View Single Post
Old 05-24-2013, 11:23 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default A little more clarity on Tacits tactics

Because it isn't easy to explain questions like Anabel's and not look like a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid, I will make another attempt to state the tacttics of such "writers", if political manipulators can even be called that.

The lies he posts in attempt to persuade the reader (which is by definition manipulation, as people with good intentions do not resort to lying) are not at all innocent. Republicans go to great lengths in their effort to write the content for tabloid science publications such as Science Daily, Nature, and Scientific American. They don't technically lie, because it may be a fact that coal is more "radioactive" in regards to C14 and that molecule's "radioactive" decay than the highly toxic and highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Tacit and the Republican tabloid, use a very manipulative play of words which intends to deceive the reader. He writes so that you will automatically associate "radioactive" to mean highly toxic and deadly to be in contact with. However the context that flyash is more "radioactive" than nuclear waste has absolutely nothing to do with how toxic each of the byproducts are, as it is a fact that flyash is not even in the same ballpark in terms of being a toxic substance, it isn't even in the same universe. Yet because he is talking about radioactive decay, he isn't "technically" lying until he uses the term in an outright false context.

It isn't "technically" lying, it's worse, it's using your mind's logical strengths against you in an extremely manipulative way so that control over your decisions can be had against your will.

One manipulative idiot out there in the blogosphere isn't a big deal, but a coordinated and well financed political group is dangerous. Tacit tries to play it off like it is funny, as if it's just a joke, but abusive isn't funny in my book. And I do see the use of specific vocabulary in such deceitful ways as manipulative and abusive to the public as well as those who are actually well meaning who work in the industry of United States Govt.

Using publications that are not at all based on science, but rather lawyer-like grammarians who twist facts to imply whatever "fact" they want is essentially lying and manipulating the very leaders who are in charge of writing policy that my country is governed by, is despicable.

I do not believe he wasn't aware of how manipulative the term "radioactive" was, as most if not all who read his bullshit words took the word to mean toxic to life, which is an outright lie in this case.

And Marcus it isn't Franklin who I see as the evil dragon, he is just an idiot employee of said dragon. But in regards to poly, and poly rights which should be a concern of anybody who actively practices polyamory or might sometime in the future, it is imperative that you stand behind the those who are fighting the current battle for equal rights, and that is currently the fight for our LGBT family members to finally have their rights recognized and protected as the Constitution explicitly guaranteed almost 250 years ago.

Any members of our family who have their rights withheld from them, if they ever want those withheld rights to be afforded, should be very concerned about the current marriage laws. Poly rights and our success at obtaining them depends on our LGBT family members success at obtaining theirs.

Every argument against equal rights that holds any weight, will be rooted in lies, it is a simple fundamental truth when it comes to laws and rights of citizens. The ones who honestly believe that they have legitimate grievance against gay marriage are bigots. Nine times out of ten those who deny the truth aren't being honest about.

If Franklin's sites can help you, more power to you and him, I don't he is honest nor truthful in the intentions of his words. I take civil rights very seriously and those who base their writing in anything but truth hinder the movement, at least as I see things. So in my eyes people like him effectively hinder poly practicing people from being able to live openly without having being poly negatively effect their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Just because self identifies as poly doesn't mean he is helping

It is important to point out that many of the problems in poly relationships stem from the fact that they cannot live openly. The need to hide is as toxic to relationships as the nuclear waste he lies about. I wish he would think about what he writes because he is in a position to make a difference, even with the modest following he has. It is a shame he does not
Reply With Quote