How can you respond to the argument "so this is the truth, it is in life"

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

This article was written to help the Information Forces of Russia, such as Teach the Good and others who are fighting blackheads on the air. I will share my options for answering a common misconception of defenders of such chernukha, which they usually express in the following words: "Well, it's true, this is life, you need to show the truth, open people's eyes." Various harmful films are defended with similar phrases, which show early sexual relations, polygamy in high school, adolescent drug addiction, homosexuality and various forms of deviant behavior, as well as talk shows discussing family scandals, and other programs with elements of malicious programming idiocy.

I suggest that readers take on board and add to their piggy bank those counter-argument methods that I use myself. I do not in any way guarantee that you will be able to use them in the same way as I do, because a lot of things also depend on the narrator, however, I give a direction, and you yourself will follow the method of finalizing these arguments to a convenient form for you.

The simplest argument that I found in the Teach Good video (watch the argument from 22:55, and in more detail about the manipulation itself from 15:40) is that reality is multifaceted, that is, it consists of many views, and not only out of one. You can show one look, and you can show another - and the final impact of information on the content consumer depends on this. This argument has never worked in this form, so this form is not included in my list. It must be served differently. How? Read on and find out.

First

Obviously people go to the toilet. This is true, and therefore a film, during which toilet issues are resolved, would be a good reflection of our social reality, allowing us to look at the problems of society from current positions and demonstrate those aspects of it that few people talk about. So why are there no films of this theme on the screens? Why not show how a person sits on the clean and jerk for an hour and a half? Because it's not interesting?

Well, this is how you need to say right away: “We are defending chernukha NOT because it reflects the truth of life, but because it is THIS truth of life that we like, we are pleased to look at youngsters who have sex, their family problems, drug addicts and prostitutes, nice to think that we are not like that, that we are better than them, and in the case of the toilet we cannot say that."

In other words, you have to prove to your opponent that his true adherence to gibberish is NOT in the fact that it reflects reality, but in something else, which he does not want to admit. His very argument about truth and reality is only a cover for his true motives. This can be proved by offering him another truth, which is NOT on the screens, or which is incomparably less: Russian scientific developments, useful deeds that enthusiasts do for free (this, for example, the content of the Time Forward program), biography of scientists and memoirs prominent politicians, important historical events, achievements in the field of astronautics. If this is too difficult, then you can take another truth: slate is covered with moss, some apple trees give apples only once every two years, currants need to be planted at an angle, watermelons can be grown in Yakutia, the infantry peak of the war of the Macedonian army was 4 meters. If this is difficult, then here is the truth for the most typical victims of the exam: people go to the toilet; E. Malysheva is working for you guys.

As a result, the interlocutor will have to somehow justify why the truth is so selective on the channels and why it is so one-sided, and also why he himself prefers only one side of this truth … I usually answer like this: get ready and run a marathon, read a textbook on quantum electrodynamics, plant a garden of rare trees, learn to pull up at least 100 times, defend your Ph. D. thesis, build a special gym for children with disabilities.

The same person probably watches fantastic films, as well as films with a plot that is unrealistic for life. Why? After all, it shows not the truth, but some strange superpowers for our world and the situations in which they are used. Yes, because the main motive of the consumer in choosing content is PLEASURE from viewing it. This is what you must prove to him in the first place, and not that the truth itself is multifaceted.

A critical reader may object: “Science fiction films are fantastic only in their plot and the phenomena that occur, but psychological and moral tasks, situations of choice and decision-making, internal struggle and the growth of the hero as he passes the tests are as real there as in ordinary life, and we first of all, we learn exactly this by watching such films”.

Well, bowing low to the reader for such a strong argument, I accept it. But with the addition. Demonstration of moral tasks, psychological situations, inner growth and everything else in this spirit ALSO has different facets. You can set a good example, or you can set a bad one. For example, take the modern film Aquaman. This short film really shows the inner growth of the protagonist and the path of his growing up in the course of overcoming obstacles on the way to the goal, but the trouble is that his development at the end of the film stopped at the level of a boy, whereas it was more correct to show growth to a man. Indeed, if we look at modern adult “men”, one gets the feeling that they have remained in adolescence in the worst sense of the word. You can learn more about the dangers of this film from its psychological analysis. However, from my point of view, this analysis is also incomplete and does not show a deeper problem. And that's what it is in my opinion.

