From the Dept of Rumsfeldian Tautologies for the Advancement of Truth
We've been dealing with language for some time on this site.
However, I thought it would be helpful to put it in a different view so we could all look at it from above. We need to think about what happens to us when we get into a debate with others. We also need to recognize when there is a verbal attack or the debate has been derailed by the other participant.
On the flipside I will go through a few that I have noticed in the past few years...
Oh Hannity...I could go on forever about this guy...Alas I give you one small example:
Please don't ever degrade yourself by falling into this trap. Even if the final question is a valid one and you
are eager to answer it; (to them) you will be agreeing all the tacked on statements, adjectives, and lies included therein.
Don't answer until they pare it down to the question. You might say "Take all those statements off, and ask the bare question".
Sometime later I'll take on the "Hannity List"....
The "We all do that" failsafe:
The important moment in this conversation is when they say "Everybody does it". At this point say something like "Thanks for admitting that X(Abramoff in this case) does it".
This isn't a clever snappy comeback but it keeps the debate on the same track and then they get into the position they were trying to put you in.
One needs to recognize this in the course of the debate and realize:
- Its a derailment of the debate: The person derailing was losing or didn't have enough info to defend their point of view
- Its a distraction: You're no longer debating the topic you started out on.
- Its a last refuge: Its not a good point, its actually a bad one. If you don't recognize that you can't capitalize it.
Oh here we go on Hillary!
I can't count how many times I've been dogwhistled on this. Note to Republicans: I am not a dog. (or a sheep for that matter)
My views on Hillary in case anybody cares:
- I won't (at this point) vote for her in the primary
- If she wins the nomination, I'm not throwing a fit and leaving the party.
- I will vote for her for president. I know she can govern. We, the People will demand she governs the way we want. I am not going to have another unapologetic modern republican in office in 08.
That's just my 2 cents. We can have a pie fight below if you want :)
Next Up....Rumsfeldian Bewilderment...
Here's an example that's near and dear to all of us: The Rumsfeld Tautology.
In case you don't know what's occurring here; it is simply that the person is, in effect lying,
yet their statement appears as an absolute truth. "There are things we know, and things we don't know"
and after 9/11 he said something to the effect of 'We need to go after the things related and not'.
These statements should be taken as being meaningless. However, the smokescreen of these statements is sometimes
not even recognized by the recipient. Don't give anyone who does this a pass.
(I know I know to hold anybody to account when the people Rumsfeld was blowing smoke at were complicit...sigh)
Language is War!
For those who often get into arguments that start out as debates, I think it would be useful to start out with a
pen and pencil and diagram where these things usually go. I used to think I was 'losing' to people who were chronic bloviaters, being shouted down or having the common distraction techniques used on me when I didn't recognize it.
This kind of exercise can help you expose the pitfalls and show you where the bait and traps are in
the conversations you are having. Remember, once it is not a debate anymore, stop the conversation.
Please include examples you have encountered below or suggest improvements to my diagrams or this diary
if it needs it.