INTRODUCTION

TYPES OF POSTS (a type can be laced with things above it in the list)
(a) drivel that is pottymouthed
(b) drivel that is politically correct
(c) an 'opinion' based solely on personal experience/understanding
(d) an 'argument' based on facts

while tracking down media public relations' tactical info i came across a rather scary coincidence. Note in the below how similar the "illogician" tactics and pure out and out hardcore propaganda tools are to each other: Illogician classifications and Propaganda classifications

WORD GAMES

Name Calling


Ad Hominem; At it's base is what moderators usually consider to be trolling/flaming: pottymouthed behavior. (it's extremely easy to counter, and I personally use this sort of thing because it's a reaction against the moronic forum moderators.)
Nazgul's "suicide IS an option, muffy" connotation is "fuck off and die, muffy"...


Is this where the 'Fallacies of Ambiguity' belong?

[quote]A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same behavior, but they have very different connotations[/quote]






Glittering Generalities


This route is painfully easy to spot. It's the use of shortcut 'soundbite' terms like, "Americans/British" instead of "US/UK administration"...it's like "Democracy" instead of "Free Market Globalization" which is in turn used instead of "Corporate Welfare State subsidizing itself while forcing others to play by the free market rules"...it's like "Peace" instead of "National Security" which is in turn used instead of "Corporate Welfare STate subsidizing itself while forcing others to play by the free market rules"
It's these same catchphrases which are used in soundbites, like how Nazgul deflected the suicide issue by focusing on a country that did have suicide as legal (therein changing the entire connotation of the term), which are the hardest to challenge, because...

Is this where the 'Inductive Fallacies' belong?

[quote=Noam Chomsky]The issue is, "do you support our [context]?" But you don't want people to think about the issue. that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a [soundbite] that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. It's crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that DOES mean something: do you support our [context]? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about[/quote]






Euphemisms


The infamous Politically Correct vocabulary, or to be more blunt, the use of what George Orwell coined, "DoubleSpeak"
inventing completely new denotations that are aimed not at evoking strong emotions like "peace" & "democracy", nor aimed at invoking anger via hatemongering, but by turning reality into some sort of fairy tale using pop psychology terminology (Nazgul uses this terminology to do a 180 again, back to the original connotation of suicide, but in terms only your fairy godmother might understand)...

Fairly confident this is where the 'Fallacies of Explanation belong

[quote]The comedian George Carlin notes that, in the wake of the first world war, traumatized veterans were said to be suffering from "shell shock." The short, vivid phrase conveys the horrors of battle -- one can practically hear the shells exploding overhead. After the second world war, people began to use the term "combat fatigue" to characterize the same condition. The phrase is a bit more pleasant, but it still acknowledges combat as the source of discomfort. In the wake of the Vietnam War, people referred to "post-traumatic stress disorder": a phrase that is completely disconnected from the reality of war altogether. [/quote]

[quote] The word “conflict” is a common euphemism for US aggression, as when we read on the same pages that the US must now rebuild “what the conflict just destroyed”: just “the conflict,” with no agent, like a hurricane.[/quote]

FALSE CONNECTIONS

Transfer


This abstract logical fallacy pretends to speak with authority. The old, "9 out of 10 doctors recommend K-Yjelly when listening to propaganda"
Nazgul and fanbois/wynars happy to exploit the system/game engine within Jumpgate regularly speak of 'The Way It Is' as though they speak with authority...

[quote]Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.[/quote]






Testimonial


This is why athletes are professionals. The endorsement of Actors and famous people and respected members of our institutions are very effective at promoting commercials as interesting
Nazgul are infamous for this "Hyena" approach to flame wars. Ever seen a documentary on a pack of hyenas chasing off a fully mature lion from it's prey? This is where the personal *OOC* stories and jocular *IRL* asides are made.

[quote]Unfair testimonials are usually obvious, and most of us have probably seen through this rhetorical trick at some time or another. However, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity that we did not respect. When the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.
[/quote]

SPECIAL APPEALS

Plain-folks


The "awww shucks!" approach, or to be more lucid the, "I'm not a crook!" technique. It's the route where one relies heavily on simplistic words and concepts that usually bely the complexity of domestic/foreign policy going back perhaps many generations. Take for example the Iraqi's long history of the Sunni minority being the ruling class since the time of the Ottoman empire whitewashed with "oh, they've always had a dictator so they aren't interested in democracy. they only understand violence" (in MuffyTerms: Stalinistic Revisionism)...Just look at this speech by Colin Powell in the 90's.
Nazgul are famous for their Stalinistic Revisions couched in terms of, "this is the way it was" and explained in terms that everyone wanted it that way, "awww shucks!" (and they only accept "debate" on these terms)...

