The Alt-Right Playbook: Control the Conversation
Innuendo Studios4 HN recommenders · 2017–2025
1.5M views · commentary · dated · Uploaded 2017-10-11
Innuendo Studios' video from the Alt-Right Playbook series on how bad-faith actors control the conversation through debate tactics and moving goalposts.
HN recommends the series for explaining the tactics and mentality of bad-faith online arguments.
1:16:17In Search Of A Flat Earth
Folding Ideas
58:58George Lakoff: Moral Politics
University of California Television (UCTV)
3:54:44The Century of the Self (Full Adam Curtis Documentary)
David Lessig
12:01Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea
Tom Scott
57:19Republic, Lost | Lawrence Lessig | Talks at Google
Talks at Google
21:08Christopher Hitchens - Free Speech
hitch archive
7:22Antonin Scalia - On American Exceptionalism
AmericanRhetoric.com
1:02:38The Cardboard Box Reform - Nixon's Ghost Bill & A Crucial Flaw in Democracy
CRI
7 comments from Hacker News
The problem is you're implicitly assuming this (and other recent "culture war topics" is actually about reasoning and legitimate attempt at debate. It isn't. This is about controlling narratives and reframing offensive goals so they become a legitimate political opinion. Most of these calls for a "debate" are not trying to actually debate anything. They are trying to make enough confusing noise and repeat their talking points as often as possible. For a much better explanation of how this works - and why it's a trap which educated, well meaning, politically-interested people seem to be particularly vulnerable - see this short video essay: [VIDEO]
The alt-right playbook ( [VIDEO] ) is a great summary of common experiences with this sort of cancer online. It's next to impossible to engage with these people for rational debate, when all they care about is spreading their hatred and ignorance through the virality of the internet, rendering pointless any civil discussion by arguing in bad faith.
Before this gets too far I’d just like to point out that anyone arguing this is an issue of free speech or “first they came for x, who’s next” is not arguing in good faith.. I’ve noticed a pattern of moving the goal post. The problem here is an insurrection and the loss of 5 American lives. Arguing there is not advantageous, easy, or particularly strong so the goal post moves to free speech leaving what happened at the capitol off the table. I really enjoy the series on YouTube “the alt right playbook”. [VIDEO] This one is applicable here
A channel called Innuendo Studios chronicles this tactic and many others in a series called The Alt-Right Playbook [1]. I found it enormously helpful to understand the mentality and tactics of a group that kind of doesn't make any sense. [1] The Alt-Right Playbook: Control the Conversation - [VIDEO]
Why do libel and slander laws exist when someone can just debunk any lies told about them? And then the next lie, and the next one, and so on... [VIDEO]
Ah, I see. You ignore my question and answer as if I had asked a different one more to your liking. [VIDEO] I suppose this could be considered a type of gish galloping too. [LINK]
> Agenda setting power > platform power The Alt-Right Playbook feels like a bummer version of XKCD for these discussions: [Control the Conversation]( [VIDEO] )