Choosing words carefully

[tremendoustie]

In the spirit of suggesting random things that people are free to adopt if they find useful, or ignore if they don't ...

I find, when objecting to wrong behavior or opinions, it's very important to oppose the behavior or opinion itself, rather than to label the person. I think these subtle cues can have a significant impact on how a person views themselves in relation to an issue. I hope I can explain this so my meaning is understandable.

For example, suppose a cop is arresting someone for a victim-less crime, and I wish to object.

I could say, "You're a thug who harms innocent people", "You're the aggressor", or the like.

Or, I could say, "You should choose not to initiate such aggressive violence -- it's wrong. This man/woman has harmed no-one."


Suppose I were talking to a person who suggests  "the law should be obeyed and enforced no matter what, even if it's wrong".

I could say, "That means you endorse all kinds of evil", "people like you supported all kinds of evil", etc.

Or, I could say, "I hope you reconsider that position -- it seems very wrong to me -- it would endorse the enforcement of evil laws like slavery, and oppose men like MLK."


The idea is not to identify them with the behavior or the opinion too closely. They should be made to feel that they can change -- it's just one action, or a temporary opinion, at one point in time -- it's not who they are. It is difficult for any person to admit they were wrong -- but the less strongly they feel they are identified with the action or viewpoint, the easier it is.

To put it another way, you are NOT a statist. You're currently espousing statist views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way.

Not that I'm perfect at this, of course, but I think it's worthwhile to keep this idea in mind.

[Dalebert]

I like it.

[Lance]

Very nice.

[Patrick Shields]

I completely agree. Can you share how you came to this conclusion? (experiences, resources, knowledge, etc.)

[Sam A. Robrin]

I don't agree.  It sounds like the old canard "I didn't say you were stupid--I said what you said was stupid."  In other words, "I said what I said, I just didn't say it."  (I always respond, "That's a stupid thing to say!"  When they bristle--and they always do--I repeat their own words back to them.)
     The fact is, there's nothing you can say that won't offend somebody; and there are some people who can find a way to get offended over anything at all.  Those latter have learned that they can use your basic decency and desire not to offend as a means of getting control of you--their actual goal--with you doing all the work for them!
You waste time trying to figure out what not to say, and eventually end up saying nothing at all.  You've effectively been silenced, and you were talked into doing it to yourself.
     

[Sam A. Robrin]

I don't agree.  It sounds like the old canard "I didn't say you were stupid--I said what you said was stupid."  In other words, "I said what I said, I just didn't say it."  (I always respond, "That's a stupid thing to say!"  When they bristle--and they always do--I repeat their own words back to them.)
     The fact is, there's nothing you can say that won't offend somebody; and there are some people who can find a way to get offended over anything at all.  Those latter have learned that they can use your basic decency and desire not to offend as a means of getting control of you--their actual goal--with you doing all the work for them!
     You waste time trying to figure out what not to say, and eventually end up saying nothing at all.  You've effectively been silenced, and you were talked into doing it to yourself. 
     Sometimes, love it or hate it, people have to be made to get angry enough that they finally begin to think.  Ultimately, you're doing them a favor.

[Mike Barskey]

You waste time trying to figure out what not to say, and eventually end up saying nothing at all.  You've effectively been silenced, and you were talked into doing it to yourself.   

I am more responsive to people if they are polite to me than if they hurl insults or epithets. I'm even more responsive to emotionless, objective, deadpan presentations than to insulting, threatening, or angry ones. I think most people are that way, though some people do indeed like drama and/or confrontation.

By choosing a different way of communicating, you have not "effectively been silenced" - you are communicating differently, and hopefully more effectively.

[tremendoustie]

I completely agree. Can you share how you came to this conclusion? (experiences, resources, knowledge, etc.)

