On Empty Propaganda Twaddle (I've said it before and I'm saying it again.)

[norml]

In their propaganda they have only positive personal characteristics, while their opponents have only negative personal characteristics.

In their propaganda every move they make is brilliant.

In their propaganda every move their opponents make is a blunder.

In their propaganda they are always winning, and their opponents are always losing.

Saying their opponents are angry is part of saying all their opponents arguments are based on emotion (meaning they are entirely irrational arguments), while saying all of their arguments are based on logic (meaning they are entirely rational arguments).

It's behavioral conditioning by word association and has nothing to do with the particulars of any real world situation.

There isn't a line of this empty twaddle that can't just as easily be turned around and applied (just as irrationally I might add) to them.

Am I the only one here who's studied this sort of thing?

[babylonsister]

1. I haven't studied this, but isn't it all about 'framing' their message?

And FWIW, I agree. I've read a few posts today that give credence to how their propaganda is winning, but their propaganda, not the rightness of their ideas.
I hate the idea of stooping to that level, i.e., empty twaddle, but at this point, whatever it takes is necessary!

[norml]

3. "Framing the Message" and "Controlling the Debate" are more complex.

They involve actually stringing more than a couple of words together.

What I'm talking about is more primal, more elemental.

"Us All Positive"

"Them All Negative"

It doesn't even have to involve words.

If I make painfully rude noises every time I say your name, show your picture, or play your words, in time even you will wince at the sound of your own name, or at the sight of your own picture.

My point is not that we should turn to it as they do, but to recognize it for what it is, and to not be tripped out by it.

However if some goon says "You're all angry" rather than treating the statement as though it were something worthy of examination and refutation, realize it's entirely appropriate to either blow it off as nonsense, or to say "No, you're all angry" and then give them an example.

[norml]

4. Example 1: Fire Ants are Valuable.

That's behavioral conditioning by word association.

Fire Ants = Positive

[norml]

5. Example 2: How can we prevent the loss of valuable Fire Ants?

That's Framing the Message, AKA, Framing the Debate.

[ragin_acadian]

6. "why do you hate fire ants?"

obtain disapproval: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obtain_disapproval&action=edit

[norml]

7. "Article not found"

Article not found
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
We don't have an article with this title, but you can create it if you log in or create an account. As an unregistered user, you may also submit the content that you wish to have created. Please read our introduction for more information about Wikipedia.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obtain_disapproval"

[ragin_acadian]

8. i got lazy, and don't have access to my books on burkean rhetoric

it was from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

great thread, BTW!

[hwmnbn]

2. Yep, their choice of words...

descriptive adjectives, even sentence structure can manipulate ideas. They've done it incessantly for years now. I believe it is orchestrated and premeditated.

Notice how the word "liberal" has been demonized. I have no problems using their tactics against them. I frame the debate and keep them on the defensive. Never explain, never apologize, always attack.