4 ms·
I just view it as a sort of standard disclaimer to preempt the usual criticism that dissenters are somehow ignorant, unreasonable, or un-American. Basically: "
by percept 16y ago
I just view it as a sort of standard disclaimer to preempt the usual criticism that dissenters are somehow ignorant, unreasonable, or un-American.
Basically: "I'm an otherwise reasonable person in full possession of my faculties."
- yequalsx 16y agoThat's possible but the impression that I have is that by always including such remarks it has the effect of making people who disagree with security measures as wanting something bad to happen. It's sort like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Instead of focusing on whether or not the measures are appropriate the debate is about whether or not you want to be safe. I think it makes dissenters look bad by making them against being safe.
- steveklabnik 16y agoYep, this is an old PR trick. It's why you'll see organizations that are preparing to be involved in a political demonstration agree to a 'points of unity' that always have a clause about 'respecting a diversity of tactics.' If you start asking one group, "What do you think of those guys smashing windows?", it changes the dialogue from "What's your message," to "Aren't those guys bad?" And it's not like you're able to properly discuss such a subtle point as "this is a false dichotomy," when talking to news outlets.