Some experience -- seeing other people's reactions, and then some internal consideration of what my initial gut reaction would be, were someone to challenge some of my beliefs. What approach would they need to take, to make me willing to reconsider my beliefs most honstly and thoughtfully?

tks

[Sam A. Robrin]

I am more responsive to people if they are polite to me than if they hurl insults or epithets. I'm even more responsive to emotionless, objective, deadpan presentations than to insulting, threatening, or angry ones. I think most people are that way, though some people do indeed like drama and/or confrontation.

By choosing a different way of communicating, you have not "effectively been silenced" - you are communicating differently, and hopefully more effectively.

It tends to be pretty case-by-case.  I know the liberty movement hampered and hobbled itself in its more exclusively politico days by trying to be all things to all people, and ending up being nothing to nobody . . .  Too quiet an approach doesn't get through to very many people, and then you have the natural resistance to a new idea to contend with; for others--a good many, it seems--the calm and reasoned approach is futile, and then you need to display the "We'll continue to be too much trouble for you to deal with until you give in to demands that you refuse to recognize as reasonable" method. 

[MaineShark]

Gotta disagree.  You are what you believe; the sum total of the choices that you make.  For example:

To put it another way, you are NOT a statist. You're currently espousing statist views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way.

Try it with a different belief system: "to put it another way, you are NOT a Christian. You're currently espousing Christian views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way," or "to put it another way, you are NOT a food critic. You're currently espousing food critic views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way."  Ed cetera.

The choices you make define you.  Acting like folks just "accidentally" became what they are is not honest.  If the point is to trick and deceive them into considering other options, then maybe playing to that will work.  But if the point is to get them to give other options honest consideration, then honesty must be used in dealing with them.

Also, it's important to remember that the majority of effective political action (using "political" in the broad sense, not the "machinery of the State" sense) is unfocused action.  Targeting a single individual for "conversion" rarely works.  When it does, it generally offers a horrible cost/benefit ratio in terms of man-hours spent compared to man-hours of useful activism gained by adding another activist.  Remember the image of the girl placing the flower in the barrel of the soldier's M16 during the Vietnam protests?  Do you think she converted him?  Do you think she was trying?  But she reached out to a whole country, and helped to convert many.

The point of effective political action is to convert the audience, not the apparent target.  Maybe one cop in a few thousand is going to be truly swayed if you politely discuss your views with him.  But if you breach the walls in the minds of the public; show them the gun in the room and the dirty little truths about the system they support, you can reach out to hundreds, thousands, or millions.  This is a postmodern world, and dry facts and statistics ain't going to sway the overwhelming majority out there.  Images sway them.  Ideas given form.  You need a jingle and an ad campaign, and ad successful campaigns often use shock tactics to get attention.

It's not always the best path.  But remembering who the actual target of activism is, is necessary if activism is going to be successful.

Joe

[tremendoustie]

Gotta disagree.  You are what you believe; the sum total of the choices that you make.  For example:

To put it another way, you are NOT a statist. You're currently espousing statist views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way.

Try it with a different belief system: "to put it another way, you are NOT a Christian. You're currently espousing Christian views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way,"

To be clear, I wasn't proposing that this sentence actually be said to people. I was saying that it's better not to label people, especially if you don't want them to accept that label for themselves.

If one were trying to dissuade a person from a Christian viewpoint, though, I would think using the second type of phrase would be more effective.

or "to put it another way, you are NOT a food critic. You're currently espousing food critic views, but I think if you continue to explore various ideas, you'll find that there's a better way."  Ed cetera.

Well, that's different. Food critic is a job, not a belief.

The choices you make define you.  Acting like folks just "accidentally" became what they are is not honest.  If the point is to trick and deceive them into considering other options, then maybe playing to that will work.  But if the point is to get them to give other options honest consideration, then honesty must be used in dealing with them.

I wouldn't want to be dishonest, that's for sure. I guess it doesn't seem dishonest to me. It seems like the less you label a person, the more they feel like they can change their views.

