Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on.

That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".

Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

What you state about "wise people framing things a particular way" being part of a known playbook for spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, is also a well known tactic for dismissing the concerns of genuinely concerned, yet inconveniently numerous people.

Not that it matters, but if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing.

Their concerns are illegitimate and are only used to attempt to overturn the election. We are under no obligation to humor their concern trolling.

I had to look it up:

  concern trolling: the action or practice of disingenuously
  expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or
  derail genuine discussion. (from Oxford Languages via Google)

> if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing.

I don't follow your logic.

Here's the context. x86_64Ubuntu wrote:

> Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on. > > That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".

In response, I wrote:

> Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

In doing so, I pointed out a pattern that involves a rhetorical technique.

With this context, perhaps you can explain what you mean by "try not to in the same stroke do the same thing?"

I totally read that context wrong. Serves me right for posting in a hurry. I must have mentally kludged both of your posts together. What I thought was being communicated was an assertion that people who do call out things in non-dismissable as nuttery ways outright are really just nutters trying to use politeness to avoid getting dismissed out of hand with the malicious intent to spread fear uncertainty, and disinformation.

With the kebashed context in mind, I think I was in a sense pointing out the perceived (on my part) dehumanization of the hypothetical speaker who could just genuinely be someone with concerns who simply desires additional scrutiny or scrutiny, closer to the topic at hand.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Teaches me to post from the hip.

> "Not that it matters..."

It seems to me this phrase fits the bill for a "thought-terminating cliché". [1] Do you agree?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché

> is also a well known tactic for dismissing the concerns of genuinely concerned, yet inconveniently numerous people.

Yes. This rhetoric can be used for all kinds of purposes, whether well-intentioned, altruistic, noble or selfish, corrupt, deceitful and so on.

> What you state about "wise people framing things a particular way" being part of a known playbook ...

You used quotes, but what you quoted is not a quote from me, nor anyone earlier in the thread.

Also, I didn't write "wise".

Many people say so.

Your comment is very brief and ambiguous to me. Can you elaborate please?

Are you saying you agree or disagree with my statement?

Sorry, I could have been more clear. It's another Trumpism. He's not saying these crazy things, but he's heard it from many other people. It's another way to promote conspiracy theories with plausible deniability.

For example: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/76278182654903091...

Does this mean we're not going to discuss the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy that is associated with "Many people say so..."? :P

I'm torn. On one hand, I wish I got the joke sooner, because I needed a laugh today. On the other, I'm glad I missed the context that would have made the joke clear. Overall, I'm thankful I can read HN comments without hearing Trump's voice reading the words.

By playbook, I mean this is a subtler version of the straw man fallacy.