Marc MacYoung
Writer, Teacher, Expert Witness, Thinker
Latest thoughts
(You are here)
Latest Thoughts...
Being attacked in a conversation -- especially in social media.In a discussion, learn to tell the difference between an
ad hominem and an attack -- and respond to each appropriately.
An argumentum ad hominem (argument to the man) is a
logical fallacy. It is basically saying a premise is wrong because of who is
saying it*
The 'That's wrong because you're a ____(fill in the
blank) is what makes it first an ad hominem logical fallacy against the
argument, then a personal attack. (Remember this order, it's important.)
The counter to this is to argue the facts (stay on the
topic) while basically ignoring the insults. I say basically because you call
the ball about the behavior before returning to the topic For example, "If you are finished trying
to insult me, may we return to the subject at hand? Thank you." It's
doubly aggravating to them if you not only don't take the bait, but remain
polite and calm.**
With attacks, it's name calling, spitting venom and
hating first and foremost. Oh yeah, and you're also wrong.
But that you're wrong not as important as how much I
despise you and use it to justify the verbal and emotional violence I'm
throwing at you. Name calling, buzz words (e.g., you're a cis-gendered,
heterosexual, privileged white male), hot button words (racist, sexist,
political leaning), accusations and insults are all common. Basically, you're
so stupid, wrong and evil you not only don't deserve them talking to you
rationally about the subject, the only thing you're worthy of is their contempt
and abuse. Often you will see people use this strategy in social media or in
comments without even bothering to add "you're wrong," it's just
assumed.
Treat this for exactly what it is, an attack. It has
nothing to do with add to the conversation. While it can have something to do
with shutting the conversation down, it's mostly about the individual
self-soothing. Keep that last in mind we'll come back to it.
Two common strategies tend to manifest.
First, 'I' will escalate to flat-out abuse if you are
silly enough to play my game. By that I mean get insulted and respond
emotionally -- especially while trying to remain calm -- you become my target.
I will heap verbal and emotional attack after attack on you, while pretending
to be talking about the subject. "I" am an expert at spotting when my
insults have gotten through and I will play with you like a cat sitting just
outside the reach of a chained dog.
Second, is after seagulling*** and making everyone else
uncomfortable with 'my' bad behavior, I will pull a grandiose "Elvis has
left the building" exit. Often declaring both "I am leaving" and
"what ignorant subhumans not just you, but anyone who is stupid enough to
listen to you is." Quietly leaving is not enough, there has to be a grand
soliloquy before my triumphant exit from the stage. (An unfortunate tendency for such people
though is encore performances. Unlike the actual Elvis, these people hang
around and monitor the thread to see how well their hate and discontent is
working, then they pop up again like a prairie dog from hell to vomit more
verbal abuse.)
When you see this behavior recognize it for what it is.
Which brings us back to self-soothing.
Self-soothing is in and of itself not bad. We all do it.
When we feel uncomfortable we engage in activities that sooth us, calm and
ease our discomfort. This both
emotionally and physically. We unwind after a hard day by having a drink or
watching a favorite show. We rub sore muscles, sit in the hot tub, etc.,
etc. There is, however, a distinction
between appropriate self-soothing and inappropriate.
Remember how I said it's an attack and you need to treat
it as such? Yeah well here's where it gets kind of tricky.
See most people will say "An attack? Attack
back!" Well you might want to think twice about that. First, as I also
said, that's playing their game. While you're thinking in terms of defending
yourself, in fact, it's you standing up and announcing to them that you've
fallen for their trap. Like I said, they know when they have someone -- and
trying to counter attack with hostile words and emotions tells them you're safe
to play with. They can also spot when someone is actually going to throw them
out the window and that usually prompts the Elvis has left the building plan B.
But until that time, normal threat displays (that would make most people back
off) just don't work with these folks. This especially when they're safely
sitting in their front room and using the computer screen as a shield. What are
you going to do? Get on a plane, fly to where they are and punch them out? So
responding aggressively isn't really doing anything to stop the behavior.
Worse, it's mostly you self-soothing yourself by going RAWR! RAWR! SEE HOW
TOUGH I AM! RAWR!
Second -- and where it becomes kind of embarrassing -- is
inappropriate self-soothing is kind of like masturbating in public. It may make
the person doing it feel good, but to everyone else in the area it's disgusting
and rude. Recognizing this is an important step for not falling into the
person's trap. Someone who is verbally and emotionally attacking is mostly
self-soothing. Something has been said
that makes them uncomfortable and their attack is the equivalent of them
pulling it and rubbing one out -- in public. Nobody in the area is going to be
happy about this behavior.
