I'm not sure if you explicitly identify this particular rhetorical device (though it seems to be implied in some of the points that you do mention): excessive use of jargon. You reference terms like "cisgender" above, but how many people actually know what that means? How many people have ever given serious thought to the topic of gender? I suspect the number is small.
And I speak as someone ostensibly familiar with this kind of talk. Not that long ago, I completed an MA program in a very "blue" city. And yet, when I first started hearing phrases like "trans women are women" (a few years back), I had not even the remotest clue what those words were supposed to mean. Even after I gained some idea what trans activists were trying to assert (biological men, apparently, are women if they identify as such), I still had a hard time accepting the fact that such a notion was somehow animating an extremely vocal movement.
So, the basic idea is that extremists of all types can short-circuit basically any conversation by resorting to a type of jargon that only they fully understand (with the implication that anyone who fails to grasp or accept their meaning is either inherently worthless and/or just not even worth talking to).
Such jargon certainly exists on the right ("special appearance," "sovereign citizen," "the cabal"), but in terms of elite censorship, Leftist jargon may be more to the point. So you have terms like BIPOC, ally, equity, intersectionality, white immunity, and many others. In these and other cases, the intended meaning is either obscure or unintuitive. And once someone is dazed and/or confused by such obscure terminology, they have already "lost." They have revealed their ostensibly inferior status and can be dismissed with prejudice (so to speak).
There is no “impenetrable fortress” for any political or economic position. There are only clever distractions.
The proper approach is to state your principles, succinctly, and then ask for their views on same.
No one will deny they have views. Those who do not have considered opinions are emotion-based. Such folks are immune to reason. “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” Jonathan Swift.
Those who have considered opinions will share them.
Match the views up, to see where they differ or are in accord. Build on the agreements, and explore the premises and reasoning for the differences.
Organize political thoughts in order:
1. The free market is the best way to match supply to demand. (The family is communism. The village may operate in a socialist/social welfare way. The anonymous city can only function with prices.)
2. Define the proper jobs of government. E.g. protect the border, keep civil peace, enforce contracts, preserve free markets. And, as we prosper, humane welfare to deserving.
3. Government must at some point be limited. Otherwise it destroys the indispensable free market price signals. No socialist economy has ever succeeded, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, that’s remarkable, and irrefutable.
4. Hard limit on total government take from the economy, for the agreed jobs. That means total of cash taxes PLUS borrowing, plus burden of laws, rules regs PLUS unfunded mandates. Especially NO printing of currency money greater than GDP.
Over-printing = inflation = theft of value. That pernicious evil hurts the poorest the worst, because they spend the most on the necessities of life.
5. Hard limit on terms. E.g. two senate or six representative. Same 12 years all bureaucrats. Military IS a career, politics is NOT.
This is so good, but what alarms me most is that I increasingly see these behaviors not just online or in formal debate settings (eg university lectures etc) but in my own social circle. Feels like the Very Online world is gradually poisoning even spheres that previously managed to rise above the fray.
Pretty good list. It is amazing the number of justifications that people can come up with for avoiding an honest discussion on the issue. I think that it takes a fairly narrow-minded person to so easily jump from one to the other while still believing that they have the moral high ground.
While listening to Yo-Yo Ma this morning, I came up with a name for forcing people to say and do things that are not real or not true. Simon-saysism. Simon says say this, Simon says say that. Your interlocutor gets to be Simon. “Oops, I didn’t say Simon Says.”
When critical theory activists use references to “disadvantaged” third parties to control a conversation, they are engaging in a manipulation known as “triangulation.” This manipulation is a hallmark of narcissism.
One tactic I have used is to immediately demand to know whether the activist has been asked by members of the underdog group to speak for them. Also: has the activist even asked any members of the group what they specifically want in terms of policies?
Most activists are white and heterosexual, even if they currently pretend to be otherwise, and few of them have black friends.
