Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Propaganda
“Never believe all your own side’s propaganda, but don’t start believing the enemy’s.” – Unknown (heard from David Weber)
I have to apologize, as this quote is based on my recollection, which may be inexact. My apologies. That said, I heard this or something close to it at a panel on military science fiction.
The concept is that you should neither uncritically accept what people say about the enemy nor let your doubts undermine your devotion to the cause. The Hun is not necessarily a horrendous inhuman monster, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fight him and do everything in your power to secure victory.
I thought the quote showed a considerable deal of insight, especially from the perspective of an author or observer. What do you think?
Published in Group Writing
I think it’s good advice.
Like most things in life, few are 100% black or white. Has the CIA caused trouble throughout the world? Of course. Was the CIA doing the correct things for an overall better world? Many times. So when another country complains about the CIA/USA, are they wrong? Probably not, but their leaders are lying when they use that as an excuse, such as with Cuba and now Venezuela. So why do many in Hollywood admire those countries?
The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. We have many days available on the July Signup Sheet. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!
It is the path of least resistance, or at least the path requiring the least thought. Hollywood isn’t big on thinking.
You know, this quote may explain much of my frustration with the NeverTrump and Bulwark types. Even of Libertarians generally.
Here’s an example which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t directly related to the President (though it is about immigration). On the latest Remnant podcast, the guest was Ilya Shapiro, giving his annual Supreme Court roundup. If you don’t know, Shapiro is a brilliant and excellent SCOTUS commentator who works at Cato. Obviously, this will make him a bit libertarian for my tastes, but I greatly like (and listen to) many libertarians.
I think that he was discussing a DACA case that is on the docket for the next term, and in an offhand way, he said something like: “Congress, to its shame in my view, has never passed the DREAM Act.”
Shame? Shame?? As if there’s no legitimate reason to disagree with Shapiro’s position on the DREAM Act — on which, incidentally, he’s the one siding with the radical Left.
OK, perhaps I’m a bit overly frustrated about this. There are perfectly valid disagreements about how to deal with illegal aliens who were brought here as children. I don’t consider Shapiro to be a bad guy for disagreeing with me on the issue.
The problem is that he, apparently, thinks that I should be ashamed of myself because I disagree with him.
This is not helpful. I do not mean to pick on Shapiro specifically. This attitude has been very prevalent among Conservative commentators who I like and respect, not limited to the Bulwark types. It is the reason that they are infuriating. In these instances, they come across as smug, arrogant, dismissive, and insulting. My frustration is often increased by the fact that, quite regularly, I find their views (on the issues in disagreement) to be quite naive, and I find them in alliance (on those issues) with the radical Left.
It is sometimes difficult, in such circumstances, to avoid the temptation to respond in a way that might not be entirely CoC-compliant.
Here’s a hint, if you’re someone generally on the Right. If you find yourself agreeing with freaking AOC, you might want to consider the possibility that you’re the one who’s wrong. And you certainly should hesitate to use their tactics to heap scorn and ridicule on your fellow Conservatives who disagree.
Well said, Jerry Giordano.
Why do you hate Pippa?
For my part, I don’t read my staff’s press releases; I’m good, but I’m not that good.
Anybody that brings up “the children” in any discussion is engaging in propaganda. Dems do it all the time, because they can only think emotionally and not logically. “Children in cages”, “children taken from mothers”,… and all their tales of woe. It is all just propaganda. *that* is shameful.
Now, Congress should do something about the DREAMers. Congress should strengthen and finance deportation laws. They should expand laws dealing with human trafficking and fraudulent use of minors. Congress should also declare anybody not provably under 13 to be an adult. No more of this 30 year old gang bangers pretending to be 16 year old kids. Congress should do much, much more.
Don, I know what you mean, but I do think that what you say goes a bit too far as a general proposition. There are legitimate reasons to bring up “the children” — for example, in the discussion of sexual morality, violations of which regularly lead to illegitimacy, abortion, or divorce.
I agree with you completely about the propaganda regarding “the children” in the immigration debate.
Hollywood features the largest concentration on Earth of immensely wealthy people who lack university educations, and it shows.
Heck, Hollywood probably also has the largest concentration on Earth of wealthy people who lack high school diplomas!
Fortunately, outside of Hollywood there are immensely wealthy people with university educations who are also idiots.
And those people are concentrated in Washington D.C.