Disinformationists & Disrupters

C@tmomma Uncategorized

null

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Thomas Pynchon

I don’t know about you, but I find it incredibly frustrating when I come up hard against a commenter on the internet whom I consider a ‘Disinformationist’ or a ‘Disrupter’ .

We all know them, if not immediately at first contact, then ultimately by their behaviour.

Or, at least I hope we all might be able to better spot them by the end of this helpful ‘How to’ recognise them heads-up.

It may save you the time you may otherwise have expended engaging with them in order to try and change their minds.  Because you won’t.

They do not exist to be persuadable.

Let’s just start by understanding what Disinformation is(from Wikipedia):

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).

Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.

null

Such are the sorts of verbal attacks that we see every day, from Left and Right, from one or another group, political party or individual commenter, against one or another party. Of course, globally, but specifically in our own neck of the internet woods.  Mainly on other blogs because this one is moderated by active not passive moderators.

Passive Mods on other blogs appear to be hog-tied to Jay Rosen’s ‘Voice From Nowhere’ paradigm, assuming an objective perspective that sits back to let all flowers have the chance to bloom equally on their blog, even if some of them are the equivalent of internet weeds. In contrast with Active Mods, such as we are here, who are constantly on the look-out for the blog trolls that simply seek to disinform and disrupt. Who then get weeded out, so as to keep the garden blooming, unchoked with deliberate distractions from the disrupters.  Who seem to be just like any other commenter, until you start to see some constant similarities to the way they, and others of a like mind, go about their posting.

So, as a service to us all I just thought I might outline some of the ways they do this so you can tell them apart from people who genuinely have a different point of view to you. Basically so that you don’t waste your precious time and energy on trying to change their minds, with facts and rational argument. Such people will never change their mind because that is not the reason they are where they are, interacting forcefully with you.  They are trying to spread manure in the garden to burn the flowers and allow the weeds to grow and take over.

Eight Signs of a Disinformationist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, unless engaged in faux ‘constructive input’ such as a Gish Gallop, generally avoiding the citing of references. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies THEIR authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic under discussion. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Aggressively Mainstream/Anti-Conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for non-mainstream or ‘conspiracy theories’ and almost always are defending the official narrative of your political opponents.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and nonacceptance, no matter how condemning the evidence, they simply deny everything you present as evidence, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem counterproductive.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes sometimes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic and simply being interested in an intent to disrupt the flow of an argument which is trending towards their opposition
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News/Social Media Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when envoys of an empowered player are involved in a cover up or disinformation operation:

  • ANY Blog/Social Media posting by a targeted ‘truth teller’ can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The envoys of the empowered players can afford to have people sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage.  Since disinfo in a Blog/Social Media setting only works if the reader sees it-fast response is called for, or the visitor may be swayed towards the truth.
  • Or, when dealing with a rebuttal to a truth in the public arena, such as in the form of a chain disinformation email, a delay in the response usually occurs. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
  • In any News Media/Social Media forum, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same, usually 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted ‘truth teller’, or their comments, are considered more important with respect to their potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked more than once for the same sin.

Well, there you have it. A rough outline of what I believe we are up against, as web warriors for the Progressive cause, as we go into battle on a daily basis for what we believe in and wish to defend.

I’m not saying that the above is true of every encounter with the ‘enemy’ that we have, just to be aware that probably not all of them are ‘weekend warriors’, just engaging in the verbal battle for altruistic reasons simply. I’m pretty sure that eloquent exponents in our corner, the Progressive corner, are well known to the o(O)pposition, and are targeted accordingly so they don’t become too influential in the day to day ideological debate that has started to go on since the internet and other forms of Social Media flung open the Doors of Perception.

859 thoughts on “Disinformationists & Disrupters”

  4. Albo gets a dixer on NBN and rubs it in a bit over fraudband and gets in a few funnies. Albo said he enjoys attacking the tories more than anything else, and we can believe him on this effort. Turnbull tries a relevance POO. Slapped down. Albo welcomes the chance to throw in Turnbull as “the Minister for the Copper economy”. Gets a supp from Rowley for another go.

    Albo uses it to get in a bit more about how NBN will help overcome the tyranny of distance. Albo mentions that fraudband won’t have the same commitment to uniformity of price.

    Now Abbott still trying the PM on the Member for Holt. Finally does say she doesn’t agree with Member for Holt, but defends the right for different views. Abbott tries to use POO for debate, knocked back. PM dismisses the opposition snarls but won’t sack Member.

  8. well there is one o n the net but I will leave to tcomma to decide
    search images

  9. Albo gets a dixer on regional Australia. No, Cath King gets the nod and is well prepared with NBN . Now a few other goodies. No wonder Abbott didn’t want her in his bike ride. Might have stolen too many scenes. Good showing from a junior minister.

  13. denese

    Hopefully those already converted, speak to others and convert them.

    I cant think of any photos of Pell and Abbott together.

  16. ABC24 going with Ooh funding cuts for ASIO. Didn’t they listen to QT?

  17. They listened, Ducky. But they don’t like it, doesn’t fit the narrative. They’re going with their fact-free version.

  18. Aguirre,

    I think you are right about the DAP. The Oops have avoided it like the plague but, because of Tone’s tanty, it is now in play again.

