Techniques of Propaganda (1949)

When America had something to be smug about.

PR is literally just propaganda. Everyone has PR, so everyone else needs PR, whether they want it or not.
If it tugs on feelings, especially guilt, it’s propaganda. They shouldn’t need to sink that low if they have a genuine point. It’s the same with frivolous lines e.g. get back into the kitchen was never funny, because women have always influenced elections. You’ve just turned away one vote to your opponent. Republicans don’t get this, everyone you reject is a Dem win.
Just as often, there are neutralizations of any dissent.
The classic one is a thought-terminating cliche. Exactly what it sounds like.
Transfer is ad hominem.
Card stacking – misquoting, cherrypicking, sharpshooter fallacy etc.
Testimonials exploit the Halo Effect. It’s the opposite of what SJWs try, guilt by association (and guilty until proven suitably progressive). There’s a witch trial vibe of suspicion.
Plain folks are a kind of cheerleader effect for the average voter, Joe Public. There is a lure toward a false consensus, negating the need to argue or debate from an honest position or with the burden of proof. It’s pretending there’s a bandwagon, hoping the network effect makes it so. Perception studies show how vital popularity is, or the perception thereof, to what the individual thinks of as their personal opinion. These are stubborn when set but can only be based on the information they’re exposed to.
The great part of this fake news is how it started – with the BBC.
Now people have a neologism for the concept, they’ll be on the lookout for propaganda. Problem is, the Old Media are the ones pumping out most of it.
For Corbyn they tried this, including a hategoat, like a scapegoat but for people you’re meant to hate (think the villain you boo in a pantomime). People pointed out the Boomers in the table video were likelier to vote for Corbyn, actually, and he was one himself.
The purpose of propaganda is control. It’s manipulation via the heartstrings.
“To do something, to believe something, or to buy something.”
Plenty of men are wary of the first but the latter escape them. A fool and his money.
2. Look for negative evidence. Things that make their position look bad or the speaker to feel bad.
Why do you think they never teach how to spot this in state schools?

If they have different motivations or end goals to you, if they aren’t intellectually honest, you probably shouldn’t agree with them. To deny group-level interests are innate and real is ludicrous. What they want opposes you. The political is personal, that’s why votes are one each.

Leftism would’ve never gained traction without the spotlights of Hollywood making it seem cool and happy. Yes it’s a lie if you look at say, the data, but how many people do that? A minority of high-info voters.

Mansplain Bingo

mansplain-bingo

really mansplaining refers to debate practices done incorrectly or in bad faith
it’s all about the pretentious people appealing to their own authority
in lieu of proof/s
they lack honour but go on to disrespect their opponent while refusing to let them leave
trans. intellectually dishonest bullies
aka It can’t be antisocial if I use big words! Stop crying! Stop hitting yourself!
they assume an authority above the other speaker without anything to back it up
it’s just extremely more typical for the male to bitch with rationalizations to feel intellectual

it’s a logical fallacy to wield the terms and ideas of logic incorrectly
their own emotional high rests on their opponents’ ignorance of correct form
like kicking sand in their eyes in a fight
they’re low
they need to cheat because they’re scum

no parties involved can commonly articulate this because neither of them fully know the rules

in short, in response to one stupid person/group, you get the REAL triggered group

they pretend to be offended by lies, but it’s really personal -like, REALLY personal

the opposite of gentlemanly (correct form) making them instant losers

going “achtually” when nobody invited them, they don’t know what they’re talking about (man card is not a valid qualification on STEM topics) and sperging out

in a woman it’s called being a gossip, being a bitch, whining, being nosy or nagging
they try to pass all those off as proof of masculinity and veracity (fooling no one, causing temper tantrum)

it’s entirely fully 100% bitchy men pretending to be smart

starting on the idiots they perceive as slightly lower in the chain

throwing a tantrum when you point it out

very delta/gamma

not men, but boys, too easily triggered to be masculine

when arrogant men and women bump noggins, but project their faults as an innately sexual thing

buy hey, I just believe in Burden of Proof

Most things are not obvious. Otherwise, a debate would be redundant.

eyeroll marilyn monroe rlly really uhuh hmmm oh

My personal favourites are;

you’re too dumb to explain it to (or, Occam’s razor, you can’t do it cos you’re poorly informed and therefore wrong) but also I don’t even understand you and that’s your fault (incredulity)

If I repeat myself maybe it’ll make it sound like I have a valid point.

If you call me out on any of my bullshit, somehow ad hominem.

Autistic shrieking as they gesture at both wikipedia and the common dictionary of non-technical terms.

If you make my beliefs look stupid, I will get so defensive I can only call it a strawman but cannot explain why.

The reddit rhetoric

They do the same spergy thing every damn time.

The Redditfag Gambit to terminate discussion that triggers their feefees.

  1. Papers! I demand papers because scientism! Calling a paper wrong is tantamount to disproving its concept! Show me papers I’m too lazy to look up so I can moan they aren’t sciencey enough in my superior opinion and furthermore, you cherrypicked them for me, how dare you!
  2. Tell me your qualifications so I can tell you they’re inadequate and feel better about not understanding and ignoring you.
  3. Fallacy fallacy. If I use this word often enough without explaining how it applies in specific cases maybe you’ll confuse me for a person with two brain cells to rub together.
  4. When caught on a point, I shall ignore it, for I have no faith, even bad faith. God himself couldn’t correct me. All hail Richard Dawkins, pedo be his rumours.
  5. I don’t work in this field but I’m pretty sure I know it better than the person using all the terminology correctly.
  6. I know all about this topic because I saw a meme once.
  7. Cliche soundbites I’m pretending I came up with.
  8. Off-topic reference, derailing impossibly ambiguous over-broad questions and randomly quoting you (like wow, just wow) make me look like I read the whole thing in spite of overt ADD.
  9. My feelings are hurt, you are wrong. QED. Also, you are terrible.
  10. Stop writing, nobody likes you because my opinion is gospel. Muh peer review appeal to standards uber alles, ignore the mass fraud, and blog posts should be held to the same standard as experimental papers. As in, a scientist never writes like a filthy normie or cracks a joke bc Sheldon Cooper.

Paper Strawmans, casual tone policing (well, the Internet is peer-reviewed, is it not?) and self-congratulation.

It’s like watching a dog eat its own vomit.