shade
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 15,127
- Likes
- 90,376
ModerationToday's messages in the Israel-Hamas thread throws an interesting dillema regarding jihadi propaganda. And fortunately, it is in our own space, where we can practice. A member has shown up trying to pin the hospital bombing on Israel again, even though it has been thoroughly debunked and even the muzzies have slunk away from that story now that they know they can't get away with the lie.
After the lie has been debunked, the opponent (in this case) tries to rake it up again, ignoring evidence and simply de-railing the discussion. Whether or not he himself is a jihadi is irrelevent, this is a very common jihadi pattern.
The dilemma here is that if you ignore the opponent, you have allowed him to take over a space and change the narrative for any neutral or new 3rd party obervor. For example, a new visitor to the thread will see his claims, and if no one countered it, will tend to believe that there is some truth to these claims. On the other hand, if you do counter it, as I did, it runs the risk of de railing the discussion completely, as you have to address the same issues again and again to someone who doesn't want to see the truth, for the sake of keeping the record straight.
Which brings us to the common jihadi propaganda pattern: De-railing discussions by ignoring evidence and logic. Either you counter it for pages and pages, or you ignore it and let the lie go unchecked.
I would like to hear what others think would be good counter strategies in such scenarios.
Some guy posts a rebuttal, then you ban the the jihadi before he does "but ackshually" or "that's not evidence" or "experts say".
This is how narrative was controlled on Twitter before Elonwa made it wild west