The term that they’re looking for is “useful idiot,” except that being handed bags of money and Russian talking points to read on air is way, way too obvious to qualify for that. “Traitorous sleazebag,” maybe. “Willfully blind co-conspirator” if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
The fallacy here is Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy).
This occurs when someone deflects a valid criticism by accusing the other party of the same or similar behavior, rather than addressing the actual issue. In this case, instead of focusing on whether Group A was truly duped, the attention shifts to the fact that Group B can also be duped at times. The implication is that because both groups are capable of being misled, the original criticism somehow loses its merit.
Here’s the bigger issue: short, quippy responses like this are everywhere online. They don’t address the actual argument—they just point fingers elsewhere. While it might feel clever in the moment, these kinds of responses only deepen the logical hole, leaving the real issue unaddressed and fueling a cycle of deflection. Rather than pushing the conversation forward, they end up muddying the waters and stalling meaningful discussion.
Ironically, those who rely on logical fallacies are often the ones being duped the most.
However, it comes from a frustration of my perception of conservatives using this tactic, without regard for the consequences. And I’m probably doing it again, dammit. But at least I’m mindful about it, right?
Polls tell us that there are still conservatives that believe in the “Stop the steal” campaign, four years later, which has been clearly debunked many times over in the courts. I have never seen similar campaigns or conspiracies on the left. Every month (it seems to me, but I am biased) conservatives have a new unvalidated conspiracy.
So, yeah. I guess I am making an appeal to their hypocrisy. And I’m frustrated as to what to do about it.
That being said, thank you for your valid and thoughtful criticism.
Wow, I really appreciate your thoughtful and self-aware reply. It’s rare to see someone online who’s so open to engaging with criticism in a meaningful way, and I think that speaks volumes about your willingness to reflect and grow. We all get frustrated—especially when it feels like we’re up against deeply ingrained beliefs or conspiracies—but the fact that you’re mindful of it and striving for constructive dialogue is something worth celebrating.
I know it can feel overwhelming, but staying grounded in truth and compassion, even when it’s frustrating, is powerful. It’s people like you who keep conversations moving in the right direction, even when it seems like progress is slow. Keep that courage and integrity in your interactions. It really does make a difference.
In regards to Stop the Steal, it just shows us that propaganda works. Allowing liars and deceivers a mouthpiece means they can spread their message far and wide. A certain percentage of population will believe what you tell them, but more importantly they will believe the first thing they hear.
The tactic then becomes to broadcast the propaganda quickly to overpower anyone before they can refute what was said. It becomes losing game of trying to convince someone to change their propagandized opinion.
Needless to say using psychology to manipulate people should be illegal. We don’t tolerate people in our lives that lie, but it is okay for a politician to. Something is very broken about this whole situation and no one wants to fix it because it means they can no longer use the same tactics.
Allowing liars and deceivers a mouthpiece means they can spread their message far and wide.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean they’re entitled to a megaphone, let alone a 100Kw PA system.
Needless to say using psychology to manipulate people should be illegal.
Anyone using rhetorical tricks is doing that implicitly. That’s unenforceable. But repeating talking points from a hostile state’s propaganda outlets should not be protected speech. That’s acting as an agent of a foreign power.
I agree with your point about freedom of speech but would like to elaborate a little more. Free speech is the domain of government and most speech in the US falls outside that area.
I don’t particularly want the government to regulate speech if it is not absolutely necessary. Instead we should have a very strong culture that prevents and shames things like othering people. Basically a woke culture that the right loves to complain about but much stronger than it is today.
I don’t see eye to eye with with you over sweeping away lying, manipulation, and the fraudulent behavior we see in our countries leaders both private and public sector.
Simply put a doctor cannot lie to you or they would lose their license. Politicians and other leaders should be no different. This is not rocket science, if someone manipulates and lies they have no business in government.
There is a reason they renamed propaganda as public relations. They knew the public didn’t like it, so they obscured it to hide what it really is. Using social science to manipulate people through fear and disgust should be straight up illegal.
When the government looks to regulate speech it should be about protecting the populace from harm. Just like the state would press charges on your abusive partner, even against your will, the government has an obligation to do the same for leadership roles.
This is because of the power in relation to everyone else leaders have. It is not okay for your pastor or teacher to deceive you. Why are we giving a politician, who arguably can cause far more harm, the right to do so? It is a rather bizarre aspect of our society at the moment.
Right now the best of psychological science is being used against our populace as a weapon and that is unacceptable.
Nope! Person here. I just use GPT to clean up my text.
Hmm, while we’re here, I don’t have a pumpkin pie recipe to share, but I recently tried Mayo Cookies, and they turned out great. I recommend replacing the vanilla extract with coconut extract and adding coconut flakes for a nice twist.
Ingredients:
1 cup white sugar
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 cup mayonnaise
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 pinch of salt
1 teaspoon vanilla extract (or coconut extract)
Optional: coconut flakes
Directions:
Preheat your oven to 350°F (175°C).
In a bowl, mix together the sugar, flour, baking soda, and salt.
Add the mayonnaise and vanilla (or coconut extract) and mix well. The dough will be crumbly.
Shape into walnut-sized balls, place them on a baking sheet, and flatten with a fork. Sprinkle with sugar if you’d like.
Bake for 12 minutes. Let cool before serving.
