Latest topics
Today at 4:24 am by robert18

» NIBIRU News ~ Nibiru Action Presents - Alaska Today! Enjoy! plus MORE
Today at 1:26 am by PurpleSkyz

» Yet more Kim Possible/Anna Drama
Today at 1:18 am by PurpleSkyz

» "Anti-Gravity Device" Found On Easter Island?
Today at 1:06 am by PurpleSkyz

» Glowing White UFOs At International Space Station
Today at 12:56 am by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ Black UFO Recorded Flying Over Prohibited Airspace Manhattan, New York plus MORE
Today at 12:52 am by PurpleSkyz

» Comet Approaching/New Images.
Today at 12:48 am by PurpleSkyz

» RH Negative: Real Alien Human Hybrids if You Didn’t Believe Before You Will After Watching This
Today at 12:46 am by PurpleSkyz

» Jerzy Babkowski (AKA ZAP) "The Dragons Pipe-(Dream)" - What A Mess!
Yesterday at 7:45 pm by RamblerNash

» "Never seen anything like it" - Earth goes Viral!
Yesterday at 6:27 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Anonymous - AI - What You're About to See Will Shock You!
Yesterday at 6:25 pm by PurpleSkyz

» 30 Years Investigating Crop Circles – Francine Blake
Yesterday at 6:21 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Currency War Breaks Out After Trump Accuses China and Europe of Manipulation
Yesterday at 4:20 pm by topspin2

» Planet X May Actually Be a Rogue Star
Yesterday at 2:33 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Corey Goode FB post 7-17-18… “Update and Public Statement on recent events”
Yesterday at 2:10 pm by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 2:08 pm by PurpleSkyz

» #Qanon News
Yesterday at 2:04 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Hundreds of children abused by more than 30 clerics: new scandal in Hawaii
Yesterday at 1:48 pm by Camille

» Branson Duck Survivor: Captain Said ‘Don’t worry about life jackets – you won’t need them’
Yesterday at 1:01 pm by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 12:53 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Longest Lunar Eclipse (Full Blood Moon) of the 21st Century to Appear in July — Here’s How to See it
Yesterday at 12:35 pm by PurpleSkyz

» They Just Come Right Out and Show Us!
Yesterday at 12:29 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Julian Assange’s Hand Over To UK May Be Imminent According To WikiLeaks
Yesterday at 12:19 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Regarding Anna Von Reitz — Manna World Trust, AI, Quantum, and More
Yesterday at 12:13 pm by MartyM

» Heart doctor for former President George H.W. Bush killed in bicycle drive-by shooting
Yesterday at 11:38 am by PurpleSkyz

Yesterday at 11:32 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Ocean Cleanup Technology, Explained
Yesterday at 11:11 am by PurpleSkyz

» Cicada 3301: An Internet Mystery
Yesterday at 11:08 am by PurpleSkyz

» A Brief Comment to "With All Due Respect", Kim et alia By Anna Von Reitz plus more
Yesterday at 11:04 am by PurpleSkyz




You are not connected. Please login or register

Out Of Mind » THE INSANITY OF REALITY » HOW TO BEAT THE SYSTEM »  Know Your Propaganda – Straw Man – The Art of Misrepresentation

Know Your Propaganda – Straw Man – The Art of Misrepresentation

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



Know Your Propaganda – Straw Man – The Art of Misrepresentation

(Stillness in the Storm Editor) In the following article, Shem from Discerning The Mystery offers some great insight about the straw man fallacy. While this might seem like some obscure academic reference, I can assure you that almost everyone succumbs to this kind of thinking from time to time. Briefly, raw information combined with interpretation produces a subjective experience of any data set—the automatic aspect of our philosophic nature. Facts or information alone are devoid of meaning, but when a fact or data point enters the field of our awareness, the automatic aspects of consciousness (the subconscious and superconscious) go to work. This "personalizes" the fact, producing emotions, insights, and inferences. For example, a batch of cookies baking in the oven often produces good feelings, and a desire to eat them. The smell of the cookie itself is the raw data, the fact, which is interpreted subjectively to produce secondary sensations that we normally associate with that smell. What this means is that our subjective experience acts as an intermediary between objective reality and what we perceive. We make decisions and choices from our subjective experience, not reality directly. As such, ensuring our perceptions, interpretations, and conclusions are accurate is incredibly important. In most instances, confrontations about ideas is not specific to the fact itself, it's focused on our inferences of the objective fact. We tend to confuse our interpretations with reality itself, which can lead to unproductive conversation if we aren't humble and thinking critically.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
So what does this have to do with straw man fallacies and propaganda?

As Shem reveals below, one of the tactics of our would-be masters is to make communication between people difficult, which prevents us from sharing truth amongst ourselves for collective upliftement.

The term describing this miscommunication is called complementary schismogenesis, coined by Gregory Bateson.
Bateson observed that when people speak the same language, unless there is a good level of communication rapport present between them, two people, or more, will exchange statements, and misunderstand each other. Then, as an individual feels they weren't properly heard, they will speak to the misinterpretation, often causing even further confusion. Simply put, two people could be talking about the same thing, all while thinking they are disagreeing with each other. Take a moment to consider how often this happens in your own life. 

This language barrier is exacerbated by intolerance and emotionally charged exchanges—when people refuse to hear people out, and react to what they think another person said.

The high-paced nature of modern life, and a slow degradation of philosophic skills in the population, creates a condition where individuals can become heavily image trained, or rigidly focused on one set of terms or rhetoric to describe their field of interest. Add a healthy mix of prejudicial bias at an ideological level, and when discussion finally begins, likely the only result will be lack of discourse or a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas.