When a person in his imagination achieves some abilities or receives a new status for a good deed, he begins to imagine further: how to use abilities or a new position to achieve their primitive goals? Ask your most ordinary friends what they will do, if they have such a high position or some kind of superpowers. Wrinkling their forehead and sorting out convenient options, they will do two things at once. First, they will try to hide their most base desires (money, women / men, power, fame, authority) in order to at least depict the appearance of highly moral people (“money is not the main thing, blah blah blah”). Secondly, they will try to formulate their desires in such a way that they seem noble. Don't let them do this, make them speak very honestly. If you manage to get a person into the most frank conversation, as far as possible between you (I succeeded), you will hear something simple and rather mundane: prosperity, the opportunity to choose your life partner, and other types of philistine happiness … everyone. Well, these people do not understand in any way that superpowers and high positions are given for solving super tasks and making complex management decisions. Solving the simplest everyday tasks of primitive life with the help of complex abilities is like, say, carrying a small bag of potatoes on a mining dump truck with a carrying capacity of hundreds of tons. Yes, it is reliable, but somehow incommensurable. Once again: complex skills are needed to solve complex problems, to solve simple problems with them is a crime against society and its progress. And woe to the one who, having a certain very strong talent, will use it in small primitive tasks for his own pleasure. Well, imagine that Spider-Man goes to glue a model in a club, and then some electric goblin will enslave the whole world, because no one will stop him. That is, to show in the film how high status is given to an insufficiently adult person is like provoking the viewer to use his talents to achieve his youthful ideals, blocking him from becoming an adult and solving the problems for which he was born so talented. This is not a very difficult manipulation, but not obvious, and most importantly, deliberate and aimed at destroying society.

I called the above analysis incomplete, because it does not talk about this problem: the viewer of the film will involuntarily associate himself with the main character and will transfer his success to himself: “it would be great for me to be king”. WHY? Do you really think that you can manage the state and solve that heap of absolutely impossible tasks for you? Did you learn this in two hours of watching a movie? Go wash the dishes first, goldfinch, if you can, of course …

Second

Condemning people and their actions may not have the effect that naive preachers expected. Have you ever noticed that you find out about someone precisely because of the resonance that occurred with the participation of this person? They begin to condemn him, they constantly talk about him everywhere, as a result of which information is very widely disseminated in society and - attention! - can become for someone an example to follow. We will not give simple examples of how children copy the behavior of sensational characters or the audacious antics of their friends, the consequences of which adults have long discussed.

Let's better take a slightly more complex example of a witness to those recent events, when prostitution was massively introduced into the inexperienced consciousness of Soviet society. I am citing the book "Soberly About Politics" by A. A. Zverev (based on the revised edition of 1998-2005, section "171 Fighting Evil as a Typical Technique for Its Approval").

In our society, "prostitution", that is, the purchase of women, was extremely rare. Yes, a woman in our country could both deceive and change, and even, as they said, “be dissolute,” but this is all according to her desire and inner state, and not for money. The very word "prostitute" was abusive and offensive to the limit […]

In printed materials, articles, films published under the flag of "fighting prostitution", in fact, "instructions" were given to this lesson. Showed trades, prices, etc., and so on. In their articles, the "indignant" authors scattered phrases like these:

“How low our morals have fallen! Horror! Prostitutes, what bastards, earn up to 400 to 500 bucks per night under foreigners! This is more than a month's earnings for a miner! And the main thing is that everyone does it that at home they don't even know. A girl, a schoolgirl, innocently tells her parents that she goes to study with her friend and will stay overnight there, but in fact, together with her friend, they go to a hotel for foreigners. " There were headlines like "The Plague of Love", and under these headings it was again and again written what kind of cars, furs, earrings, beads, etc. the prostitutes had. And all this in millions of copies. Day after day, week after week, month after month.

After some time, people got used to the word "prostitute" to such an extent that they began to consider it common and almost ceased to be ashamed to pronounce it. And at this time a "public opinion poll" was published, in which 100 professions were selected and, again, under the flag of "struggle and protection of morals", the indignant authors sing the same song: "Just think how low ours (necessarily" ours ", that is, in general, we all!) morals! Our young respondents rated such a profession as a "prostitute" in 16th place. This is ahead of such professions as a miner, locksmith, turner. What future awaits us? " And then other lamentations and moralizing conclusions. Under such screams, no one noticed that in these materials the word "prostitute" was combined with the word "profession", and now, about a year later, a large picket was provoked in Moscow, where prostitutes speak out against the word "prostitute" that is offensive to their craft, demand to call all this "sex service" and are going to organize almost a trade union to boot.

Since a "girl" can be a commodity, then by association this applies to the word "woman" and to the words "Motherland" and "Motherland". And this inverted state of concepts is also strengthened with all its might in the public consciousness. It got to the point that one of the journalists of the newspaper "Tyumensky Komsomolets" said in one of his articles literally the following: "We need to gradually begin to learn how to trade in the Motherland!"

So that's what this whole vegetable garden was built around the "fight against prostitution" for! It was necessary for the society to accept the idea of "Homeland is also a commodity", then it will definitely accept the idea that "land is a commodity". And through the sale of land lies the easiest way to take it away from people.

For this, PUBLIC was declared, for this the censorship was destroyed, for this it was repeated many times that there are NO ZONES CLOSED TO CRITICISM (evil lives by fighting it!). And the public striptease began. The main, officially visible "architect" said the words that became winged with satisfaction:

THE PROCESS IS RUNNING! Well, how he will not go if he has been preparing so long and carefully! The same E. Skobelev wrote about this "process" at that time:

Corrupt the guys, undress the girls

A nimble bastard wants to turn them into pigs.

Sex, a bloody ax, cuts the road to power

The backbone and the thief. Beat people the alarm!

It’s so simple, showing people the truth, we managed to achieve what is now being spoken about freely and openly, as if it should be so. Well, what did you want? If even adults were bred as suckers in such a not too complicated (although far from the easiest) way, then what can we say about children who watch entertaining nonsense, harmful films, cartoons dangerous for the psyche, play computer games? Do you think it will somehow pass without a trace for them? Seriously?

If you really think so, then you have again been bred as suckers, although you probably consider yourself to be shot and know life. The instilling of this common nonsense about your knowledge of your life is also one of the common methods of manipulation, but it is beyond the scope of the article.

Similar to the example of prostitution is the case with ANY other attempts to censure someone's wrong actions. Various talk-shows discussing scandals and individual "preachers of morality" do NOT actually oppose the impudent antics of moronic people, but, on the contrary, advertise them. And so only this is necessary. The only reason why it makes sense to widely criticize the stupidity of the incident is to stop the already growing wave of interest in this incident, but in our media it turns out the opposite: the wave is coming precisely thanks to the discussion. Evil becomes stronger precisely as it is savored and condemned by the townsfolk.

In another tragic example, the widespread discussion of mass shootings in schools gives some boys reason to reflect on similar attempts to gain posthumous fame. Hopefully no examples are needed.

I think, if the reader strains his memory, he will easily remember another fifteen and a half examples of how the transmission of some truth leads to its strengthening. If the reader has experience of deep manipulation, then he will certainly remember situations when a certain desired, but not realized situation is carried out solely due to the fact of its announcement. This also includes the phenomenon of self-fulfilling forecasts. An example of such a situation is illustrated by a bearded anecdote about "shuttle diplomacy":

Once Henry Kissinger was curious:

- What is shuttle diplomacy?

Kissinger replied:

- O! This is a fail-safe Jewish way! I show by example how shuttle diplomacy works. Let's say you want to marry Rockefeller's daughter for a simple guy from a Siberian village.

- Is it possible?

- It's pretty simple. I go to a Russian village, meet a healthy guy there and ask:

- Do you want to marry an American Jewish woman?

He told me:

- Why the hell ?! There are enough girls of our own here.

I told him:

- But she is the daughter of the billionaire Rockefeller!

He:

- O! Then it changes things …

Then I go to Switzerland for a meeting of the bank's board and ask the question:

- Would you like to have a Siberian peasant president?

- Why do we need a Siberian man? - they are surprised at me at the bank.

- So he will be Rockefeller's son-in-law?

- O! Well this, of course, changes things!

