"Noble Nitwit Theory of Partisan Celebrity"

In nonpolitical discourse, authority largely depends upon factuality and clear reasoning.

In political discourse, however, inaccuracy and fallacy can enhance ones in-group standing.

The more blatant the errors, the better 1/n

When the propogandist speaks, a mistake of fact or logic doesn't bother their own tribe. What matters to the tribe is only the perceived intent of advancing the group's cause, which is reflexively understood as Good and Right.

Facts and reasoning are incidental.

It does, however, matter to the uninitiated. They perceive these errors as revealing fundamental flaws in the wisdom of what it is that the speaker seeks to propagate.

So, they criticize, correct, and mock the speaker, roughly in proportion to the stupidity of what was said.

The propogandist's tribe, in turn, sees this reaction as a sign of the speaker being an effective champion of the cause.

Since facts and reasons are merely secondary to perceived truth, the critics' counterpoints are never seen valid or important from inside the tribe.

All that matters is that the speaker is getting a rise out of the sort of people that the tribe despises: those outside the group, and unsympathetic to their cause.

If "those people" are mad/triggered/whatev, the speaker *must* be speaking true!...(even if not correctly).

"How does anyone admire this idiot, with their easily disprovable claims, their non-sequitur logic, their mindless sloganeering, their lazy ad hominems and whatabouts?"

Yeah no, that's *why* they're admired. They lean into it.

Don't confuse that with stupidity.

They're exploiting a dynamic that earns them power and influence, and have no scruples in doing so. Might be bad people, but you can't say they aren't intelligent for having figured out how to profit on saying dumb shit.

That's actually pretty clever. /n