thelastpsychiatrist.com - According to Time, The World's Most Influential Person Is.... Adnotated.
From the issuei:
It should be obvious that the poll was rigged: moot got his followers to vote him up.ii Even if that isn't obvious, a search on "Time influential people" gives up half a dozen articles explaining precisely how the poll was rigged.iii
Why would Time leave the poll up -- let alone publish it in the print edition long after it is known the poll was rigged?iv
If this is an online poll, can one actually argue that the results are invalid? It's based on votes, and more people voted for moot. More people were influenced by moot enough to vote for him. Right?
This is just like a medical study, which is why so many people misinterpret medical studies. The poll does not measure who is influential. It measures who people believe is influential. So did the poll accurately measure what it was supposed to? Yes. So does it matter that you don't like the results?v
But it wasn't so simple as moot running the best campaign. moot and his friends hackedvi the voting so that people could vote multiple times (for moot). So no, it wasn't a valid poll.
So back to question one: if it isn't valid, why does Time still decide to publish it? Or did they really not know?
Ok, let's everybody settle down. Time published it because it knows readers will be smart enough to ignore moot at #1, and just look through the rest of the poll. Right?
Time knows Americans are smart. No, no, no, not the Americans more than 200 miles inwards from the coasts -- they're all idiots, of course. I'm talking about the real Americans, the urban post-nationalist Americans who know we are eventually going to have a one world government, like on Star Trek, if we can just get global warming under control. They know Rick Warren isn't more influential than Angela Merkel, obviously. The point is to use the poll to discuss what's wrong with the landlocked Americans that they think Rick Warren is more influential than Angela Merkel. And what does that say for our (read: not their) society?
The debate that will ensue will confirm for them that they are deeply interested in the world, that they are intelligent, that they have valuable and valid opinions. That they know better.
Time published the poll precisely so we could look down on it, "that's who those idiots picked as most influential?"vii
All this would be would be fine for Time if it was just the #1 spot that was rigged, not the entire poll:
"Marblecake Also The Game." Don't worry about what it means.viii Just realize 4chan's people voted simply to make it spell out "marble cake also the game." In other words, Rick Warren is more influential than Angela Merkel because they needed an R before they needed an A.
So the question stands: does Time not know, or not care? Not know would be awesome, and by awesome I mean absolutely terrifying, that a major international news magazine with their own journalists would not be aware of... the internet...ix
Not care would be amazing, and by amazing I mean (again) absolutely terrifying -- that a major magazine would be so contemptuous of its readers that it would not cancel the poll, or at least explain what happened.x Because the poll, as it stands now, is now who 4chan -- not anyone else -- thinks is influential.xi
But they don't care. Not at all. They still might not actually know, either -- but they clearly do not care. They do not care because the poll actually isn't about who people think is influential; the poll is actually a tool for Time to tell you who is influential and who isn't.xii They already know who is influential and who is not. They decide, they have already decided.xiii Because they are smarter than you.xiv They will tell you who is influential and who is not; they will tell you what is good and what is not; and they will not tell you anything that you don't need to know, e.g. reality.xv
It doesn't matter if the poll was hacked or not, all that matters is that any 100 names appear in some order so that Time can then say, "see? This poll is wrong, whatever it says. Here's what's right."
That's why none of the pictures that lead this story
actually are of moot.xvi Or anyone in the poll, for that matter.xvii———
- Why the fuck does he do this "screen capture certification" nonsense ? Somehow it's "more truer" if, instead of typing it out, he first types it out and then photographs it ? Wtf broken mental processes are these! [↩]
- How the fuck is this "rigged" ?! Last I heard, getting your followers to vote for you is how the whole utopia is supposed to even work. Was there a silent hardfork somewhere or what exactly ?
Note how transparently and self-obviously it is an utopia (ie, a system nobody actually lives in, notwithstanding the loud organized groups pretending otherwise) -- not even for a second and not even in the most minute and inconsequential crinkle of his daily life does even the loudest Jehova "witness" believe Jehova's a thing. Ballas doesn't go "they voted and therefore m00t's boss", he goes "they voted and therefore the election was rigged" for the very fucking obvious reason : democracy isn't a thing, exactly in the way and exactly for the reasons your "relationship" with your favourite pornstar isn't a thing. [↩]
- Except not. A "search" ie, asking Google to tell you what to think will produce more of the same, in the author's own words,
dkljglfkjlsd ;lk;df ggggt e test htoerugoieuoger dfkljdflkd
Three burly cops="violent predator." Do I need to tell you what his criminal history is? If I told you that Rocco has a history of burglary but no prior rapes or sex offenses, would that make you suspect him less? No, because we all understand how a cheerleader might end up dead. Well, how did you come to understand that?
There's no "explaining precisely" included, which is why the core dump guy doesn't include the precise explanation. There's in fact no explanation at all, there's some vague innuendo in a thick sauce of words, words, words, and this even before we consider the history problem. As it turns out, USG.Google only thought worth its while to maintain a value for the "please Massah, tell me what to think about Time influential people" pointer a little while back in 2009, which is a full decade ago by now. The "gives up" in the present tense promised within the article has meanwhile been invalidated by time, on top of being invalidated by having been invalid in the first place.
