I want to share another tool from my toolbelt, which, if you've read my previous article on Time Travel, you have undoubtedly noticed it's been a while since I've done so.
This particular tool is a little more dangerous in the wrong hands, but considering every spook and spy on the internet already knows this information, it can't be that harmful if you know it.
To start, an explanation:
Many of you probably share this story: I have been on the internet for most of my life. I had access to my first computer around the age of 10 or so, and a few years later, this glorious network of networks we all spend an ungodly amount of time on rolled in. ICQ and MSN Messengers were the first iteration of communication I had the privilege of experiencing - which effectively dates me if you remember those services.
Fast forward to 2007, when a peculiar phenomenon came into my perspective. His username was "Asky," and he was a virulent little creature. All he ever did was sling insults and ask leading questions within a forum where I was lurking, and his impact was immeasurable. He wielded a power I've never seen before that extended beyond basic trolling and effectively introduced me to this little tool I will share with you. A tool that has been used against you by people who don't want us to speak.
Uncommon Terms
Thread-Pulling - the argumentative/trolling style of seeking any inconsistency, incorrect fact or information, or slightest break in logic, grammar, or spelling that is otherwise irrelevant to the point and “pulling” that thread in order to invalidate the entire original comment.
Eg: “Well actually, the war started in 1879, not 1876.”
High-Dialect - Communication that involves multiple syllable words, uncommon or complex words, or ‘high brow’ language generally reserved for academic or thesis papers and tends towards dry or clinical speech.
Eg: “A poor communicative prognosis inevitably dispatches one towards a satisfactory, though prejudicial, conclusion of anterior malfunction.”
Low-Dialect - Communication which usually involves the least amount and complexity of words possible, characterized by simplicity, exclamation points (!!!), emoji use, and tends towards emotive speak.
Eg: “Bro use ur words. Stupid!”
Like-Farming - The act of posting comments that are heavily favored by a community in order to generate Likes and Followers.
Parroting - The act of repeating, sometimes verbatim, the commentary or content of the original post to which one is now commenting in the comments. Also commonly referred to as “NPC Behavior”
“That thing you said about the thing. Love that.”
Hyperbolic Language - Hyperbole is a rhetorical device or figure of speech that uses exaggeration to emphasize, evoke strong feelings, and create strong impressions.
We start by breaking down the process into three parts: Discovery, Construction, and Injection.
Discovery
Scour an online community and begin building a general profile of user types.
Identify low-dialect users who generate high throughput.
Study the types of commentary and the community reaction
To begin, we need to study a particular community to better understand its verbiage, user base, and its degree of dialectical commentary. Which is to say - we need to know if this is a high-dialect community or a low-dialect community.
Reddit is an example of a High-Dialect community, which promotes more “got you” comebacks and argumentative posts. Persons who post here are known for “Thread-Pulling” and utilizing downvoting as a form of silencing opinions that differentiate or oppose active members within the various subreddits.
YouTube, Substack (surprisingly), and almost any News Service comment section (Eg: Flipboard) are generally Low-Dialect. These communities and their commentary are usually heavily favored towards “parroting” the original content or Like-Farming.
Twitter (X) falls into the middle of these above examples, except I generally exclude it as a resource, given the commentary is algorithmically driven. Therefore, most commentary on any particular post is hidden. User accounts that have produced controversial commentary in the past are invisible (Shadow-Banned) or hidden behind multiple tabs or “dangerous content” warnings based on the user who commented, not the comment itself. This means if you attempt to engage with a user you don’t know is a marked user, your comment becomes invisible as it’s now attached to a near-invisible thread. At least YouTube has the decency to outright delete your post instead of misleading you into thinking you exist and your opinion is visible.
Construction
Take an idea or concept and write a brief.
Condense the brief into talking points.
Condense the talking points into bite-sized chunks, phrases, or rhymes.
Here we want to begin constructing our Injection. To take an example from my previous post “Repeal the 17th Amendment” our brief might look like this:
“Our country is facing a massive issue with the creep of Democratic ideals which actively seek to threaten our system and way of life. One example of this is the 1913 enacted 17th Amendment, which has destroyed our Federal Senate in Congress by introducing populism candidates who spend more time fundraising than they do working for the People.”
