【推文】Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost - Most people don't weigh evidence first; they adopt what feels safe...

連結

• 原推文1 - x.com/Ne_pas_couvrir...

• 原推文2 - x.com/ne_pas_couvrir...

原文及個人翻譯

原推文1

Most people don't weigh evidence first; they adopt what feels safe, familiar, & identity-affirming, then pick "facts" to defend it. There is a conversation happening to you that taps deeper levers like safety, status, tribe -so a message is felt before it's ever rationalized.

大多數人不會先權衡證據，他們會選擇讓人感到安全、熟悉且能肯定自我認同的觀點，然後再挑選「事實」來捍衛它。在你身上發生的對話會觸及更深層的杠桿，如安全感、地位、族群等，所以在理智分析之前，訊息會先被情感感知。

To drive the point home on this post above, I present this conversation in the comments.

為了強調上述貼文的觀點，我在評論中呈現了這段對話。

（懶得照住打字及翻譯啦）

原推文2

Chantal Mouffe (a Gramscian) argues contested issues are triangles with at least 3 valid stances. Dominant actors force a binary frame, which hides other stances to control narrative boundaries & perception. If you're forced into an emotional 2 sides argument, pause and think.

Chantal Mouffe（受葛蘭西思想影響）認為，有爭議的問題是具有至少三個有效立場的三角形。主導的行為者強行將之框架化為二元對立，隱藏了其他立場以控制敘事邊界和認知。

如果你被強迫陷入情感上的兩極化辯論中，請停下來思考。

The maneuver of polarizing a multi‑axis issue into an emotional binary and erasing the hinge alternative is also described as strategic omission producing a false dilemma, or "collapsing the third rail." Recognizing the missing 3rd option is important to break this trick.

將多維度問題極化為情感二元對立並抹去中間替代方案的策略，也被稱為「產生假兩難局面的戰略性遺漏」，或「壓縮第三條路線」。

認識到缺失的第三個選項對於破解這種手法至關重要。

Put simply, there’s a sleight‑of‑hand being staged above above you, esp. in a 5th gen war environ., forcing you to react emotionally. A classic method is to force you emotionally into a 2 sides debate so you’ll choose one of 2 sides. The entire goal is to hide other options.

簡單來說，在你上方正在上演一場魔術表演，尤其是在第五代戰爭環境中，迫使你做出情緒反應。

一種經典的方法是將你情緒上地推入一場兩極化辯論，讓你選擇其中一方。整個目的在於隱藏其他選項。

回覆裡有人貼的圖