I would say setting language rules is a big one. Cisgender, heteronormativity, privilege, genocide. There are words that either you use- and thus force your apparent agreement- or refusing to use them is also cause for dismissal. Or changing the meaning of words so that you can’t express yourself
Reason has no place in discussing issues with idealogues. The history of the radicals of any variety proves this. Post modernism rejects reason and operates in a frame of reference that has nothing to do with reason. The world is as they reconstruct it and will not respond to argument. Don't waste your tiime, rather speak to those who have no stake in denying clearly seen reality and the hell with those who think they can create what is real.
The fortress is in full play with leftists who are simultaneously anti-Israel and anti-doing-anything-productive-to-end-the-conflict, with the new barrier being to call anyone who disagrees with any of their claims about the Israel-Palestine war "genocide deniers," or even worse, pro-genocide. I have been called a genocide denier for such offenses as citing statistics on the total number of people who have died in the war (to correct people who incorrectly gave a much higher number) and telling people that if they actually care about Palestinians, they should vote for the party that would promote a better outcome for them.
I am reminded of a heated debate ~15 years ago between Wafa Sultan and an imam whose name is lost to memory. The discussion was about the incongruity of the Western enlightenment and Islamic theocracies. Sultan was making this or that point about if religion wields state power, you’re gonna have a bad time.
In a single sentence, this imam invoked half of this fortress’ defences (points 1 and 6-10, arguably 11) by saying “if you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you”.
The problem is that both the far left and far right have quit analyzing issues individually and rely instead on preformed groupthink to reach their conclusions.
As a lifelong Democrat who always thought he was mildly liberal I am most disappointed in the wokeness epitomized by the current NPR and my own party. Men can actually become women. Our borders should be open to billions. We discriminate against whites, Asians and men to counter past discrimination against others. Children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
Crime and homelessness destroy liberal cities because politicians won't say no to destructive behavior.
Their leadership consists of an addled old man and a vacuous, word salad spouting, DEI selected idiot.
Republicans deny the climate change that threatens humanity, denounce the vaccines that reduce deaths from disease, believe that this ( . ) is a 👶 which destroys women's futures, and support a sociopath for president.
Greg -- Great analysis. In its simplest form, the rhetorical fortress is identical to arguments employed by religions: Any argument, no matter how well reasoned, is countered by "This is the devil speaking." And this is because the left wing woke orthodoxy IS a religion. (ref John McWhorter)
1. So happy with what you do - longtime - 45+ years - libertarian who believes in an open marketplace of ideas. And tries to practice same. Thank you.
2. A forgotten hero of these ideas is Laird Wilcox. Laird spent years joining left and right leaning "extremist" groups and came up with excellent models to nail behaviors that the members share, regardless of the cause. And how the watchdogs too often take on those same characteristics. He gave me permission to share some of these models before he passed away. His web site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Wilcox. Much of his work overlaps what you are doing.
3. A suggestion to consider. In my career as a workplace trainer and management consultant - 1978-2022 - one of my specialties was conflict management. I studied many different models - did not worship at one altar. Although I was trained in arbitration, mediation, facilitation, etc, my main focus was coaching people how to manage their own conflicts.
One universal principle that most models share: being able to see, hear, and understand the other person's point of view as you build their trust in you, even when they disagree with your position and you don't agree with them. Not to say that you don't take political action, but to be the adult in the room in the best sense. So one of my rules was to avoid vilifying opponents with clever nasty nicknames, cruel labels, sarcasm, etc. How we talk and write about people impacts how we treat them and has the insidious ability to cause us to justify our own bad behaviors.
So, I am not a fan of clever and mean labels, including calling people Nazis and fascists. I don't care if someone uses a dictionary to justify the labels. As the daughter of immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe, I lost my share of relatives during WWII. I don't care for people using labels that carry a lot of baggage (weight) to gain credibility and approval from their audiences.
In managing conflicts in institutions, I had to learn to take the high road to model the behavior I wanted to see and hear in others. I had no power in these meetings, only influence. Didn't mean that I couldn't speak strongly and with passion. And I am not a perfect person by any means.
