The last refuge of the demagogue after the D students for support.
1. Ask the question.
2. Phrase it in ways that assume that "the good" has a single unique answer.
3. Suggest that this single unique answer is in terms that the Ders understand.
4.Ensure that the single unique answer inures to the profit of those the Ders are envious or fearful of.
5. List just the facts that support your case.
6. Let the demagogued draw their own conclusions. Because if the demagogued reached them
(a) you didn't lie
(b) they're so psychologically and emotionally invested in them that they're committed to them.
(1) is painless. It slips through unnoticed.
(2) is horribly wrong. "The good" seldom has a single unique answer. Who benefits from the Charlie attack? Better to first ask, How could somebody benefit? Socially? Politically? Financially? Emotionally? Psychologically? Will it get them laid? To heaven?
If they think it'll benefit in any of these ways, are they right or mistaken? I might do something thinking it'll help me, but it hurts. I might do something that gets me more money, but the real reason is psychological--perhaps I didn't think it would get me $, but exact revenge, or get me the girl, or dispose of somebody that reminds me of a childhood friend. Many are convinced their foes are either fools or all-knowing sages. The difference depends on fear. I believe they're fools: But I secretly am in terror that they're all-wise. This is the classic anti-Semite conundrum (Jews are super-intelligent sub-humans), but it's not restricted to anti-Semitism.
Many skip-deep thinkers are sure they're omniscient. Escobar says, "Yes, yes you are, you're great!" As soon as you are told you're omniscient, as you always believed, question the person's intelligence and/or ethics. You're not, but he has some reason for making you think you are. Or he's just a fool.
(3) It's not a slam dunk that the person's values will be your own. That's a bit too egocentric. If you think religion is pointless, you won't necessarily understand a religious goal even if many have died for their faith. If collective honor isn't your thing, it won't matter even if others die for it. Or kill for it. Everybody's the same--like me. Any reason I can't understand simply isn't. Everything is to be understood on my terms. I am the world. Couple that kind of self-aggrandizing myopia with the view that you're omniscient, and there's nothing you can't be duped into.
(4) Play to tribal boundaries. Make sure that if "they" benefit, you and yours must be hurt. Not just in the act, but by others. The same others that you already blame for everything else--the halo effect makes them suspect anyway. If you're myopic, hubristic, *and* feel like you and those you're in solidarity with are victimized or in danger, great. You're omniscient, all-wise, and now can go and be a savior--all that self-centeredness is now properly displayed as caring for others. Your ego's stroked, you're told you're smart, and you're told you're compassionate. You are as you see yourself. You're hooked, fileted, and gently poached. All that remains is the sauce and plating.
(5) Now that you're already certain that you're right and superior, you look over all the facts that are fit to your ideas. The sauce is ready. In a real kitchen there's only one step left, the plating. But in this kitchen, the chef is done and walks away from the stove prior to the plating and keeps the area clear so his artistry may be truly admired as he sips sauterne.
(6) You reach your own conclusions on your own but utterly independently of any independent thought process. Spectators watch as the delicately poached salmon leaps from the pan onto the plate on its own, splashing itself with the sauce en route. It's been so wondrously prepared that it's not just ready, it's eager to throw itself into the breach ... as soon as the consumer opens his mouth.
Bon appetite.
on a hit list duly promoted by AQAP's glossy magazine Inspire. Accusation: "Insulting the Prophet Mohammed."
= new reply since forum marked as read
