3 ms·

What's amusing is how Schneier himself falls prey to his own 'emotional thinking'-- > Emotional appeals have likewise long been a facet of political campaigns.

What's amusing is how Schneier himself falls prey to his own 'emotional thinking'-- > Emotional appeals have likewise long been a facet of political campaigns. In the 1860 US presidential election, Southern politicians and newspaper editors spread fears of what a "Black Republican" win would mean, painting horrific pictures of what the emancipation of slaves would do to the country. In the 2020 US presidential election, modern-day Republicans used Cuban Americans’ fears of socialism in ads on Spanish-language radio and messaging on social media. Because of the emotions involved, many voters believed the campaigns enough to let them influence their decisions. ... where he sets up (anchors) a reprehensible example of an emotional appeal (19th century racial bigotry) to reflect a 'reprehensible' example of modern-day emotional appeal (animosity towards a social/economic philosophy.) To reinforce his point he purposefully neglects to mention it was Southern Democrats who spread fear against 'Black Republicans' and instead uses 'Republican' twice (as a callback) to tweak the more modern-day version of that political party. The irony of Schneier using his long-standing and influential blog to insist we 'have a serious conversation about limiting the technologies of persuasion' is not lost on this reader. Edit--Feel free to downvote, but perhaps explain where my comment is wrong?

makomk 6y ago
It's more than just amusing - I think it gets to the heart of what arguments like this aim to achieve. They're not about how terrible tactics like this are in general, but about how awful it is that they're being used in the service of the wrong political ideology and goals (that is, not the author's political ideology) and how not only does the full force of the government need to be used to stop this but not doing so is actually undermining democracy and the legitimacy of of the system itself. They're also part of a broader idea that the legitimacy of democracy itself depends on whether the party supported by the pundits and journos wins.
tgb 6y ago
The first example is clearly using Republicans as the victim. If anything that's the opposite of what you're claiming he's pushing. He could have chosen other framing (like "conservatives" as perpetrators) if he wanted to prey on emotions by connecting these two examples. His framing of those two examples, if anything, seems chosen to counter-balance each other.

makomk 6y ago

It's more than just amusing - I think it gets to the heart of what arguments like this aim to achieve. They're not about how terrible tactics like this are in general, but about how awful it is that they're being used in the service of the wrong political ideology and goals (that is, not the author's political ideology) and how not only does the full force of the government need to be used to stop this but not doing so is actually undermining democracy and the legitimacy of of the system itself. They're also part of a broader idea that the legitimacy of democracy itself depends on whether the party supported by the pundits and journos wins.

tgb 6y ago

The first example is clearly using Republicans as the victim. If anything that's the opposite of what you're claiming he's pushing. He could have chosen other framing (like "conservatives" as perpetrators) if he wanted to prey on emotions by connecting these two examples. His framing of those two examples, if anything, seems chosen to counter-balance each other.