Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

I love these types of lists and think they're handy for when you are reading anything on the internet. This type of behavior isn't restricted to just the "conspiracy sites", however, it seems as if that is where the majority of people intent on "muddying the waters" tend to reside.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

You see this one a lot, whether on a conspiracy site or something as non-threatening as a sports discussion board.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

This one is quite common and I see it here daily. The mods do a good job, but these do slip through.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

One of the reasons that I so appreciate ATS, the mods do an excellent job of shutting this type of behavior down.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Sound familiar? I think this is one of the reasons that the 9/11 Truth movement has such a tough time.

Isn't that the list of 25 things to do to become a politician?

This is a great informative post. It reminds me of the Rules for Radicals book I read not too long ago. Remember, only interpret with your own eyes and ears.

Sounds like advice Sean Hannity would give.

reply to post by Finalized


So, you have uncovered the Obama playbook?

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Finalized

 

So, you have uncovered the Obama playbook?

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

reply to post by Finalized

Sound familiar? I think this is one of the reasons that the 9/11 Truth movement has such a tough time.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Quoted today in a 911 thread this is what nonsense we have to contend with.

9/11 deniers and 9/11 truthers are the exact same group of people. Truthers are those who deny the validity of the commission report so they attempt to "seek out the *real* truth behind the 9/11 attack" which really means they want to push their own personal theories onto other people regardless of what the facts are. Judy Woods and her "Lasers from outer space" claims and April Gallop and her "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are sterling cases in point of the truther/denier mindset.

In order to rationalize why they'e not getting anywhere with their conspiracy preaching the 9/11 denier/truthers/theorists/whatever always need to cling to the conspiracy dogma that everyone who dares to disagree with them must be goosestepping sheep who mindlessly swallows everythign the gov't tells them, so your question to us non truthers/deniers/theorists/whatever is as pointless as asking whether we'd want to be rich or be poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm willing to listen to the proposition that there was some form of conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack but I'n not willing to stick my head in the sand and pretend there aren't inconvenient facts out there that shows the claim is rubbish, as the truthers routinely do.

Until the conspiracy people/truthers/deniers.whatever grow up and acknowledge that people can mistrust the gov't AS WELL AS mistrust the drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites, these 9/11 conspiracy stories are going to be relegated to history's scrap heap of idiotic ideas, right next to the Y2K scare and pyramid power. Accept or ignore this at your own cost.

Notice the language and negative words associated to Truthers.
Notice the ridicule and insults.
Notice the wide brush the author paints against all Truthers?

Originally posted by impressme
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Quoted today in a 911 thread this is what nonsense we have to contend with.

There are several posters in that forum that use a vast majority of these techniques, one in particular comes to mind.

2. Become incredulous and indignant

Check, I've seen it

3. Create rumor mongers

Check, I've seen it, stating in one thread that Youtube isn't reliable, then quoting another website in a different thread that might be as questionable

4. Use a straw man

Standard, fall back technique

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule

The older posters won't do this, the newer ones will.... you'll only see it if you read it before the Mods get to the post

6. Hit and Run

I always always look at people's sign-up date.... if someone is in that forum blasting away and has only signed up recently, forget about it, I won't read their post.

7. Question motives

Check

8. Invoke authority

Check, they just refer back to the OS

9. Play Dumb

Check

10. Associate opponent charges with old news

Check

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

Check

12. Enigmas have no solution

Check, the standard is "why would the gov't do this, it doesn't make sense" or "too many people would have to be involved, there is no way that it could be kept secret"

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

Check

14. Demand complete solutions

BIG BIG BIG Checkmark, this is where they get you.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions

Check

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses

Check

17. Change the subject

Check

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents

Newer poster tactics, see #6

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs

Another BIG gotcha

20. False evidence

The OS

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body

Pointing you back to the 911 Commission

22. Manufacture a new truth

They use this against truthers, case in point, AE911Truth.org, tear down the "new truth"

23. Create bigger distractions

Check

25. Vanish

Check

I count 23 of the 25 tactics happening in the 911 Truth world, that's a 92% coverage of these tactics.... in what other conspiracy do you see that many tactics being deployed? To me, that is indicative that there is something there.

another great example to witness these types of tactics are any of the threads critical of Israel.

It's almost guaranteed that within the first 10 replies that someone will mention rockets fired by hamas/hezbolla, babies as human bombs, 6-day war or those ebil muslims wanting to destroy the jews.

It's kind of funny to watch actually

Wow. Great find. S&F. I like to think that I play the trends to reach a conclusion to the validity of a non-mainstream theory. I think that, plus having the skills to smell BS, have helped me to recognize most of these techniques being used around us. However, I had never seen it articulated and put down on paper. That should make it all the more easy to spot the sockpuppets and their like.

