SPOTTING DISINFORMATION
author: Diogenes
This is a handy reference tool for spotting trolls and other lower
life forms. Given that Indy, and other independent open forums, are
increasingly the targets of various members of the sell-out classes
this is a nice reference for tuning up your BS detector.
Spotting Disinformation - The rules of the "Game"
Courtesy of Walt July 15, 1998
* 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what
you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure,
news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you
never have to deal with the issues.
* 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues
and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as
being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is
also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
* 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all
charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild
accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may
work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press,
because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through
such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the
Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no
basis in fact.
* 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of
the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a
way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated
alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
* 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is
also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other
methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal",
"left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
* 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or
other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
* 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so
taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the
accuser on the defensive.
* 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
* 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is
offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any
credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a
point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum
effect.
* 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the
straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily
dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw
man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial
contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new
ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original
charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address
current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was
involved with the original source.
* 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor
matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess"
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but
that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so."
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this
can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to
your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
* 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella
of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and
events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes
those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more
quickly without having to address the actual issues.
* 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
forbears any actual material fact.
* 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring
opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works
best for items qualifying for rule 10.
* 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative
thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in
place. (Can you say Rush Limbaugh - sure you can - just don't choke.)
* 16. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the
other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with
abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a
new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions
who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
* 17. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do
anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue,
you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive
they are to criticism".
* 18. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is
perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material
may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material
irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to
come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a
murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may
require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as
valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or
relevance.
* 19. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or
clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent
presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede
resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with
contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily
separated from the fabrications.
* 20. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively.
.
|
