Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Holy Fuck Me Harder! [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)304. Some of the "Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation" have been used in this thread...
...with examples:
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
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...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post34
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post142
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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post142
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 be 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...
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post152
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post156
"In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that 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."
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact...
17. 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post30
18. 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.'...
19. 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, it may be required that 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post65
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post159
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post164
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post169
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...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post34
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post142
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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post142
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 be 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...
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post152
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post156
"In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that 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."
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact...
17. 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post30
18. 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.'...
19. 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, it may be required that 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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post65
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post159
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post164
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post169
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
314 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Me too, Lost_Count, BTW, a belated but hearty welcome to DU. Right glad tameetcha!
Ecumenist
Feb 2014
#202
The talking point being distributed right now is "this isn't really illegal".
Democracyinkind
Feb 2014
#5
Yes, those talking points have become more than familiar with each illegal violation
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#12
No its not....that would be YOU accusing people of being paid shills.....
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#101
apparently you do....You weren't in this conversation to add anything except to stalk
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#119
because I didn't call Romney Gov? Thats your big "Get"? Congratulating yourself for that?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#127
I am not sure what the hell you have been talking abou from the start your ONLY
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#130
Yes, exactly. Anyone who joins in those attacks in my experience for over eight years now, has
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#187
Good points re transparency. In the early Bush years on some Dem forums, maybe others, it was
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#300
The what and the how is what journalists are SUPPOSED to tell us. I wish the MSM would do it
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#250
The "why", without the particulars of "who" is covered pretty well by L. Fletcher Prouty's book...
rwsanders
Feb 2014
#45
Thanks "hoot" ...this is another piece of info from original article deserving separate
KoKo
Feb 2014
#6
... what you say conjures this image...I hate feeling like I'm living in the belly of the beast...
ancianita
Feb 2014
#75
American intelligence has been under the control of Wall Street since William Donovan at the OSS.
Scuba
Feb 2014
#9
So why was it not stopped before now? This is illegal and if it has been going on for
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#14
They had a starring role in a book I mentioned above by L. Fletcher Prouty on the JFK assassination.
rwsanders
Feb 2014
#46
If this were to have come out under President Bush, I'm sure the reaction from
neverforget
Feb 2014
#27
Exactly. It it was wrong under a Republican then it's wrong under a Democrat.
neverforget
Feb 2014
#73
Not as silly as your post earlier today defending medicare payments to private insurers.
Cali_Democrat
Feb 2014
#30
You think this OP is baseless and worth mocking, but THIS evidence-free speculation:
Hissyspit
Feb 2014
#52
Pointing out the obvious fact that you follow me around DU is character assassination?
Cali_Democrat
Feb 2014
#78
Oh I see...I'm forcing you to stalk me because I post things you disagree with
Cali_Democrat
Feb 2014
#84
Once again I see you have nothing to add. Just here to attack posts. Why dont you stay in the BOG.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#88
Ah yes, the BOG signature ridicule emoticon. Does Sid give you extra points each time
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#94
If someone is paying either of you, they arent getting much for their money.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#100
No links needed. I will take you at your word. It's possible that I misjudged you. If so, shame onme
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#110
Why are you even dignifiying that person's comment? No one here owes him/her anything
Number23
Feb 2014
#147
"You really enjoy following me around DU, huh?" I know someone who does that...
cherokeeprogressive
Feb 2014
#139
You're goddamn right I was pissed off at Ambassador Stevens' murder. Looks like I was the only one.
cherokeeprogressive
Feb 2014
#184
I refuse to read this because he's a trayter and he lives in a forein country.
progressoid
Feb 2014
#13
Whoever orchestrates these campaign, and we have seen one of them exposed thoroughly
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#176
I think it's just desperation. And as I said, they are not very imaginative people.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#191
I found it extremely informative, and missed the entertainment value. Could you
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#105
THIS is what they are trying to hide. The REAL reason for the 'surveillance'
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#118
If you haven't already, you really need to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
justiceischeap
Feb 2014
#24
Cass Sunstein thinks it's a wonderfully effective method of message control.
OnyxCollie
Feb 2014
#159
All markets are free, some markets are freer than others. Forget about it, Jake, its Chinatown,
marble falls
Feb 2014
#66
Related: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Purveyor
Feb 2014
#79
Fucking A. I strongly believe in government's ability to be a positive force in people's lives.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#194
" I strongly believe in government's ability to be a positive force in people's lives."
woo me with science
Feb 2014
#243
How did this become rocket science? It didn't. I'm starting to wonder if all the screeching about
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#296
if you consider what might happen if anti-surveillance, pro-privacy and freedom voters coalesced
reddread
Feb 2014
#297
Seems they like the corporate dominance, fuck the environment, fuck the people aspects just fine.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#298
Congratulations, fellow leftists. we are validated, and vindicated, in so many ways.
Zorra
Feb 2014
#135
Yep. Paranoia about infiltrators almost always does more damage than a potential infiltrator.
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#219
Another revelation from today: FBI claims Sonny Liston took a fall in his fight with Cassius Clay,
secondwind
Feb 2014
#229
No matter. It's always good for people to know that paid RW corporatists swarm the internet in order
Zorra
Feb 2014
#246
You've got to wonder why some posters object to this discussion, old news as it is...
Romulox
Feb 2014
#252
Exactly. It's a perfectly valid, and increasingly important, discussion on a progressive website. nt
Zorra
Feb 2014
#254
The idea that somethings is less true now--because it was true before--is bizarre on its face.
Romulox
Feb 2014
#255
There is no confirmation here, only yet another accusation. ALmost a nice try. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#264
Some of the "Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation" have been used in this thread...
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2014
#304
the irony is that the regulation and atmosphere needed to fix this shit is still
certainot
Feb 2014
#257
i remember reading about a connection between talk radio, ABC, and cia's william? casey and his
certainot
Feb 2014
#292
I know a retired Episcopal priest who was an SEC prosecutor before becoming a priest . . .
markpkessinger
Feb 2014
#285