Before today’s social media generation and among social media influencers, there was what we call then as “BI (Bad Influence)”. As it was and as anything worth opposing, there was likewise the opposite or the “good influence” but wasn’t even referred to as “GI”. Apparently, “BI” had more impact other than having had a louder ring to it corresponding with a more intriguing “sounding off” of its influential conquest that’s more likely to create a buzz and be heard for all its telltale details’ “juiciness”.
“GI” seemed to have a softer (bo)ring to it...
It’s the same thing with what’s going on along today’s way of influencing through social media. Rumor is what it was called then, fake news is what it’s “believed” (pun intended) to be “referred to” now. Yes, “referred to” as it’s likewise something that’s preferred from which they refer-to for anything believed to be a valid reference.
The sad truth is that blabbermouths spread it for all their attention-seeking intent. Not much of a difference from that of “fake-newscasters or blah-ggers” (and even those who share it) for all its trending-worthy gains ~ which merits them points for views not point of view; clicks from clickbaits and not “likes” for its likable traits. Sadder still is that they have the audacity to defend it as satire and that it’s “freedom of expression”; which by the way is justified with ironically a restraining argument... What they’re not saying is that they’re likewise taking advantage of the people’s credulity in falling for these kinds of news under their “credible pretense”.
And as if the opposite is what’s rather given emphasis to substantiate one’s definition, other things aren’t any different. Like “support for someone”, it’s unwarrantedly defined nowadays as detrimental to others. Say for example, if they like red, it gets validated by hating blue; and to express such support for red is to tarnish blue by alleging its true color to be black... (now the other colors think blue is fake... and if blue is black, who is black? Could it be red? Or green perhaps? Until we’re consumed by all the assumptions and lies...) Why can’t red just be as it is and assume its role as an integral part of a potentially colorful spectrum... You get the point, right...
A refusal to understand this or the lack of better comprehension to do so is leaning towards blind obedience as we don’t (or perhaps dismiss the possibility to) see the bigger picture and the “what ifs” given the varying effects on a likewise diverse culture under one rule/one race amidst a substantial number of different beliefs. Quite alarming even is how we as a society in general disrespect other ideologies other than that of what and who conforms to our own cause.
And they’re so loud that it’s what resonates among conscious minds quelling even your conscience’s whisperings of actualities. It’s their intention to cover up their questionable stand with reverberating noise which subdues your subconscious reasoning as well. Also, as cunning as they are in circulating detractions, they even manage to reverse the tide that’s turned against them. It’s meant to be published loudly as a defense mechanism to further deafen the silent majority. Such noise is to likewise project a formidable stronghold which they indiscriminately believe to be stronger and to be the truth; however, they’re similarly blinded by obvious numbers but oblivious to the real count.
To breakdown these figures, for instance, we’re under one rainbow of which has 7 colors (ROYGBIV)... Let’s just assume Red, being the first color, to be the head. Red has 15 loyal supporters compared to the other colors with 5 each. Indeed a big advantage over each one. But to sum up all these “5s” who are not for Red, that adds up to 30. It just so happens that the 25 seems to be silent which apparently tolerate all these...
Newsmongers thrive on this seemingly lackadaisical predisposition as some “tolerable” means to drum up their “public affairs” of concocting issues worth feasting on as much as to play with others’ thoughts... Currently, with all these fake news, they are the modern day gossipers. Whereas those who engage in the proliferation of these tall tales/cock-and-bull/falsifications and what-nots, they are the modern day “mga tsismoso’t tsismosa!” They are the modern day “BI”.
This wouldn’t even be an issue to begin with if we have that common sense to understand and recognize it as it is - fake! Another issue is that we don’t even think before we click. We don’t verify before we vilify... if so, then we are as guilty in allowing all of these falsehoods to happen out of blind allegiance. Ruefully, such loyalty is claimed to be for the country you “serve” however it’s the same country you try to divide... it’s as fake as one’s hypocritical patriotism.
Yet “fake” seems to be inherent in us as we live in denial of how we are as gullible over hoax and rip-offs among other fake things from pirated CDs to counterfeit goods. Let’s not even argue about how this is manifested on how copyright infringement and the plagiarism business thrive out of our stingy and pretentious propensity... Similarly how we wear these branded imitations for all our packaging’s worth, we are as fake as the fake news to allow the wolf to wear sheep’s wool if only to gain the upper hand at the expense of the flock of sheeps yet favorable to their own pack of wolves.
Another dissimulation along this premise is that we tend to be defensive of this “ignorance”... One media personality even lambasted a Senator for generalizing our society to be suffering from this predicament due to our “stupidity” (case in point: That’s why it’s under investigation through a Senate hearing because it’s an issue that’s plaguing us as a nation) which is, as a matter of fact, a reflection of a flawed reasoning of our country in general. Considering the clamorous nature that’s bespoken, it’s indeed the image it resonates. And does that not convey ineptitude as according to this media personality, we’re not stupid people? Well, perhaps the silent majority aren’t... but then again, “empty vessels make the most noise” if only to broadcast that they are “thinking”. However, fact of the matter is that how could we even spot such fake cognizance in a “hollow (and shallow) gray matter”? Perhaps a fake brain (one that makes you believe it’s thinking)? Under this outwardly hopeless circumstance, should we rely on faith then as to believe is to see (as there’s no concrete visual of a brain)... Besides, isn’t that a sign for us to further strengthen our faith considering the miraculous manifestation of “sensibility” from some entity without the capacity for common sense...
