The phenomenon of the exaggerations of "Jewish space lasers" and "horse paste" is an interesting topic.

There's a perfectly reasonable point to be made in each case, but many of the people making it feel the need to overstate the case and make it even more absurd.

I think it's because mockery spreads faster on the internet than a simple debunking. And so the thing being debunked is turned into its most extreme form. Perhaps even a step or two beyond a valid interpretation of what's being asserted by the subject.

So with the Mockery Maximization Principle, you get a meme that can spread very quickly and discredit the target at the same time.

The problem with this technique is that it can backfire if people start repeating it as what was actually being asserted. For example, the horse paste meme has backfired when it came to Rogan and the CNN doctor. When this happens, now the debunkers are on the defensive and they don't have a great way out of it since they're no longer on the side of accuracy and truth.

> Mockery Maximization Principle

That's a great term.

Let's go Brandon!

> The problem with this technique is that it can backfire if people start repeating it as what was actually being asserted. For example, the horse paste meme has backfired when it came to Rogan and the CNN doctor. When this happens, now the debunkers are on the defensive and they don't have a great way out of it since they're no longer on the side of accuracy and truth.

This is the problem with tribal audiences. CNN can say to its audience (mainly older liberals) that ivermection is horse paste, and face no repercussions. Conformity is so valued by society as a whole, that no one is going to stand up for the truth on CNN itself. But then in those brief moments when the outside world comes in, their bluff is called.

The right does it as well, and your mockery maximization principle (great name BTW) mandates that the meme is produced solely for their primary audience to sell clicks.

To me, “Jewish space lasers” is a slight hyperbole of the kind of rubbish we read from low-efforts trolls. I’ve obviously read about Marjorie Taylor-Green, but not being American I missed this gem.

That one could write that she did not quite say that, instead of the sane universe’s version that she did not say anything remotely like it truly is shocking. And horrifying.

"but that terminology/connection was made by the media"

She put enough of her thoughts and 'research' into her post that it was a 'dog whistle' for like-minded-thinkers.

You do not always have to explicitly say something, to actually say something...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

No. This is a rationalization for a belief that is incorrect.

It can be both. Typically one doesn't need to rationalize publically - by posting this thing to a large enough audience, this was past the point of rationalization - but was instead performative and seeking agreement/attention and acknowledgment.

And rather than stating the incorrect belief explicitly, she was using dog-whistle rhetoric techniques.

Again, you're rationalizing. You're making assumptions about her intent without any evidence to the contrary. This sort of thinking is the exact problem. You're finding your own conclusion, accepting it as fact, and then (in the case of the media) promoting that as what took place. That's a lie, no matter how you twist it.

The lie is pretending that people who post statements on a platform like Twitter and have a wide-spread audience or follower-base do not have any intent.

The lie is pretending that someones' written words are not actually enough evidence to show their intent.

The lie is pretending that statements exist completely isolated from any cultural or historical context. Marjorie Taylor Green has a well documented history of making very controversial statements.

The lie is ignoring the fact that time and time again conspiracy theorists keep bringing up the same scapegoats. Perhaps you are simply unaware that historically, attempting to link things with "Rothschild" is a very long-standing anti-semetic conspiracy and a known dog whistle.

> The lie is pretending that people who post statements on a platform like Twitter and have a wide-spread audience or follower-base do not have any intent.

Assumption.

> The lie is pretending that someones' written words are not actually enough evidence to show their intent.

Assumption.

> The lie is pretending that statements exist completely isolated from any cultural or historical context. Marjorie Taylor Green has a well documented history of making very controversial statements.

Assumption.

> The lie is ignoring the fact that time and time again conspiracy theorists keep bringing up the same scapegoats.

Generalization.

---

You're desperate to align reality with your opinion and offering nothing but characters attacks and assumptions as argumentation.

Ditto. Wether someone is "insincere" or not matters less when one can judge their words and actions.