At the same time, I was conscious that there is life after the battle. The people I tried to help had to live in their community, together, afterwards
So, I would prefer that you use your boundless creativity and imagination to come up with different words to discuss these issues. I think most of what FIRE produces in topnotch. But sometimes I wince. Today, I was wincing.
Specifically what words do you find problematic? One of the issues with the left is their continuous revision of the meaning of words. I appreciate it when someone has the intellectual integrity to “call a spade a spade” and not allow the discussion to be diverted by a change in vocabulary.
If I am trying to solve a problem with human beings, I like to try to take the long view regarding building protective relationships, meaning what happens when the war is over. You might need to work with the person or garner their support for a different cause. And people change.
Calling a spade a spade? I find it is useful to describe a specific behavior rather than rely on labels and would agree with you if that's what you mean. English is slippery. And, in my experience, insults rarely work.
From my POV, both left-leaning and right-leaning people - and yes, my fellow travelers - can be guilty of manipulating language to suit their purposes.
A big influence has been the work of Alfred Korzybski, particularly about precision in language. I have learned to ask people to give me concrete examples when they use labels, and to add "by which I mean" when I use abstractions. Also, I have to accept the fact that I will never know the whole story behind an individual action or an event, and that I can only guess at a person's motivation.
Sorry for the soapbox. This was my life for many years, trying to help folks figure out how they could work together productively and respectfully. And how to set limits and take action as an audience, whose support you need, is watching and judging.
Am I perfect? Nope. I might vent with my husband or a close friend, but am pretty careful what I put in print.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and help me be more specific.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Nouns (including labels) are useful if used appropriately. Describing behavior (and I assume you mean beliefs as well) is important to verify/validate the descriptive noun being used. As an engineer I agree completely with you regarding the need for precision. English is indeed slippery and many’s the time I’ve had to correct young engineers when they were sloppy in writing their reports.
Manipulating language to suit one’s purposes is indeed common. I was not referring to that but to the act of redefining words to mean something other than their currently accepted usage, e.g gender in lieu of sex. That is largely a characteristic of the left and their embrace of a self-defined reality vice what is actually real. This behavior is part and parcel with leftist rhetoric.
In my world, I was interested in beliefs if a person used them to justify behavior, otherwise, what a person thought was none of my business. So if someone admitted to being homophobic, I cared if they treated people with respect and fairly. On the other hand, someone might claim they were respectful, and what I saw and heard was benign contempt. Humans are complicated and contradictory. Dang them!
I spent a lot of time wading through the jargon people would use to avoid being accountable for their words, decisions, and deeds. I think it counts as another form of manipulating language. For example, a group of academics invited me to participate in a staff day on the topic of "employee engagement."
They asked me my definition. I told them that I had no idea what they meant. Took me about 45 minutes to get them to admit they meant "getting people to do the job they were hired to do." Ended up teaching about precision in language, treating co-workers with respect, workplace agreements, and setting legal and ethical consequences, including the "f" word - fire.
It's interesting how often accusations of bad behavior deflate when the accuser has to provide a concrete description, not an interpretation, of the behavior. Getting behind the clouds of words spoken by politicians and activists of different stripes can be exhausting. Between you and me - I am not a nice person - I often secretly enjoyed watching someone squirm when they had to make their case based on physical evidence, not just their opinion.
And having worked with and for very smart and competent people, I learned that age, experience, education, credentials, and IQ did not predict how able a communicator someone was.
Again, from my seat in the peanut gallery, observing behavior across the philosophical spectrum, I see and hear people who identify on the right commit different versions of the same mistakes the left-leaning folks make
You are paraphrasing my grandmother, born in a village in Belarus in the 19th century. She would describe life as the village would be swept with pogroms, the Czar's draft, and armies of opposing political ideologies. She would mutter the Yiddish equivalent of "A pox on all of them." I thought she invented the phrase. Thanks again for your patience with me.
I'm not sure if you explicitly identify this particular rhetorical device (though it seems to be implied in some of the points that you do mention): excessive use of jargon. You reference terms like "cisgender" above, but how many people actually know what that means? How many people have ever given serious thought to the topic of gender? I suspect the number is small.
And I speak as someone ostensibly familiar with this kind of talk. Not that long ago, I completed an MA program in a very "blue" city. And yet, when I first started hearing phrases like "trans women are women" (a few years back), I had not even the remotest clue what those words were supposed to mean. Even after I gained some idea what trans activists were trying to assert (biological men, apparently, are women if they identify as such), I still had a hard time accepting the fact that such a notion was somehow animating an extremely vocal movement.
So, the basic idea is that extremists of all types can short-circuit basically any conversation by resorting to a type of jargon that only they fully understand (with the implication that anyone who fails to grasp or accept their meaning is either inherently worthless and/or just not even worth talking to).
Such jargon certainly exists on the right ("special appearance," "sovereign citizen," "the cabal"), but in terms of elite censorship, Leftist jargon may be more to the point. So you have terms like BIPOC, ally, equity, intersectionality, white immunity, and many others. In these and other cases, the intended meaning is either obscure or unintuitive. And once someone is dazed and/or confused by such obscure terminology, they have already "lost." They have revealed their ostensibly inferior status and can be dismissed with prejudice (so to speak).
There is no “impenetrable fortress” for any political or economic position. There are only clever distractions.
The proper approach is to state your principles, succinctly, and then ask for their views on same.
No one will deny they have views. Those who do not have considered opinions are emotion-based. Such folks are immune to reason. “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” Jonathan Swift.
Those who have considered opinions will share them.
Match the views up, to see where they differ or are in accord. Build on the agreements, and explore the premises and reasoning for the differences.
Organize political thoughts in order:
1. The free market is the best way to match supply to demand. (The family is communism. The village may operate in a socialist/social welfare way. The anonymous city can only function with prices.)
2. Define the proper jobs of government. E.g. protect the border, keep civil peace, enforce contracts, preserve free markets. And, as we prosper, humane welfare to deserving.
3. Government must at some point be limited. Otherwise it destroys the indispensable free market price signals. No socialist economy has ever succeeded, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, that’s remarkable, and irrefutable.
4. Hard limit on total government take from the economy, for the agreed jobs. That means total of cash taxes PLUS borrowing, plus burden of laws, rules regs PLUS unfunded mandates. Especially NO printing of currency money greater than GDP.
Over-printing = inflation = theft of value. That pernicious evil hurts the poorest the worst, because they spend the most on the necessities of life.
5. Hard limit on terms. E.g. two senate or six representative. Same 12 years all bureaucrats. Military IS a career, politics is NOT.
Fantastic
Anyone coping with these Barricades would do well to understand the full range of logical fallacies employed. I bought the book Bad Arguments for my high-school age child but find it is a good reference for me as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Illustrated_Book_of_Bad_Arguments#External_links
This is so good, but what alarms me most is that I increasingly see these behaviors not just online or in formal debate settings (eg university lectures etc) but in my own social circle. Feels like the Very Online world is gradually poisoning even spheres that previously managed to rise above the fray.
Pretty good list. It is amazing the number of justifications that people can come up with for avoiding an honest discussion on the issue. I think that it takes a fairly narrow-minded person to so easily jump from one to the other while still believing that they have the moral high ground.
While listening to Yo-Yo Ma this morning, I came up with a name for forcing people to say and do things that are not real or not true. Simon-saysism. Simon says say this, Simon says say that. Your interlocutor gets to be Simon. “Oops, I didn’t say Simon Says.”
When critical theory activists use references to “disadvantaged” third parties to control a conversation, they are engaging in a manipulation known as “triangulation.” This manipulation is a hallmark of narcissism.
One tactic I have used is to immediately demand to know whether the activist has been asked by members of the underdog group to speak for them. Also: has the activist even asked any members of the group what they specifically want in terms of policies?
Most activists are white and heterosexual, even if they currently pretend to be otherwise, and few of them have black friends.
