Exiled wrote:Icarus wrote:You don't seem to pay much attention to anything do you.
Maybe you could answer the question: is it possible to disagree with Hillary and not be a Russian agent/Putin puppet?
I think it's an important question because I don't agree with most of what Hillary says and so does a big percentage of the US population and I want to know if a big part of the US population is so obviously controlled by Putin and Russia, just like Stein and Gabbard so obviously are.
I just want to take a moment to point out Exiled's modus operandi, although I'm not sure Exiled fully understands what he's doing. This is important because, as EA pointed out, Exiled seems to exact the highest of thresholds for proof when it comes to Trump or Conservative issues, but seems all too willing to accept the flimsiest of 'evidence' when it comes to Liberals (which he totes is down with, by the way). This also extends out to Markk, Ceeboo, and a few others to varying degrees. I should also note that some people are just too damned dull to get outside their thick skulls and echo chambers to work an issue over in their minds. I digress...
Professor Cameron's Steps to Confuse and Befuddle an Opponent through Dubiousness and Spuriousness1) Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison between your position and theirs while offering up minimal responses that don't acknowledge points raised.
2) Insist that your opponent provide incontrovertible proof, and anything short of a recorded and signed confession won't be accepted as plausible. Recorded confessions will be assumed to be a deep fake and signed confessions are forgeries.
3) Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately (or hair fire or tin foil conspiracy, etc). Do not even read it. Once your opponent goes through the bother to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the target poster. It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, which is a net win. The sooner you can move the discussion into quips and cliches the better it is for your side.
4) As mentioned above it's extremely important to cherry pick their arguments. Just because they make a good point doesn't mean that you have to respond to it.
5) Quote them and then misrepresent what they said.
6) Attack the source because that's easier than addressing content. I like to call this one 'ad sourcenum'.
7) Confuse your opponent with questions,
always questions. The questions
need not be relevant. The goal is to get your opponent off their game, and preventing your opponent from making their point. Think Endless Recursion through Irrelevant Questions. Also,
do not respond to their leading questions.
8) Just blurt out something, anything, instead of letting points go unchallenged. That, in of itself is a rebuttal and works like a charm. Posting for the sake of posting is as good as posting a well-thought point.
9) Deceive your opponent by identifying yourself as a member of their group, or as a moderate, centrist, independent, or act as though you used to be part of their group but then saw the error of your ways. <- The last one is the Born Again tactic. Or just stay on the low down. Works either way, no?
10) Insert our catch phrases into your posts. Stick with it and our talking points will become truth. If they debunk your talking point, ignore it, and move on because what's important is noise, not content.
11) There's this thing called 'sliding', and you see DCP do it a lot (and they also talk about it a lot on /pol/). LDSFAQs would do this quite a bit. If you want to hide something instead of addressing it, sliding a post is a great way to bury anything that you don't want to be seen. Simply create more posts above the conversation that you want to hide. The posts that you make will push the targeted posts further down, reducing the visibility of the objectionable material.
Any combination of these tactics are in use any given moment by bad actors. Anyway. I just want the audience to see what I see and note their BS when they're doing it.
- Doc