In other words, people in all walks of life, have forgotten how to share ideas and be respectful with others, to listen honestly, and develop social graces that allow for misunderstandings to be clarified. Non-confrontational communication methods are desperately needed, everywhere in society. (source
In other words, the current state of human consciousness provides plenty of fertile ground for miscommunication. The powers that be know this, and by consciously misrepresenting a person in an argument, debate, or exchange, they can paint someone as crazy or idiotic. Onlookers are the target, as the impression of idiocy makes them believe what someone is saying shouldn't be believed.

This happens frequently on news services like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. Either a newscaster or a guest will misinterpret what the other is saying, and respond to their incorrect interpretation, instead of gaining clarity. 

Consider the following example, where Bill Nye persistently misinterprets Tucker Carlson in the following Fox News clip.

Notice how Carlson's simple question was persistently cast as stupid or idiotic? This tactic works well for those who are dogmatically pro-man-made climate change. But generally speaking, people who believe something, without knowing why (lacking epistemic comprehension—failing to do their mental homework), tend to have close-minded reactions to opposing ideas. They react with aggression to defend their personal dogma, instead of asking honest questions to better understand the new information. 

Clearly, if we're honest truth seekers, we want to avoid dogma. We want to embrace new ideas from others instead of rejecting them. 

Propaganda through the straw man fallacy is essentially the intentional use of misinterpretation to confuse an audience of onlookers so that one person—and by extension, their ideas—are made to look crazy or insane. 

By looking at media, academia, and how people share ideas and concepts in general, it should become clear just how much miscommunication is happening. So as individuals, we should strive to clarify our interpretations as much as possible. 

The insidious ones out there use this potential for misunderstanding to their advantage, making honest people look crazy. But we who strive to be honest and truthful, shouldn't make the mistake of reacting to our misinterpretations. 

Non-violent communication is one founded on respect of the other person and humility with respect to ourselves. We shouldn't assume we automatically know exactly what someone else is saying, we should clarify: "Thanks for sharing that idea. It sounded like you were saying X, Y, Z. Am I right? Am I hearing you correctly?"

This method is incredibly effective as it establishes mutual respect and rapport. It helps build better relationships with others, so we don't accidentally argue over things we misunderstood. And it makes other people feel like you're genuinely interested in what they have to say, as opposed to just waiting for them to stop speaking so you can pound your opinion into their head. 

And finally, asking for clarification helps reveal a less than ethical person in your midst. 

Someone who isn't interested in sharing ideas, and is instead interested in making you look foolish, will shy away from a request for clarity. They'll take the chance to make fun of you for not understanding them automatically or they'll attack you with insults. Either way, you can get a good impression of what someone's true intentions are by humbly asking a question of clarification. 

I hope you'll take the time to learn from what Shem has to offer below and use these non-violent communication methods in your own life. 

These skills can help your relationships with loved ones and friends, as well as helping you deal with people who are more interested in antagonism than honest cooperation. So long as you remain humble and align yourself with the truth, the lack of integrity in others will be easy to see and deal with. 

- Justin

Source - Discerning The Mystery

by Shem El Jamal, September 15th, 2017

Have you ever listened to a debate where one person begins to argue against a point the other person never made? This may sound like a strange situation, but it is actually typical within the bounds of what may be considered the dark side of debate.

When we refer to a 'logical fallacy,' we are referring to logical flaws used by either those who are intellectually unaware or those who are deliberately deceptive toward the unaware. These fallacies are typically used to deceive the unawakened audience. On a larger scale they are regularly used by the Cabal and their media apparatus to psychologically manipulate the thoughts and opinions of the world's population to maintain global control.

Related post: Tips on Discernment – Discerning the Self – Discussing the Vital Lesson of Self-Evaluation

The specific fallacy we are discussing here is known as the Straw Man tactic. This fallacy can be a particularly deceptive tactic in that it is not as blatant as other fallacies, but before getting into detail, let's get some definition on the subject.
Straw Man 
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:
Person 1 makes claim Y.
Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.
Example #1:
Ted: Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Edwin: That is ridiculous! How can you possibly be absolutely certain that we evolved from pond scum!
Ted: Actually that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we evolved from pond scum. Unlike math and logic, science is based on empirical evidence and, therefore, a scientific fact is something that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that biological evolution does occur falls into this category.
Explanation: Edwin has ignorantly mischaracterized the argument by a) assuming we evolved from pond scum (whatever that is exactly), and b) assuming “fact” means “certainty”.

Example #2:
Zebedee: What is your view on the Christian God?
Mike: I don’t believe in any gods, including the Christian one.
Zebedee: So you think that we are here by accident, and all this design in nature is pure chance, and the universe just created itself?
Mike: You got all that from me stating that I just don’t believe in any gods?

Explanation: Mike made one claim: that he does not believe in any gods. From that, we can deduce a few things, like he is not a theist, he is not a practicing Christian, Catholic, Jew, or a member of any other religion that requires the belief in a god, but we cannot deduce that he believes we are all here by accident, nature is chance, and the universe created itself. Mike might have no beliefs about these things whatsoever. Perhaps he distinguishes between “accident” and natural selection, perhaps he thinks the concept of design is something we model after the universe, perhaps he has some detailed explanation based on known physics as to how the universe might have first appeared, or perhaps he believes in some other supernatural explanation. Regardless, this was a gross mischaracterization of Mike’s argument.

Exception: At times, an opponent might not want to expand on the implications of his or her position, so making assumptions might be the only way to get the opponent to point out that your interpretation is not accurate, then they will be forced to clarify. Man-Fallacy

Partial Image Credit NCMallory


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum