Post by Wayne Hall on Jan 17, 2022 23:24:36 GMT -5
(Wrong link) This is important input. As long as it does not lead to an assumption that by being as careful to stigmatize unsubstantiated claims as the other side is to turn every assertion systematically into demagogic shit, one can (necessarily) be successful in countering this behaviour of the other side. Are we really obliged to hold ourselves to higher standards than they do? Who obliges us to? Do "they"? They can jump in the lake!
"All that that's doing is legitimizing the media's dismissing of the whole thing.
And helping to obfuscate the actual evidence that is there.
Precisely, because they they don't even have to address the evidence. They can just say 'Oh, that's that Bill Gates conspiracy theory.'"
Comment: "They" can do that anyway. Nothing one says can in itself "force" them to address the real evidence. This is why a strategy is required that focuses on structural issues. Such as the way the media is currently allowed to function, with no real competitor (the alternative media has proved not to be a competitor).
The "whoops, sorry about that" stance which appeals for forgiveness for incompetence can be resorted to for as long as it is tolerated. It can be challenged through unsubstantiated accusation, and perhaps MUST be, because one cannot read other people's minds. And if one is stuck in the "search for evidence" mode, the other side has the psychological upper hand.
G. Edward Griffin has proposed an interesting distinction between dogs and cats. "If you throw a stone at a cat it looks at the stone. If you throw a stone at a dog it looks at you." Griffin wants to see fewer cats on our side and more dogs, and I agree with him on that.