Language can be manipulative though ... so I guess it's important to not go too far with this. You don't want to be slimy. I just think it's better to oppose the action, rather than the person, so that they don't feel that they themselves are the enemy -- but their actions are.

Also, it's important to remember that the majority of effective political action (using "political" in the broad sense, not the "machinery of the State" sense) is unfocused action.  Targeting a single individual for "conversion" rarely works.  When it does, it generally offers a horrible cost/benefit ratio in terms of man-hours spent compared to man-hours of useful activism gained by adding another activist.  Remember the image of the girl placing the flower in the barrel of the soldier's M16 during the Vietnam protests?  Do you think she converted him?  Do you think she was trying?  But she reached out to a whole country, and helped to convert many.

That's a good point. The impact on observers should be considered as well. I hadn't thought that through carefully -- but it's hard to imagine that "You're an XYZ" type statements would be more appealing to observers, than "What you're doing is wrong" type statements. I'd think the latter would make your activism more positive, and appealing to them.

The point of effective political action is to convert the audience, not the apparent target.  Maybe one cop in a few thousand is going to be truly swayed if you politely discuss your views with him.  But if you breach the walls in the minds of the public; show them the gun in the room and the dirty little truths about the system they support, you can reach out to hundreds, thousands, or millions.  This is a postmodern world, and dry facts and statistics ain't going to sway the overwhelming majority out there.  Images sway them.  Ideas given form.  You need a jingle and an ad campaign, and ad successful campaigns often use shock tactics to get attention.

That's true, it's a good point I hadn't fully considered. We need to think about the broader audience, rather than only the immediate one.

It's not always the best path.  But remembering who the actual target of activism is, is necessary if activism is going to be successful.

Joe

I agree. I think it's worth putting some thought into the best way to speak and act, in order to be maximally appealing to the target audience -- remembering that their current perspective is different than yours. (see how I said "current" there, implying that they can change their perspective? )

[MaineShark]

To be clear, I wasn't proposing that this sentence actually be said to people. I was saying that it's better not to label people, especially if you don't want them to accept that label for themselves.

If one were trying to dissuade a person from a Christian viewpoint, though, I would think using the second type of phrase would be more effective.

I'm not a Christian, but based upon my experience, I expect most Christians would be upset at being told that they are not actually Christians.

In my experience, recognizing voluntary group affiliations is better than denying them.  Something that boils down to, "I don't think you're really X; you just follow that system, but I think you should change" is going to fail in most cases, because it starts out by presuming the individual being spoken to is insincere, and he'll shut down once he realizes that (probably all the more quickly if he actually is insincere, because he will be very insecure about his image).

Something that boils down to, "I realize that you are an X, and you are obviously devoted to that belief system, but I'd like you to consider Y" is more likely to reach out to someone.  Ir presumes sincerity and asks for consideration of change, rather than presuming insincerity and making change out to be no big deal (because the subject is insincere).

Well, that's different. Food critic is a job, not a belief.

You don't know many food critics, do you?

I wouldn't want to be dishonest, that's for sure. I guess it doesn't seem dishonest to me. It seems like the less you label a person, the more they feel like they can change their views.

The thing is, they label themselves, too.  Labeling others is just human nature.  What really determines the value of labeling is not whether one admits to it, but what the labels are based-upon.  In any case, since individuals label themselves, it's important to recognize that.  Most individuals actually have multiple labels for themselves.  It can be a source of control, if used right.  Go up to a cop and start a conversation with, "you're a cop, right?"  Sure, he's going to look at you funny for stating the obvious, but he's also going to be in "cop mode" immediately.  Ask him directions, and you're going to get directions delivered in whatever image he has deep in his psyche about the most "cop-like" way to deliver directions.  Let's say that you know he's a big Patriots fan.  Now start the conversation with, "hey, that was some game last night," and then ask for directions.  His demeanor will be quite different.

Labels (and the categories they are attached to) are useful things.