From here, we start to condense the idea into talking points:
Country faces looming democratic principle
17th Amendment has destroyed the Senate by introducing populism
Candidates spend more time fundraising than working for the people
Finally, and most creatively, we seek to turn these points into low-dialectic phrases:
Democracy is a death cult.
Populism has destroyed Congress.
Senators don’t work for us anymore.
As you notice, our focus in the low-dialectic is fashioned towards hyperbolic language which catches the eye and makes the underlying context better understood by those types of people we target. Phrases like “Death Cult, Destroyed, Don’t Work Anymore” are eye-catching, where one can quickly and easily agree with the phrase, or the sentiment of the phrase, without much investigation or thought while also tapping into the underlying angst of a community and invoking a leading ‘call to action’.
If, in your investigation of a particular community, you conclude that more positive rhetoric engages the audience, we might rework the phrases like this:
The Republic is worth saving.
Congress needs our help.
Put Congress back to work.
Now that we are armed with our brief, our talking points, and some catchphrases, it’s time to Inject.
Injection
Inject a few talking points as a reply into a parroted comment with an adaptable phrase.
Inject the bite-sized phrases as replies into other comments.
Wait for the feedback loop.
Successful Injection of our rhetoric comes in three stages, which utilize all the previous rhetoric we have built.
First, we find a comment thread that is already populated and is likely to attract likes and attention, and within, we look for comments that are parroted from the original content. Ideally, we want to be the first, second, or third reply to that parroted comment, as most people don’t scroll down very far into these sub-threads. If a sub-thread generates too much activity, the parrot individual will likely not review the replies to their comment or will be overwhelmed by the replies and not ‘up-take’ the message we are Injecting.
Remember - We are attempting to program the parrot(s) with a message, not convince them of its merits.
Our first Injection involves a mix of the talking points, for substance, and one or two of the phrases we developed. Like this:
“Our country is doomed by the destructive democratic principle. We must resist populism. 17th Amendment has ruined the Senate. Senators don’t work for us anymore!”
As you can see, we took our original brief, infused it with a few talking points, maintained some depth, and finished with a strong phrase. You will also notice that this particular quote has some uncommon terminology that many people won’t understand. At this stage, we aren’t trying to teach them; we are trying to establish superior dialect and, therefore, the inference of special knowledge or information.
Armed with this rhetoric, we can reply to various parroted comments over three days or so, modifying the language so each reply we produce doesn’t look the same, as that would raise suspicions.
Then, we begin our second Injection utilizing our vital bite-sized phrases in conjunction to round out a message, such as:
Populism has destroyed Congress. Senators don’t work for us anymore!
We must repeal the 17th Amendment!
OR
Restore the Republic! Repeal the 17th Amendment!
From here, we can customize the message to fit better into the context of the original comment we reply to. For instance, if the comment is nihilistic (hopeless), we can offer hope with our rhetoric by phrasing it as more hopeful. Equally, if the comment is encouraging, we can Inject more gloom to bring a sense of crisis, which builds an inferred ‘call to action’ within the parrot and the readers.
Feedback
After our Injections, which should be spread across six days or more, multiple comments, and multiple content creator comment sections, we now rest the rhetoric and wait for feedback. Given that we can’t read every comment in every thread, one must ‘trust the process’ here and carefully observe for results.
One of the more common places where I’ve observed results is, perhaps surprisingly, the Chat within Live Feeds or Videos. Given the fast pace of these comment sections, the commentary is generally limited to quips, emojis, and talking points - which is within our framework for both injections and observation of results and narratives.
Results
You might only sometimes see results, and the results you detect might be heavily modified from your original messaging. The critical thing to remember is that parrots don’t always parrot the exact phrases and may even say mildly incorrect things. The reason for this comes down to internalizing the information and their understanding. More complex rhetoric is more likely to be interpreted wrong, or in some cases, the parrot may even parrot the opposite rhetoric - which means along the way, someone intervened and provided a correction that the parrot was unable to argue against with your talking points.
Looking out further, a variety of tools are available to help track overall impressions of various rhetoric, including Google Trends and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Search Queries to better track performance if you are into that sort of thing.
From my experimentations with this social technology, I’ve only had a few cases where feedback was never achieved. Whether that feedback was directly related to my input or not is entirely up for debate. When I didn’t see feedback, I suspected my inputs were too complex or divisive. If one injects new (or little utilized) ideas into a community, the likelihood of impact dramatically swings toward one’s favor.
