file name
fake moral outrage, phantom centers, groupthink
last edit
Nov 26, 2021 9:16 PM

i know for a fact i wrote about this elsewhere. search for it in evernotes/google docs.

restricted - like my brother and the religious jokes thing

not actually being outraged but displaying how one could be outraged or how another person or a hierarchical institutional body of consciousness would or may be morality outraged. but the person himself or herself is not actually the one offended.

and this becomes a danger, because if everybody embodies this, then everyone thinks the other person is offended when nobody is actually offended. as such a joke may be funny but the comedy is stifled because of this phantom outraged.

i see this manifest a lot currently with liberal

outrage etc. are people actually personally offended or are they displaying fake moral outrage for a phantom collective consciousness/being/entity?

self responsibility is it. (make essay on this?)

and the irony is that then the emergent hierarchy would actually be stronger.

so its not a discount of a govt. helping people or setting up an establishment - that is important to. a phantom center (make essay on phantom centers - relates to it all. even music, in not just song identity but in mixing to).

Another thing is that perhaps secretly people do like it. there are those that like the smell.of sweat, petroluem, old cotton, and more. thus we as a society need to be honest with ourselves and kep it real. we actually like grain. ref

, individually one may like something and groupthink has bestowed upon them mute. Both the external and inner voice thwarted by outside influence. I have seen this in myself. My feelings bout a certain film or art or conversation even were sometimes based on what the other person in the room was thinking, not my own genuine opinion. And thus groupthink is a tough shell to crack, tho crack the shell of collective ego.

groupthink and consensus makes our minds magnify into what it is the consensus has come to. if the consensus is that a film is good, our minds will see the movie with that lens, and this lens will magnify those attributes of what is good in a film. similarly with if the group has decided something is bad. and thus it's hard to say what is objective, or it is hard to be objective. even more so is there's a self fulfilling prophecy element here. all it takes is 1 person to tell someone something is good, and they then think so, and then 2 people then tell another, and so on. so there's a tipping mechanism at play here.