• @Bamboodpanda
    link
    -15 hours ago

    It’s always interesting to see how discussions about disinformation attract the very tactics they describe. A predictable pattern emerges in these responses—one designed not to engage in good faith but to mock, dismiss, and deflect.

    Here’s how it typically plays out:

    • Mockery Instead of Argument

      • Rather than addressing specific points, they resort to sarcasm and ridicule.
      • Compare serious, well-documented concerns to absurd conspiracy theories—“Fluoride in the water! Precious bodily fluids!”—so that the entire discussion is framed as ridiculous.
    • The “Conspiracy Theory” Dismissal

      • Even when the argument is based on intelligence reports, independent research institutions, and government investigations, they lump it together with baseless internet conspiracies like QAnon.
      • This is not a counterargument—it’s a lazy rhetorical trick to make the entire topic seem unserious without actually refuting anything.
    • Demand Sources, Then Ignore Them

      • If a comment doesn’t include direct links, they pretend it’s “unsourced,” even if it references well-known institutions like RAND, Stanford, or U.S. intelligence agencies.
      • Ironically, they don’t provide sources themselves—because their goal isn’t fact-finding, but discrediting.
    • Dismiss the Premise Without Engagement

      • They don’t acknowledge the existence of Russian disinformation efforts, despite overwhelming evidence. Instead, they treat the claim itself as laughable.
      • This is classic gaslighting—pretending a well-documented reality doesn’t exist to make people second-guess whether it’s even worth discussing.
    • Turn the Conversation Into Noise

      • By injecting sarcasm and misrepresentation, they shift the focus away from the substance of the discussion.
      • The goal is to waste people’s time, exhaust them, and make the entire conversation seem like a pointless back-and-forth.

    This is one of the most effective disinformation tactics—not to argue a case, but to flood the zone with nonsense until people disengage. And unfortunately, it works. When bad-faith actors derail discussions with sarcasm and mockery, it discourages others from engaging at all.

    So, the next time someone tries to dismiss a fact-based argument by ridiculing it instead of addressing it, recognize the pattern. It’s not a debate—it’s an attempt to control the conversation by making real information seem like a joke.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      05 hours ago

      But your argument isn’t “fact based”, any more than the claims of Qanoners. You’ve made a bunch of unverified assertions.

      • @Bamboodpanda
        link
        02 hours ago

        The world’s full of people sharing unsourced opinions, buddy. Sometimes you gotta do a little legwork yourself. Look! I even made it easy and gave you a bunch of names and claims you can Google. I could even do it for you, but why bother. That’s not what you’re here for, is it?

        Nope. Gotta stick to the propaganda script.

        • Dismiss Without Engagement – Call it “not fact-based” without addressing a single point. Discredit without effort.
        • Demand Sources, Then Ignore Them – Ask for proof, then pretend it doesn’t exist.
        • False Equivalence – Lump verified intelligence reports in with QAnon nonsense to muddy the waters.
        • Flood the Zone With Nonsense – Throw out empty dismissals to get in the last word until people give up.

        So tell me, BrainInABox, do you ever get tired of pretending to argue while saying nothing or is that just the gig?

        Now, let’s flip the script. Prove you’re not a Russian bot—by not replying. I bet you can’t. Your program, employer, or pride won’t let you.