This is how the UStard goes through life : pretending to be part of teams that never heard of him, pretending to be living in worlds that don't actually exist, and so following. All that pretense must get pretty heavy in psychological terms, which may well explain why they never ever amount to anything -- and that even after they redefined "amounted to anything" in purely meaningless group terms of "was elected President".
Oh, and boy-howdy let me tell you how fucking pleasant it is to have become able to reference TLP articles in discussions of TLP articles from the very Trilema, where things can be found and proper selective linkage is available and everything else. [↩]
- The obvious explanation would be, "because they think they can pretend to be in on the joke", or rather, "because they imagine they can actually turn the joke around such that we're no longer laughing at them, but with them". Which even "works", after a fashion (ie, within the Utopia) : their 0-information readership can not laugh otherwise than with Time, with Google, etcetera ; while the non-0 actual agents, the sort of people who have no use for Google and "rig" polls, well... they're not Time readers anyway, certainly not in any real sense. They may "read" Time with their whores, to laugh at it, but they sure as fuck aren't about to start shaving because Time tells them to. It's very easy to distinguish these two groups, by the way : the latter set doesn't go about saying things like "core dump" without an inkling of what the fuck it means, just because it "sounds cool" ; and they also dont go around "building houses" through piling up random debris that happens to be blue. [↩]
- Actually no, which coincidentally confirms the statements above : there wasn't any explanation, either proferred or understood, either precise or otherwise. That Ballas can't distinguish between having had an explanation and not having had an explanation is a subsidiary problem, but in any case : what happened was that
Give computers the vote. They're cheaper than women, even!, which is exactly the sort of thing that happens when "I get a new haircut" and at any and all myriad interfaces between the Republic of men and the... "empire", let's call it, why not, of cattle we use. [↩]
- Right, "hacked". It's the contemporaneous term for "magic", that "you are not expected to understand this" of yore, most beloved by all the bleaters who really had no business being there in the first place. Think about it, if you will : there are two kinds of people in any college seminar (or there used to be, at any rate). The ones who were happy to hear YANETUT, hurray, less of this overwhelming shit to have to memorize by rote, and the ones who became desperate when they heard YANETUT, because holy god the only reason I'm here in the first place is completeness, if there's broken links in the chain I might as well leave, permanently. Could just as well sit at home, I have broken chains there too, and plenty of them. [↩]
- I am unpersuaded by this inbred theory. [↩]
- And why not ?
Marblecake denotes an elaborate sexual perversion : if, after a man anally penetrates his sexual partner and ejaculates inside, the bottom then shits on a plate, the resulting fecal-seminal mess is marblecake. Marble for the marbling (sperm coagulates) and cake probably for the phonetic similarity with the ancient (Latin and otherwise) root for shitting -- caco, cacare (note, for instance, that the cum biscuit's a biscuit, not any kind of cake). Marblecake also connotes variously, the term is peppered throughout 4chan history, such as for instance the MarbleCake group (named for gathering on #marblecake) who came up with the first Scientology video message, the first few protest themes etc.
The game denotes a timekilling behaviour of 2010s latchkey generation, whereby they try to... not think of "the game". That's the whole thing, if you think about it you lose and must announce this loss (and, of course, everyone is playing it all the time by default, as a matter of ingroup convention). If I weren't travelling I'd release another pic of that set, only reading "You lose the game" or something... but whatever, maybe later. [↩]
- This isn't "the internet", this is the Republic. Confusing the two is awesome, and by awesome I mean... well, you know how the original dodo bird confused European explorers and trees ? That kinda awesome, which is to say awesome for the European explorers. [↩]
- No, actually, they're exactly this contemptuous of their readers. Socialism breeds socialist institutions, whadda ya want ? Can't both be a man and not be a man at the same time, you gotta pick one. [↩]
- Absolutely not, at all. The poll, as it stands now, is simply displaying that Time will readily pivot into submission to the Republic, in preference to submission to the criminal organisation pompously calling itself "The United States Government", on the well oiled rails of the shared contempt for the... "readers", whatever you call them, the walkers, the breathers, the "general public". Time's merely tryna survive in this game. [↩]
- Well that actually makes no fucking sense, now does it. Time's gonna tell you Dwayne "the Game" Marblecake is influential ? [↩]
- Ummm... what does the author want to be true ?
Subsidiary question : why does the author spend so much time watching tv / surfing USGistani "news" websites, anyway ? [↩]
- Oh gimme a fucking break. [↩]
- Which'd be why the "precise explanation" that wasn't came from... Google ?
No, seriously, wtf. [↩]
- Well, they didn't know how to spell "m00t" and so couldn't find anything in Google.
Unlike all the imperial attentionwhores, most republicans don't usually give the first inkling of a fuck about "having their picture in the paper". [↩]
- Or anyone "the readership" can even name, for that same matter. [↩]