I've been keeping a list of behaviors I see being done in an attempt to marginalize successful advocacy efforts.
These things most often are seen when somebody passionate, but standing in a not so defensible position on matters, ends up frustrated and unable to press their point home.
This is not YOUR problem! It is their problem, and often others will try to make their problems your problems.
Here are the most common ways they do that, and some nice suggestions you can use to push back to maintain the quality of discussion, and the focus of it on the policy matters, not you.
Ready? Here we go from yours truly, Potatohead. For those reading, who have had these things applied to them, know I really do want to have a productive conversation, and no you just didn't piss me off, and let me know how I can help make sure the same is true for you!
1. They make you the subject.
Most of these are specific variations of this, where you can take the general approach here, and add the elements of the others as needed to redirect the discussion back to the topic at hand, and deflect attempts to make you the focus.
This can be anything they can find to rope you personally into the discussion. Could be your position on a wedge issue, implying some association with another organization that has negative connotations for the discussion at hand, to simple name calling and other things that trigger meta discussion, detracting from the real discussion.
This, people, does not prove a point. It only makes rational discussion more difficult.
When you see this and you find yourself the subject, simply call the other party on it, restate your position, ask them if they understand that, and keep pulling the conversation back to the subject at hand, emphasizing the quality of discussion, not meta-discussion, when attempts to do that are unsuccessful.
Do not be afraid to just move on, leaving them the burden of sorting that out, not you.
2. A claim of too many like minded opponents is made!
This one is laughable at best, but often very effective. They can play the "lone warrior" card, or some other silly thing.
Make them the subject of this one, ask how you can help, and help them clarify exactly what it is they are trying to say. Take this discussion up in earnest, until they realize it's probably better to just carry on the main topic, avoiding this one. Thank them for their time.
Often people making this claim really want to speak out, but they will find that doing so very quickly results in a negative statement against that "other group" or "other people", then ask them why they are talking about that, when the point of the discussion, is... and return to the primary advocacy at hand.
If they are the focus of attention, while in this mode, it will be difficult for them to change the subject, as they will own that change, which they actually want you to do. Usually stops this one cold.
3. They claim you are a member of some club, or association, where said membership does not qualify you to speak.
Tricky, and very often seen here lately!
Reduce your argument to the core elements, express those, without invoking that association at all, then focus the discussion back on the subject at hand, leaving them with the burden of rebutting the actual advocacy. The key here is to not validate that at all and get sucked into a pissing contest, or cat fight over who favors who. That's not productive at all.
Restate the advocacy position, and ask for a rational rebuttal to it. That's all that needs to be done here. Never ever validate this mid-discussion. If needed, take it to e-mail, or start another discussion to clarify that, if warranted, but never validate it in the middle of a discussion in progress, and let them know that is bad form to do as it simply is not productive for anybody.
4. They claim the subject complexity is too high, or that you lack qualifications, or some other thing.
The moment they do this, put the pressure back on them to "educate" you, with exactly how and why your position is flawed, thus redirecting the discussion back to the subject at hand. At all times, focus on the rational clarity of their response, and yours, ignoring personal issues.
You may find they are more knowledgeable, thank them and move on. You will often find, they dig themselves into a contradictory hole, handing you exactly what you need to escape this! When they do this, highlight the contradiction, and then end the line of discussion with that contradiction being the case in point as to why their original claim doesn't warrant any further talk. Focus on the rational elements of their statements, and call them on fallacies as needed to end that quickly.
5. They will restate your position as a false comparison, or extreme position in an attempt to get that difference to be the discussion, not the actual point at hand.
Stop. Restate what your position with as much clarity as you can, letting them know, if they need help understanding this that you are there for them, but that it's important that they understand exactly what you are saying, not argue over what they think you said.
Entertain this once, maybe twice, then state you are moving on, and will be glad to entertain this at another time. Done.