Unfortunately that includes you doing the exact same
thing. See whenever you try to 'argue' with such a person, there are going to
be a lot of people seeing, not just one person misbehaving, but two or more
people in a public circle jerk. That's why the counter-attack strategy might
not be such a good idea.
I say "might," because while often the best
strategy is to pretend you didn't hear it and keep on talking to other folks,
sometimes, you have to do something. Now whether it's to quietly excuse
yourself from the situation, delete the comment (if it's your page), take it to
the moderator, turn it against the person or -- and this is the least
desirable, but sometimes necessary -- 'argue,' all depends on the
circumstances.
In media matters, I will often delete comments and then
make a generalized statement about expected behavior in areas that I
control. In public environments I will
take the person aside and have a quiet discussion about expected behaviors. If
it's someone else's territory then it's good manners to take it to the host
rather than getting involved in a row. Often the person whose territory it is
saw it, doesn't like it, but until someone complains isn't going to do
anything. Your politely bringing it to him or her, is the call to action that
person needs to tell the other person to knock it off. This strategy creates
allies and if the self-soother goes off on the host... well, he brings on
himself what happens to him. Mostly because other people will back up the host.
On the rare occasion where a negative response from you is the best response,
the response must be more extreme than the other person expects. (It's like a
person who is normally calm and polite blowing up. It's not only no longer fun
and games, but everyone else knows the other person really crossed a line to warrant such a
response.)
However, turning it against the person, I personally find
the most satisfying. Here's something about someone self-soothing in public.
First is it's pretty one directional. Second it's limited range. It's really not that hard to side step and
keep it from getting on your shoes. The harder the person tries, the worse he
or she looks. Once you look at verbal attacks as:
A) Self-soothing
B) Making a spectacle of oneself
C) Trying to get you to do the same
your definition of 'winning' changes. In fact, you can help everyone else relax
about this unacceptable behavior. Remember the purpose of the self-soother is
to provoke a negative emotional reaction. That is that persons perception of
power; that's the 'win' he or she is going for. Anything other reaction and
that and the person loses.
A strategy I like to use both in attacks and ad hominem
(but mostly the former) is to pretend that I didn't hear the attack and respond
to the person's -- usually very weak --
points. Responding as if that person was legitimately trying to discuss
the issue. Think of it as an opportunity. That person has given you a great
platform. It's almost like someone feeding a comic straight lines.
Here's the person hiding his attacks behind supposed
points and there you are calmly responding to and expanding your position on
the subject. You're not getting mad or emotional, you're sticking to the
subject. Anyone who is watching sees you remaining calm, polite and reasonable
while the other side is running around in circles, screeching while playing
with themselves.
Knowing that, which side is going to have more
credibility?
If you can keep your zipper up, the answer is yours.
In conclusion, remember something very important. Between
stimulus and external reaction there is a gap. A gap that we normally are going
so fast with our habitual and internal emotional reaction that we fly right
over. We have been doing this for so long we don't think we have any control.
We feel an emotion and we have react. NO! Our emotions do not control us --
unless we let them. We can have an emotion, but that is all it is. An internal
stimuli telling us what we should do. You don't have to do that. Someone
verbally attacks you? Where is it written that you have to counter-attack?
Where is it written that you have to self-sooth in public? This especially knowing someone is trying to
bait you and make you look just as bad as them.
If you really want to communicate your point to people,
don't fall for that trap. You can start by learning to spot the difference
between a logical fallacy and an attack -- especially on the internet.
M
* Although not an exact example you can see the idea in
action at the end of the movie "A Flock of Dodos." An idea for a much
needed change in strategy was shot down because the man who had done it was
*gasp* a racist.
** They'll often tip their hands and other people will
see what they're doing. (I'm talking if they're smart, they'll scale back and
just zing you more subtly. If they're not -- and a lot of them aren't --
they'll go on the offensive and show everyone in the room that they, not you,
are the barking moonbats.
*** Flying in, shitting all over everything while
screeching (and often flying away, but the person can stay)
©2015 all rights reserved
In
The Name of
Self-Defense
Kindle
or Paperback
Campfire
Tales
From Hell
Kindle or Paperback
ALL EXPERTS CONFLICT COMMUNICATIONS FACEBOOK I.M.D.B. LINKED IN MACYOUNG'S MUSINGS (BLOG)
M.D.MACYOUNG (FICTION) MYSPACE NO NONSENSE SELF-DEFENSE WIKIPEDIA