Leftists believe countless stupid things: gun control makes everything more
secure, Hillary is fit to be president, men can get pregnant, etc.
postmodern professors believe the objective reality doesn t exist. Despite
this, the leftists are convinced that the truth is on their side and
everyone is dumber than dirt.
Suppose you're in a debate where you are wrong. Your opponent can simply
show what your facts and your reasoning are incorrect. Then you lose and
you go home to the terribly stupid research. Simple enough, right?
Now the following are strong-arm tactics that no one should use if the
truth is really on their side. Lest anyone try to misrepresent, I don t
recommend using bad arguments or dirty tricks, but be aware of how to spot
them.
Priming the public
Anyone advocating the construction of roads will also be a bellicose
foreign policy and a balance sheet of human ugly man, QED.
Be the firstest with the mostest is a great advantage in a war of
information. This can be taken to extremes dishonest. The first appeal
against targeted dissidents or competing ideologies is a blackout of
information.
If they re outgrows ignore, the next step is to turn the public against
them before preemptively message reaches a wider audience. skillful
propagandists go further and introduce targeted views not only bad, but
quite wrong. The idea of objective discussion and # 8212, or even
considering the merits of the targeted opposition & # 8212; must be made to
sound crazy, silly, sin, evil, etc.
The objective could be a specific organization, collection of groups
conveniently grouped together, or the ideologies and political positions.
In cunning association members are portrayed as moody, bestial, criminal,
etc. Video presentations with spooky music and old stock images of
historical urchins can help drive home the point. Meanwhile, targeted views
of opponents will be depicted with sensitivity and camouflaged under & #
8212; sometimes almost & # 8212 adoringly, even if they're not too holy.
(In fact, the irony sometimes up to black comedy.) Thus, politics is
reduced to melodrama worthy spaghetti western.
Subsequently, more familiar propaganda techniques are sufficient to keep
the public turned against the targeted opposition. If they're allowed any
access to the media, most often it will be by their less charismatic and
articulate members. However, gaffes or particularly controversial points
are enough too. Today propagandists are great at sound bites cherry picking
(sometimes out of context) and carefully selecting shots and camera angles.
All of this is how the public's minds blue pill made by people they know.
If the truth is on their side, why is it necessary to condition the masses
have blind, impulsive reactions knee?
sophistry
This straw man clearly encourages children to smoke grass!
The art of rhetoric regarding real debate, and the detection of verbal
trickery, such as:
Begging the question: Using an assumption underlying premise
not relevant conclusion: Talk about something else to dodge the substance
of the argument
false dichotomy: depicting incorrectly something either / or proposition
Appeal to Popularity: If everybody believes something, it must be true
Straw Man: overestimate an opponent's position
Appeal to emotion: effective than pathos & # 8221; element of rhetoric, but
illegitimate when it derailed logical discussion
These twisted arguments (among many others) are so old that they have names
in Greek and Latin. In modern times, new common variations on old themes:
cherry picking evidence to support an argument
One who cares the most about a subject must be right
A discussion deflect endless tangents
Choose evidence apart dispute that's pretty inconsequential, while ignoring
everything else
Insisting that you Scientific studies cited, while waiting for you to
believe their unsupported assertions
Rejecting the scientific studies peer reviewed with non-PC conclusions as &
# 8221 offensive; or insensitive
exaggeration or outright lying
Deceptive tactics are sometimes carelessness, bad logicians generally know
what they're doing. The people safe in their facts and reasoning gift t
need to use diversion tactics, my researcher can beat your researcher & #
8221; or other word games.
Censorship
This tactic goes back to antiquity. Probably the first time was a king said
to his subjects to stop criticizing his mistakes, or. Although censorship
can go far enough to silence the opposition, there are drawbacks. It is
remarkably heavy. In addition, the welding of the closure of the public
safety valve leads to simmering resentment. In addition, it deprives a
precious honest feedback scheme.
Today, it takes many forms. Again, the blackout of information is the first
line of defense. When the mass media is an oligopoly of a few business
conglomerates with frames as groundbreaking and staff, it's easy to exclude
competing narratives. Vigorous public debate can exist as long as he's in
some unspoken limits are subject to change.
Since the 1990s, online communication has given the public means of
presenting their own information and comments. To put a lid on it, service
providers (ISPs, hosting, payment processors, etc.) include terms of
service enabling them to arbitrarily arrest dissidents. The criteria are
very broad but vague, which gives enormous discretion to block the opposing
narratives. Social justice Warriors to monitor dissidents stories on many
platforms, and some companies even hire teams of them. The new trend is
driven by computer analysis to speech robotic police.
With several political positions, one side can argue freely, but the other
side is delegitimized. For example, it's allowed to plead vehemently open
borders. However, this explains why s wrong can you get censured for
promoting hatred (s Whatever that means).
The final phase of censorship by law. This is already in place in most
parts of Europe. Challenging policies, or even some historical issues, can
result in fines or imprisonment. So you can advocate multiculturalism until
you're blue in the face, but the defense against it will land you in court.
Again, the criteria are very broad and selectively applied.
If leftists believe certain ideas are so obviously wrong, then why is it
necessary to keep them out of the public sphere or make illegal?
Intimidation
Chinese Communist control session
By instilling fear stories questioning, people may have to censor
themselves. Compliance is a powerful force, like the Milgram experiment
(among others) have shown. An example is even if you're voting for Trump,
then remove me from your list of friends last year messages posted by
people who are proud of tolerance and inclusion.
Even worse is bullying online and Doxing. Expressing some opinions might
make you blacklisted from your work or your personal information revealed.
You and your family may be deprived of income or endangered. Leftists are
still outraged efforts for communists in Hollywood and the State Department
six years ago at the height of the Cold War. However, they're oddly
ordinary citizens in silence served recently on non-betrayal dissent.
The last step is violence. In recent years, a number of leftist groups have
raised hell, riots and repression of dissidents. Some are well-funded to
the point where & # 8221 demonstrators; can be paid and bussed in from
afar. (Although members are cannon fodder for billionaires globalists, they
think they. Re struggle against the establishment) Police intervention is
sometimes ineffective, even if they have personally been the target. Often
the police are overwhelmed, or even on the order to withdraw.
Why witch hunts and goon squads necessary in a free marketplace of ideas?
Why ideologies take own life
Whole systems can be entangled in ideologies that are flawed to the point
of absurdity. Suppose that the Soviet leadership had openly admitted that
communism doesn t work, and they stopped to punish dissidents say. Would
they (and all the apparatchiks who work under them) remained in power?
For a more recent example, thousands of people quite likely to work in the
foundations or make their career out of trying to get more women in STEM
fields. How long will they continue to ride the gravy train if they
admitted that most women simply don t like corny career? (. Recently, James
Damore was fired from Google for saying something similar) to bring great
gifts to foundations and justify feminist specialties human resources
requires the history of fear about & # The Patriarchy 8221; keep women out
of the technology. To keep the narrative, other explanations must be
removed.
This one is a relatively trivial example. Several other misconceptions have
astronomically more impact on the audience, but I'll leave that as an
exercise for the reader. If the structure of the left to lose grip on their
accounts and can t rule out other points of view, their corrupt regime will
fall.
Read more: Twitter Appoints anti-free speech Feminist Anita Sarkeesian
confidence to head the Security Council
No comments:
Post a Comment