| pokoko said: This thread is absolutely fascinating. The pivot from "this is Nazi" to "no one is saying Nazi" about half-way through provides such a great view of how people attack, lose ground, then counter-attack from a different direction in online political battles. It also makes you wonder how many people would actually agree with the arguments of their "side" if they weren't conditioned to accept them without question. That they can change tactics on the fly without the slightest problem demonstrates that winning the argument in question isn't the point, not losing to the other side is the important bit. If you find that you're not winning an argument, what do you do? Work to erase the initial argument then change it to something else. I don't know if I've ever seen a more clear example than this. The first argument has almost been abandoned, other than a few hold-outs who didn't get the memo, and now it has switched to "this is fake news" (ironically enough) along with the usual "look at something else" attempts. The general idea seems to be that you are not allowed to think about Gaza if 5 minutes of your time have been consumed by Sidney Sweeney. Can the two things not exist in someone's brains at the same time? Crazy. What I like the most is the establishment of a custom criteria, such as "it only counts if one (1) elected official has addressed the topic." Hey, these are the rules, I don't make them up. Looking at the poll results for how actual people felt about the ad, I wonder how that poll would have changed if none of the respondents had heard any discourse about it? What if they'd never learned their party's position or the position of their rivals? What if they'd never learned that their party was attempting to alter the argument to something else? Anyway, really interesting to watch. Let's see how completely different the argument can get from the original discussion and if the misdirection attempts were successful. |
Hmmm, this thread has nothing to do with whether the ad represent nazim or not. That was the 2 way conversation between you and another poster. Maybe you should continue to address that person points against your own opinion. From your comment you seem to believe that your conversation with that one person represent the only opinion expressed in the comments about the ad whether pro or con.
I believe you take way too much stock on your own discussion as if it's the only point being made about the topic. Many different points were made and different directions based on the points move the subject to other areas. If you want to continue your point, I suggest you continue your conversation with the person you were making your point against.