That's a good point. The impact on observers should be considered as well. I hadn't thought that through carefully -- but it's hard to imagine that "You're an XYZ" type statements would be more appealing to observers, than "What you're doing is wrong" type statements. I'd think the latter would make your activism more positive, and appealing to them.

Depends what one is trying to do.  If you're trying to provoke a response, which is the goal of large portions of civil disobedience, then provocation may be needed.

Mockery can also be very powerful.  I always like the clowns vs. white power meme.  It's certainly not polite, and doesn't make any attempt to "de-label" the white power folks, but it certainly reached the crowd, and the larger audience who read articles and watched videos.

I agree. I think it's worth putting some thought into the best way to speak and act, in order to be maximally appealing to the target audience -- remembering that their current perspective is different than yours. (see how I said "current" there, implying that they can change their perspective?   )

Indeed.  I often use L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach as an example.  Non-libertarians who've been convinced to read it often complain that it leaps to conclusions (eg, "he just states that crime is low because everyone is armed, but never explains why").  Anarchists or the minarchists who are closest to taking the plunge often complain that it beats the audience over the head, explaining the blatantly-obvious.  Regardless of whether Smith really made it a conscious goal, the book is written with "mainstream" libertarians (and particularly LP-type libertarians) as the target audience, with the goal of pushing them to be more extreme.  So "extreme" libertarians view it as an interesting, but pedantic read.  And non-libertarians tend to view it as trash.  Because neither group is the target audience.

The real difficulty in crafting truly-effective activism isn't coming up with a way to reach X group and deliver Y message.  Anyone with the least understanding of marketing can do that.  The real difficulty in crafting truly-effective activism is making the target audience wide.  You need to use one tactic to reach one group, and a different tactic to reach a different group, and a third tactic to reach another group.  And you need to do it without one tactic pissing off one of the other target groups.  Which, I suppose, is why grassroots, small-scale activism is more effective; the problem grows exponentially as the target audience grows.

Joe

[tremendoustie]

To be clear, I wasn't proposing that this sentence actually be said to people. I was saying that it's better not to label people, especially if you don't want them to accept that label for themselves.

If one were trying to dissuade a person from a Christian viewpoint, though, I would think using the second type of phrase would be more effective.

I'm not a Christian, but based upon my experience, I expect most Christians would be upset at being told that they are not actually Christians.

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't saying that ... I was only saying it's better to focus on opposing the belief. What's more, "statist" is a negative term -- negative labels are what I was mainly referring to -- saying a person is a thug, agressor, etc, rather than criticising the action.

Incidentally, I'm a Christian. Suppose, for example, you wanted to convince me that miracles cannot occur. You could say, "You are an unscientific person", or, "Christians are unscientific people", or you could say, "Miracles are an unscientific idea." Which of these three do you think is likely to lead to a substantive discussion, and which do you think is likely to cause a defensive reaciton?

In my experience, recognizing voluntary group affiliations is better than denying them.  Something that boils down to, "I don't think you're really X; you just follow that system, but I think you should change" is going to fail in most cases, because it starts out by presuming the individual being spoken to is insincere, and he'll shut down once he realizes that (probably all the more quickly if he actually is insincere, because he will be very insecure about his image).

Right ... I would never suggest saying this to someone. It's more about not slapping negative labels on people, rather than denying voluntary associations they have.

Something that boils down to, "I realize that you are an X, and you are obviously devoted to that belief system, but I'd like you to consider Y" is more likely to reach out to someone.  Ir presumes sincerity and asks for consideration of change, rather than presuming insincerity and making change out to be no big deal (because the subject is insincere).

I think that's a very good approach -- assuming X is not inherently negative. If X is "statist", "thug", etc, I don't think you're going to get very far.

Well, that's different. Food critic is a job, not a belief.

You don't know many food critics, do you?

Lol -- admittedly no

I wouldn't want to be dishonest, that's for sure. I guess it doesn't seem dishonest to me. It seems like the less you label a person, the more they feel like they can change their views.

