Quo Vadis GOP?

[Berkut]

I guess I should not find this surprising. The conservatives have been using this well known propaganda tool for a long, long time.

You take something that is "true" in some incredibly narrow sense. Then you craft a story around that that takes that claim to radically different levels, that are clearly not true, but advance an agenda you care about.

You apply some handy label to it that sounds good.

Then you sell everyone on the idea, and anytime someone challenges you on the rational basis, you fall back on the narrow definition, all the while you are selling the broader lie in the media.

When people broadly hear "The mainstream media is biased against conservatives and for liberals" they don't hear the narrow definition Beebs and Yi claim to mean. That all media has some bias and you should be aware of that bias. They hear "The mainstream media cannot be trusted, they are liars". That is what that phrase means to the broader culture. And it is a lie.

"There is no proof of evolution!"

"There is no consensus around climate change!"

"Vaccines don't even prevent COVID!"

"There were discrepancies in the Georgia election results!"

"Biden got that prosecutor who was looking into the company Hunter was on the board of fired!"

"Clinton let Americans die at Benghazi!"

All those statements are "true" in some strict definition of the word "true". And all of them are a fucking lie in the actual narrative that is popularly advanced by the claims they make. I am certain I could come up with another dozen examples of the same thing (and plenty from the left as well, for that matter - it's not like this tactic is unique to modern authoritarian conservatism).

The part of the "mainstream media is biased towards liberals" example is that it is a "true" lie that makes all the other lies that much easier to sell. It is an attack on the very tool a liberal democracy must use to combat all the other propaganda. It is a uniquely dangerous myth.

[Barrister]

I guess I should not find this surprising. The conservatives have been using this well known propaganda tool for a long, long time.

You take something that is "true" in some incredibly narrow sense. Then you craft a story around that that takes that claim to radically different levels, that are clearly not true, but advance an agenda you care about.

You apply some handy label to it that sounds good.

Then you sell everyone on the idea, and anytime someone challenges you on the rational basis, you fall back on the narrow definition, all the while you are selling the broader lie in the media.

When people broadly hear "The mainstream media is biased against conservatives and for liberals" they don't hear the narrow definition Beebs and Yi claim to mean. That all media has some bias and you should be aware of that bias. They hear "The mainstream media cannot be trusted, they are liars". That is what that phrase means to the broader culture. And it is a lie.

"There is no proof of evolution!"

"There is no consensus around climate change!"

"Vaccines don't even prevent COVID!"

"There were discrepancies in the Georgia election results!"

"Biden got that prosecutor who was looking into the company Hunter was on the board of fired!"

"Clinton let Americans die at Benghazi!"

All those statements are "true" in some strict definition of the word "true". And all of them are a fucking lie in the actual narrative that is popularly advanced by the claims they make. I am certain I could come up with another dozen examples of the same thing (and plenty from the left as well, for that matter - it's not like this tactic is unique to modern authoritarian conservatism).

The part of the "mainstream media is biased towards liberals" example is that it is a "true" lie that makes all the other lies that much easier to sell. It is an attack on the very tool a liberal democracy must use to combat all the other propaganda. It is a uniquely dangerous myth.

[Berkut]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

[Barrister]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved.

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

[DGuller]

Ok Barrister. You keep on keeping on.

But do stop wondering how the crazy ass nutjobs on the right keep managing to convince people to vote for racism and bigotry and denial of science. Because you know the answer, even if you want to pretend otherwise.

Clearly the answer is because I said that the mainstream media is biased on Languish.

What the fuck, Beeb, what the fuck?  Why did you say that?

you're biased against BB being biased. someone should bring it up in every second thread. that'll teach you!

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that?

[Berkut]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved.

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

[Berkut]

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that?

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?

[DGuller]

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that?

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?

I didn't even mention you. It is telling that you think this was an attack on you.

[Barrister]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved.

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

[Berkut]

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that?

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?

I didn't even mention you. It is telling that you think this was an attack on you.

OK, but can you answer the question?

[Barrister]

Won't I come off as frothing and deranged if I do that?

You think I am frothing and deragend because I think that this attack on the credibility of the media matters?

I didn't even mention you. It is telling that you think this was an attack on you.

I legit laughed out loud to this.   

[Berkut]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved.

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

I am pretty sure I explained ad naseum why I am bringing this up, and why I think it is important.

"There is no proof for evolution" is true, meaningless, and trite. Do you not understand why someone might bring it up when people say that in the context of a discussion about science?

[Barrister]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved.

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

I am pretty sure I explained ad naseum why I am bringing this up, and why I think it is important.

"There is no proof for evolution" is true, meaningless, and trite. Do you not understand why someone might bring it up when people say that in the context of a discussion about science?

Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

[Berkut]

As eloquent and rational a response as ever.

It was the response your irrational and conspiratorial post deserved.

I have a novel idea - why don't you engage with me as a person and what I am saying, rather than what the consequences of what I say might be, or what "the conservatives" are saying?

You aren't saying anything at all beyond chanting that there is a bias in the media against your party. Then when challenged on that, you insist it doesn't mean anything at all beyond some platitude about how everyone has bias.

There isn't anything to engage with on that. To the extent it is narrowly true, it is meaningless and trite. There is nothing to be done about it, and nothing interesting to say about it.

The interesting part of that claim is how it is actually used in our world and its impacts, which are severe. You don't care about that though, clearly.

If what I am actually saying is just meaningless and trite then why do you keep bringing it up?  Rather than keep attributing thoughts and motives to me that I don't actually have?

I am pretty sure I explained ad naseum why I am bringing this up, and why I think it is important.

"There is no proof for evolution" is true, meaningless, and trite. Do you not understand why someone might bring it up when people say that in the context of a discussion about science?

Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

I have engaged in what you are saying. I am doing so right now.

THe irony is that you have consistently refused to even address any argument I've made.

There is nothing hypothetical about my example - this exact argument has in fact been made.

It is not a strawman - you don't get to ignore an argument by just saying "strawman". If my analogy is not relevant, then tell us why the two situations are in fact different.

[Barrister]

Again - why don't you engage in what I am saying, rather than bring up some odd hypothetical / strawman kind of argument?

I have engaged in what you are saying. I am doing so right now.

THe irony is that you have consistently refused to even address any argument I've made.

There is nothing hypothetical about my example - this exact argument has in fact been made.

It is not a strawman - you don't get to ignore an argument by just saying "strawman". If my analogy is not relevant, then tell us why the two situations are in fact different.

Because I'm not going to try and argue / rebut an argument I'm not making.