Letters to the Editor
From Purdue CIA
Contents |
[edit] Idea
Someone will write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, and supporting a very unpopular (or ridiculous) opinion. More people will then follow, supporting the said opinion, at the rate of 2 per newspaper issue.
- The idea is to play the devil's advocate and plausibly argue for something nobody will support otherwise. You can view this as an exercise in rational debate
- This will not work if our arguments themselves are ridiculous or incoherent. The letters will likely not be published, and if it does, then the newspaper will be shamed, which is not what we are trying to do here. The plausibility and apparent wisdom of our argument is very important here.
[edit] Rationale
People generally like to play the rebel, but are only daring to do so if his so-called rebellion is already an established trend among a hip, knowledgeable minority. People are generally also very neurotic, and self-censoring with regards to their darker nature, and generally oppressed by their own moral standards that they would like to abandon but do not do so, due to fear of rejection and reprisal. So if we take a position that is okay to do something everybody (in their darker thoughts) would like to do, and we back it up with intelligent-sounding arguments, people will feel a sense of liberation and empowerment. Knowing that this other side presumably exists, will make them feel like contrarian hipsters, and they might even take the position themselves.
[edit] Punchline
Once all the letters supporting our unpopular opinion have been published, we should announce that the whole thing was a hoax, so those tempted to believe in arguments or those using them to feel good about themselves and their society, will be forced to think deep. This is what we are aiming for.
[edit] How far can we push it?
Realistically, the combined intellectual strength of Purdue CIA should be able to present a plausible argument that things like hazing, racial or heterosexist discrimination, abuse or bullying, etc are acceptable and justifiable.
