Difference between revisions of "Neocon reality inversion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ==Overview== The neocon reality inversion an inversion of reality which seems to be in effect around neoconservatives, possibly caused by them or possibly due to other causes. Evid...) |
m (rewrite of intro) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | The [[neocon reality inversion]] an inversion of reality | + | The [[neocon reality inversion]] is an apparent inversion of reality in effect around [[neoconservative]]s. Evidence for this effect can be found in statements by neoconservatives, or in support of neoconservative and [[right-wing]] causes, which contradict normal reality to a high degree of precision. |
| + | |||
| + | Although the cause of this effect remains unclear, it seems likely that it is done deliberately with the intent of muddying the facts to the point where the reader, in confusion, is forced to accept the writer's conclusion without further analysis or [[critical thinking]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It would also appear to be a manifestation of the [[mirror argument]] phenomenon. | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
In the neocon reality inversion, the following items are true: | In the neocon reality inversion, the following items are true: | ||
Revision as of 23:33, 12 June 2008
Overview
The neocon reality inversion is an apparent inversion of reality in effect around neoconservatives. Evidence for this effect can be found in statements by neoconservatives, or in support of neoconservative and right-wing causes, which contradict normal reality to a high degree of precision.
Although the cause of this effect remains unclear, it seems likely that it is done deliberately with the intent of muddying the facts to the point where the reader, in confusion, is forced to accept the writer's conclusion without further analysis or critical thinking.
It would also appear to be a manifestation of the mirror argument phenomenon.
Examples
In the neocon reality inversion, the following items are true:
- "Non-partisanship" means treating both sides of an argument (especially if it is between Democrats and Republicans) as equally valid, even if they aren't (i.e. the fallacy of moderation)
- Example: evolution vs. intelligent design: ID is a load of crap, but the religious right argues that it is only fair to teach ID alongside evolution in classrooms, to give "both sides of the story"
- "Dissent" is treasonous and un-American
- The Democrats have abused their power
- George W. Bush has been maligned by people who hate him for no good reason (or because of their own power-based agendas)
- Conservatives are the ones who are compassionate and care about individuals, while Democrats are bloodsucking vampires
- Conservatives are cautious spenders who promote small government, while "tax-and-spend" liberals/Democrats will bankrupt the country (see US Presidential administration budgets for actual data)
- Standing to Bush or the neoconservatives "hurts" the democrats (i.e. makes them less electable).
Links
Filed Links
- redirect template:links/smw