I would say setting language rules is a big one. Cisgender, heteronormativity, privilege, genocide. There are words that either you use- and thus force your apparent agreement- or refusing to use them is also cause for dismissal. Or changing the meaning of words so that you can’t express yourself
Reason has no place in discussing issues with idealogues. The history of the radicals of any variety proves this. Post modernism rejects reason and operates in a frame of reference that has nothing to do with reason. The world is as they reconstruct it and will not respond to argument. Don't waste your tiime, rather speak to those who have no stake in denying clearly seen reality and the hell with those who think they can create what is real.
The fortress is in full play with leftists who are simultaneously anti-Israel and anti-doing-anything-productive-to-end-the-conflict, with the new barrier being to call anyone who disagrees with any of their claims about the Israel-Palestine war "genocide deniers," or even worse, pro-genocide. I have been called a genocide denier for such offenses as citing statistics on the total number of people who have died in the war (to correct people who incorrectly gave a much higher number) and telling people that if they actually care about Palestinians, they should vote for the party that would promote a better outcome for them.
I am reminded of a heated debate ~15 years ago between Wafa Sultan and an imam whose name is lost to memory. The discussion was about the incongruity of the Western enlightenment and Islamic theocracies. Sultan was making this or that point about if religion wields state power, you’re gonna have a bad time.
In a single sentence, this imam invoked half of this fortress’ defences (points 1 and 6-10, arguably 11) by saying “if you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you”.
The problem is that both the far left and far right have quit analyzing issues individually and rely instead on preformed groupthink to reach their conclusions.
As a lifelong Democrat who always thought he was mildly liberal I am most disappointed in the wokeness epitomized by the current NPR and my own party. Men can actually become women. Our borders should be open to billions. We discriminate against whites, Asians and men to counter past discrimination against others. Children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
Crime and homelessness destroy liberal cities because politicians won't say no to destructive behavior.
Their leadership consists of an addled old man and a vacuous, word salad spouting, DEI selected idiot.
Republicans deny the climate change that threatens humanity, denounce the vaccines that reduce deaths from disease, believe that this ( . ) is a 👶 which destroys women's futures, and support a sociopath for president.
Someone who seeks the truth can vote for neither.
Greg -- Great analysis. In its simplest form, the rhetorical fortress is identical to arguments employed by religions: Any argument, no matter how well reasoned, is countered by "This is the devil speaking." And this is because the left wing woke orthodoxy IS a religion. (ref John McWhorter)
Comment: Three comments:
1. So happy with what you do - longtime - 45+ years - libertarian who believes in an open marketplace of ideas. And tries to practice same. Thank you.
2. A forgotten hero of these ideas is Laird Wilcox. Laird spent years joining left and right leaning "extremist" groups and came up with excellent models to nail behaviors that the members share, regardless of the cause. And how the watchdogs too often take on those same characteristics. He gave me permission to share some of these models before he passed away. His web site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Wilcox. Much of his work overlaps what you are doing.
3. A suggestion to consider. In my career as a workplace trainer and management consultant - 1978-2022 - one of my specialties was conflict management. I studied many different models - did not worship at one altar. Although I was trained in arbitration, mediation, facilitation, etc, my main focus was coaching people how to manage their own conflicts.
One universal principle that most models share: being able to see, hear, and understand the other person's point of view as you build their trust in you, even when they disagree with your position and you don't agree with them. Not to say that you don't take political action, but to be the adult in the room in the best sense. So one of my rules was to avoid vilifying opponents with clever nasty nicknames, cruel labels, sarcasm, etc. How we talk and write about people impacts how we treat them and has the insidious ability to cause us to justify our own bad behaviors.
So, I am not a fan of clever and mean labels, including calling people Nazis and fascists. I don't care if someone uses a dictionary to justify the labels. As the daughter of immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe, I lost my share of relatives during WWII. I don't care for people using labels that carry a lot of baggage (weight) to gain credibility and approval from their audiences.
In managing conflicts in institutions, I had to learn to take the high road to model the behavior I wanted to see and hear in others. I had no power in these meetings, only influence. Didn't mean that I couldn't speak strongly and with passion. And I am not a perfect person by any means.