Very sure the 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc' fallacy belongs here. And the rest of the 'Causal Fallacies' & 'Non Sequiturs'? (The former involving cause/effect fallacies;The latter involving true premises but false conclusion)

[quote="Noam Chomsky"]vigorous debate within a frame work of fixed and unquestionable presuppositions. that those presuppositions is the propaganda line...an effort to do good - and then we can debate the tactics. (tactical)[/quote]






Bandwagon


I'm going to skip the real world examples and cut straight to the chase: When most people, whether fanboi/wynars or average members of our Jumpgate community, post suggestions they rarely take into consideration whether or not their recommended actions will have consequences (neither exploits nor actually fixing the problem they say the suggestion is the solution to)...what they do instead is appeal to individual playstyles as a means of gathering support. A complete avoidance of criticism in favour of a concept that's "good enough, though flawed, would be better of being put into practice than nitpicked"...this route is dependent on the "if we get enough votes it'll happen"

The Juggernaut approach; "When in Rome, do what the Romans do" has been a term that's been around the block a bit, hasn't it? *g* This is the sort that ignores polls and votes and other reasonable statistician tactics in favour of the "Shock & Awe" tactics (called, "preemptive self-defense" in some circles) aimed at flattering one's supporters while hijacking the opposition's stance in order to demonize them.
Nazgul and fanboi/wynars tend to use this tactic ALOT when it comes to vote/debate threads. This is a really effective means of making sure one buries the opposition in spam. Remember, it's not about reasonable assertions, nor "empowering" voters, but full on drivel aimed at protecting one's exploits from critical analysis. (ie. defense defense defense)
THE FANBOI MODE
The best illustration of this is the 'make mining the be all and end all of base commod injection' suggestion that was defended as not needing criticism because it was "good enough".

For me personally, this is what i call the SCALE problem. where the bandwagon concept underestimates by a huge margin the scale of action required...A more secular definition probably includes both Statistical & Categorical fallacies?

[quote=Cynthia Peters]Avoid economistic arguments.

In an effort to create a more diverse movement for peace and justice, we often hear activists argue that we need to talk to people about "what matters" to them. In order to reach African Americans, we need to condemn racism. In order to reach union members, we need to talk about wage cuts. In order to reach poor people, we need to talk about welfare reform. In order to reach "middle America," we need to talk about health care, public schools, and affordable housing. But this sort of mechanistic thinking is at best paternalistic; at worst, it damages our chances of building a broad-based movement.[/quote]






Fear-appeal


Martyr syndrome; Plain and simple, Stripped to it's very core this is the appeal to mass action to defend some noble cause from being destroyed by something evil; The "one man CAN make a difference!" rallying cry (ie. the nerfherder call). Also where exploiters of a situation seek to spread the illusion that by NOT going through with something to defend this [spindoctored exploit] will lead to disaster. Noble sacrifices and freedom fighter allusions come into play instead of the bandwagon "good enough" approach.
The route that blatantly assumes the majority are disempowered lemmings and Nazgul's (and other fanboi/wynar) noble sacrifices to empower us will not be in vain if we all agree to rally around a [spindoctored exploit] (offense offense offense)
THE WyNAR MODE
The sad thing about this is i've seen perfectly good storyline/events hijacked by attention-seeking demogogues who've gotten word of this threat to their importance and went off to reinforce said importance. (which is a win/win situation when they pull the martyr act to defend their actions via a 'petition'/'open letter' platform attacking their opponents; best defense is a good offense mentality)

Also, this is the (proxy)Nerf bat tactic in order to defend the usual WINGAME button of the nix/phoon/tens triumphvirate.

[quote]

(1) all other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is to take positive preventive action."(Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)
(2) Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behavior if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.
(3) Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behavior if they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the audience believes are both effective and doable.

In summary, there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.[/quote]

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Bad-logic


I never did understand logic very much, nor did i experience common sense very much. la la Regardless of the fancy wordings, i'm sure we make false syllogisms all the time. *shrug*
Spotting one is an entirely different story...

