General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThey are bad faith actors. Period.
Graphic mine
On both sides of the pond it is the same. Right wing policy is all just really nasty theatre, that enthrals those in the stalls. You cannot debate smoke and mirrors. You cannot defeat by logic, policy built on dramaturgy.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)Jim__
(14,045 posts)From Laurie Penny's essay - from September 2018 - that contains the quote cited in the OP:
This bad-faith argument is a repeating refrain of this low, dishonest decade, and this month it built to another crescendo. In the U.S., The New Yorker bowed to public pressure and disinvited Steve Bannon, Trumps neo-nationalist former chief strategist, from its literary festival. And in the U.K., The Economist chose to do the opposite.
Im accidentally responsible for a very small amount of the fuss here. I was due to speak at the Economists Open Future festival, where Bannon was scheduled to be interviewed by the editor in chief directly after the future of MeToo panel Id be on with journalists Laura Bates and Ally Fogg. My note to The Economist, in part:
To speak personally, my opposition to Bannons place at this conference has nothing to do with wishing to see him silenced that would be infeasible as well as illiberal.
Ive spent much of the past five years hearing out and attempting to debate people like Bannon, and in my experience it only emboldens and legitimizes them. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in hearing those arguments again.
Bill Maher loves to talk about free speech on his program, and, when he does, he usually has on a guest who completely agrees with him. I'd really like to see him discuss the issue with someone like Laurie Penny.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)They gish-gallop. They spew out a half-dozen mistruths and half-truths and lies in one 30 second rant and then there is no time to address more than one or two, so the rest of the garbage just sits there and is accepted in the minds of the gullible.
I see the gullible "fellow travellers" on RW sites frequently when I go there. Someone will say something completely bogus like "Fauci has an investment stake in coffin makers" and another person will post "I didn't know that; good to know" and then they will post it on other threads as if it were fact.
It is confirmation bias writ large.
They use fallacious debating tactics. They divert with what-aboutism. They prop up strawmen and knock them down. They quote out of context and edit videos out of context.
There is just not enough time in almost all "debates" to shoot down all the bogus debating tactic and falsehoods. Thus it is not worth wrestling with the pigs.
It requires a thorough point-by-point debunking. But that ends up being a long written piece which the RW is more likely to skip as "too long; did not read".
gab13by13
(20,867 posts)are good at what they do, and they have a bigger platform than the back of a covered wagon, they have the MSM. I may have paid the barker at the carnival a quarter to go see the bearded lady when I was a young lad, one time, but today's barkers get people to go back into that tent over and over again.
Critical thinking is one thing, but not even having common sense is another.
Alice Kramden
(2,157 posts)"They use fallacious debating tactics" - plus all the tricks you mentioned, and the media expands the reach of their lies
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)Emphasis, repetition, shouting, talking points, concerted effort by thought leaders. It is something in which Democrats do not excel.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Bad faith actors performing theatre.