Context
Free speech laws protect almost all demagoguery and propaganda. That empowers demagogues and propagandists (D&Ps) use the human condition as their playground manipulate and persuade minds to get what they want. There are all kinds of D&Ps. Some work in the realm of politics, while others concentrate on religion, commerce, or social tradition. Free speech law usually protects speech, not people. Examples of speech laws protecting people include making false advertising and defamation illegal. Those exceptions are narrow and generally ineffective. That leaves D&Ps almost completely free to deceive, distract, deflect, confuse, sow unwarranted doubt, lie, irrationally emotionally manipulate, and assert crackpot reasoning to get what they want.
Crackpot reasoning includes asserting logic flaws. Asserting crackpottery is a common mind-poisoning tactic. There are many kinds of logic flaws in crackpottery, but common ones D&Ps use in political speech include (1) ad hominem attacks (insults), (2) false dilemma assertions where only 2 choices are presented when there are others, (3) appeal to fear that uses frightening imagery, predictions, or threats as a substitute for evidence (“criminal illegal immigrants”), (4) diversion fallacies such as straw man (misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack and refute) and red herring (asserting something irrelevant to divert attention from the question that needs an answer, e.g., it is especially useful for D&Ps and politicians facing a damaging fact) arguments, and (5) bandwagon appeal, which asserts popularity, momentum, or alleged majority sentiment as proof that a belief or policy is true or right (“Everybody knows the election was stolen”). This peer-reviewed post by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies, describes fallacies in easy to read language.
An example
It takes some time and effort to learn how to better defend ones-self from D&P’s poisoned free speech. One way to do that is to take some D&P content and break it down into individual bit of poison.
A MAGA demagogue’s poison response to evidence that MAGA politicians are generally not trustworthy: Opining in the modern sense is often a transparent attempt to make ‘the other guy’ look bad through nuance and assumptive tale-making. One can’t really blame the opiner; there are crowds out there waiting to lap this stuff up, or so he would insist. One thing is certain: ‘they too shall pass’; I mean, who remembers Jim Acosta? Shakespeare knew what he was saying when he opined that “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”, me included. But at least you don’t hear me railing against the moon; I just relish pulling the odd chain or two.
Analysis of the demagogue’s poison bits: 1. “Opining in the modern sense…” — That is an insult that falsely recasts the OP’s evidence-based argument as mere opinion backed by no evidence. This deflects from the evidence the OP presented of MAGA politician mendacity.
2. “make ‘the other guy’ look bad” That attributes a partisan motive to the writer, but even if that were true, it still does not make the evidence false. This is an ad hominem attack that substitutes for a reasoned or evidence-based rebuttal.
3. “crowds … waiting to lap this stuff up” That is a direct insult to anyone who would agree with the OP’s argument about MAGA politicians. This directly insults anyone who more or less agree with the OP’s evidence, reasoning and conclusions. As usual, there is not one shred of counter-evidence or any reasoned argument about why the evidence is unconvincing or the reasoning flawed.
4. “they too shall pass … who remembers Jim Acosta?” This is more insulting deflection. Whether a journalist or commentator remains famous has no bearing whatsoever on whether the targeted political actors are trustworthy.
5. “I just relish pulling the odd chain or two” That is pure demagogue insult. This comment acts as a convenient escape hatch. It allows the demagogue to make stupid, insulting insinuations without taking responsibility for defending them. Worse than that, this comment concedes that the demagogue’s purpose is provocation, not respectful or serious disagreement.
Conclusion
Yes, politics and the human mind are more complicated than most people understand. Politics isn’t entertainment. The mind isn’t a computer or logic machine. It takes time and effort to start to put one’s mind in a more informed, more rational mode of self-defense against D&P’s mind-poisoning dark arts.
Q1: Is it the case that American politics is now a bitter war to the death of deeply corrupt elitist authoritarianism against public democracy, the rule of law and our civil liberties, where authoritarian elites are fighting tooth and claw for more wealth and power at our expense?
Q2: Is it logical to believe that when people vote on the basis of false beliefs that D&Ps have poisoned their minds with, their power to decide on the basis of facts, robust truths and good faith sound reasoning has been taken from them and given to the elites and special interests the D&Ps are advocating for? If not, why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment