It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Laugh at what targeted others say. Criticize their lack of Values. Denounce their ideals. Turn around theirs words and actions, taking them out of context and amplifying them to drown out any denial (making denial seem like admission of guilt). Use other double-binds such that whatever they say or do only mires them more deeply. Find a name that trivializes them and use it at every opportunity, with a smirk on your face and the laughter of
Show up opponents Make your opponents appear stupid, immoral or otherwise undesirable. Besmirch their untarnished reputation, holding it down in the mud, rubbing it in with the knowledge that much of the mud will stick. Be careful about the person retaliating. As necessary, ensure they are isolated and disempowered first.
Make an example of someone Take a random person and denigrate them. Show that you can and will do this any opponents. You can do it to an apparently strong person, to demonstrate that you are not afraid and will take on and defeat even the powerful. You can do it to a weak person, to show that nobody is safe from your ire. You can do it to an ordinary, guy-next-door person, to show that 'people like you' are not safe either.
Use attractive, but vague words that make speeches and other communications sound good, but in practice say nothing in particular.
Generalization is a common process whereby we take one thing and apply it to others. Glittering generalities use this principle in seeking to evoke emotions without making any commitments or putting the speaker in a position where they may be challenged or criticized. If people are taken to a place where they accept vague statements, then suggestion can be used to replace rational argument and clear evidence.
Hypnotic talk puts people into a light trance, where they become carried away by the situation and are more suggestible. When accompanied by comfortable surroundings, darkened rooms and flashing lights, the effect is accentuated further.
Nouns give the sense of substance, but when they are intangible, they lack actual substance. This allows the speaker to credibly apply then to broad domains.
Associate with other people or groups that already have high trust and credibility. Show that you aspire to similar ideals. Become a member of auspicious organizations. Be seen with trustworthy people. Name-drop and quote them. Show that you have friends in high places. Show how you are like them.
When you show yourself to be like a known and respected person, then you are encouraging the other person to categorize you in the same way, such that they will then attribute all of the characteristics of the other person onto you (including trust).
Showing yourself to be better then uses the other person's values and abilities as a base on which you have built. There are dangers in this, as it may seem that you are criticizing someone that the other person has idealized.
If your words might lack credibility in some way, borrow the credibility of others by getting the testimony of trusted others. Use celebrities and public personalities who have well established and trusted public brands. Use experts, clerics, police, scientists and others whose title is respected, even if the people themselves are unknown. Use people who are like the people whose support you need. Get them to stand up and support your case with vigour. Get them on stage with you. Get them on TV shows and into political debates. Help with words, if you can (but do not alienate them by being too pushy).
When they see you as like them, they are more likely to like and trust you in return. Once they have decided that you are trustworthy, they will accept what you say without question. Appearing ordinary also makes you appear uncomplicated and very unlikely to tell lies. As a result, people are more likely to trust you further and believe more of what you say. This is a method that is often used by people aspiring to (and working in) high office. It is easy for such people to lose track with the ordinary person -- or at least appear to do so.
In 'card-stacking', deliberate action is taken to bias an argument, with opposing evidence being buried or discredited, whilst the case for one's own position is exaggerated at every opportunity. Thus the testimonial of supporters is used, but not that of opponents.
Card-stacking makes significant use of the evidence principle, whereby we find evidence to be particularly persuasive.
Card stacking, particularly with testimonials, works when we confuse real statistics with availability, leading us to assume that just because there appears to be overwhelming support from other people, then this is a representative sample of the whole population.
4. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias.
8. Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by the top experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money.
12. 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.
13. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with.
14. Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried.
16. Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”.