Sticks and Stones

Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

This is a piece that I started during the Boston Marathon last month. Fundamentally, this is about rhetoric, speech, especially speech that is intended to persuade.

There are two sides to that old adage; although it is usually used to show scorn for those who use foul language and insults, but it is also a suggestion to remain non-violent. I suppose that the bombs that were set off at the finish of the Boston Marathon last month were a good idea, if the ones who planted them wanted to inspire loathing for themselves, but if they wanted to garner support for their views, then they hurt their case. I still don’t know what they may have been trying to push, but I am opposed to it forever.

There are many ways to forward one’s views. The best ways are to make what you want to look good and to make what opposes you to look bad. There are many ways carry out those strategies; all of which involve spreading knowledge and using logic and connecting what you like to things that are generally pleasant. Those methods always work, unless those who oppose you are right and you are wrong. That happens even to the best of us, but those of us who have intelligence and sanity it is no great problem to admit having been wrong. Since Asperger’s Syndrome was defined we have had to add a fourth reason why people retain opinions that have been proven wrong to the traditional reasons: religion, stupidity, and insanity.

Another way to further your views is to kill off those who disagree. When you kill all of your opponents, then you will not have to be concerned with opposition or even with whether your opinion is rational. This method works only if one does a complete job, and it is best to do it quickly and completely, because a partial or slow campaign of extermination will annoy the remnants, and they may take action against you in, analogous with poking a stick into a hornet nest.

If those people who planted those bombs in Boston had wanted to be effective, then they should have caused massive death. Causing a few deaths and a number of serious permanent injuries simply garnered ill-feelings and gained some implacable enemies for them. And the shutdown of the city while the pursuit was going on added to the annoyance. Now, I and a few billion other people are firmly opposed to whatever you favor. Whether your reasons were religious, political, or something else, we don’t care; we are opposed. 

Then there is the matter of your lack of free will. Perhaps this action by you provides us with an excuse for improving the gene pool. The human race doesn’t need people who think that their opinions are absolutely true. No, we need people are capable of telling the difference between truth and falsehood and changing their minds. Alas, our lives and thoughts and everything are predetermined, so there is only one way to eliminate people who insist on making war against non-combatants. But we really blame you for doing something that you had no choice about?

If someone else is inclined to attempt such a stunt, then here is a little advice; although if you are stupid enough to do something like that you probably won't pay attention. If you want anyone else to support your positions, then do not, emphatically do not, attack that person. What you want to do is to make your potential ally sympathetic with you and your position. Instead of an attack try being pleasant and complimentary. Make the potential ally feel comfortable with you. Then, after the potential ally regards you in a positive light, bring up your agenda. Even if there is something unpleasant involved the potential ally may regard it positively, and remember the old adage: You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. So honey your words. Make the potential ally happy to see or hear your words. It has been claimed that one can catch more flies with bullshit than you can with honey, so you might try that. The different baits would result in different persons being attracted, so one might be preferable to the other; you can experiment.

To reiterate: if you want to garner allies for your campaign, then you should not attack potential allies. You should use honeyed words to attract potential allies, and you should not annoy them by blowing up bombs around them. Is that clear?