The scientific method requires us to define the problem, collect data, form a hypothesis, test it and see what happens. In this section, we get into the premise for our solutions...
To brush up on "liberal VS conservative" go here.
To see the friction in action, go here.
CONTROVERSY! A unique brand of politics is always needed to stir things up!
The rap album, the Ultrafaction movie, emotion involking skits...
Rape Free Nation (Aggressive anti-rape site)
Ideology may be 100% right or wrong, but people never are! A political cliche' is "bipartisaship", (or the Dick Morris term "triangulation") which uses the premise that no wing, or party, deserves absolute power, and therefore must work with the opposition. This recipe is exponentially more complex than it seems and has an infinite number of permutations and interpretations. Liberalism and conservatism both have certain legacies and trademarks. Some are bad; some are good; some are deserved and some are not deserved. The trick here is to find what truly works. Arguably, if you go with absolutism (that truth is black and white) it can be said that truth may be black and white, but to integrat a little relativism in it, it can be argued that truth is like a checkerboard. It has solid colors BUT it is scattered. Also, if someone struggles with wanting to integrate the notion of grey areas into the premise of absolutism, it can be argued with the analogy of a black and white laser printer. A black and white laser printer, by definition, can NOT print shades of grey. So it must print super small dots of black with the white space of the paper in between them so that to the human eye, it looks grey. Absolutism does not have to mean oversimplistic.
Like I said in my sound file "this is why" in 1998, (on the site "Virgin Resistance!"), it is not about extremism; it is about consistency. Genuine conservatives have been complaining that it seems today that if you stand for anything at all, you are dubbed an extremist or intolerant (as well as some liberals)! Also, many moderates/non-extremists complain that they are unrightfully labeled as fence straddling or wishy washy. Things like this happen because sometimes we can get oversimplistic and therefore irresponsible in our political labeling. In my younger days (late teens) I described myself as a "hardcore moderate" because I tried to splice apart certain platforms of what I thought to be conservatism and liberalism. I was even thinking of changing from a Republican to an Independent. I knew I believed in a lot of things that conservatism did BUT I saw a lot of things called "conservative" that I did not like. Some of this was true for liberalism as well, but not as to a high degree. Later I defined myself as a "super anti-liberal but not a staunch conservative Republican" but even then I saw some "liberal" things that I liked. As I said in 1992, "I am left-winged in some issues". I think for someone who was just starting to get into politics at 17 (senior year in highschool) there was much that I had to sort out; also since I consider my views to be complex, it takes even more time. In 1993, I defined myself (still not as a "conservative" out of disgust for it being seen as "reserved") as a "big right winger with a few twists". I then actually slipped around 1996 and called myself a "super conservative" in an email to someone. I then later took great pride in calling myself a "right winged extremist" but always kept saying that when it came to liberalism and conservatism that I was a "hybrid". I have stated that "the fire of a liberal burns in my conservative heart".
"Extremism" is a word thrown around like candy today and on top of that many people define extreme in different terms. In my life people have called me an extremist because I am loud with passion which has nothing to do with extremism! IDEOLOGY is what makes someone extreme, not how loud they yell their ideology. It seems as long as you know how to be a sociopathic womanizing rapist, and are quiet about it, you will never be branded as an extremist. However, if you show a little disgust for someone else's extremism, and yell about it, then you are dubbed a reactionary or a radical.
Each sub-culture and/or mindset tends to have its own jargon, slang, quirks, traits, or some sort of set of defining characteristics. These objects help its members relate to the outside world, and sometimes get their points across to people that are not in their group. This can range from emotionally charged buzzwords all the way to body language and tone. A person may choose to relate a complex concept to something simple, in order to convey the message, or something inside of the world of another sub-culture, so they can understand each other. Each sub-culture in politics is usally know for having hot-button issues!
Searching for political hot buttons is a dark science most of the time because it leans toward avoiding substance and treating people like cattle. There are sub-cultures within sub-cultures and an individual may belong to many different sub-cultures. Each psyche' has different strengths and weaknesses, and therefore ways to be manipulated. The lazy goal is to use minimal antagonism, combined with slickness, to capture someone's heart at least by 51%, so they vote for you (playing checkers instead of chess). A more noble version of this is digging to the bottom line of an issue and revealing all of your ideology (not just the part that groups want to hear) and having the TRUTH stand out! Al Gore admitted that he failed at this in 2000, and said later that if he could do it over, that he'd let his vision for America pour out. Translation: "I wasted the entire election cycle saying nothing, so that I could get elected, forgetting that my pal Dubya did the exact same thing and was better at it, so he beat me (at least as far as the electorial college was concerned, since Gore won the popular vote).". The goal is not to appeal to people with rhetoric and sound bites! The goal is to properly define the problem and find the true solutions; in other words actually DO something when you get in office!
