Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. Case in point - everyone here is talking about a black samurai. The game designers have succeeded in making plenty of people here start to talk about black samurais even though black samurais never existed. If a fictional black samurai is not something that people here are interested in, isn't it a bit strange that so many people here talking about it?

It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. Case in point - everyone here is talking about a black samurai. The game designers have succeeded in making plenty of people here start to talk about black samurais even though black samurais never existed. If a fictional black samurai is not something that people here are interested in, isn't it a bit strange that so many people here talking about it?

It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. Case in point - everyone here is talking about a black samurai. The game designers have succeeded in making plenty of people here start to talk about black samurais even though a black samurai never existed. If a fictional black samurai is not something that people here are interested in, isn't it a bit strange that so many people here talking about it?

It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. Case in point - everyone here is talking about a black samurai. The game designers have succeeded in making plenty of people here start to talk about black samurais even though a black samurai is completely fictional. If a fictional black samurai is not something that people here are interested in, isn't it a bit strange that so many people here talking about it?

It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. Case in point - everyone here is talking about a black samurai. The game designers have made plenty of people here start to talk about black samurais even though a black samurai is completely fictional. If a fictional black samurai is not something that people here are interested in, isn't it a bit strange that so many people here talking about it?

It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts in at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts in at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and unsurprisingly didn't like it. But regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts in at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and unsurprisingly didn't like it. But regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts in at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it, which I knew would be the case. But regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

The reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

The reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how certain people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

The reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how certain people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

The reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline, such as not allowing oneself to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how certain people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

The reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Not allowing oneself to be baited into responding instinctively to the propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

If someone can predict how certain people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.

In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?

Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.

The reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.

It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.

No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing instead of just reacting all the time.

One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Not allowing oneself to be baited into responding instinctively to the propaganda.

How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?

You are still thinking inside the box. You are still thinking that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?