At the same time, I was conscious that there is life after the battle. The people I tried to help had to live in their community, together, afterwards
So, I would prefer that you use your boundless creativity and imagination to come up with different words to discuss these issues. I think most of what FIRE produces in topnotch. But sometimes I wince. Today, I was wincing.
Specifically what words do you find problematic? One of the issues with the left is their continuous revision of the meaning of words. I appreciate it when someone has the intellectual integrity to “call a spade a spade” and not allow the discussion to be diverted by a change in vocabulary.
Calling people fascists, is one example.
If I am trying to solve a problem with human beings, I like to try to take the long view regarding building protective relationships, meaning what happens when the war is over. You might need to work with the person or garner their support for a different cause. And people change.
Calling a spade a spade? I find it is useful to describe a specific behavior rather than rely on labels and would agree with you if that's what you mean. English is slippery. And, in my experience, insults rarely work.
From my POV, both left-leaning and right-leaning people - and yes, my fellow travelers - can be guilty of manipulating language to suit their purposes.
A big influence has been the work of Alfred Korzybski, particularly about precision in language. I have learned to ask people to give me concrete examples when they use labels, and to add "by which I mean" when I use abstractions. Also, I have to accept the fact that I will never know the whole story behind an individual action or an event, and that I can only guess at a person's motivation.
Sorry for the soapbox. This was my life for many years, trying to help folks figure out how they could work together productively and respectfully. And how to set limits and take action as an audience, whose support you need, is watching and judging.
Am I perfect? Nope. I might vent with my husband or a close friend, but am pretty careful what I put in print.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and help me be more specific.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Nouns (including labels) are useful if used appropriately. Describing behavior (and I assume you mean beliefs as well) is important to verify/validate the descriptive noun being used. As an engineer I agree completely with you regarding the need for precision. English is indeed slippery and many’s the time I’ve had to correct young engineers when they were sloppy in writing their reports.
Manipulating language to suit one’s purposes is indeed common. I was not referring to that but to the act of redefining words to mean something other than their currently accepted usage, e.g gender in lieu of sex. That is largely a characteristic of the left and their embrace of a self-defined reality vice what is actually real. This behavior is part and parcel with leftist rhetoric.
Again, thank you for your response.
Back at you.
In my world, I was interested in beliefs if a person used them to justify behavior, otherwise, what a person thought was none of my business. So if someone admitted to being homophobic, I cared if they treated people with respect and fairly. On the other hand, someone might claim they were respectful, and what I saw and heard was benign contempt. Humans are complicated and contradictory. Dang them!
I spent a lot of time wading through the jargon people would use to avoid being accountable for their words, decisions, and deeds. I think it counts as another form of manipulating language. For example, a group of academics invited me to participate in a staff day on the topic of "employee engagement."
They asked me my definition. I told them that I had no idea what they meant. Took me about 45 minutes to get them to admit they meant "getting people to do the job they were hired to do." Ended up teaching about precision in language, treating co-workers with respect, workplace agreements, and setting legal and ethical consequences, including the "f" word - fire.
It's interesting how often accusations of bad behavior deflate when the accuser has to provide a concrete description, not an interpretation, of the behavior. Getting behind the clouds of words spoken by politicians and activists of different stripes can be exhausting. Between you and me - I am not a nice person - I often secretly enjoyed watching someone squirm when they had to make their case based on physical evidence, not just their opinion.
And having worked with and for very smart and competent people, I learned that age, experience, education, credentials, and IQ did not predict how able a communicator someone was.
Again, from my seat in the peanut gallery, observing behavior across the philosophical spectrum, I see and hear people who identify on the right commit different versions of the same mistakes the left-leaning folks make
Very well then. “A plague on both their houses.” I can understand and respect your POV even if I don’t completely share it. Have a wonderful day.
You are paraphrasing my grandmother, born in a village in Belarus in the 19th century. She would describe life as the village would be swept with pogroms, the Czar's draft, and armies of opposing political ideologies. She would mutter the Yiddish equivalent of "A pox on all of them." I thought she invented the phrase. Thanks again for your patience with me.