this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
383 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2777 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

From Vance’s penchant to ‘create stories’ to Trump’s false claims, lies are brazenly flaunted as a tactic to win support

JD Vance was holding court on CNN’s State of the Union programme. “The American media totally ignored this stuff,” he complained last Sunday, “until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes.”

But it wasn’t just a meme, objected interviewer Dana Bash. The Republican vice-presidential nominee gave a telling response: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do, Dana, because you guys are completely letting Kamala Harris coast.”

If ever there was a case of saying the quiet part out loud, Vance had perfected the art. The cat memes he referred to were prompted by baseless rumours about legal Haitian immigrants in his home state of Ohio eating house pets – rumours that led to bomb threats and evacuations of schools and government buildings in Springfield.

But Vance’s willingness to “create stories” to grab attention before the November’s election hinted at a new frontier in post-truth America, where a lie is no longer slyly distributed but rather brazenly flaunted as a tactic to win political support and stir up social chaos.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 68 points 2 months ago (1 children)

gish gallop

The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Gish gallup is about the volume, and was about arguing in good faith but presented in a malicious way. Often the points could be tangentslly related and imply more meaning that the opponent wouldn't have time to explain away. It is not predicated on lies.

Trump and Vance have combined the gish gallup with bullshitting, which to your point makes them harder to disprove before the next one comes along.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is not predicated on lies.

What Trump and Vance are doing is more like a firehose of falsehoods because a Gish gallop is more of a debating technique, but nonetheless, this point is wrong.

The Gish gallop is predicated on the inclusion of (as both Wikipedia and the RationalWiki similarly describe) "a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings, and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

[–] calamitycastle@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Steve Bannon simply referred to it as "flooding the zone with shit" iirc

[–] Baggins@feddit.uk 4 points 2 months ago

So, galloping bullshit then. Got it.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why Trump and Vance’s strategy is ‘say anything, make up anything’

Because their supporters don't fact check anything and hear only what they want. That's it. It's that simple.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As demonstrated by the same kind of barrage of insane shit Trump and his administration did when they were in power. It was just rapid for crazy shit to drown out whatever bad story they wanted attention away from, constantly.

It amazing that half the voting population wants that back.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I call those people "electoral cicadas."

They stay buried underground for four years, then poke their heads up two months before the election and try to figure out what's going on.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Their strategy is:

Step 1: Lie bigly

Step 2: double down

Step 3: triple down

Step 4: move on to a new lie, back to step 1

Bonus: insult more and more people with every repeated cycle

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Republicans are more authoritarian on average, and authoritarians tend to value in-group cohesion more than anything else. They are, by some reasonable metrics, bad people.

If I remember correctly, there was a study where they did like a model UN, and they secretly put all the people who scored high on authoritarian personality tests in group A, and everyone else in group B. Group B did fine- no wars, dealt with climate change and what not. Group A, with the authoritarians, caused a nuclear apocalypse. And after they got a do-over (after they had to sit in silence for a few minutes to think about what they'd done), they still fucked it up. edit: I found it: https://theauthoritarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/TheAuthoritarians.pdf , page 30

We're all at least a little susceptible to authoritarian, in-group-above-all thinking. But some people have it bad, and those people suck. They're really ruining it for the rest of us.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

value in-group cohesion more than anything else

This is shown quite clearly in their belief that people get gender reassignment surgery just because of (liberal) peer pressure. It shows how important the opinions of others are to them.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

The realization that there is nothing we, as individuals, can really do about it hits like a brick 🧱 But, yet, we keep fighting. Because to give in is defeatist, and frankly, boring.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

The answer is twofold: both like to bath in the media attention, and a crazy invented story simply draws more of that than simple facts. And both have no real arguments speaking for them. This election is about Trump, not about any political issues or problems that need to be solved.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why? Because their loyalist devoted followers are dumb as fucking bricks and believe everthing they say.

[–] patacon_pisao@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

At this point I feel bricks are more useful than these people

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago

Fascism, the answer is fascism

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because that’s how Hitler did it

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

After reading some of Hitler’s speeches, to me, Trump is worse. Hitler at least tried to give historical context and statistical evidence. Trump just spews word salad immigrant xenophobia. It’s actually frightening how little he has to try.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As soon as Bill Clinton took office the GOP was on him 24/7 with all kinds of ridiculous accusations. "Travelgate" was supposed to be an important problem, as was the death of Vince Foster. They actually shot themselves in the foot, because if they hadn't been so blatant they might have managed to make the Monica scandal stick. But impeachment aside, I realize now that what they were doing was muddying the waters to make other people less likely to want to run, and to make regular voters sick of politics.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

The funny thing is that the Clintons could have turned it around and accused the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations of keeping a bunch of crooks on the payroll.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Looking like Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee in their matching outfits.

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Because they're ethically and morally bankrupt?

[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

They could both shit in each other's mouths on live TV and it wouldn't sway a single one of their base.

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

They don't really know any other way. Its not like they are smart enough to learn anything other than the bare minimum.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

This is their strategy because these are the pieces of human crap they are.

[–] failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to -1 points 2 months ago

@MicroWave

this is probably not true

eg, read the best thing, IMO, written on 2016, then think about how often liberals talk about trump's plan to cut taxes on working people [ "plan" of course being BS ]

don't wanna read the link ?
Tl;dr
Trump supporters didn't pay attn to the crazy stuff; they just hear him say: When I am POTUS there will be jobs
thats it, thats the mesagge

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/6/13853314/trump-speeches-lessons-democrats-economics-trade

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i'm convince that liberals and conservatives alike only go by what their in-group says and they become leftists and independents once they spend more than the average amount of effort to scratch beyond the surface.

[–] goodthanks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Everyone is susceptible to social adaptation. Like how some people from poor backgrounds become classist once they've made it and have golf buddies to talk to about real estate. The real test of a person's principles is if they're willing to go against their peers opinions. It can be very isolating.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

agreed and i'd like to think that my autism induced isolation enables me to have these views as a sort of silver lining to being on the spectrum.