  19. Blimey! No shortage of entertainment in QT today. The member for Lyons is certainly adding to the value with his earlier questions, his MPI and the motion he intends to move after it.

    The Opps are squired in the rotisserie and are being slowly turned over a nice little campfire. 😉

  22. Funster Rob Oakeshott is the member for Lyne. Dick Adams is the member for Lyons.

  24. Scorpio,

    I rather like the notion of Opposition members being squired in the rotisserie …

  26. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4716804.html

    the carbon dioxide levels in Earth’s atmosphere tick past 400 parts per million, it’s a timely reminder that the political misery global warming has caused in Australia so far is just the beginning.

    While Tony Abbott’s relentless and effective campaign against the carbon tax has seen support for the Government haemorrhage, this week’s Essential Report suggests the Coalition is headed for its own human-induced climate pain.

    The Coalition’s climate policy is not only less popular than the carbon tax – a feat right there – the support it does attract comes from those who dismiss the science of climate change.

    Meanwhile as the Opposition promises to scrap the carbon tax, public opinion is finally coming to terms with the Government’s long-maligned scheme.

    ====================================================

  30. Yesterday’s launch of Guardian Australia has resulted in a surge of online traffic going to Northern Victoria’s Swan Hill Guardian.

    The local paper has been having a bit of fun with the domain name confusion, as their general manager Rob Duffield explained to ABC News Breakfast.

    ABC News Breakfast | http://bit.ly/13VMAHH

  32. There seems to be only one photo of Abbott and Pell together available online. Why? Do they only ever meet in the middle of a moonless night in a dark crypt under St Mary’s Cathedral?

  33. jaycee

    [I’m not one of them]

    I get on with them on the basis that I’m not keen but will ride if needed.

  35. Ducky – You just have to keep an eye on the ALP’s more general tactics. They’ve been persistent in drawing out Abbott on policy. They did it in Budget Week, ensuring that his budget reply was full of goodies for them to pick apart. He’s fully exposed on the economy now, and as a result all he can talk about is ‘we’ll get taxes down, we’ll get regulations down”. There’s still a bit of work getting that busted open, but it’s a small corner he’s been backed into.

    But he’s also had a free run on carbon pricing, having been allowed to talk about it only in terms of the economic joy he’ll be spreading about by cutting the carbon tax, and giving lip service to his alternative ‘plan’. Today’s tactic was specific – Talk About Your Direct Action Policy. Having happily obliged, and having made a bit of a spectacle of himself while doing it, Abbott has now made Direct Action an election topic.

    And I’m pretty sure all talk about ‘Carbon Tax’ will now also encompass Direct Action as an alternative. Abbott kinda gave the green light for it. I don’t think he realises that yet.

    The way I see it, Abbott walked straight into two gotchas in two weeks, and had no idea on either occasion. Even better, the MSM had no idea either. They might start talking about the ‘narrative’ changing in a week or two, but I wonder how many of them will have any idea how it happened?

  36. leonetwo,

    { There seems to be only one photo of Abbott and Pell together available online. Why? Do they only ever meet in the middle of a moonless night in a dark crypt under St Mary’s Cathedral? }

    I understand their favourite meeting place is the nearest confessional. Maybe they take turns in hearing each others confession.

    They have probably been meeting there quite regularly lately! 😉

  38. From 6 months ago:

    A series of questions were put to Pell about specific allegations of abuse, the payment of “hush money” and the Church’s involvement in “cover-ups”. Pell rejected the suggested that there is widespread cynicism about the church. “I very much reject the general smearing… that the church has done nothing, is covering up… the is is demonstrably not the case.”

    http://australianpolitics.com/2012/11/13/george-pell-press-conference.html

    Tone’s moral compass changed his tune yesterday

  39. ” I get on with them on the basis that I’m not keen but will ride if needed.”

    Ditto!

  40. loenetwo.. ” Abbott and Pell.”

    “Oh George!…I bet you say that to all the girls!”

  43. Would like to comment over on the Drum about climate change, but the site is now so loaded with right-wing ‘wind-suckers” you’d be lucky to even get posted!
    The ABC. truly has gone to hell!

  45. Dreyfus gives Brandis DH a bollocking for talking about operational matters in security.

  46. So, when things get too embarrassing for the Oops, the ABC cuts.

  47. Enjoying the Dreyfus presser? We really do have a bunch of circus freaks for press reporters. These questions are alternating between “What’s going on?” and “How do you respond to this unsubstantiated allegation?” In terms of eliciting information, complete failure. There’s a girl with an annoying whiny voice putting in a effort for worst on field. Her questions were uniformly juvenile.

  50. Is this screwy, or is it just me?

    Can it be that the public does not recognize that the terms “the Carbon Tax” and “the government’s carbon pricing scheme” are one and the same thing?

    ——————————

    Essential Report says:

    27% want to: “Keep the carbon and mining taxes

    (A combined 59% want to dump it, either keeping or not keeping the compensation.)

    then later, in response to the question:

    Q. Do you support or oppose the Government’s carbon pricing scheme…

    43% answer “YES”

    ——————————-

    So 27% want to keep it in one question, and 43% in another.

    Maybe this is just me, as I said, but if it’s not, how WEIRD are those numbers?

    http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

Comments are closed.