The 3D GUI interface is no longer a toy. John Underkoffler stated that much that is not inherently spacial can be expressed spacially. This is the exact premise that is the premise of the ultrafaction software. Giving an X,Y and Z axis to socio-political concepts and terms can offer a way to "map out" massive complexities in ways that our minds can grasp them at a glance, instead of reading endless spreadsheets. Arbitrary shapes can be given to the metaphysical/intangible. Shapes may evolve in version 24.0 of the software to have more symbolism or meaning inherently BUT the goal is to get a model up at first so that it CAN evolve!! Also, visual models can be readily broken down into numbers so they can be processed meaningfully by software. A program can list a bunch of numbers in numerical order, but terms like "abortion" or "tariff" mean inherently nothing to software, or a machine.
A system where a small file has a few gigs of tags to it:
This is something that most dot-com players will want to stay away from! Therefore, it is something that most dot-commers WON'T see!!! Growth is CHANGE; CHANGE means getting out of your comfort zone of the old way! For users to use sentence-long or paragraph-long tags for URLs would seem impractical for small articles BUT it is the only way to allow people to find specific information by a simple click. Life IS that complex, and we need to monopolize on that fact!!
An orientation of the software that calibrates a user's profile with much pain and work:
Again, this will come across as impractical. Users will not readily sit down in front of a menu and answer a poll that is 500 questions long. Or will they? The premise here is to look at the LAST step FIRST! If there is a site that gives everyone their dream job, gives any lobbyist the perfect politician for their cause, gives any special interest group supreme information for their argument, gives any voter the EXACT and PERFECTLY organized information for them to come to a decision, then they WILL sit in front of a computer for 3 hours answering questions to be "calibrated"! Look at the LAST step FIRST!! Look at the potential, not the immediate concerns! Look forward to the final product FIRST and ignore the difficulty that it will take to get there! Ignore practicality and comfort; get out of your comfort zones so that you'll be forced to THINK and adapt!
The Ultrafaction movie:
A motion picture, where all of the technology already exists and is established! This is an attempt to show the full body suit VR 3D GUI battle arenas in their full glory to mesmerize the audience to the maximum possibility!! The analogy that I use here is if you have one burst of light to guide you through a long, dark (yet straight) cave it is useless for the journey because it will last just a few steps. If you concentrate it deep in the cave, like a "light bomb", for a few brilliant seconds, you can see the entire complexity of the dips and turns in the cave. This can put an image in your head for a few precious seconds in order to solidify a picture in your head of what will be required of you to navigate the cave. Show the final step FIRST; try to picture the full potential!
A big fat check from a venture capitalist would be one of the LAST things I need now! Yes, you heard it! What this site needs is connections to RESOURCES that already are in place! There are TONS of activist groups who are politically motivated, as well as tons of programmers and developers that are starving for the next new great idea. The base is already there, and has been for quite some time. The two worlds of politics and computers are separate and distinct for many reasons, such as the typical mindset of a political junkie VS a dot-com geek. The software world is always looking for the next motivation, and the political world is in dire need of a process that is faster and gets more people motivated so that more happens, and quickly. These two worlds are of different cultures. Computerizing the political process is a huge undertaking BUT can reap amazing benefits! Summarizing a few hundred yottabytes of political data with a sentence-long tag can polarize activity, focus specific action, convey a true and solid bottom line, and motivate people better, on the grounds that their hot buttons have been hit in a non-misleading, non-patronizing, ethical and productive manner.
Under this, there won't be so much wasted energy. The reason why I stated that I do NOT want a big fat check from a venture capitalist is because if that is all that I had, I would be forced to reinvent the wheel. What I mean by that is that I would have to do an incredible amount of research to find groups that an expert could learn how to find in minutes, or better yet, already know how to find right then and there. I would be doing work that has already been done. The trick is to find the "first level" entity that either has the will to partner with me or can refer me to someone who would want to. I'd need to find someone with thirst and vision! A visionary is someone that can see in his or her realm, far ahead of anyone else; what I need is someone that can see ahead in the context of TWO realms simultaneously, maybe not as far as a traditional visionary but enough in two realms so that they can see where I am going with the site.