RSSThreeCranes’ diversion tactics to avoid discussing the substance of @littlereddot’s argument: 1) attack the messenger / emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents (avoid dealing with issues by sidetracking opponent with name calling and ridicule—“cross-eyed troll”. Make others shrink from support out of fear of gaining same label), 2) use a strawman (fabricate an element of opponent’s argument he can easily knock down to make himself look good and opponent look bad—“Killing a lot of people is a sign of military expertise” and “Sacrifice all your troops”), and 3) change the subject—“Efficiency is doing the most with the least, not experiencing losses while accomplishing little.”
Madraven’s diversion tactics to avoid discussing the author’s arguments: 1) attack the messenger / question motives (avoid dealing with issues by sidetracking opponent with name calling and implying opponent operates out of hidden personal agenda or other bias—“propagandist for a foreign country” and “self-interested”), 2) emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents—“keeping to your station”, 3) “How dare you!” gambit: focus on side issues, which can be used to show topic as critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme—“American tragedy”, and 4) use a strawman—”You yourself even profess to have no interest in American domestic politics”. Amplify the significance of an issue you may safely imply exists based on the opponent’s arguments / situation in way to appear to debunk all charges, while avoiding discussion of the real issue—the quality of CK’s views and discourse (about which the author argues based on CK’s views on China).