After that I go home to Rockefeller and ask:

- Do you want to have a son-in-law of a Russian peasant?

He told me:

- What do you suggest? Our family has always had only financiers!

I told him:

- So he will also be the president of the board of the Swiss Bank!

He:

- O! This changes things! Suzy! Come on here. Friend Kissinger found you a great fiancé. This is the President of the Swiss Bank!

Suzy:

- Fu … All these financiers are impotent and dead!

And I told her:

- Yes! But this one is a hefty Siberian man!

She:

- Ltd! This changes things!

Third

Delivering the truth can be harmful for the reason that the listener is not prepared to perceive it, and therefore there is a risk, at best, to get a traumatized psyche, and at worst - to carry out villainy based on the information received.

You've probably seen how boys and girls try to copy the ways of behavior of the heroes of the films they like: they quote phrases and specific behavioral reactions in certain cases. Sometimes it can seem funny, and sometimes it leads to tragedy. We will not give trivial examples of how the cult of smoking and drinking alcohol is being introduced into society through films in which the main characters have similar shortcomings. Similar reviews of simple (I would even say childish) manipulations are perfectly analyzed by Teach Good and in some videos of the Common Cause project. The film "Aquaman" given as an example above is already a slightly more complex manipulation and can harm young men in the way shown in the psychological analysis of the film, that is, it will reduce the likelihood of their growing up to men who are able to solve really adult problems.

Consider a simple example of truth for the untrained viewer. Sexual intercourse is the truth of life … hmm, can we show it to our children then? For a boy and a girl. And at the same time say: "This is the truth of life, children, watch and learn." What will happen?

Another example: when a nasty gay vegetarian decided to hold a seminar on a healthy lifestyle at the school, for which, as usual, the school authorities will gather most of the children on a voluntary-compulsory basis. In order not to be like this creature, children, rather, on the contrary, will run to drink, smoke and eat meat. You may think that I am joking, but then remember your childhood and the names that fooling children use to address a too correct and obedient boy. If suddenly such a gay preacher named Stefano (or, God forbid, Alphonse) appeared at school, then some obedient, correct boy will be christened by this name, you can be sure. Will he like it? What will he do to disown the nickname? Surely he will do something not very right, but something that his sidekick will approve of.

I will not give examples of villainy through reporting the "truth", because such things that are in my head are unlikely to occur to you. Yes, before I was engaged in complex manipulations, so I am familiar with the topic firsthand. Now I resist as best I can to those who have not yet "jumped" from this needle and twist you as they want for their own benefit. I read many of their techniques like an open book, but I know for sure that not all of them. However, if I tell you what I know, what will happen? Can you resist the temptation and NOT use any technique to get what you want? I doubt it, because the temptation of power over the minds of people is very great for the majority.

For those who are interested in the topic of manipulation of mass consciousness, I recommend the book by O. Matveychev "Ears waving a donkey." If you read it, you will recognize a part of what I refuse to talk about, but you will not find it there anyway. The book was written a long time ago and in many ways is already outdated, therefore the things described there, although they continue to work by inertia, you cannot somehow harm them with their help. So read to know how you were bred relatively recently and how some PR people are still operating now.

So, any communication of information (not only the truth) MAY have a managerial impact on the recipient. High-end professionals will do their best to keep you thinking that you are making a decision on your own, doing EXACTLY what they need. You will be foaming at the mouth to prove that it is YOU AND ONLY YOU decide whether or not you smoke, how much to drink and when to quit, where to work and with what quality, continuing to work for those who know and understand more than you. Of course, it is YOU who reads these lines who will think that you know and understand a lot and can easily expose any manipulation. Ha-ha-ha, believe me, this thought in your head also appeared there completely against your will.

For example, have you noticed the manipulation of your mind through this text? If you strongly agree with me or, on the contrary, want to argue with everything, or maybe even call me somehow, that is, if you find yourself in one of the rather extreme positions in relation to the text, then you definitely did not notice my manipulation. If, after reading the previous sentence, you have the thought that you are occupying a certain middle position (“I agree with something, with something not”), then congratulations, you are a wonderful object for manipulation, and people from your environment and successfully uses it so that you do not know about it. Don't thank. Well, if you now have some negative emotions fluttering (even if you pretended that it was not), then you can easily be bred as a child for any predictable behavior, there would be a desire.

