Thread by @JuliusGoat

Man they sure do hate it when you point out that Laura Ingraham does arm lifts— but they sure do recognize what that gesture is.

let’s see it again

https://twitter.com/mcciphers/status/1149621012775858176

Every time Ingraham appears in my feed I'm going to bring that gesture up.

I used to name it, and I may again.

But not naming it is interesting, b/c it then those who insist that that gesture is NOT what it very clearly is have to name it. Which they do.

So you know they know.

I mean, it's so abundantly obvious. The gesture is what it is.

Showing the clip is all the accusation that's needed.

Sort of hard to pretend its not, when to defend it you have to admit you've also recognized that instantly recognizable gesture.

So then you have to resort to saying that the gesture isn't what it manifestly is, for some reason unrelated to the raising of an arm.

"She can't have done it, because if anybody did that, it would be the end of their career."

Except she did it, and it wasn't.

"She can't have done it, because millions of people love her show and the things she says."

Yes. Except she did it.

And having millions of people love what you say does not preclude the obvious implication.

Is that obvious? It feels obvious.

"She can't have done it, because she adopted a Guatamalan daughter."

Yes. Except she did it.

And love by a bigot for a single individual out of a hated group is a standard feature of bigotry.

Nor does adoptive parenthood automatically prove love.

"She can't have done it, because here are some pictures of Democrats."

Yes. Except she did it.

And a picture does not capture a gesture, as video does. And even if they did (they didn't), so did she. Someone else making a gesture doesn't preclude another person making it.

"She can't have done it, because COME ON."

This one's my favorite.

She did it, is the thing.

Your annoyance about being asked to consider the implications of that fact is really beside the point.

I keep bringing this up because I think it matters for a great number of reasons.

This morning, the point I want to make is this: most authoritarian strategy today involves insisting that things that obviously did happen didn’t, and vice versa

They’re hacking truth.

Hack back.

Choose frames that force deliberate liars and purposely self-deluded people to demonstrate that they actually know the truth and are deliberately obscuring it.

It can take a bit of work. But it can be done.

“You just can’t say things anymore; you have to be so careful these days about what you say.”

“Oh? What things can’t you say, specifically?”

“People are afraid to admit they support trump.”

“Oh? Which people? What specifically are they afraid will happen?”

Specifics are our friend.

Importantly: make the gaslighter say the specifics.

Ignore all the obfuscations and the distractions. Make them admit what exactly it is the conversation is about.

I return to Ingraham’s gesture because it is so blatant, it throws the gaslighting into sharpest relief

But also because a top rated “news” anchor made that gesture at the GOP convention nominating the current president and there were no consequences

We have to deal with that