2 ms·
> if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing. I don't follow your logic. Here's the context
by xpe 6y ago
> if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing.
I don't follow your logic.
Here's the context. x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
> Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on.
>
> That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
In response, I wrote:
> Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
In doing so, I pointed out a pattern that involves a rhetorical technique.
With this context, perhaps you can explain what you mean by "try not to in the same stroke do the same thing?"
- salawat 6y agoI totally read that context wrong. Serves me right for posting in a hurry. I must have mentally kludged both of your posts together. What I thought was being communicated was an assertion that people who do call out things in non-dismissable as nuttery ways outright are really just nutters trying to use politeness to avoid getting dismissed out of hand with the malicious intent to spread fear uncertainty, and disinformation. With the kebashed context in mind, I think I was in a sense pointing out the perceived (on my part) dehumanization of the hypothetical speaker who could just genuinely be someone with concerns who simply desires additional scrutiny or scrutiny, closer to the topic at hand. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Teaches me to post from the hip.