This sort of propaganda is very very common; we tend to hold sexual mores very close to our hearts, so portraying the enemy as having immoral sexual practices is a very easy way to vilify them.
For example, Fox News makes articles like this about Muslim extremists using polyamory to promote anti-Americanism while more liberal news sources instead write about Muslim extremists using systemic rape to oppress women. Regardless of the factual basis of either claim, they’re each focusing on the sexual practices their readers are most likely to condemn their enemy for engaging in. It’s Dark Arts 101.
Regardless of the factual basis of either claim, they’re each focusing on the sexual practices their readers are most likely to condemn their enemy for engaging in. It’s Dark Arts 101.
This is a bit ambiguous. You could mean ‘They’re focusing on sexual practices their readers dislike, without concern for the factual basis of their accusation. Therefore it’s Dark Arts.’ Or you could mean ‘They’re focusing on these sexual practices because their readers dislike them. Therefore, regardless of the factual basis of their accusation, it’s Dark Arts.’
If the former, then I’d like some evidence that news organizations are fabricating a rape scare (or a promiscuity scare). If the latter, then I disagree; it’s not Dark Arts to criticize a group for unpopular sexual practices, if the practice in question is genuinely harmful. This is especially clear if the harmfulness is a big part of the reason it’s unpopular.
I mostly meant the later, but the former is not exactly uncommon (Satanic Ritual Abuse in 90s America, the current “Gays are raping their adopted children” thing in Russia, the exaggeration of German war crimes in the ‘Rape of Belgium’ in WWI, etc.).
The reason I call it Dark Arts is because it’s an argument where it’s validity is virtually irrelevant to its effectiveness, and in fact encourages exaggeration omission and equivocation even if no outright lies are told. It’s a rhetorical weapon; anyone can pick it up and attack anyone else with it, and the argument doesn’t actually change except on the most superficial level.
This sort of propaganda is very very common; we tend to hold sexual mores very close to our hearts, so portraying the enemy as having immoral sexual practices is a very easy way to vilify them.
For example, Fox News makes articles like this about Muslim extremists using polyamory to promote anti-Americanism while more liberal news sources instead write about Muslim extremists using systemic rape to oppress women. Regardless of the factual basis of either claim, they’re each focusing on the sexual practices their readers are most likely to condemn their enemy for engaging in. It’s Dark Arts 101.
This is a bit ambiguous. You could mean ‘They’re focusing on sexual practices their readers dislike, without concern for the factual basis of their accusation. Therefore it’s Dark Arts.’ Or you could mean ‘They’re focusing on these sexual practices because their readers dislike them. Therefore, regardless of the factual basis of their accusation, it’s Dark Arts.’
If the former, then I’d like some evidence that news organizations are fabricating a rape scare (or a promiscuity scare). If the latter, then I disagree; it’s not Dark Arts to criticize a group for unpopular sexual practices, if the practice in question is genuinely harmful. This is especially clear if the harmfulness is a big part of the reason it’s unpopular.
I mostly meant the later, but the former is not exactly uncommon (Satanic Ritual Abuse in 90s America, the current “Gays are raping their adopted children” thing in Russia, the exaggeration of German war crimes in the ‘Rape of Belgium’ in WWI, etc.).
The reason I call it Dark Arts is because it’s an argument where it’s validity is virtually irrelevant to its effectiveness, and in fact encourages exaggeration omission and equivocation even if no outright lies are told. It’s a rhetorical weapon; anyone can pick it up and attack anyone else with it, and the argument doesn’t actually change except on the most superficial level.