5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Underdogs

I was browsing Cracked.com this morning and came across this recent article that many on ATS would find interesting. It talks about the tricks used by the people in charge to marginalize the disadvantaged. As you read the article, it brings up various cases in our recent past where these tactics have been used to shut up the little guy. Keep an open mind as you read this article. If you see an argument you have used against a disadvantaged person, consider if you are playing into the status quo's agenda or not. I've seen many of these counter arguments used on ATS all the time for things like gay rights, women's rights, the poor, environmentalists, Occupy Wall-Street, Ferguson and Baltimore rioters, etc.

5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Underdogs

Here are the 5 points of the article, click on the link though to get the juicy details:

#5. Wait For One Of Them To Break The Law, Then Talk Only About That

#4. Convince The Powerful Majority That They're The Oppressed Ones

#3. Focus On Their Most Frivolous Complaints (And Most Unlikable Members)

#2. Pit Two Disadvantaged Groups Against One Another (And Insist That Only One Can "Win")

#1. Insist That Any Change Will Ruin The World

I'm sure many if not all 5 of these should look pretty familiar to many on ATS. #2 could be reworded as "Divide and Conquer" and it would mean the same thing as I'm sure many on ATS are aware.

So in conclusion, the next time you want to take a conservative viewpoint and maintain the status quo, think about the arguments you are using to see if you are painting the majority as the victim and the minority as the oppressor. You may be playing into EXACTLY what tptb want, to maintain the status quo.

PS: Just because I used the word conservative in the previous paragraph doesn't mean I'm singling out conservatives here. Liberals aren't exempt from using these arguments either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I was browsing Cracked.com this morning and came across this recent article that many on ATS would find interesting. It talks about the tricks used by the people in charge to marginalize the disadvantaged. As you read the article, it brings up various cases in our recent past where these tactics have been used to shut up the little guy. Keep an open mind as you read this article. If you see an argument you have used against a disadvantaged person, consider if you are playing into the status quo's agenda or not. I've seen many of these counter arguments used on ATS all the time for things like gay rights, women's rights, the poor, environmentalists, Occupy Wall-Street, Ferguson and Baltimore rioters, etc.

5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Underdogs

Here are the 5 points of the article, click on the link though to get the juicy details:

#5. Wait For One Of Them To Break The Law, Then Talk Only About That

#4. Convince The Powerful Majority That They're The Oppressed Ones

#3. Focus On Their Most Frivolous Complaints (And Most Unlikable Members)

#2. Pit Two Disadvantaged Groups Against One Another (And Insist That Only One Can "Win")

#1. Insist That Any Change Will Ruin The World

I'm sure many if not all 5 of these should look pretty familiar to many on ATS. #2 could be reworded as "Divide and Conquer" and it would mean the same thing as I'm sure many on ATS are aware.

So in conclusion, the next time you want to take a conservative viewpoint and maintain the status quo, think about the arguments you are using to see if you are painting the majority as the victim and the minority as the oppressor. You may be playing into EXACTLY what tptb want, to maintain the status quo.

PS: Just because I used the word conservative in the previous paragraph doesn't mean I'm singling out conservatives here. Liberals aren't exempt from using these arguments either.

Don't forget an even more common argument.

6) Characterize the poor or disadvantaged as "lazy," "on drugs," "welfare queens," "irresponsible." This is probably the most common way the oppressed are dismissed, by making them responsible for their state of oppression.

Your other points apply to liberals too, but #6 I just listed is classically Republican in the US sense. #FoxNews.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Good point but it was kind of covered in point number 4

Let's say your country has a rapidly worsening poverty problem, and the impoverished are getting noisy. A) requires you to insist that those at the very bottom -- the ones depending on government assistance to buy food -- are actually rich. This would seem like an impossible if not ridiculous task, but all it takes is a Photoshopped image showing a massive food stamp balance on a receipt from a liquor store, and the majority will share it on Facebook hundreds of thousands of times. Or, find a video of a beggar who is caught driving a luxury car, and it will be blasted from the headlines as a typical example of a poor person. Next comes B): The moment anyone calls bull#, cry censorship by insisting you're a martyr of "Political Correctness." And then we get to C), in which you say that the activists supporting the victims of your attack are only in it for the money or attention.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

All 5 are only effective through the precise execution of Propaganda, so, in my opinion, the powerful control the masses deliberately through social engineering that affects change that suits the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Check your bank account and job security for verification.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The title could have been: Why Fascism is so popular around the world.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Krazysh0t

All 5 are only effective through the precise execution of Propaganda, so, in my opinion, the powerful control the masses deliberately through social engineering that affects change that suits the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Check your bank account and job security for verification.

Fair point, but many times, with the right nudging, you can get the populace to spread the propaganda for you. Look how many times a hoax or inflammatory article is posted on ATS by some gullible person looking to push their bias.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Good point but it was kind of covered in point number 4

Let's say your country has a rapidly worsening poverty problem, and the impoverished are getting noisy. A) requires you to insist that those at the very bottom -- the ones depending on government assistance to buy food -- are actually rich. This would seem like an impossible if not ridiculous task, but all it takes is a Photoshopped image showing a massive food stamp balance on a receipt from a liquor store, and the majority will share it on Facebook hundreds of thousands of times. Or, find a video of a beggar who is caught driving a luxury car, and it will be blasted from the headlines as a typical example of a poor person. Next comes B): The moment anyone calls bull#, cry censorship by insisting you're a martyr of "Political Correctness." And then we get to C), in which you say that the activists supporting the victims of your attack are only in it for the money or attention.

