Why does the left think that disproving something once is enough, when the right know that repeating lies works?

[Anonymous]

The left needs to repeat that lies are lies, over and over.

Of course, making up lies is easier than proving the truth, and there are so, so many of them.

[DrPepper12]

THIS is a great question!!! Your right! As if liberals think that logic, reason and science can penetrate the MAGA "mind" with one application!! We forget how vacuous, enraged, manipulated and invested they are with maintaining, no, augmenting those qualities so no truth gets through and they fully realize they've been conned.

[Asker]

"You can warn your friend that he is being conned, and he will get angry at you. And when the whole thing comes crashing down and he loses his money, and he can no longer deny that you were right, he will never forgive you. He will forgive the crook, but he will not forgive the people who warned him about the crook. The crook just took his money. But you made him feel dumb."
David Frum on the Bulwark podcast (apparently)

[DrPepper12]

True!

[Astarlessnightsky]

I don't think anyone think this way, its just in 5 mins you can spread more lies than could be debunked within a lifetime.

[Asker]

I think that's what I said!

[RavVid]

I find the left is far more Goebbelsian than the right and it is really Goebbelsian for the left to say this because they very much rely on repeating the same lie very loudly and very often such that it starts becoming perceived truth.

Hitler said he learnt everything he needed to know from Marx, so he was a Marxist. The big lie technique is a Marxist technique.

[Asker]

That's because you believe bullshit without evidence. Yes, Hitler, Marx, anc Trump all use the big lie. The only thing that has come out about the 2020 election is that Trump and his lawyers were liars. Not that that was a surprise.

[RavVid]

Oh I wasn't wanting to provoke and when I refer to the Left, I am referring to the Left globally. All politicians try to distort their rivals positions but Left is particularly apt with words. As an instance my local Left started talking about affordable housing. That sounds good for everybody. Cheaper houses for everybody. No that was what the had in mind. What they were setting up for was subsidized housing for members of particular unions they wanted to curry favor with which would lead to less affordable housing for every body else. At best manipulative & deceptive.

That's not so bad. Highly deceptive. But then my local Left a while back entirely fabricated a position of the opposing and instigated extensive polling outwardly to see what people thought but really to push a narrative to voters.

That was truly Goebbelsian.

[Asker]

How would extra housing increase prices? I mean, that means there are fewer people looking for the other houses, surely?

[RavVid]

It is selective extra housing for special people. Which would mean that a certain portion of housing is removed from the general market. So there be will be more competition for less housing = higher prices for the non special people.

In a lot of countries it seems to have come as a surprise that higher immigration rates have immediately become higher housing costs. The same effect.

[Asker]

It still has people living in it who aren't looking for other houses. That reduces the number of people looking for houses.

[Asker]

By the way, I just came across the original quote and thought of this conversation:
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

—Joseph Goebbels

Now, what exact lies are you thinking of when you accuse "the left" of this? Do you think they're doing this:

"The Republicans are better at this, and Luntz was Noot’s messaging disciple back in the day. They gave Republicans a short, approved vocabulary, and Noot sent out a Message of the Day for all the orcs and minions to repeat if they were doing a media hit.

Fox News founder Roger Ailes also sent out a Message of the Day to all the talking heads, who repeated it verbatim all day long on all their shows. Sometimes Ailes and Noot’s messages were the same, and it is hard to decide who was giving orders to the other."
mockpaperscissors.com/.../

[RavVid]

Oh yes.

About 5% of housing is in the process of turning over and competition is for what is being turned over whether for rent or purchase. The other 95% doesn't count. If about 5% of people need/want new housing then it balances out. If immigration is such that people looking for housing double but the available stock stays the same the the prices will escalate substantially.

At an open for inspection to rent, if there are two couples neither will feel that much under pressure. If there are 10 couples then they will feel a lot more pressure to snap the rental up and be the first to say Yes to the price. A single person will look at the dual income couples and feel even more pressure. It is even more so if any have a lease that is expiring.

So my country has built 200,000 houses pa because that matched the long term immigration rate. A gov't decided to increase the immigration to 500,000. Immediately unbalanced the market because there were more than twice the people bidding for property. It was inevitable prices increased substantially.

In one city it is around 20% increase pa. Very difficult to survive that.

[RavVid]

There is a standard set of lie types that that ordinary people tell from white lies to bald face lies.

With politicians it is more difficult to categorize. It is easier for me to say what I don't consider a lie.

I wouldn't consider consistent messaging as a lie though the underlying message might well be a lie.

Saying what they intend to do with the intent to do it is not a lie but saying that without intent or knowing they cannot do it is to me a lie. Promising rainbows and unicorns without any causal/plausible path is a lie. Sometimes called aspirational now

It is in these areas that people are most cynical with politicians.

A fairly frequent form of lying is with phrasing. I've already nominated "affordable housing". If that is pitched to the general electorate but the aim is to make housing more affordable to a select group only, then that is a lie.

Often these phrases become stinking fish because the electorate works them out. The phrase is dropped and a new phrase invented. It is exactly the same as the old stinking fish phrase but is fresher and doesn't - as yet - carry the same aroma. Affordable housing might become Economic Housing just to make up an example.

