Hi Ranty Nation!  Ranty McRantyson har agin.

Well, we’all’re finally on the last couple parts of ways fur lying that ah’m gonna talk bout in this har series of talks.  We’all started wit the first talk in Part A Lyin wit Connotation.  Then we’all moved on to Part 2 Lyin wit Questions.  Next, we moved on to Part 3rd Lyin wit the “Truth”.  An now we’all’re har wit Part D Lyin wit Cognitive Dissonance.

The Dirtiest Trick fur Trickin Folk into Believin Lies

Ah shud also say that usin cognitive dissonance is the hardest way to lie.  An also the “dirtiest” (meanin most “low down”) way of lyin.  But once a low down, dirty liar masters it, they’all can git folk to believe almost anythang.

So, let’s git to showin how politicians can lie witout lyin wit “cognitive dissonance”.

Cognitive Dissonance fur Lying

“Cognitive dissonance” means y’all’re tryin to equally believe two opposite thangs.  Fur example, y’all’d be experiencin “cognitive dissonance” if’n y’all thunked that water wuz both wet an dry.  The idea is to git sumone’s mind arguin wit itself so as it gits confused.  An sumone who is confused is usually easier to trick into believin a lie.

A Trickier Way Fur Lying: Number 4

Ah imagine y’all’re probly thunkin, “Ok, Ranty, so why don’t y’all go ahead an splain how folk can lie usin, cognitive dissonance.  Well?”  Alright, ah’m gonna take that challenge!

The main idea har is that gittin folk confused is a gud way to git them so they can’t spot y’all’s lyin.  Now, ah guess that, technically, this ain’t actually lyin, but is a way to git y’all’s mind in a place that it’ll be more likely to believe a lie.  So let’s take a look bout how a tricky liar’ll use cognitive dissonance to tell convincing lies.

Usin Cognitive Dissonance to Lie witout Lying

Usin this way of lyin is hard to do cuz y’all’ve usually gotta tie a few ways of lying together fur it to wurk.

Let’s take a look at a recent story goin round in the “conservative newsosphere” (© Ranty McRantyson).  Yeah, ah coined that phrase cuz its bout as ridiculous as whut they be sayin.

Layin It On Thick

The story goes like this:

“Didja know that Pres Biden is gonna make it illegal fur y’all to eat meat?!?  Yup, ah heard frum the Daily Mail in the UK that Pres Biden’s gonna make Merican’s stop eatin meat to cut down on CO2 emissions.  They said that Merican’s’ll only be able to eat 4 pounds of meat… a year!  An that we’all’ll have to cut down on other meats by 50%!  Can y’all believe that?”

Well, that last part is a durned gud question.  “Can y’all believe that?”  Ah’d have to say probly not.  Y’know the old sayin, “If’n sumthin seems too gud to be true, it probly is.”  Well, fur the folk tryin to git y’all to believe this bunch a bulloney, sumthin like this is “too gud” to be true.

Let’s Look at the Parts

Let’s take a look at this story an see if’n we can see where the “cognitive dissonance” comes in… an the other methods of lyin used.

How Cud Pres Biden Say Sumthin That Stoopid?

Let’s take a look at that furst sentence.  Anyone who dun be smart nuff to come in outta the rain’ll thunk, “They ain’t no way that Pres Biden’d be stoopid nuff to say sumthin like that.”  BUT, in the back of they’s mind, they’s also thunkin, “Surely they’all ain’t so brazen as to tell a whopper like that witout they’s bein sum truth to it.  Right?  But ah know that Pres Biden’s fur the ‘other team’ an ah wudn’t put it pas them to do sumthin like that!”  So now we dun got two opposite ideas in y’all’s head.

a.  No one’s that stoopid to thunk they’s make all Merican’s stop eatin meat.
b.  He’s fur the other team an ah wudn’t put it past them to try to do sumthin like that.

It’s Gotta Be True, Sumone Else Said It (on the Internet)!

