OK. This is obvious but it just clicked for me. The reason you accuse the other side of doing what you are really doing is because in the end someone did it and you are hoping some people will forget who.
*someone stole an election
*someone mishandled classified documents
*someone nearly got impeached
*someone abused campaign funds cover up adultery
Last one is harder... but they'll get there.
(You know they are looking for ANYTHING. Maybe Joe has one of those 50s pinups in the garage.)
@futurebird
I've always felt it was because if you accuse someone else of doing something, and they immedately accuse you back of the same thing, it's inherently weakened, and looks childish.
But they're really overplayed that, and it feels like that particular 'defense' has run it's course, so now it's let's try to weaken the arguments and throw up a lot of chaff.
@futurebird
The first to accuse gets the benefit of the doubt, the second is assumed defensive and hence more likely guilty of the offence.
Psychological leverage in public perception.
A mainstay of unbridled end stage global real estate cum religious cult ignorance for millennia.
@futurebird it’s not obvious.
I’ve thought they lied about honest people so voters ignore when they hear the truth about you …because “everyone just accuses everyone else it’s probably all bs.“
@futurebird@vikxin
Right. Some of both.
E.g. My suspicion is that PizzaGate was proactive b/s to desensitize the news cycle prior to expected next round of Jeffrey / Paedo-Island revalations.