Also, interestingly enough, I’ve had at least two occasions over the years where a user of a targeted community has gone out of their way to compliment my contributions within that community.
This brings me to a few simple warnings.
Don’t attempt to inject too much, or else you will develop a reputation for invoking rhetoric, which raises suspicions.
An excellent case study example of this is the user named “Jeff” from the TimCastIRL comment section on YouTube, who is often attacked and publicly regarded as a Government Shill for his endless rhetoric.
Aim for the least divisive messaging within a particular community, with high emotive language. For best results, seek to minimize connections between your rhetoric and their most valued systems.
Eg: You wouldn’t attempt to inject into a Communistic Thread the solution of Capitalism, but rather, you would steer the Communists to develop that conclusion independently, such as introducing ‘Anarcho-Capitalistic-Communes’. In this sense, you aren’t completely invalidating the nonsense of the individual’s personal identity, but rather “elevating” their sense of intellectual and moral superiority, which is a common craving among those disenfranchised types.
Keep it Brief. Parrots prefer talking points and language that is emotive, easy to understand, and short & sweet. Anything more than a few sentences risks a loss of effort at best and a turnoff from the rhetoric in any format at worst.
Over some time, you may begin to accumulate followers on your account. These should be treated as threats if your intention is only Injections from that account. Whereas, if you are taking a more passive route or experimentation, remain aware of your exposure as an “influencer” and the possible negative or positive impacts that may have on your experimentation.
In furtherance, if your profile lists the total comments made across the account, be aware that this may have an impact on the perception others will have of you. Reddit and YouTube are notable examples here.
Having read all this information, you might suspect me at this point. Perhaps you are asking yourself if this publication is a “Social Injection.”
The answer to that is - Yes, but also no.
I demand one thing from you, dear reader: to think critically with me. I won’t always give you all the information, nor will I take an idea and wrap it into a pretty package and top it off with a bow for your digestion, unlike our framework for Social Injections.
You must take the information, agree or disagree with it as you will, and finalize your opinion on the perspective offered. I will not do these things for you as other writers and media will do. I am only interested in curating an audience and community of thinkers, not parrots.
So, while some articles I write may appear to utilize certain aspects of the above within them, they are not written with that intent. I intend to give you the tools that others use against you, along with those others aren’t even aware of. I give you these tools because I want you, dearest reader, to become a better thinker, debater, and, most importantly, A Better Observer.
This world and its future depend on people like us, but most significantly, it depends on people like you.
Remember - With great power comes great responsibility. You now have another tool for your toolbelt you might not have had before. A tool that others in this world seek and have sought to use against you and your communities.
Act accordingly.
As always,
Farewell, and Good Luck.
-Dark Philosopher
Critical Observer Question
For this Observer Question, I want you to take on a perspective with me and then follow it through.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Though we lack officiated data on the topic, it has been estimated that approximately 40-60% of the public in any given nation is an NPC (Non-Playable Character) and, therefore, devoid of higher individualistic capacity and heavily susceptible to cultural and social influences. Which in no way implies they aren’t human, they are absolutely human and fully deserving of human life and liberty. However, this potential phenomenon presents some difficult questions for you to consider if proven true:
Should the government be capable and able to, for lack of a better word, groom this population into certain beliefs, traits, or behaviors? What about private business marketers who seek to sell them products and services?
If they shouldn’t - what type of legal protections could you envision, and how would you enforce these protections effectively?
Should we invest in large empirical studies to determine a more accurate size of this group within populations, including possible causes, even if those studies could cause a division within society between those who are assumed to be and those who are assumed to not be an NPC?
Should information related to these individuals be made public and specific (Percentage within Regions, Cities, and Countries), therefore allowing the public to be explicitly aware of these other types of individuals who lack individualism?
Should we consider Laws and Protections for these classes of people, such as anti-discrimination laws in workplaces, even if a prevalence of negative traits is discovered, such as decreased productivity or increased violence, amongst that group?
In the event we could perfect a diagnosis procedure, should that information be made available and therefore admissible within a Court of Law in the event of Child Custody, Lawsuits or Injury, or other types of cases where the diagnosis has the potential of significant legal bearing upon the case?
Article Updates
None.
