7 Deadly Brainteasers from Social Media Election 2020

The Seven Deadly Brainteasers are a study of the responses to the 2020 Election on social media.  I wanted to encapsulate the thinking of the masses.  After-all, the "people" rule in America and social media reflects how they process political events.  I have tried to objectively observe and combine seven of the most trenchant streams of thought.  They are brainteasers because they reflect their childlike understanding of feelings, politics, and argumentation so I try to square away their contradictions into comprehensive statements.  Applying a mostly scientific method, I conclude that similar content has improved since the same topics were posted in 2016. I separate the teasers into three levels of intellectual difficulty: easy, moderates, and expert.

Let's start off with a few easy ones (#1 and #2):

#1: Stopping and Telling

 Stop telling me to stop telling them to stop telling you to stop telling me to stop. If you don't stop telling me to stop telling them, I won't stop until you stop telling me what to do. I'm smarter than anyone telling me to stop telling others to stop their telling.

#2: Understanding and Trying

How could you not understand how they could not understand that you could not understand them when you really could not understand that which you never tried to understand? If you wanted to understand the understandable, then you could not really question how that which you could not understand would be understandable? When will you understand? 

 

 Now, let's step up our game for the next level of posts about the election results.  The Moderates (#3, #4, #5):

#3: Counting Trustworthiness

If you have to count to win, but to start winning you have stop the other's counting of the same thing to start their losing and you certainly can't start counting yours again because that might also make you not win, then why can't another question the counting that went into your winning if another suspects it's not a trustworthy count because it stopped before the other's counting could finish? Two opposing counts of the same thing can't stop before one starts winning and the other starts losing. Also, two opposing counts of the same thing can't stop at the same time because there can't be two starting to win nor two starting to lose. And there can't be two winners since stopping the other's count makes the winning count untrustworthy because of one's premature stop while the other counted just enough to start winning regardless of its trustworthiness.

So, if you start counting then stop in order to start winning because you can't win if you don't stop counting, can you trust that which wasn't counted might make another start winning? Yet, if merely questioning the counting stopped by the one starting to win, then is that one counter untrustworthy by merely calling into question their stopped count or by asking to count again? If starting to lose means you're questioning the win and asking to restart counting, then how are you sure that the win can be trusted if you're not allowed to win without trusting the other's counting that went into that win? Why do people only want to start and stop counting just to start winning without trusting that which is counted by the other's stopped counting in order to make them start to lose? Can you stop the counting only because you are winning regardless of whether the counting was trustworthy or not?

#4: Persuasion and Deletion

Persuasion is deletion? 

Friends must only believe as you do and you cannot suffer non-friends on your social media, let alone allowing them to communicate opposition. Non-friends must self-report their opposition to your views then they must self-delete their friendship. Yet, they are supposed to admit their mistaken beliefs in deference to yours. Yet, how are they supposed to self-report their immoral ways if they've followed that first instruction and self-deleted? Should they self-report their previous noncompliance then self-delete thus complying twice with your commands? Should you really silence those that are willing to twice comply with the commands of an opponent? Is evidence of self-deletion and/or complying with the duty to admit mistakes evidence of a willingness to comply with your request and thus evidence that they wanted to admit their mistaken beliefs? Why did you prematurely request they delete their friendship when they could potentially admit their mistaken views? Why discount admitted mistakes if that is evidence of their willingness to comply with your orders? Might not more of your orders be accepted in the future, oh Imperator? Wait, if they've self-deleted, you'll never know.....

Deletion (or silence) isn't persuasion, it's stupid.

#5: Not Mine: Owning Political Figures

"Not my (insert position title)" can only be said if you are in the minority as being in the majority means it's yours. And only those who own a position title can bring back the group to a better time in the past after claiming that position title while those who don't claim it lack it altogether, thus they are living in the present past that is worse. Should the position of the majority flip to the minority, they now no longer claim the position title, revert from living in a better future to a bad present past, and can rightfully claim it's not theirs any longer just as the previous era where it was theirs and for the minority it wasn't theirs. It would be illogical for the majority to claim what's theirs isn't theirs any longer as they have now restored the group back to the future, which is better, instead of the worse present past because they now claim the position title. What is theirs isn't yours. What is a better past future is a bad present past depending on your perspective.