Mabuti pa yung “walang utak” (empty), but a “fake brain”... you’d err you’re made to believe anything other than the truth and it seems to do the thinking for you. Sadly, those with the real brain gets played by the fake one. Newsflash: “Nag-iisip ka ba?! Are you even thinking?”
“GI” seemed to have a softer (bo)ring to it...
It’s the same thing with what’s going on along today’s way of influencing through social media. Rumor is what it was called then, fake news is what it’s “believed” (pun intended) to be “referred to” now. Yes, “referred to” as it’s likewise something that’s preferred from which they refer-to for anything believed to be a valid reference.
The sad truth is that blabbermouths spread it for all their attention-seeking intent. Not much of a difference from that of “fake-newscasters or blah-ggers” (and even those who share it) for all its trending-worthy gains ~ which merits them points for views not point of view; clicks from clickbaits and not “likes” for its likable traits. Sadder still is that they have the audacity to defend it as satire and that it’s “freedom of expression”; which by the way is justified with ironically a restraining argument... What they’re not saying is that they’re likewise taking advantage of the people’s credulity in falling for these kinds of news under their “credible pretense”.
And as if the opposite is what’s rather given emphasis to substantiate one’s definition, other things aren’t any different. Like “support for someone”, it’s unwarrantedly defined nowadays as detrimental to others. Say for example, if they like red, it gets validated by hating blue; and to express such support for red is to tarnish blue by alleging its true color to be black... (now the other colors think blue is fake... and if blue is black, who is black? Could it be red? Or green perhaps? Until we’re consumed by all the assumptions and lies...) Why can’t red just be as it is and assume its role as an integral part of a potentially colorful spectrum... You get the point, right...
A refusal to understand this or the lack of better comprehension to do so is leaning towards blind obedience as we don’t (or perhaps dismiss the possibility to) see the bigger picture and the “what ifs” given the varying effects on a likewise diverse culture under one rule/one race amidst a substantial number of different beliefs. Quite alarming even is how we as a society in general disrespect other ideologies other than that of what and who conforms to our own cause.
And they’re so loud that it’s what resonates among conscious minds quelling even your conscience’s whisperings of actualities. It’s their intention to cover up their questionable stand with reverberating noise which subdues your subconscious reasoning as well. Also, as cunning as they are in circulating detractions, they even manage to reverse the tide that’s turned against them. It’s meant to be published loudly as a defense mechanism to further deafen the silent majority. Such noise is to likewise project a formidable stronghold which they indiscriminately believe to be stronger and to be the truth; however, they’re similarly blinded by obvious numbers but oblivious to the real count.
To breakdown these figures, for instance, we’re under one rainbow of which has 7 colors (ROYGBIV)... Let’s just assume Red, being the first color, to be the head. Red has 15 loyal supporters compared to the other colors with 5 each. Indeed a big advantage over each one. But to sum up all these “5s” who are not for Red, that adds up to 30. It just so happens that the 25 seems to be silent which apparently tolerate all these...
Newsmongers thrive on this seemingly lackadaisical predisposition as some “tolerable” means to drum up their “public affairs” of concocting issues worth feasting on as much as to play with others’ thoughts... Currently, with all these fake news, they are the modern day gossipers. Whereas those who engage in the proliferation of these tall tales/cock-and-bull/falsifications and what-nots, they are the modern day “mga tsismoso’t tsismosa!” They are the modern day “BI”.
This wouldn’t even be an issue to begin with if we have that common sense to understand and recognize it as it is - fake! Another issue is that we don’t even think before we click. We don’t verify before we vilify... if so, then we are as guilty in allowing all of these falsehoods to happen out of blind allegiance. Ruefully, such loyalty is claimed to be for the country you “serve” however it’s the same country you try to divide... it’s as fake as one’s hypocritical patriotism.
Yet “fake” seems to be inherent in us as we live in denial of how we are as gullible over hoax and rip-offs among other fake things from pirated CDs to counterfeit goods. Let’s not even argue about how this is manifested on how copyright infringement and the plagiarism business thrive out of our stingy and pretentious propensity... Similarly how we wear these branded imitations for all our packaging’s worth, we are as fake as the fake news to allow the wolf to wear sheep’s wool if only to gain the upper hand at the expense of the flock of sheeps yet favorable to their own pack of wolves.
 |
| "The fake thing others will see here is the horsepower as it's a carabao; when it's actually the whole thing..." |
Another dissimulation along this premise is that we tend to be defensive of this “ignorance”... One media personality even lambasted a Senator for generalizing our society to be suffering from this predicament due to our “stupidity” (case in point: That’s why it’s under investigation through a Senate hearing because it’s an issue that’s plaguing us as a nation) which is, as a matter of fact, a reflection of a flawed reasoning of our country in general. Considering the clamorous nature that’s bespoken, it’s indeed the image it resonates. And does that not convey ineptitude as according to this media personality, we’re not stupid people? Well, perhaps the silent majority aren’t... but then again, “empty vessels make the most noise” if only to broadcast that they are “thinking”. However, fact of the matter is that how could we even spot such fake cognizance in a “hollow (and shallow) gray matter”? Perhaps a fake brain (one that makes you believe it’s thinking)? Under this outwardly hopeless circumstance, should we rely on faith then as to believe is to see (as there’s no concrete visual of a brain)... Besides, isn’t that a sign for us to further strengthen our faith considering the miraculous manifestation of “sensibility” from some entity without the capacity for common sense...
Mabuti pa yung “walang utak” (empty), but a “fake brain”... you’d err you’re made to believe anything other than the truth and it seems to do the thinking for you. Sadly, those with the real brain gets played by the fake one. Newsflash: “Nag-iisip ka ba?! Are you even thinking?”