See that’s the kind of stuff the person you replied to was referencing. It couldn’t be that a fellow American on the left has a different opinion than you do, oh no, that would mean that maybe there’s some cause to question your own convictions. No, of course not, it must be a Russian shill.
Actually in this case I was referring to the style of propaganda. It’s got a similar feel to the infamous Russian reverse cargo cult method. Kind of like, “authoritatively say that the sky is yellow, not blue, and ridicule anyone who claims it is blue”. With the goal of removing the idea of an objective reality from the debate, so that in future they can say whatever they want unchallenged.
Worst case the whole thing becomes a distraction, arguing about whatever absurdity the person has claimed. And since it’s easy to just make up new absurdities, they can keep their opponent distracted while they throw in jabs against their true enemies (Democrats…It’s always Democrats).
It’s kind of a win-win style of propaganda, but it probably needs rapid follow-up to keep the opponent off balance.
So yeah, not insulting that person at the moment, just musing on the rhetorical aspects of the lie they told.
Sorry, let me be a little more direct: I don’t give a fuck what you people think. You gave up all right to reasoned discourse when you started arguing propaganda in bad faith. So sometimes I will ignore you and comment on your propaganda directly. I find the particular structure of this one interesting. If you were under the delusion that I was trying to debate you, you may leave now.
See that’s the kind of stuff the person you replied to was referencing. It couldn’t be that a fellow American on the left has a different opinion than you do, oh no, that would mean that maybe there’s some cause to question your own convictions. No, of course not, it must be a Russian shill.
Actually in this case I was referring to the style of propaganda. It’s got a similar feel to the infamous Russian reverse cargo cult method. Kind of like, “authoritatively say that the sky is yellow, not blue, and ridicule anyone who claims it is blue”. With the goal of removing the idea of an objective reality from the debate, so that in future they can say whatever they want unchallenged.
Worst case the whole thing becomes a distraction, arguing about whatever absurdity the person has claimed. And since it’s easy to just make up new absurdities, they can keep their opponent distracted while they throw in jabs against their true enemies (Democrats…It’s always Democrats).
It’s kind of a win-win style of propaganda, but it probably needs rapid follow-up to keep the opponent off balance.
So yeah, not insulting that person at the moment, just musing on the rhetorical aspects of the lie they told.
Thanks for the lesson in semantics, but it doesn’t address my point in the slightest. Sort of ironic I guess.
Sorry, let me be a little more direct: I don’t give a fuck what you people think. You gave up all right to reasoned discourse when you started arguing propaganda in bad faith. So sometimes I will ignore you and comment on your propaganda directly. I find the particular structure of this one interesting. If you were under the delusion that I was trying to debate you, you may leave now.