'Syllogistic Fallacies'



[quote]One way of testing the logic of an argument like this is to translate the basic terms and see if the conclusion still makes sense. As you can see, the premises may be correct, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. [/quote]



uhm...
Pretty sure this is where 'Fallacies of Distraction' belong

[quote]Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely."(Chase, 1952)[/quote]






Force


To me this is where a embedded culture is overturned by pure exploitation of the "rules"...A dog eat dog world that's about as brutally pragmatic as one can get.
Nazgul illustrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the epitome of this culture that laughs at anything that doesn't laud the "CIVigilante/HGanker" mentality borne from strict interpretation/exploitation of the PvP rules in JumpGate.

easy to codify: you have an exploit, you then have a reason to lie, demonize, and appeal to people's emotions & aspirations while simultaneously empowering individuals & destroying democracy. "grab a gun and fight! hire an escort! love it or leave it! this is the way it was intended!"

[quote="Quoteland"]"In politics, a lie unanswered becomes truth within 24 hours."
~Willie Brown, California political leader (current mayor of San Francisco)
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
~ Lenin, Marxist revolutionary (1870-1924)
http://www.geocities.com/allaxul9/quotes.html
http://www.flexpress.net/quotes.htm
http://www.nwmissouri.edu/~s214560/quotes.html
http://www.mitcharf.com/~mitcharf/quotes/

"When a myth is shared by large numbers of people, it becomes a reality."
~Lawrence Blair

"Convince enough people of a lie, and it becomes truth."
~Ron Amundson

[/quote]

[quote="Thorstein Veblen"]All is fair in war and politics. It is a game of force and fraud. There is said to be honor among thieves, but one does not look for such a thing among statesmen. [/quote]

[quote="Aaron Delwiche"]Democratic theory, as interpreted by Jefferson and Paine, was rooted in the Enlightenment belief that free citizens could form respectable opinions about issues of the day and use these opinions to guide their own destiny. Communication between citizens was assumed to be a necessary element of the democratic process. During the first world war, America's leaders felt that citizens were not making the correct decisions quickly enough, so they flooded the channels of communication with dishonest messages that were designed to stir up emotions and provoke hatred of Germany. The war came to an end, but propaganda did not. For the past seven decades, those who lead our nation, along with those who seek to overthrow it, have mouthed the ideals of Jefferson while behaving like Bernays.

Is propaganda compatible with democracy, or does it undermine the population's ability to think critically about world events? What happens when simplistic, emotional appeals are endlessly repeated? During the war, Bourne complained that "simple syllogisms are substituted for analysis, things are known by their labels, [and] our heart's desire dictates what we shall see." Could this description apply equally to a political climate in which slogans like "Three Strikes, You're Out," "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and "Just Say No" are treated as if they were actual policies for dealing with social needs?

What of the propagandist's argument that the complexity of the modern world makes obsolete the Enlightenment faith in popular wisdom? It is impossible for one person to simultaneously be an expert in foreign policy, labor disputes, the environment, the educational system, health care, constitutional law, and scientific regulation. Even the President is forced to rely on the advice of key advisors. Should America follow Bernays' prescription and accept the wisdom of "a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses?" Or is "leadership democracy" simply one stage of our democratic development? Could it someday be replaced by something more far reaching?

What contribution will emerging communication technologies make to the dissemination of propaganda? Does the myth of "interactivity" legitimize an unbalanced social relationship, or does it make it possible for the audience to challenge the propagandist?[/quote]

[quote="Noam Chomsky"]As i mentioned earlier, they don't want decision-makers and participants; they want a passive, obvedient population of consumers and political spectators -- a community of people who are so atomized and isolated that they can't put together their limited resources and become an independent, powerful force that will chip away at concentrated power.

...

So if you think it through, the population are the special interests and the corporations are the national interests.[/quote]

[quote="Alfred & Elizabeth Lee (The Fine Art of Propaganda, 1939.)"]As generally understood, propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups... Propaganda thus differs fundamentally from scientific analysis. The propagandist tries to "put something across," good or bad. The scientist does not try to put anything across; he devotes his life to the discovery of new facts and principles. The propagandist seldom wants careful scrutiny and criticism; his object is to bring about a specific action. The scientist, on the other hand, is always prepared for and wants the most careful scrutiny and criticism of his facts and ideas. Science flourishes on criticism. Dangerous propaganda crumbles before it.[/quote]

APPENDIX

[quote]Damage control; free press is supposed to describe [Clinton's indictment] as a tribute to the soundness of our self-correcting institutions
~Noam Chomsky (1988 massey lecture; 19minute mark)[/quote]

[quote]According to Edward Bernays, The very essense of the democratic process is the freedom to persuade and suggest. what he calls the engineering of consent. he goes on to say, "a leader frequently cannot wait for the people to arrive at a general understand. democratic leaders must play their part in engineering consent to socially constructive goals and values. if the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that is the nature of a free society."
~Noam Chomsky (1988 massey lecture. 16minute mark)[/quote]