 

Now, let's go to the top tier of social media political thought.  With religion, science, and philosophy used in a small pathetic degree to which they're probably not aware, these political teasers are the top tier from our subjects. (#6 and #7)

 

#6: Joyful Unity vs. Angry Disunity:

Behold! Thy Facebook hath spoken thus:

It is held that the transition to unity can only occur if the unifying force celebrates their joy in an overwhelming way and the dis-unifying force angrily resists their defeat in response. For every celebration of that unifying transition there is an equal and opposite angry resistance to defeat. The transition to unity can't take place, however, if the unifying force doesn't celebrate enough over their victory as the celebration must be so overwhelmingly joyful that anyone not celebrating is an angry dis-unionist and there is no way to unify the dis-unifying forces without making them into the Resistance thus proving the transition to unity has begun. Thus, there can be no disunity or resistance if there is not enough celebration. Therefore, a transition to unity only occurs if the unifying force celebrates enough and the dis-unifying parties fail to respond by celebrating and instead become an angry opposition. Unity can only happen by creating disunity? Thus spake the Facebook (and maybe Zarathustra, Taoism, or Isaac Newton)! 🌗☯️ 

#7: The Geography of Shame and a Refreshed Awakening

(Facebook Results 2020 sort of turns Emersonian/transcendental):

The physical place of birth and development is either a place of good, pride, and conducive to restorative sleep or a place of evil, shame, and disappointing restless nights. Where one puts ones' head down to rest does not guarantee a refreshing sleep, only the political beliefs of the geographic place of origin and development. The goodness of the mountains, the rivers, the flora, fauna, and persons are all dependent on the beliefs of ones' birth location and development. If one is born and developed in a place of good, the beliefs of all of that geography will be good, one will not feel shame or hesitate to return to their home, sleeping well regardless of where they lie. However, if the place of birth is evil, the beliefs of that place will be evil and disappointing to outsiders. There can be no change in the geography of good unless the outsider deems it so. To claim one is from the evil location would also make the person evil as they would be accepting the evil beliefs of the rocks, beavers, and believers. Should the person try to rest in a place of good, but come from a place of evil belief, the person will have a disturbed sleep because of concern of the shame and for their own inner taint from having originated there. As the ashamed are an eternal product of that environment, there is no way to remove the geographic shame, end the sleepless discontent unless the dirt, bugs, and cultists change their ways. In order to ensure more restorative rest and celebratory pride, check in regularly on your place of origin and test their beliefs by interviewing former relatives, friends, or that waterfall you used to jump off of as a little tyke. Constant monitoring of them will ensure you have the kind of slumber unencumbered by deep political concerns that you and that gorge always wanted. 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

I have to say that this past week of social media has been the most fun I've had since I busted the most popular COVID and science worship memes a few years of lock-down ago. Whether you're understanding, restoring, unifying, resisting, refusing to own your political leaders, emotionally connecting to elected strangers, or sleeping better because of your hometown's improved beliefs, I have enjoyed the presentation of these same concepts much more in 2020 than their weaker, though similar counterparts in 2016. And many of you are finally abandoning lazy memes and trying to write your own political arguments for once, finally putting those social studies HS diplomas to work! I couldn't be prouder!

Though I grew up a small, shy, nonathletic, and white cis-male boy with a slight lisp, I never knew that my 7 Deadly Brainteasers would be such a change moment for me personally or that my personal biography would prove something about the content of your Facebook words so well. Approaching this anthropologically and sociologically, I have to say that people really stepped up their game this time around, following those Russian bots much less and only when convenient. Even though at no point since the anti-communism and Russophobia of the Cold War has American opinion been so reactionary in offering negative opinions about the largest geographical nation on the planet and with the political parties flipped on their anti-Russian views, still many of those opiners are still ready for a solid dose of hysteria a mere four years later! Good for them!

It makes me proud for once in my social media to observe, ever monitoring the big-tech censors doing their job for once, yet all careful not to disturb you in your evolving natural habitat.

Thanks for a great week Facebook!