Conclusion

the main task information war, which undertook to fend off the opponent's argument "well, this is the truth of life!" - to show him that this phrase is only an excuse, and the true motive for watching the chernukha is completely different for him. Among the motives identified in the course of my work came across the following motives:

• getting pleasure from the awareness of oneself more developed than those whose problems are shown on TV;
• the possibility of justifying his vices: “if the main character drinks and smokes, crushing enemies, then I can even more so,” or: “these people in the series drink after every successful deed, and nothing, well, so I can celebrate every week of labor feat with a jar beer on Saturdays ";
• the pleasure of being involved in the same circle of primitively behaving people who are shown on the TV (at the same time, copying, to varying degrees, of the elements of behavior and speech of the characters from the box is manifested);
• the pleasure of realizing the "deep" meaning of the garbage and sexual jokes of the heroes of the chernukha and, as the body's response to this awareness, laughter. This, by the way, is the meaning of all humorous programs and films without exception - to give the viewer the opportunity to feel involved in a herd of those who are as smart as him, who understood the joker's subtle humor or unraveled the director's humor, which he put in so that the viewer felt smart and quick-witted. There are other tasks that humor solves, but this is a topic for a separate article;
• pleasure from the appearance of a pretext and the opportunity to scold the authorities for not only allowing in the country everything that is reflected in the chernukha, but also showing this chernukha itself on TV to his own slaves;
• the pleasure of discussing with friends / girlfriends the fallen morals of modern youth, in which one can trace sometimes envy (“they had much more opportunities than ours”), and sometimes - condemnation (“they are completely unhappy, no morality, they are not ashamed of anything”). I even noticed how a person with some disgust looks on purpose to delight his mind with speeches of condemnation of this idiocy;
• the pleasure of virtual intervention in someone else's life, because it has become completely boring to live with your own. New emotions and experiences are needed, but there are not enough of our own. Such emotional masturbation comes to the rescue: virtual involvement in some exciting plot, which they really do not have. The box provides images so that you don't have to strain your imagination. More advanced consumers read similar books while still being able to draw the necessary images in their heads. But in reality, from the point of view of managing such people, there is no difference - both will do the same for the manager.

Second task information war in this matter - to make the interlocutor realize the INTENTIONALLY manipulative component of such a "truth" and show that the process of demonstrating the "truth" is of a managerial nature, the goals and objectives of which can be clearly traced through the format of communicating information and the result visible to the naked eye a little later. It is necessary to show a person that thinking in the zone of plus or minus 20-30 years is sufficient to discover a significant part of the simple tasks of global governance and ways to achieve them. Unfortunately, the solution to this problem is much more difficult than just parrying the argument discussed here, because you have to go out to discuss historical events about which the interlocutor usually has no idea.

The third task information war (again, only in THIS task) - to stop the "righteous anger" of his interlocutor when the whole tragedy reaches him. After all, if you do not explain to him the harm of fanaticism in the information war, then he will run to shout to the right and to the left that now he knows the truth and EVERYONE must also learn it. This will lead to the fact that an inexperienced fanatic will only make himself a laughing stock and will only assert ordinary people that they are normal people and live a normal life, nothing needs to be changed. Otherwise, God forbid, they will become the same psychopaths as "this sick preacher."

I repeat main task: to make a person admit that he is deceiving himself, that with his argument he is covering up something low and vicious in himself. If you managed to do exactly this, then you can no longer say anything at all, because when the whole scale of his self-deception really reaches a person, when he sees that dozens of his other arguments are just a cover for his true motives, by no means pious, then in his mind, blockages are removed, which did not allow him to think more freely before.

At this point, you may be tempted to tell him what to do now. Or he will ask you about it himself. I advise you not to answer this question, but leave the person to find the answer on their own. But this is my personal advice, based on experience and some (I think) understanding of the nature of things.

Let me remind you that I just shared my experience. What to do with him? - decide for yourself what you want. But if you apply it in practice, then it is advisable to take into account only the most general essence of the arguments, and work out the form of communication that is convenient for you to the interlocutor yourself. If it seems to you that I am mistaken in something, then just correct my error and, again, act in accordance with your understanding.

Try - and you will succeed!