“dead cat strategy” or “deadcatting” is when a shocking statement is made to divert media attention away from problems or failures in other areas.
It should be called the “cat eating” strategy because it’s the most ridiculous, unbelievable and unimaginative shit anyone can make up.
They can’t even lie correctly, the feckin’ losers. What a liberty!
Kojima predicted everything in mgs2, now the problem is: did he predict everything in mgs4 too?
Also see ‘Gish gallop’
And when he keeps doing it over and over again
Bro is literally in the second sentence of the definition lmao
TIL that Trump is a bunch of dead cats in a trench coat.
His economic strategy, too
also the firehose of false hood. and its mostly to distract from the epstein and the BBB.
AKA flooding the zone, works best with a 24 hour news cycle. Thanks US for all your “innovation”.
Thank you for the reference!
At some military task, I recall someone shared a thought from a TV show they watched, the one I do still remember. I am not very experienced in Russian language, though I’ve been into it for at least a decade, mostly for art, and the job assignments around the globe.That is, the TV show was/is called “Что? Где? Когда?”, which if I am not mistaken, may be translated to “What? Where? When?”.
Generally, the show is about teams who compete in answering various challenging questions sharing experience, erudition, and dedication in subjects.Back then, I invested quite of time to actually find the excerpt… and I still have the page in bookmarks! It is still online! It was long ago indeed…
The excerpt the colleague mentioned was the following found (translated from Russian, and its verbatim below):
# Question
We fuss about. As we start fussing in the morning, so we fuss until the evening, and tomorrow as well, and thus a whole life passes in great fuss. One philosopher realized this circumstance, and he also realized that it is not within human power to diminish this great fuss. Having realized this circumstance too, he fell into thought. And while thinking, this philosopher drew a line and called this line the Great Fuss. As we know, it is not within human power to reduce fuss, to diminish it. And yet, how, without diminishing the Great Fuss, can one reduce it? Or, how, without reducing it, can one diminish it?
# Answer…
This great philosopher understood. And having understood, he drew next to this line another fuss, greater in scale… And then, in the eyes of a person, the former fuss turned out to be small. The moral is that only human activity greater in scale, dedicated to greater ideas and tasks, can diminish our fuss. And nothing more! Your point, thank you.
Verbatim/Original
# Вопрос
Суетимся. Как с утра начинаем суетиться, так до вечера суетимся, и назавтра тоже, и так вся жизнь проходит в большой суете. Один философ понял это обстоятельство, и понял так же то, что не в силах человека уменьшить эту большую суету. Поняв и это обстоятельство, он задумался. А задумавшись, этот философ провёл черту, и назвал эту черту Большой суетой. Как мы знаем, не в силах человека сокращать суету, уменьшать её. И всё-таки, как, не уменьшая Большую суету, сократить её? Или, как, не сокращая, уменьшить?
# Ответ…
Этот великий философ понял. А поняв, он провёл рядом с этой чертой другую суету, бóльшую по масштабам… И тогда в глазах человека прежняя суета оказалась маленькой. Мораль такова, что только бóльшая по масштабам деятельность человека, посвящённая бóльшим идеям и задачам, может уменьшить нашу суету. И более ничего! Ваше очко, спасибо.
The thing is I haven’t found the name of the actual philosopher still…
Do you have any idea who he is?I wonder if there was no known philosopher with that idea and the question author speaks of themselves in third person 🌚
They’re eating the cats and dogs strategy
"They’re eating the dogs! "
at what point will we see zombie cats?
better late to catch on than never
To distract from the attempt to build a Skynet.
Can the mods of this sub make more firm principles on posting rules? This title has nothing to do with the definition it’s describing. Instead, it’s an example of it. I’d consider opting out of here if nothing changes. Posts like this would’ve been removed on reddit. It’s a place for what people learned, not for what people feel about what they learned. It’s impossible to remove subjectivity but this post imo crossed the line.
Rule 6 - one could post a [meta] post to comment on this sub and it’s rules instead of distracting from the parent post (potential rule 8 vio if the mods were really particular). I would encourage you to [meta] post and propose the new rule or amended rule you think would address the problem you have with this sub; don’t just complain, try to make the community in better. (And since you’re new to Lemmy, please be aware “well, reddit did it this way” does not carry water with a lot of folks here. I would encourage you to include more independent justification for your proposed rule).
Or one could try to argue I violated rule 5 for “promoting an agenda” but since the Wikipedia article specifically mentions Trump as an example of the technique, I think any such argument would be a stretch. Again, up to how particular our mods are.
Rodwell notes the term later finding a place in media coverage of the “outrageous pronouncements” made by Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and his later presidential transition in the United States.[7]
The Wikipedia entry disagrees.