Fur this part, they’all use an “appeal to authority”.  They say that the “Daily Mail” in the UK dun said it.  Y’all might be thunkin, ah don’t know anythin bout the Daily Mail, but if’n they’s citin it, it must be gud, right?  Problem is the Daily Mail is whut’s called a “tabloid”.  Y’all know the kind, like the National Enquirer, har in the USofA.  In other wurds, it ain’t exactly whut y’all’d call a reliable source of news.  Unless y’all believe in aliens frum Mars or lizard people or such-like.

Lyin Witout Lyin Parts 1, B, an 3rd!

They’s also usin at least 2 of the other ways of lyin witout lyin.  They’s usin lyin by usin connotation, askin questions, an wit a bit of the truth to git y’all to believe that buncha cockamamie bulloney!

The connotation comes frum the way they’all ask the questions.  A normal person wud be askin, basically, “How cud anyone believe this?”  But wit these folk, they’s askin, “How cud Pres Biden thunk he cud do this?”  The furst is askin knowin this is too crazy to be true.  The second is sayin (lyin witout lyin), “Oh, it’s true, how cud he do this to us?”

Settin the Record Straight (Bout This “News”)

The reality is that this “news” is based a bit on fact.  “Way back” in 2020, sum academic-like folk at a university did sum research to see how much green house gasses cud be cut if’n folk in the US wuz to change the foods they’s eat.  Now, to be clear, even though the article wuz published in 2020, the research wuz started a couple years earlier.  Y’know, back durin the Trump administration.

The “Story” on this “News”

They’s sum impurtant points we’all need to pay attention to, cuz they’s deal wit “neuro linguistic programmin” (remember that frum Part A?)  Mosta the “hub-bub” comes frum this one part of the Daily Mail article:

Daily Mail, April 22: Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90 percent and cut their consumption of other animal based foods in half.

Gradually making those changes by 2030 could see diet-related greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 50 percent, according to a study by Michigan University’s Center for Sustainable Systems.

To do that, it would require Americans to only consume about four pounds of red meat per year, or 0.18 ounces per day.

It equates to consuming roughly one average sized burger per month.

Ah added italics to the wurds that’re used to trick y’all into thunkin that this is whut Pres Biden wants to do.

1. “… may have to…” – “If’n this wuz gonna happen, then…”.
2. “… diet related…” – This part would only affect the portion of greenhouse gas emissions that come frum whut Mericans eat.  An that’s only bout 10% of the total amount of Merican greenhouse gas emissions.
3. “To do that…” – So if’n y’all wuz to haveta do this crazy thang, then this is whut it means.

Artificial Beef About Biden’s Climate Plan

The Bottom Line (Cognitive Dissonance Edition)

As y’all probly guessed, Pres Biden both didn’t say he’s gonna cut down on meat an it ain’t even sumthin his administration’s dun talked bout.

But the point is that if’n them liars can git y’all confused bout whut is really goin on (cognitive dissonance), then they’all’ll be able to git y’all to believe most anythin.  An, course, if’n y’all git into the “habit” of gittin confused (not tryin to figure out whut y’all missed), then y’all’ll also git into the habit of believin them lying liars.  An then they “win”.

As a side note, we’all’re windin down on this lyin series an ah gotta tell y’all it’s wearin on me.  Ah don’t like lying an don’t much care for those who do it fur a livin.  Y’all know who ah mean!  Them “politicritters”!

Anyhoo, ah’m gonna try to git this series wrapped up cuz ah’ve bin puttin off a lotta other rants an it’s time ah got back to rantin!  Har’s a link to the next article in this har series, Part 4+1!

Ranty McRantyson signin off fur now!

PS.  Har’s a purty gud video bout a related idea called “inattentional blindness”.  Ah thunk that once y’all watch this video, y’all’ll see the similarities.  Specially once y’all try to figure out how he dun does his “magic”.