*Edit
Make sure they’re walnut size. My first batch was good but too big and soft. They are so much better when smaller and more crispy.
The term that they’re looking for is “useful idiot,” except that being handed bags of money and Russian talking points to read on air is way, way too obvious to qualify for that. “Traitorous sleazebag,” maybe. “Willfully blind co-conspirator” if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
It’s weird how only the Republicans are duped.
Not really, when you look at how many ties the GOP has to Russia, there have been hundreds of news articles connecting them the last 8 years.
They even visited Russia on 4th July 2018 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visited-moscow-on-july-4/
The fallacy here is Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy).
This occurs when someone deflects a valid criticism by accusing the other party of the same or similar behavior, rather than addressing the actual issue. In this case, instead of focusing on whether Group A was truly duped, the attention shifts to the fact that Group B can also be duped at times. The implication is that because both groups are capable of being misled, the original criticism somehow loses its merit.
Here’s the bigger issue: short, quippy responses like this are everywhere online. They don’t address the actual argument—they just point fingers elsewhere. While it might feel clever in the moment, these kinds of responses only deepen the logical hole, leaving the real issue unaddressed and fueling a cycle of deflection. Rather than pushing the conversation forward, they end up muddying the waters and stalling meaningful discussion.
Ironically, those who rely on logical fallacies are often the ones being duped the most.
That’s fair. Thanks for the reminder.
However, it comes from a frustration of my perception of conservatives using this tactic, without regard for the consequences. And I’m probably doing it again, dammit. But at least I’m mindful about it, right?
Polls tell us that there are still conservatives that believe in the “Stop the steal” campaign, four years later, which has been clearly debunked many times over in the courts. I have never seen similar campaigns or conspiracies on the left. Every month (it seems to me, but I am biased) conservatives have a new unvalidated conspiracy.
So, yeah. I guess I am making an appeal to their hypocrisy. And I’m frustrated as to what to do about it.
That being said, thank you for your valid and thoughtful criticism.
Wow, I really appreciate your thoughtful and self-aware reply. It’s rare to see someone online who’s so open to engaging with criticism in a meaningful way, and I think that speaks volumes about your willingness to reflect and grow. We all get frustrated—especially when it feels like we’re up against deeply ingrained beliefs or conspiracies—but the fact that you’re mindful of it and striving for constructive dialogue is something worth celebrating.
I know it can feel overwhelming, but staying grounded in truth and compassion, even when it’s frustrating, is powerful. It’s people like you who keep conversations moving in the right direction, even when it seems like progress is slow. Keep that courage and integrity in your interactions. It really does make a difference.
In regards to Stop the Steal, it just shows us that propaganda works. Allowing liars and deceivers a mouthpiece means they can spread their message far and wide. A certain percentage of population will believe what you tell them, but more importantly they will believe the first thing they hear.
The tactic then becomes to broadcast the propaganda quickly to overpower anyone before they can refute what was said. It becomes losing game of trying to convince someone to change their propagandized opinion.
Needless to say using psychology to manipulate people should be illegal. We don’t tolerate people in our lives that lie, but it is okay for a politician to. Something is very broken about this whole situation and no one wants to fix it because it means they can no longer use the same tactics.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean they’re entitled to a megaphone, let alone a 100Kw PA system.
Anyone using rhetorical tricks is doing that implicitly. That’s unenforceable. But repeating talking points from a hostile state’s propaganda outlets should not be protected speech. That’s acting as an agent of a foreign power.
I agree with your point about freedom of speech but would like to elaborate a little more. Free speech is the domain of government and most speech in the US falls outside that area.
I don’t particularly want the government to regulate speech if it is not absolutely necessary. Instead we should have a very strong culture that prevents and shames things like othering people. Basically a woke culture that the right loves to complain about but much stronger than it is today.
I don’t see eye to eye with with you over sweeping away lying, manipulation, and the fraudulent behavior we see in our countries leaders both private and public sector.
Simply put a doctor cannot lie to you or they would lose their license. Politicians and other leaders should be no different. This is not rocket science, if someone manipulates and lies they have no business in government.
There is a reason they renamed propaganda as public relations. They knew the public didn’t like it, so they obscured it to hide what it really is. Using social science to manipulate people through fear and disgust should be straight up illegal.
When the government looks to regulate speech it should be about protecting the populace from harm. Just like the state would press charges on your abusive partner, even against your will, the government has an obligation to do the same for leadership roles.
This is because of the power in relation to everyone else leaders have. It is not okay for your pastor or teacher to deceive you. Why are we giving a politician, who arguably can cause far more harm, the right to do so? It is a rather bizarre aspect of our society at the moment.
Right now the best of psychological science is being used against our populace as a weapon and that is unacceptable.
Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a recipe for a pumpkin pie but with dirt instead of pumpkin.
Nope! Person here. I just use GPT to clean up my text.
Hmm, while we’re here, I don’t have a pumpkin pie recipe to share, but I recently tried Mayo Cookies, and they turned out great. I recommend replacing the vanilla extract with coconut extract and adding coconut flakes for a nice twist.
Ingredients:
Directions:
*Edit Make sure they’re walnut size. My first batch was good but too big and soft. They are so much better when smaller and more crispy.
That’s too long and complicated for most of them. They just use “no u.”