Simulist wrote:8bitagent wrote:Yep, nothing to see here. Cracked.com should work for the government. They're about as subversive as CNN
Your comment has been rolling around in my head since I read it a bit ago, 8bit... And, during that time, I couldn't figure out why it was that I kept thinking about a magic trick I'd witnessed once — long, long ago.
But I may have figured it out.
In order to make the massive object in the trick seem to disappear, the audience was directed to look through a narrow window that had been erected between us and it. Similarly, in cases like this there is "nothing to see here" — ever — when people follow the directions, and keep looking through the narrow windows that are erected for us to look through.
All the interesting little inconsistencies just... disappear. As if by magic.
Damn, now you totally gave me pause.
Like in the films "Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol"(2011) or "Toys"(1992), it's like a screen is placed before our eyes that filters out the real and gives us a new real.
See I *get* the point of the cracked article. As I do enjoy a good "strange real life origin" yarn. But how come Cracked.com and other such articles refuse to point that
microscope at say, the strange details of the JFK or RFK assassination. Or the multitude of Saudi and Israeli agents somehow tied to the 9/11 event?
I'm all about bringing down myths, but it seems selective even in the midst of people trying to be unbiased. That whole, cognitive dissonance thangy thang'.
