• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Actionable steps here are more concretely achieved by orgs or people with current access to existing various published things (blogs, newspapers, etc etc). But I think something like Prolewiki might be able to be a spark point for something like this, depending on whether Prolewiki participants/management are willing to be the creation point of something rather than just a documenting and citing site.

    I see some things pop up on Medium that successfully spread but I’m not sure how often those do that. Could be that’s a handful of things among tens of thousands that just waste their time. Likely depends on whether big networks reshare content and that momentum keeps going.

    Generally the point here is to write something that’s clear enough for people to link to it frequently, and also potentially inspiring enough for others to also write about the phenomenon. If something can be written that also gets others to write about it then you get momentum.

    Really the most meaningful thing here is to get a few places to write about something like this and then put it on natopedia, where it is then going to gain the automatic credibility of being on natopedia in the eyes of libs and debatebros, those people will then take part in opposing the tactic whenever they recognise it. Once you get those people on board with opposing it because they’re rules-perverts and will consider it against the “rules” the whole tactic may effectively collapse, in the online space at least.

    So really the limitation here is access to a resource, that resource being article publishing online.

    • hotcouchguy [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      It would have more credibility if we could find and reuse a similar concept/name from an earlier and more “objective” source. Not sure where to start digging, but this has to be something that someone has named previously. Then we’re just popularizing instead of inventing something new.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 months ago

        Maybe. I’d start with the labelling of everything as “terrorist” first. That’s probably got the most. After that is probably like “authoritarian” or some shit.

        The tactic is pervasive.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          I mean, the “thought terminating cliche” is a really old thing. You know the “Our noble government, their perfidious regime” cartoon? It’s exactly that. Hell, Lenin’s snark about “changing the name of things not changing the thing itself” is a part of it. You can probably find ancient Roman authors commenting on this practice if you look.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Right but does it have a name? If it doesn’t have a name, it hasn’t been formalised. Naming it gives you something to attack, it gives you a way to communicate that it’s bad.

            The goal here, in essence, is to use the practice against itself. I want to thought-terminating cliche the tactic of thought-terminating cliches. Give it a name so people can debatebro it as a bad thing that you absolutely should not do every time they see it.