The thing is, they label themselves, too.  Labeling others is just human nature.  What really determines the value of labeling is not whether one admits to it, but what the labels are based-upon.  In any case, since individuals label themselves, it's important to recognize that.  Most individuals actually have multiple labels for themselves.  It can be a source of control, if used right.  Go up to a cop and start a conversation with, "you're a cop, right?"  Sure, he's going to look at you funny for stating the obvious, but he's also going to be in "cop mode" immediately.  Ask him directions, and you're going to get directions delivered in whatever image he has deep in his psyche about the most "cop-like" way to deliver directions.  Let's say that you know he's a big Patriots fan.  Now start the conversation with, "hey, that was some game last night," and then ask for directions.  His demeanor will be quite different.

Labels (and the categories they are attached to) are useful things.

These are good observations.

I think I should have been clearer that I was mainly talking about negative labels. I think directly critiquing a wrong belief or behavior, and attempting to separate a person from that belief or behavior, is more effective than attacking a person's character.

That's a good point. The impact on observers should be considered as well. I hadn't thought that through carefully -- but it's hard to imagine that "You're an XYZ" type statements would be more appealing to observers, than "What you're doing is wrong" type statements. I'd think the latter would make your activism more positive, and appealing to them.

Depends what one is trying to do.  If you're trying to provoke a response, which is the goal of large portions of civil disobedience, then provocation may be needed.

Mockery can also be very powerful.  I always like the clowns vs. white power meme.  It's certainly not polite, and doesn't make any attempt to "de-label" the white power folks, but it certainly reached the crowd, and the larger audience who read articles and watched videos.

That's true.

I agree. I think it's worth putting some thought into the best way to speak and act, in order to be maximally appealing to the target audience -- remembering that their current perspective is different than yours. (see how I said "current" there, implying that they can change their perspective?   )

Indeed.  I often use L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach as an example.  Non-libertarians who've been convinced to read it often complain that it leaps to conclusions (eg, "he just states that crime is low because everyone is armed, but never explains why").  Anarchists or the minarchists who are closest to taking the plunge often complain that it beats the audience over the head, explaining the blatantly-obvious.  Regardless of whether Smith really made it a conscious goal, the book is written with "mainstream" libertarians (and particularly LP-type libertarians) as the target audience, with the goal of pushing them to be more extreme.  So "extreme" libertarians view it as an interesting, but pedantic read.  And non-libertarians tend to view it as trash.  Because neither group is the target audience.

The real difficulty in crafting truly-effective activism isn't coming up with a way to reach X group and deliver Y message.  Anyone with the least understanding of marketing can do that.  The real difficulty in crafting truly-effective activism is making the target audience wide.  You need to use one tactic to reach one group, and a different tactic to reach a different group, and a third tactic to reach another group.  And you need to do it without one tactic pissing off one of the other target groups.  Which, I suppose, is why grassroots, small-scale activism is more effective; the problem grows exponentially as the target audience grows.

Joe

That's also a good observation.

I suppose the broader point is that in many interactions, it's important to carefully consider what your specific goal is, who your audience is, and to consider the approach and words you should use, in order to maximise your effectiveness at reaching that goal.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of your audience, and consider what would be the most effective means to reach you.

Hopefully the approach I suggested in the OP will prove useful in certain circumstances.

[MaineShark]

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't saying that ... I was only saying it's better to focus on opposing the belief. What's more, "statist" is a negative term -- negative labels are what I was mainly referring to -- saying a person is a thug, agressor, etc, rather than criticising the action.

I generally don't criticize folks for positive attributes.

Incidentally, I'm a Christian. Suppose, for example, you wanted to convince me that miracles cannot occur. You could say, "You are an unscientific person", or, "Christians are unscientific people", or you could say, "Miracles are an unscientific idea." Which of these three do you think is likely to lead to a substantive discussion, and which do you think is likely to cause a defensive reaciton?