Fair enough, but that point you posted is not quite the same, as it dismisses poor people not because they are poor or lazy/irresponsible, but because "secretly they are rich" or because they are claimed to be abusing the system. See how that is different? It's a different attack.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yea, I can see that.

#6 Slander the aggrieved party.

How is that? It's more apolitical than yours.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You beat me too it. I was was reading the same thing and wanted to post.

a reply to: crazyewok

Lol. I saw it and I was like, "This needs to be on ATS!"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yea, I can see that.

#6 Slander the aggrieved party.

How is that? It's more apolitical than yours.

I think slander addresses both. Both points of yours and mine are slanderous.

However, the "blaming the oppressed for their state of oppression" is so endemic across history and the globe that we really need to make it specific.

This kind of rhetoric does not just occur in the US, it also is projected upon the world. Many countries that are undeveloped are often blamed for their state. Now, some do have a lot of responsibility due to rampant corruption or states of war, etc. Just as many are in the state that they are due to political reasons (colonialism, empires of others, oppression by other countries) OR poor development variables (not being near navigable waters/rivers/oceans; extreme disease; bad natural resources, etc).

A lot of people don't even know these other variables, which are extremely well-researched and supported, so they fall for the rhetoric.

So, when we don't specifically point out propaganda or purely ignorant dismissals of the downtrodden, it makes people less able to be inoculated against such statements.

We need to "vaccinate" people's minds against propaganda.

Social psychology research studies have actually studied this, saying that people can be inoculated in advance against all kinds of rhetoric.

As to politics and being apolitical, we should never be afraid to say what needs to be said simply because it undermines a specific political position. Some political positions are propaganda. The "poor people are poor because they are lazy and irresponsible" is completely refuted by a mountain of economic, sociological, psychological, anthropological data. Especially when it comes to such topics, things have to be based on the research and evidence, not opinion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, these are useful and popular tools in the obfuscation of legitimate debate from whichever trajectory.

Point for point, it reflects the arguments for all union labor talking points though, my particular animus is directed only at public sector unions such as police and teacher's unions.

Food for thought.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well said. That's why I keep a lookout for articles like these that teach you the rhetoric and how it is used so that you can look for it yourself. It's actually thanks to Cracked that I learned the "click on source links" trick. Where you click on the sources to the article until you trace the story back to who originally reported it. It's funny how, when you do that, at times you'll find out the article is a repost from years ago, originated on a forum, or sources back to a satire news site like BIN or WND.

a reply to: greencmp

I don't know about you, but as I read that article I was like, "Damn I remember these VERY arguments used against me in various discussions." It's amazing how people will repeat rhetoric over and over again just because it sounds plausible or agrees with their position, yet never fact check it to see if they are really just being useful idiots for the ptb.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The 25 Rules of Disinformation is also a good read.

We are constantly being manipulated and apparently very few can see through BS and sometimes become cheerleaders for a bogus cause.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well said. That's why I keep a lookout for articles like these that teach you the rhetoric and how it is used so that you can look for it yourself. It's actually thanks to Cracked that I learned the "click on source links" trick. Where you click on the sources to the article until you trace the story back to who originally reported it. It's funny how, when you do that, at times you'll find out the article is a repost from years ago, originated on a forum, or sources back to a satire news site like BIN or WND.

Thanks man. Good post too on your part. Cracked is great sometimes. And it's more digestible for some people because it's humorous.

I agree that part of deconstructing propaganda and political issues in general is learning rhetoric, logic (and logical fallacies), common talking points and their refutations, etc. Over time one begins to realize that there are a lot of common patterns to propaganda.

This is part of the inoculation of which I spoke. If I remember the social psychology studies, people can be prepared in advance to better deal with rhetoric if they are exposed to the common talking points in advance and refutations.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Could you imagine if they taught a class in university or even the high school level on identifying propaganda?

a reply to: jrod

Reading that now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Could you imagine if they taught a class in university or even the high school level on identifying propaganda?

Definitely would be amazing. I'm sure someone somewhere has.

To be honest, they do teach some of this in social psychology courses, because much social psychology studies have focused on propaganda, media, and how people are influenced. For example, a ton of SP studies were done since WWII specifically to try to understand how normal people in Nazi Germany were so influenced, especially to commit atrocities.

I cannot recommend highly enough someone with these interests to either take a social psychology course or simply go through some of the studies. If I can find time later I will try to find some. It's been years.

Many address a singular kind of persuasion or historical issue.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh yea, I've encountered lessons in various different subjects that have gone over some of these concepts. Fallacies in a Logic class, propaganda use during wartime in history classes, and more things; but the problem is that these things are presented in a vacuum and people don't learn how to apply them to the media they are reading in the present. People don't make the connections that they are still being exposed to propaganda even though they learn about how it happened in the past. In fact, that is one of my chief complaints about history classes in general, there is never an attempt to relate to the class how the events of the past have effected the present and effect the people in the classroom. Doing that makes history look alive and fluid instead of just a bunch of dry text in a book.