3 ms·

Some of the comment in question very hard to make any sense of, e.g: >Rather, they should be getting ahead of the story, and should pick on, oh, I don’t know,

by foldr 4y ago

Some of the comment in question very hard to make any sense of, e.g: >Rather, they should be getting ahead of the story, and should pick on, oh, I don’t know, the greens, kick off a rumour that they’re a Masonic cabal of drag queen drug lords and make them defend it, and drag the Tories into that mess. The crazier and broader the accusations the better - grapeshot gives a lot of holes to patch, and distracts from the one which hit below the waterline. Play it right and you make everyone remember that it was the Tories that started it, as labour smearing the greens makes no sense. Punching up and doing minor damage makes you look weak and petty, punching down and demolishing an innocent makes you look strong. Children understand this - the world is a schoolyard. Multiple parts of this make no sense, but one thing that stands out is that it doesn't make sense for the Tories to pick on the Greens either.

madaxe_again 4y ago
I recommend Bernays’ “Public Relations”, and “Propaganda” if you’d like to understand what I’m raving about, and why it would be strategically sound. It isn’t necessarily about what makes sense, in a rational and deterministic fashion, rather what the stochastic outcomes of an action are. When you’re dealing with mass sentiment, the right move is often deeply counterintuitive, and you have to pretty much be a sociopath to execute adroitly. Demagoguery is a case in point of the veracity of this.
- foldr 4y ago
  Are you then writing only for people who've read those books? If so, HN seems like a poor choice of forum. I think, however, that you are redirecting because you aren't in fact able to explain how it would help Labour to spread crazy rumors about the Green Party. The Greens have a single MP. To a first approximation, no-one cares about any scandal involving the Greens – even if the scandal is true. If anything, it would make more sense for Labour to attack the Greens than it would for the Tories, as very few voters vacillate between the Tories and the Greens.

by foldr 4y ago

madaxe_again 4y ago

I recommend Bernays’ “Public Relations”, and “Propaganda” if you’d like to understand what I’m raving about, and why it would be strategically sound. It isn’t necessarily about what makes sense, in a rational and deterministic fashion, rather what the stochastic outcomes of an action are. When you’re dealing with mass sentiment, the right move is often deeply counterintuitive, and you have to pretty much be a sociopath to execute adroitly. Demagoguery is a case in point of the veracity of this.

foldr 4y ago
Are you then writing only for people who've read those books? If so, HN seems like a poor choice of forum. I think, however, that you are redirecting because you aren't in fact able to explain how it would help Labour to spread crazy rumors about the Green Party. The Greens have a single MP. To a first approximation, no-one cares about any scandal involving the Greens – even if the scandal is true. If anything, it would make more sense for Labour to attack the Greens than it would for the Tories, as very few voters vacillate between the Tories and the Greens.