say that anyone who thinks this way either doesn't appreciate the complexity of the situation, or wishes wishes to apply force and fear to those with whom there is disagreement.
• They know something, such as a coming loss of life, and are hoping to: a) genuinely warn people b) cover the deaths of the jabbed by creating a narrative c) maintain a state of fear (the most plausible of the goals)

Implications of this not necessarily good

1. Doesn't increase uptake
2. Increases division
3. Reduces trust
4. Normalizes death of citizens
5. Reinforces obedience by all those who are genuinely afraid

It seems the narrative needs to be maintained.