I would say this is an area in which the Left lies exceedingly well. Deceptive phrases are used and evergreened. The Right does this far less because it is more cognitive and the Left is more emotional. It is the Left that evergreens the Right's thinking through their policy failures.

[RavVid]

Then there are Goebbelsian lies. Which is basically saying the opponents position is X when it isn't. Within this I would include calling an opponent Hitler or Stalin repeatedly enough to make a Goebbelsian association. This I associate in a far greater degree with Left - Pile ons are most often Left wing actions - and have been endemic from Marx onwards (Who was a really good hater by the way. I am rather proud of a forebear being targeted by Marx).

I've given an example where a position was entirely fabricated and then extensively polled to make it perceived to be so. More subtle than repeated name calling.

There is a Bismarkian category. A Left apparatchik who, on receiving intelligence the Leader of the Opposition would be in a particular location, thought it would be a good idea to start a riot at said location. So he quickly made up and spread some lies to excite his target demographic who did duly riot. (That demographic excused themselves by revealing the lies told afterwards and by blaming the Left for lying to them).

It mostly went pear shaped because he didn't notice the Left PM was going to be at that location at the same time. So we saw a distraught female PM being pulled out of the riot minus one shoe whilst the male leader of the opposition sauntered out looking cool as a cucumber.

The Left apparatchik was bundled on a plane to England and a job for him in the UK Labor party was hastily arranged. The local Left needed to avoid him being Police interviewed over incitement to riot charges.

i'd count all that as a rather big lie.

[Asker]

You're talking about 12 years ago, when "Kim Sattler, an Aboriginal and secretary of Unions ACT", not a politician or a government official. "The AFP inquiry found that Hodges' decision to contact Sattler was in accordance with his duties as a media advisor, and the information he provided was accurate and already in the public domain."

Hodges worked abroad for a while, but came back to Aus in 2015 to work for ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr and ten years ago took up a position with a lobbying firm.

So, no, it's the opposite of "Goebbelsian" to not tell a lie and that only once, isn't it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Day_2012_protests

As to housing, unless your numbers are talking about 500,000 families and not individuals, 200,000 homes should be enough. What was that about "The Right... is more cognitive and the Left is more emotional" again?

[exitseven]

It is the democrsts and the fake news that does this. They called Trumps claim of a stolen election "the big lie" and said it over and over again even thought there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. /they said it so much that almost half the nation believed it.

[Asker]

There was no evidence for a stolen election, even Barr said so. None.

[exitseven]

what about 1000 signed affidavits? What about videos of fake balllots being delivered, or being pulled out from under tables at night, or being stuffed into remote ballot boxes? What about sttisticsl abnormalities with districts counting more ballots than there were registered votes.
Just because evidence is not investigated does not make it go away.

[Asker]

I've still to see any evidence of 1000 signed affidavits. Why don't you really investigate? Is it because you know you'll find out there are perfectly good explanations for everything upsetting you accepted by election officials of both parties.

You know the 2000 Mules guy had to apologise for falsely accusing someone of being a "mule"?

[exitseven]

so out of the 2000 Mules he still had evidence of 1999.

[exitseven]

All those signed affidavits still exist as does all the other evidence. The statute of limitations has not run out on any of it. Maybe an impartial DOJ will get a chance ot look at it next year.

[Asker]

No, he didn't. They were lying about all of them. It's just one person who managed to convince a jury that he was identifiable.

Where do they exist? Every article I can find says that they number in the hundreds and that they don't include any actual evidence. Hearsay or misunderstandings of how elections work.

[DrPepper12]

"plenty of evidence" 🧾 but not ONE court recognizing it... I wonder how that happens...

[DrPepper12]

Affidavit without evidence is just a potential perjury investigation... And that's EXACTLY what going on with the fake electors scheme... Wake TF up

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 yes, these people came forward and put their statements on the record. They could be prosecuted for perjury. Do you really think people would come forward like that if they were not outraged?

[Asker]

They were told to be outraged. People don't get prosecuted for perjury if they're simply mistaken about something and they don't make a habit of it.

[DrPepper12]

Not "could be". They ARE being prosecuted.

www.lawfaremedia.org/.../where-the-fake-electors-cases-stand-in-state-court

[Asker]

@DrPepper12 That's not idiots who didn't understand what they were doing, that's the people who tried to steal the 2020 election for Trump, against the will of the people of their states.

[Anonymous]

because leftist audiences are dumb enough to soak in lies

[Asker]

The lies are all coming from the right, and you ignore anything that disproves them.

[Opinion Owner]

it sure as hell ain't the left disproving them. the left are entirely built upon lies

[Asker]

Thank you for proving my point about where the lies come from.

[Opinion Owner]

yeah the lies come from the left. thanks for letting me know

[Asker]

That's a lie.

[Opinion Owner]

you keep telling yourself that

[Asker]

No, the point of the question is that we should keep pointing out when you're lying.

[Opinion Owner]

yeah the left is always lying. no need to point it out when it's blatantly obvious

[Asker]

Ah, another lie.