Difference between revisions of "Neocon reality inversion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Examples: replaced missing word; tweaked phrasings) |
(→Examples: and I thought they would *deny* it...) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In the neocon reality inversion, the following items are true: | In the neocon reality inversion, the following items are true: | ||
* "Non-[[partisan]]ship" means treating both sides of an argument as equally valid, even if they aren't (i.e. the [[fallacy of moderation]]) | * "Non-[[partisan]]ship" means treating both sides of an argument as equally valid, even if they aren't (i.e. the [[fallacy of moderation]]) | ||
| + | ** Or, worse, it means [[2009-03-07 Limbaugh defines bipartisanship|one side in complete control of the other]] | ||
* "Dissent" is treasonous and un-[[American]] | * "Dissent" is treasonous and un-[[American]] | ||
* The [[110th US Congress|Democrats]] have abused their power | * The [[110th US Congress|Democrats]] have abused their power | ||
Revision as of 21:47, 19 March 2009
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 as equally valid, even if they aren't (i.e. the fallacy of moderation)
- Or, worse, it means one side in complete control of the other
- "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 up to Bush or other neoconservatives "hurts" the democrats (i.e. makes them less electable).
- Scientists fear intelligent design because it threatens their worldview, while creationists are ever-curious seekers of truth. [1]
- People who vote out of blind obedience to their group affiliation (political or religious) are "values voters", while people who choose leaders based on a comparison of each candidate's moral and ethical values (and the integrity of their adherence to those values) are apparently non-values voters.
- People who blindly adhere to the dictates of their group affiliation are "moral", while those who base their actions on a careful consideration of the ethics of a situation as applied to their personal moral beliefs are "immoral" and/or materialistic.
Links
Filed Links
- redirect template:links/smw