The GOP Ministry of Propaganda knows something most liberals don't: facts don't count.
First, people can't count, so statistical refutations generally aren't comprehended--makes 'em easy to reject.
Second, people believe narratives, not facts. Every lie the GOP MOP puts out is embedded in a narrative-- a story--that makes sense emotionally (at least from the viewpoint of the listener).
So when one of the MOP's patsies makes a factual claim you know is false, and know you can prove is false, you're not getting it.
Tell them a fact they don't like (Orwell called that BadSpeak I think), based on a source the MOP has quoted as Gospel before (such as the Congressional Budget Office), and the patsy will calmly tell you the CBO is wrong in this case--they were manipulated by those clever socialists.
So you must have a narrative of your own--and, if you want to have any persuasive oomph, a narrative that addresses your listener's situation. Preferably one that doesn't force your listener to admit he's a patsy to agree with you. Some face-saving way out is useful if possible.
Don't fight facts with facts. Fight narratives with narratives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ehkzu... "GOP MOP... patsies... lies... Don't fight facts with facts. Fight narratives with narratives."
Hmmmm. I expected more. Whatever happened to the vaunted, highly thought of, balanced, and reasoned voice of fact, moderation, and neutrality?
What I read in this post is ad hominem hyperbole. I look forward to your next post. --- Cheers
OK, you don't like the flavoring agents. How about the actual substance of what I said?
1. People are innumerate. Agree? Disagree? Actually, the existence of state lotteries proves my point.
4. People trust narratives over facts, and reject factual refutations of narratives they believe. This has been proven by sociologists. And like human innumeracy, it's a human trait--not one limited to members of one political party.
The political aspect is that the GOP is adroit in exploiting these facts; the Democrats, less so, though they try.
3. I'm a centrist. That doesn't mean I'm neutral. You want neutral, use the links I've provided to go to www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com. All I guarantee is that I won't contradict those sources without good reason (except in jest).
5. I think centrists should vote for Obama in the fall. Not because I'm falling all over him, but because centrists will get more, um, centering this November if he wins reelections than if Etcho-Sketcho wins. Particularly since the far controls Congress and the Judiciary.
It controls Congress via a House majority and an unoverrulable Senate veto via filibuster. It controls the Judiciary via 5 votes in the Supreme Court coupled with a willingness by the Chief Justice to go for sweeping, far-right 5-4 decisions rather than judicially modest, non-activist 8-1 decisions.
That factual enough for you?
You've made the case for reelecting Obama in order to perpetuate a centrist government... despite the fact that what a centrist does best is get elected by pandering to the lowest common denominator.
You've also made the case for electing a Republican... precisely because they will have the tools and resources necessary to affect change
The definition of INNUMERATE. : marked by an ignorance of mathematics and the scientific approach. — in·nu·mer·a·cy \-rə-sē\ noun.
State lotteries are a little off the political topic, but since you brought it up... every single day people are winning lotteries, yes the odds are long, but there are winners none-the-less.
Homes are being purchased that wouldn't have been otherwise, and money is available to fund education that wouldn't be there but for lotteries. When I spend a buck for a ticket I do so with no real expectation of winning and without any consideration as to the long odds... I do it because having it in my pocket works better than a warm glass of milk when I go to bed at night.
As far as being an innumerate, no one fits that definition better than Obama. At a dead run he is shoving this country over a cliff and into the abyss of fiscal oblivion. The national debt is approaching 17 trillion. Is there anyone... anyone... who doubts that number will reach 25 trillion, 40 trillion... is there ANY end in sight?!
The American people MUST have someone in the White House willing to get angry about deficit spending and proudly wear the mantle of responsible steward of taxpayer resourses.
During Obama's pitifully short pitstop in the U.S. Senate he accomplished one thing, and one thing only... he earned the title of 'King of Earmarks'. Earmark is a cute term for tilltapping. That's where some punk hangs around the cash register waiting for when the cashier isn't looking so he can grab the money and run. Obama has demonstrated that is what he is best at. Sadly, those who voted for him ignored what his Senate record portend for his presidency.
You clearly have an issue with the SCOTUS. Terms like 'Activist' and 'Far-Right' are only used by those on the short end of a decision. (BTW, curious that you omitted the term 'Far-Left'.)
You've made the case for reelecting Obama in order to perpetuate a centrist government... despite the fact that what a centrist does best is get elected by pandering to the lowest common denominator.
You've also made the case for electing a Republican... precisely because they will have the tools and resources necessary to affect change
The definition of INNUMERATE. : marked by an ignorance of mathematics and the scientific approach. — in·nu·mer·a·cy \-rə-sē\ noun.
State lotteries are a little off the political topic, but since you brought it up... every single day people are winning lotteries, yes the odds are long, but there are winners none-the-less.
Homes are being purchased that wouldn't have been otherwise, and money is available to fund education that wouldn't be there but for lotteries. When I spend a buck for a ticket I do so with no real expectation of winning and without any consideration as to the long odds... I do it because having it in my pocket works better than a warm glass of milk when I go to bed at night.
As far as being an innumerate, no one fits that definition better than Obama. At a dead run he is shoving this country over a cliff and into the abyss of fiscal oblivion. The national debt is approaching 17 trillion. Is there anyone... anyone... who doubts that number will reach 25 trillion, 40 trillion... is there ANY end in sight?!
The American people MUST have someone in the White House willing to get angry about deficit spending and proudly wear the mantle of responsible steward of taxpayer resourses.
During Obama's pitifully short pitstop in the U.S. Senate he accomplished one thing, and one thing only... he earned the title of 'King of Earmarks'. Earmark is a cute term for tilltapping. That's where some punk hangs around the cash register waiting for when the cashier isn't looking so he can grab the money and run. Obama, at an average of one million dollars in earmarks per day for every day he was in the Senate, has demonstrated that is what he is best at.
Perhaps an even more accurate discription of 'Earmarks' is 'Circular Contributions'... this is where a corrupt politician funds his campaign warchest by funnelling taxpayer dollars, via earmarks, to crony contributors and PACs. As an example, one of the beneficiaries of an Obama earmark was the employer of his wife Michelle... to the tune of one million dollars.
Sadly, those who voted for him ignored what his Senate record portend for his presidency.
You clearly have an issue with the SCOTUS. Terms like 'Activist' and 'Far-Right' are only used by those on the short end of a decision. (BTW, curious that you omitted the term 'Far-Left'.)
Post a Comment