Everyone understands why you keep losing (VSD-5)

Oh, sweet.  A candy-coated attack!

Examples (Nov 3, 2004):
    “Everyone understands why a woman your age might get emotional at a time like this.”
    “Everyone understands why the Democrats lost the election: values.”
    “All good Christians understand that nothing is more important than saving the innocent lives of unborn babies.”

Let’s see what’s happening here…..

“Everyone understands why a woman your age might get emotional at a time like this.”
mode:  phony leveling
presuppositions:

• You are the clueless one; every one else gets it.
• You are acting unreasonably.
• There is something wrong with being a woman.
• There is something wrong with being your age.
• Your feelings are invalid.
• Since the ‘something wrong’ is never stated, you are left to fill in the blank with your personal Achilles’ heel.
• And of course, those of ‘us’ who are so much more with it than ‘you’ will be happy to demonstrate our love and our superiority by forgiving you.

And the whole thing is poured over you in a syrup of fake concern and caring, so how can you possibly be angry at the speaker who cares so much for you?

So where is the bait that you must ignore?  
Right out in the open.  In this case: ’emotional’.
To neuter this attack you can’t discuss emotion and you can’t show emotion.
You will also have to fight dirty.

You don’t want to be too direct here–asking “Why?” is an excuse to have more garbage poured on your head.  But you can leave the speaker standing there, holding the trash can high overhead–with no place to dump it!

So… try the ‘humble gratitude’ maneuver.  Look mildly interested and reply gently, “I appreciate that.”

If you feel like returning some of the syrup, pour it on:  “The fact that everyone here can understand and offer their support to me is a rare  and special thing.  It is a real tribute to your leadership here.”

Note that you didn’t come right out and say, “You are a great leader.”  Instead, you turned the verb phrase (“are a leader”) into a noun (“your leadership”) and slipped the idea in as a presupposition.

“Everyone understands why the Democrats lost the election: values.”
    Mode: Computer
    presuppositions:

• You’re stupider than ‘everyone’ because you don’t get it
• You oughta feel even worse because you’re stupid
• There’s something wrong with [Democratic Values]
• You oughta feel bad about that, too.
• I am wise and kind and wish to help you by explaining this.

Do you want to argue who has the better values?
Do you want to argue WHY the Democrats lost?
Do you want to argue that the election was stolen?

If the speaker was willing to actually discuss any of the above, he would have asked you directly.  So……   LEAVE THE BAIT ALONE!

What you really want to do here is politely make the speaker look like a fool.
You do this by subtly highlighting the speaker’s arrogance.

“It’s interesting how often men in your situation use a global word such as “everyone” to make a personal opinion seem more weighty. Substituting quantity of opinions for quality is a temption hard to resist when one is in a hurry. It’s understandable, of course; people with your responsibilities rarely have the time to do personal research.”

Note that you HAVE NOT DIRECTLY STATED that your opponent:

• Has something wrong with them.
• Has opinions that are flimsy.
• Has made the logical mistake of substituting quantity for quality.
• Hasn’t done his homework.

He’s very likely to jump on any of the above, and you can simply shrug and look innocent.

As I’ve been working on these diaries, I’ve discovered some interesting things when working out political examples.  Sometimes these same verbal patterns can be used to exert pressure to conform, rather than being used as a direct attack.    When you are responding to pressure, what then?   

    “All good Christians (should) understand that nothing is more important than saving the innocent lives of unborn babies.”
Presuppositions:

• You are not a good Christian.
• You should feel terrible about that.
• Unless, of course, you vote on the single issue of abortion.
• The speaker has the right to judge
• The speaker has a pipeline to universal knowledge.

If you are the person spoken to, the ‘humble gratitude’ tactic should be pretty effective.
Depending upon the total audience, you may want to add butter and jam.

If the speaker is no longer present, and you are hearing the story second-hand, you have even more options.  

• You can ask why the speaker would expect people to vote for someone who says they oppose abortion but then puts in place family planning policies that cause the abortion rate to go up?
• If your informant believes that the original speaker was claiming scriptural support for his position, you might ask the informant if his own reading of scripture fully agrees.
• You can sympathize.  “You? Not good Christian? Should a true Christian leader make you doubt your faith?”

Homework–

“Every reasonable person understands why Ohio Democrats are so emotional these days.”

“All of us understand why you liberals are feeling so panicky about social security.”

Analyze….and refute.