Ah, but that's a different situation.  What if I were trying to convince you that Christianity, itself, is wrong?  As I would be doing with a Statist...

Right ... I would never suggest saying this to someone. It's more about not slapping negative labels on people, rather than denying voluntary associations they have.

Sometimes, the negative label is the only one that fits.  If someone voluntarily chooses to support torture and murder, there's not much to be done about that; he is murderous.  Little to be done to soften the blow (but, as I've noted, he's not likely worth the effort - convince someone else who can be convinced, and let the murderous one learn by example instead of direct teaching).

I think that's a very good approach -- assuming X is not inherently negative. If X is "statist", "thug", etc, I don't think you're going to get very far.

Again, depends who you are trying to reach.  Others will respond to forthrightness in varying ways, as well.

If you're trying to reach that individual, directly, you can try to find terms that don't have the same level of negative connotation, but if someone is doing negative things, you're not going to be able to avoid negative terms; just possibly soften the blow a bit.

I think I should have been clearer that I was mainly talking about negative labels. I think directly critiquing a wrong belief or behavior, and attempting to separate a person from that belief or behavior, is more effective than attacking a person's character.

For the most part, beliefs and character go together.

I suppose the broader point is that in many interactions, it's important to carefully consider what your specific goal is, who your audience is, and to consider the approach and words you should use, in order to maximise your effectiveness at reaching that goal.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of your audience, and consider what would be the most effective means to reach you.

Yup.  It's always a balancing act.

Back during the US presidential primaries, some Hillary campaign worker stopped by the house.  I'm not going to waste time on him, nor am I going to see him again (where it might be justified to plant seeds that could later be watered).  So I just said, "we don't support fascists," and closed the door.  Now, "fascist" has strong negative connotations for most folks.  But, more importantly, it's a term which is heavily used by Democrats to describe their opponents.  I had only a few seconds to get some sort of message across, so I just went for the "cognitive dissonance" route, to see if I could shake him up a bit.  Probably didn't do anything.  But maybe there was one chance in a hundred that it caused him to stop and think, and wonder why "his" candidate was called something she might tend to call others.  It's what fit the opening I had.

Cognitive dissonance can be a powerful thing.  It will often cause the recipient to build walls and do the ostrich thing, but when it does break through, you can find someone making a major leap in a very short time, bypassing months or years of slow progression.

On the other hand, I've spent time on some forums that are heavily GOP-dominated, just presenting views that are a few percent further towards liberty than the pack.  Someone says that everyone except felons should be able to own guns, so I point out that there are a lot of non-violent felonies, like copyright infringement and the like.  I'm not bashing them with a two-by-four; I'm just gently goading them.  And a lot have slowly come around.

Or consider the 420 protests, and Matt Simon's rants against them.  Difference of audiences.  His audience is the legislature, and the protests are inimical to most of them.  The protesters' audience is the people and large.  And a large number of them have been reached by those protests.

It's all about studying the audience, and matching the message to them.  Sometimes silently staring down the approaching tank is the best option.  Sometimes engaging the enemy in discussion will get the message across.  And sometimes, it's, "hell no, we won't go!" that catapults the idea into the minds of the public.  And, in most cases, it requires some mix.

The biggest strength of grassroots activism is that no individual or small group can order the mix soured.  The biggest weakness of grassroots activism is that no individual or small group can act if they see the mix going sour.  It's a double-edged sword.

Joe

[Patrick Shields]

I think it is mainly a framing issue. If I say "You ARE this thing, and this thing is BAD", you're cornering that person and they will likely have strong resistance to conceding points, because it's a matter of their identity. If I say "This thing is bad, and although you choose to support this thing, you don't have to", it is easier for them to agree. It seems like it's something that's probably all over psychology textbooks.

Sure, it's not law, but I think it's a good rule of thumb, especially for those people who could realistically be converted. (And, unlike Maineshark, I'm not fully convinced that conversion is never the most viable use of an activist's time.)