The truth is I’ve respected my opponents so much that they lost interest.
I used to be much more inclined to tearing into minds individually. Google only made it easier because I quickly had access to surface personal details, and I would use them to attack credibility and character as I was attacking ideas or false logic. Which would of course enrage my opponents and make them easier prey.
Later I realized this was logically bankrupt and a bit of a cheat, as well as an admission of weakness on the part of my position, because by distracting them with rage I was saying that at their peak ability I might fail to defend my point. It was like getting someone drunk so you could win a debate.
Also it really didn’t matter who they were, because they were not their ideas and assertions individually. Thus I was attacking the messenger.
In learning these things and changing tactics accordingly I lost my audience, pro and con. Pro because many I suspect just liked watching me get my claws wet, and con because when they weren’t being goaded to froth mouthed rage they realized, before I did obviously, that the most useful tactic would be to ignore me since I have no social status that labels me as being worthy of attention. But there is no social status that conveys such worth. You’ll find that it’s not who you are the empowers what you say it’s a combination of what you say and who you are.
It’s what I’ve come to think of as the Carlin paradox. In order to gain an audience one must adopt a label or persona that annihilates the power to change things. The more credibility I attempt to garner for myself the more easily my position is assimilated and thus de-clawed. Real power can only be exercised from the shadows. Bernays understood this which is why despite his parties, no one among there rank and file could spot him on the street.
For a quick example of how sober professional efforts at amassing social respect are none the less impotent in the face of trying to actually get meaningful attention I need only point here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ Their collective credibility is quite good, but what they are saying regardless of veracity is no match for its opposition.
I call it the Carlin paradox because he wasn’t a comedian so much as a sociologist on a mission later in life and the only way he could get an audience was to don the jester cap and surrender all chance of actually influencing social policy. There really is no way to transition this audience either. Just look at Al Franken. Promptly declawed/assimilated/marginalized.
“I used to believe that any theory, once published with supporting evidence, then became open to discussion and debate. But I’ve learned how envious, vindictive, and vicious the academic community can be. They’re swine. Polite swine, but swine none the less. Convincing the world fairly to consider a new idea takes patience, perseverance, and a willingness to fight the good fight in any media forum one can find.” ~Dr. Timothy Flyte, Phantoms
What Dr Flyte didn’t realize was that “any media forum” which has an audience won’t have any credibility.
There are only two forces that change the course of human policy. Environment and volition engineering.
Technology is our only hope, because PR cannot be used for good by its nature.
Much like television. Its very structure lends itself most easily to misuse. In many real ways a gun is less dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimination_of_Television
“What’s wrong with this country, Marty? Money. You taught me that. Evil defense contractors had it, noble causes did not. Politicians are bought and sold like so much chattel. Our problems multiply. Pollution, crime, drugs, poverty, disease, hunger, despair; we throw gobs of money at them! The problems always get worse. Why is that? Because money’s most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don’t have it.” ~Cosmo, Sneakers
And all that is why no one is reading this.