6. They will make a rational argument into an emotional one, accusing you of being "cold" or something similar.
Facts are hard things, and they have ugly implications sometimes. They want you to own that emotion, but you can't so make that damn clear, then restate the position they have issue with, and ask them what they think could be done to reduce the emotional toll of the implications of it.
Empathize with that emotion, validate it, then move on to the advocacy, "understanding" where they are coming from, but making it clear the policy implications are greater than that one sob story case, or personal horror story indicate. Often they are just focused on that, and this is not malicious. It's just human, so be a good human back and hear that and move on. Sometimes we all need this.
7. The Bible says...
'nuff said, we know about this one, I am sure. Separation of Church and State. Scripture is not authoritative in a court of law, as the entire body of religious writing is hearsay. "Bob says God says." Move on.
When doing this, it's important to state that you are not threatening their faith, and that you understand and hope they understand that freedom of and from religion here demands we all get along on these matters.
8. They engage in redefinition of common words
I absolutely am annoyed at this one. Easiest thing is to call them on the redefinition, cite the original, then express your position again, with emphasis on the accepted definition, and ask them what word they would use to avoid this, and thanks! This keeps the discussion on the point at hand, keeping you out of it.
9. They attach a shitty label to you.
On this one, deny the label, and call them on bad form. Then, make them the subject on anything you can think of, asking them how they enjoy the treatment! Let them know you stand ready and willing to grant the consideration they give you as consideration due. Once this has occurred, let them know you are moving on, until such time as they can engage you with good form. They started that one, you can end it, and the frustration left over is their problem, not yours.
Frankly, an insult, or label is only as potent as you allow it to be. Standing strong and quickly debunking that, while not validating their issues is the quickest way to extract yourself from that mine field.
10. They claim some higher authority. Use the general approach that works for the claim of poor qualification, or "ignorance" of the "complexity" of the issues. Let them know you really are interested in hearing how "they have it right" and then catch them on a fallacy, or when they stumble and fumble as they almost always do.
Be ready to accept that they do, in fact, have it right, and thank them for that, potentially entertaining the discussion in the hopes of refining your advocacy later. This is always worth your while as future advocacy will be much stronger and you can thank them for the experience, while avoiding you being the issue in a negative way.
Everybody admires the strength of character it takes to really have a conversation and grow from it. Do not avoid these, should they occur.
11. Obsfucation, thrashing, simple anger, ranting...
Or otherwise known as "what the fuck was that?" Call that out, and ask them to clarify it, and watch for points that favor your position. Restate "agreement" with them, on one of those, and move on. These people are difficult to talk to. Full on ignoring these is always good too.
Sometimes less is really more.
Another option there is the "Hey, let's just talk" bit. This can diffuse all of it rather quickly. Invite them to tell you all about it, let them just unload, then ask them how you can help get it sorted! I've had some absolutely amazing conversations where we actually found we agreed and I made a great friend this way. Don't just react to this. Stay rational, and engage them a little, keeping yourself out of it, of course.
12. "I forgot, could you remind me again?", used to force other parties to tire of the subject and move on.
Sometimes this one is repeated queries to the same issue, over and over and over. We call that stalking here, but the line is tough. Highlight that, making them the subject with something simple, and not offensive, but potent. "You know, we had this talk, but if you insist..."
Then get out of it, after tagging a number of those with the potent statement / question as to what they are doing, and why keep doing it. Let others see this and they will marginalize themselves.
So there you go. These are all effective tactics used to derail otherwise solid advocacy efforts, or attempts to see consensus through distraction, not any kind of successful means of communication of merit.
When they try to make you the subject, generally speaking, you are winning, unless you have some nefarious intent, then it's really your issue and will end badly for you. For the rest of us, this is just a simple and effective list of things we can look for, not validate, and once identified, be used to redirect the conversation to productive things, not personal thrashing that's fun, but generally useless otherwise.
Have a great Friday folks!