When officials deny events clearly captured on video, it breaks public trust more severely than standard political spin. This direct contradiction of visible reality unlocks an intense level of citizen anger that feels like a personal, deliberate gaslighting attempt.

Rising support for violence on campus stems from a belief that political opponents represent 'genuine evil' or 'fascism,' not just a differing opinion. This moral framing removes normal constraints on behavior, making violence seem like a necessary and justifiable response.

Dick Cheney justified harsh interrogation techniques not by downplaying them, but by reframing the debate as a stark moral choice. He posed a question: 'Are you going to ransom lives for your honor? Or are you going to do your job?' This rhetoric positioned torture as a necessary, albeit unpleasant, duty to prevent future attacks, rather than a legal or ethical violation.

When a government cuts off internet and phone lines during massive protests, as seen in Iran, it's a clear indicator they are trying to conceal the severity of their response from the world. This tactic undermines their own claims of control and reveals a deep fear of international scrutiny.

The public is becoming desensitized to government behaviors, such as ICE's excessive force, that should be universally unacceptable. This "new normal" creates a dangerous precedent where nonpartisan revulsion is replaced by partisan justification, eroding democratic standards for everyone.

Under the theory of emotivism, many heated moral debates are not about conflicting fundamental values but rather disagreements over facts. For instance, in a gun control debate, both sides may share the value of 'boo innocent people dying' but disagree on the factual question of which policies will best achieve that outcome.

The controversy surrounding a second drone strike to eliminate survivors highlights a flawed moral calculus. Public objection focuses on the *inefficiency* of the first strike, not the lethal action itself. This inconsistent reasoning avoids the fundamental ethical question of whether the strike was justified in the first place.

Effective political propaganda isn't about outright lies; it's about controlling the frame of reference. By providing a simple, powerful lens through which to view a complex situation, leaders can dictate the terms of the debate and trap audiences within their desired narrative, limiting alternative interpretations.

Proponents of engaging with regimes like Saudi Arabia often pivot from specific moral criticisms (e.g., murdering journalists) to comparative flaws in Western democracies (e.g., gun violence). This "whataboutism" is a rhetorical strategy to reframe the debate and justify actions by implying moral equivalence.