Sign into an existing account

Or what we might call DOBS.

The basic premise is that you can trick an opponent into an unwinnable argument culturally, essentially by supporting unreasonable positions of a particular kind.

Some background:
Typically in a sufficiently polarized environment the most unreasonable side wins.

Culture eats strategy for lunch because culture provides the grass roots for diffuse attrition-like rhetorical attacks on various organizations that form the institutional backbone of some ideology or movement.

A 'blind side' attack is any positional change in rhetoric or ideology that blind sides an opponent.

In comes DOBS.

The idea is culture can't be attacked directly because it is diffused. By getting your opponents to fight unreasonable demands, they will coalesce into a movement outraged by those demands, allowing you to ideologically or rhetorically defeat a culture by forcing it into an orientation that is movement based. This is to say culture can't normally be defeated by an enemy that does not concentrate their forces so to speak, is not easy to hit.

And here is where dobs comes in.
By espousing two unreasonable positions together, it is not sufficient for an opponent to refute one, it leaves the other uncontested, sort of like dialectic. It is what is happening now, for example, with the automatic draft registration for men vs women. Notice the silence on men being automatically registered vs women being automatically registered?
This is the effect in action.

The obvious answer is no one, on either side, should be automatically registered for the draft. But the process of fighting one half of the argument means the other half of the argument goes unanswered. The culture exhausts itself in the face of the obvious, and movements formed out of the culture to fight the premise, are drawn out of the culture into camps that are divided on which message to target.

This will also work with other issues.

Guns for example:
Are felons allowed to own guns? No, obviously, but we assert they should.
Were the mccloskeys, or anyone threatened by an entire mob, justified in killing the entire mob to defend themselves?

To our opponents the answers are obvious, and the questions and assertions unreasonable.

This works because it also exploits the difference between the ideals of the individual (everyone should own guns), and the realities and pragmatism of communities operating as a collection. An ideology within the culture, leftism for example, is forced to draw out into antagonistic elements, movements, to argue against the push of these messages. They are then forced to choose between arguing individual right, or collective right, and in so doing divide camps.

It is even more affective if one position is only just outrageous and the other provocatively outrageous while pitting collectic impulses against individual ideals, especially when targetted at big umbrella movements.
When the messages are focused on the opponent it pulls double duty.

"should advocating LGBTQ in public be a felony and LGBTQ be banned outright?"
"should he-shes be banned from all LGBTQ organizations and pride parades?"

By targeting their rituals with these messages, the activities of movements become the ideological attack surface of a diffuse and ephemeral culture.

They are now forced either to defend the collective or the individual, and lose in either case, splitting their umbrella in the process.

Follow up:
By continuously implementing the blind side, or blindsiding with additional blindsides, an opponent and culture is ideologically isolated and cut-up piecemeal into increasingly smaller, and ever-more risk-averse camps.
Additionally strivers and ideological rebels implementing this strategy to rhetorically attack culture, have the added benefit that if any set of messages provokes too strong a response, they can still withdraw to the least outrageous of the two arguments while still having gained ground, taking refuge in the exploitable difference between audacity and the more 'moderate' position, and the reaction provoked against them will in turn solidify their opinions of the position in the process.

Conclusion:
Dobs or dobbing is a brand new propaganda strategy and tactic, that allows movements to compete with culture, and a means to allow strategy to directly attack cultural beliefs. I think it will be a powerful addition and one that is worth exploring further.