...reveals? The swastikas didn't do that?
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
124 points (98.4% liked)
politics
26499 readers
1785 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder if this is the start of another effort to defuse a term by throwing it at everything until the definition gets dulled down to 'something I don't like'.
I remember when all their trained seals were told to keep calling all satire "Alinsky-like tactics". None of this made any fucking sense, but because there was a Black guy in the White House, they all completely lost their fucking minds.
I had a lot of fun asking these yo-yos if they even knew who Alinsky was. I'd ask if they read the book and if they could tell me what was so bad about it, and what does "Alinksy-like tactic" even mean to them (besides: "I don't like a Black guy in the WH").
I would ask them if satire pre-dated Alinsky. Blank stare IRL, or they'd typically drop out of the discussion if it was online...but yeah, a lot of them seemed to be getting messaging that satire==Alinsky==bad. Probably because conservatives are notoriously bad at satire - both in creating it and understanding it. In any case, they seem to have given up on that stupid effort.
They are so goddamn good at that, especially with the modern Internet and social media as they are
That's talking about a literal thing that happens in your brain in real time when hearing a word every few seconds. I guess as a metaphor for this tactic it works.
But the one they're doing is serving the same purpose as "accusation in a mirror" but by a slightly different method. Just make sure you're talking about the other side in as dramatic and extreme terms as they're talking about you; it doesn't need to make sense. To anyone not really paying attention it's all just background noise, of both sides calling each other nasty names because that's what political people do.
Most Republicans figured out how to do a version of this when they were in kindergarten. Kick the other kid when the teacher's not looking, then fall on the floor fake crying. Worst case, you get a "both of you, stop it!" If you're lucky, you might even convince the teacher the other kid started it.
It is a mechanism that can be used as a propaganda technique. Although this is closer to milieu control, Vance is using the terminology to signal his affinity to a particular segment of ice.
Hey, Stephen Miller - hello?