A selection of information manipulation and reputation attack techniques compiled by researchers at RSU*, supplemented with examples found in social media discussions.
An attack on reputation with an intention to undermine a person’s credibility
- Name calling or labelling assigns derogatory terms to discredit individuals or groups.
Example: The regime will repress all people who make cash transactions starting from 750 euros.
- Guilt by association links someone to a negative figure or ideology.
- Casting doubt subtly undermines credibility without direct accusations.
- Appeal to hypocrisy deflects criticism by accusing the opponent of similar faults.
Example: You drive a combustion engine car and eat meat, so don’t tell me you care about climate change!
- Smears or poisoning the well preemptively discredit a source.
Example: So-called public media only interview those they like.
- Ad hominem attacks target the person rather than their argument.
Example: “Greta Thunberg is a teenager with developmental disorders – what does she understand about climate change?”
- Trolling, including gaslighting and tone policing, seeks to provoke or derail discussion.
- The Galileo gambit falsely equates being criticized with being correct.
Example: Doctor X had their medical license revoked, so they must have been right that vaccines are dangerous.
- Stereotyping reduces individuals to oversimplified and often harmful generalizations.
An attack on the argument to justify why something is good or bad
- Flag waving appeals to patriotism or loyalty to justify a stance.
- Appeal to authority uses expert opinion to support a claim, while irrelevant authority misuses expertise from unrelated fields.
Example: Regulating same-sex partnerships is unacceptable – Trump said family can only be between a man and a woman.
- Appeal to popularity (bandwagon) suggests something is true or good because many people believe it.
- Confirmation bias reinforces pre-existing beliefs by selectively presenting information.
- Proof by example uses isolated cases as evidence for broader claims.
- Cultural biases rely on stereotypes or assumptions rooted in cultural norms.
- Appeal to tradition argues something is right because it has always been done that way.
- Appeal to ignorance claims something is true because it hasn’t been proven false.
An attack on the argument to distract the attention from the topic
- Strawman fallacy, where an argument is distorted or exaggerated to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the original point, a weaker version is refuted.
Example: Wind turbines kill birds, but they’re telling us wind energy is green.
- Red herring introduces unrelated information to distract from the topic at hand, steering the conversation in a different direction.
Example: China produces a third of the world’s emissions – what are we going to save here in Latvia?
- Whataboutism shifts focus by pointing to another issue – often unrelated or worse – to deflect criticism or avoid accountability.
An attack on the argument to simplify the logic behind causes and consequences
- Causal oversimplification attributes an outcome to a single cause, ignoring other contributing factors.
- False dilemma (or black-and-white fallacy) presents only two extreme options, excluding nuanced alternatives.
Example: Those who voted against the law we proposed apparently think everything is fine in the country.
- Consequential oversimplification, such as the slippery slope, suggests that one action will inevitably lead to extreme consequences.
Example: If same-sex partnership regulation is established, we’re paving the way for legalizing gay marriage and child adoption.
- Relativization downplays the seriousness of an issue by comparing it to something else.
- Generalization makes broad claims based on limited evidence.
Example: A food aid pack was found in the trash. The different mentality of Ukrainian refugees is incomprehensible to Latvians.
- Cherry picking or selective omission highlights only favorable facts while ignoring contradictory ones.
- False cause assumes a causal link where none exists, and false attribution misrepresents the source of a claim.
Example: Children had to dance on poor-quality flooring at Daugava Stadium. The state doesn’t care about children.
- False attribution misrepresents the source of a claim
- The politician’s syllogism uses flawed logic to justify action: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore, it must be done.”
- Circular reasoning uses the conclusion as its own proof.
- Far-fetched hypotheses introduce implausible explanations to distract or mislead.
An attack on the argument to encourage thinking in a particular way
- Slogans are short, memorable phrases that simplify complex ideas into persuasive soundbites, often repeated to reinforce a message.
- Conversation killers, also known as thought-terminating clichés, are phrases used to shut down debate or critical thinking.
Example: It is what it is, that’s just how things are.
- Using emotionally charged or strategically vague language to influence perception and trigger emotional responses.
Example: Wind farm projects must be stopped – Latvia must not be sold or leased.
- Exaggeration or minimisation distorts the scale or importance of an issue, often to provoke or downplay concern.
Example: Immigrants have flooded England. Thousands arrive every day in boats.
- Repetition reinforces messages through constant exposure, making them more memorable and seemingly credible.
- Fearmongering uses alarming language to incite fear and urgency.
- Dog whistles are coded messages that appear neutral but carry specific meanings for targeted groups.
Read the full report from the project “Predictive Research On Misinformation and Narratives Propagation Trajectories” here.
INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM NEEDS INDEPENDENT FINANCING If you like our work, support us! LV38RIKO0001060112712