>Horowitz's reversals are closely related to Nynt Gingrich's rhetorical
>technique where he used to accuse Liberals of his own cynical
>manipulations and misinterpretations, then castigate them for it---in
>advance of their argument against his position along identical lines.
>
>I think of this technique as the childish ploy of cutting a silent
>stinker in class, and then demanding to know who farted.
That's a good way of thinking of it, because sometimes this technique is truly just an unconscious repetition of behavior learned in childhood.
>Everything seems to make sense as long as you accept apriori the
>completely reversed polarity of the universe. This is the fascinating
>part. How do you do that?
>
>My theory is that you begin all argument within a moral framework (the
>apocalyptic tone), eschewing the moral ambiguity of empiricism, and
>give yourself the first move. This immediately forces the opposition
>to advance their choice as a negative reaction, instead of a positive
>assertion. So, then like tic tac toe, given the first move you can
>always advance to moral victory. It is the perfect form of propaganda,
>because it can not logically fail.
You make it seem rationally planned out. It's not necessarily the result of intentional strategizing. Even when people systematically manipulate discussions and twist what their opponents say, it doesn't mean they consciously realize what they're doing. The various strategies for evading rational thought emerge spontaneously during early childhood. If you don't outgrow the illogic of this phase, it gets ingrained in your mind and manifests throughout life. In that case, it's called a personality disorder. Of course, getting a law degree can have the same effect.
Ted