This is from the film "(Astro)Turf Wars". It shows a training session for how to sabotage the dialogue and "control the debate".
But one of the first lessons in anti-propaganda tactics is to learn how people practise it and be able to spot it. Then, you can say "that is propaganda and not really worth paying attention to". Additionally, you can use critical thinking skills to spot the flaws in their arguments.
In this case, the trick is called "stacking the deck" or "card staking" where one emphasises on argument while eliminating another.
But, the next time you see a book with polarised reviews, you can be aware that it has probably been hit by this tactic.
The film is worth watching.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem is that you believe fundamental rights are up for dialogue, debate, and compromise in the first place. They are not.
Suppose I really, REALLY, REALLY want to have sex with a beautiful woman ... so much so that I find myself thinking about her all day long, every day. It begins to seriously irritate me that I cannot have sex with her. After all, I have a right to have sex. And I have a right to have a clear mind at peace without having to long for sex with a beautiful woman. So tell me, how should the woman proceed in dialogue and debate with me about having sex with her after she says "no thank you"? How should the woman compromise with me after saying "no thank you"?
In my example the beautiful woman owes me nothing -- no sex, no dialogue, no debate, and no compromise, PERIOD. In the same manner, citizens owe you nothing -- they can own any personal property they desire, possess it anywhere they desire in public, and possess it any way they want, without compromise, PERIOD. It doesn't matter whether that personal property is a good luck charm or a firearm.
-- TruthBeTold
What BS. There are all sorts of products banned, restricted, or highly regulated. Usually because they present a danger to the user, or public at large. A gun is a deadly weapon and logically needs more consideration on its safe use than a lucky charm. If you can't see that, then it is you who are unreasonable, or just dishonest.
Delete"There are all sorts of products banned, restricted, or highly regulated."
DeleteBut firearms are regulated. To the tune of thousands of federal, state, and local laws governing use and possession. The US Supreme Court has even stated in the Heller decision, that reasonable restrictions are allowed as long as they fall short of a ban.
And gun regulation continues to evolve, though generally in the direction of expanding gun rights.
Anonymous,
DeleteI disagree with just about all of those bans and regulations. It is not government's place to determine what products we can or cannot have. If government wants to "promote the general welfare", government can do that without eroding liberty, such as mandating full disclosure of "dangerous" products and making it a priority to prosecute or support lawsuits against any dangerous products. But banning them is wrong in every case that I can imagine.
-- TruthBeTold
Right, like we can trust companies not to kill us with bad food, unsafe products, or other money saving measures that cause people harm. We cut the number of meat inspectors and deaths from contaminated meat goes up. Yes, the government has a right to protect the public from unscrupulous companies who could care less how their product harms people, they only care how much money they can make. It's called building a better society, meaning people have more safeguards against unnecessary death, disease, and and other crippling effects. I don't believe the purchase of TNT should be as easy as buying a pack of gum. Same with a deadly weapon like guns.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYou're not listening. I never said we should eliminate inspectors. I said we need full disclosure. How many packages of meat do you think a company will sell if they have a big orange "Contaminated!" sticker on them from the USDA? How many companies will try to sell contaminated meat if the government would prosecute the staff of such a company for murder and/or conspiracy to commit murder? How many companies would try to sell contaminated meat if the government gave priority to lawsuits suing the meat company for damages? The answer to all of those questions: none, zero, zilch.
Bans are not the answer. Full disclosure and holding people accountable for their actions, whether or not they are employees of a company, is the answer.
-- TruthBeTold
Ah, because they don't even know it's contaminated, due to their negligence. Companies poison us everyday. I'll pay to have someone watching them.
DeleteAnonymous, there's a difference between having inspectors to guarantee that a company is selling us what is labelled on the packaging and in banning or restricting a given product.
DeleteWhat product is being banned?
Delete"What product is being banned?" There are thousands of products that have been banned - lawn darts come to mind. Just because some idiots don't know any better than to not throw a heavy metal spike straight up into the air and watch it come back down means nobody can own these? The list of banned products could probably fill several books if you wanted to look into it.
DeleteI have some old lawn darts in my shed, must be worth a lot of money.
Delete"I have some old lawn darts in my shed, must be worth a lot of money." It is probably illegal for you to sell them...
DeleteFuck the law, I'll do what I want to do.
DeleteI learned that from Greg's laws to live by, on this site.
In other words, the left and the right use tactics that Saul Alinsky would approve? And?
ReplyDelete