Also it makes a great introduction to pass along to others who are just beginning to see the deception and the truth that's been hidden from them.

reply to post by Finalized

I have no doubt that there are paid disinfo working for our government. I believe there are a growing number of people who sold their loyalties to COINTELPRO to help defend the real criminal.
The government claims that they no longer use this program; I am convinced they are lying.

COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal[2], projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations
COINTELPRO tactics included discrediting targets through psychological warfare, planting false reports in the media, smearing through forged letters, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, extralegal violence and assassination. Covert operations under COINTELPRO took place between 1956 and 1971; however, the FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception.[3] The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Why not infiltrate ATS 911 threads. ATS is the world’s biggest conspiracy website, where many conspiracies are proven true. Look how many threads that are created by posters using credible sources that prove parts of the OS are lies. Notice how fast five or six OS defenders take over the thread and attack the messenger (OP) with Ad hominem attacks. Many of them team up against the Op trying their best to discredit the Op and not the topic. I agree there is something going on and the Truth is the last thing some of these posters want.

reply to post by Finalized


It's amusing how disinformation is itself disinformation... or as Orwell ( Eric Blair ) called 'Newspeak", shallow euphemistic words, designed to destroy the meaning of the word.

Most of what is in this OP are "Logical Fallacies"... errors in "thinking"... Learning Logical Fallacies will reveal, clearly, every example here..... and much more...

Then maybe we can talk psi-ops and grifter / cons etc.... lol That would make for interesting threads too! lol

Oh Let's throw in P R Firms / Propaganda too... ah... and much more of course....

neat rules

not on sun tzu or machiavelli's level though

reply to post by Finalized

Star and flag for you my friend.

The thread linked to in my signature compliments the information in this one for anyone interested in this topic.

See this thread too if you care about the truth.

US government wages sock puppet war against its own citizens

THANKS!!!

S & F

This is CLEARLY Phage.

Apart from the impish glee of poking people with a virtual stick, I think that trolling means a person doesn't have to expose their sensitive underbelly of opinions or beliefs. They can say to themselves 'Ha ha, I'm just saying this to piss them off' thus avoiding the risk of saying anything genuine or constructive, in case it's criticized. A twisted self-esteem preserving defense mechanism gone wrong, like a virtual pre-emptive strike.

Positioning themselves so as to receive negative attention deliberately, to avoid receiving damaging negative attention. What's that behavior called?

People who do not distinguish between positive attention (praise, approval) and negative attention (criticism, disapproval), but simply perceive attention = good

Not necessarily as simple - the motives for putting on a troll suit do not interest me. I think it's often to protect the soft squishy real person wearing the troll.

Like the cheap British TV show Dr. Who’s Daleks, y'know, armored war machines with scary voices on the outside, helpless deformed mutant brains on the inside. Or a durian fruit, spiky outside squishy inside (also smells of human feces, so apt).

Trolls don’t seem to like attention in the way we all like attention to some degree or other; instead they crave *impact*. I don’t really see being argumentative as trollsome. In fact I generally take arguing with people as redeeming them in some way, because although certain positions might be troublesome, pursuing them through dialogue is par of the course and ‘fits’ with a community – particularly a discursive community like ATS. To me, trolls will do anything to avoid fitting in because impact is easiest achieved through *contrast*. It's often a refusal to engage with argument that marks them out.

So in terms of psychology, I don’t know if it’s much different to any of the other forceful, short-termist, superficial expressions of difference. I guess serious crises of identity might manifest themselves in this kind of assertion of identity. I’d have thought that message board trolling is related to a range of behaviors from blowing raspberries at Nanny, painting your room black, joining the Young Conservatives, etc. There’s an emphasis on impulse, unpredictability, the antisocial, the psychological conflation of shock with awe.

My own theory is that persistent trolls are the online equivalent of people who while early in their development/parenting: I suspect they've either come from large families where every child had to fight for parental attention; or one or other parent has been emotionally distant/disengaged (through depression, perhaps, or drug use) and our troll has learned that only the most extreme behavior is sufficient to win him any attention at all. For whatever reason, any attention is welcome, with the board becoming a parent-substitute in the troll's 'look at me' reenactment of old patterns.

I assume that trolls are at a fragile age, identity-wise – pubescents, largely, I’d have thought. I wonder if there’s a correlation between compulsive trolling and more acute identity problems, but I doubt there’s much research into this (yet).

Still, if it’s a release, it’s probably better that they go on the foul around a message board than start cutting themselves (or 'real' people).

In my efforts to reply to trolling, I've found it to be largely ignored.