The abrupt finish

Have you had one of those long arguments, where someone’s really pushing a grudge they’re holding (not necessarily against you), pulling out strawman after strawman, failing to give sources and so on and so forth, but…

…then eventually after making you do the hard yards to prove the innocence of the object of their contempt, or at least prove that there isn’t any evidence (which they could have worked out themselves with a little homework), they grant that okay, yes, they don’t have any evidence – and then that’s it?

Now that you’ve proven your point, at least until they work themselves up again, the discussion is over. “Yes, yes, you were right on these points, goodnight.”

I’m not talking about petty nothings either. Who should have won The World Cup. Who’d win out of Spiderman and Superman.

No, I’m talking about things that matter. Arguments over matters that have, or arguments that themselves have, consequences for social or political inclusion. The kind of arguments where the consequences of baseless grudges and accusations can really matter. Especially if they catch on.

Someone ventures such a baseless accusation and you call them on it.

Suddenly, they casually switch off a discussion where you’ve been pretty damn patient, all things considered. You’ve dealt with their core accusation and weathered the manifold, auxiliary, ad hoc accusations. You’ve managed to point out that in all of it, they haven’t produced a single shred of evidence – just bare assertion and misrepresentation.

Then, when you’ve worked so hard at it, they get to decide that the trial ends then and there, making token concessions but not really ceding anything, and being able to make the same accusations tomorrow, with the same lack of evidence, and the same lack of consequence, as if your argument never happened.

***

Perhaps you’ve been the target of one of the ad hoc accusations that make up the manifold of diversionary tactics.

Them: “X is just taking advantage of a cult of personality!”

You: “What cult of personality? And one accusation at a time, thanks, we haven’t finished with your first one!”

Them: “You’re defending X, and you ask what cult of personality? You’re just a fan!”

Perhaps you’re just a fan of fair-mindedness. You may not even remotely like the person(s) your interlocutor is attacking, but all the same you’ve been attacked you in order to divert attention away from the validity of your criticisms.

So often you wind up with these artless dodgers, these mongers of rotten red herrings, deciding the terms and conditions of the discussion. How come?

It seems odd that these people can slip out of a tight spot so easily, to be so at ease, to have such a wide margin of error, to even get nothing right about a serious argument they themselves started out of caprice, and still come out squeaky clean. To come out with the greater share of the in-group benefits. More social inclusion. More power.

Because lets face it, if they weren’t privileged somehow, they’d never get away with it. They’d be cut down the way you’d be cut down for getting it only half as wrong.

Which brings us to you. You’re left waiting for the next round of the same old same old. For them to make the prejudicial accusation. Again…

You’re just left with a lull, why they go off to bed to sleep without a worry. Received wisdom is on their side. It’s going to be obvious if you make a mistake and maybe this keeps you up at night.

Even when you don’t make a mistake, they can make one for you. Twist a word. Add an inference. Read connotations that wouldn’t be read into what you say by anyone who paid attention to the context. Lop off a qualifying remark. Take hearsay for granted and assume that it represents your view on the world, because everyone knows people like you think like that.

And even if they’re called on it and even if it’s shown how you’ve been misrepresented, there are no consequences. At least not for anyone other than you. Any such public hearing can easily be brought to an abrupt finish, especially given that your interlocutors probably aren’t entirely aware that they’re doing it. They don’t think about it because they don’t have to.

Such privilege.

This makes participation in public discussion difficult for you and perhaps you wonder why it’s this way. Why it is that you can make reasonable requests for fairness and honesty, and be viewed as a monster, while others can play hard and fast with the truth and be seen at least as non-controversial?

Your interlocutor sleeps well, because there aren’t any consequences to keep you up at night when objections can be turned off like a light. They can walk through the next day, well rested and without a care until they feel the urge to carelessly act up again.

The cycle repeats. Accusation. No evidence. Ad hoc generation of spurious charges. Dismissal. Goodnight. The abrupt finish.

***

Breaking the cycle is tricky. At what point?

Do you walk away prior to your dismissal? No. If your interlocutor is so bloody minded that they can accuse without evidence, impugn your judgement in ways not subject to evidence, how do you think they’ll receive your retreat? How do you think the like-minded will interpret your withdrawal? Going back to your “cult”? Going back to “your people”? Hiding from criticism?

Voluntary social exclusion will only perpetuate social exclusion.

Perhaps if you don’t challenge them. Perhaps if you nod your head and say “yes, yes” and cosy up to this privileged crowd, they won’t see you as a threat and then they’ll take on board what you have to say… When you decide to say it… Or not, because you’ve decided not to upset them, and you wouldn’t want to be chucked out in the cold.

I’m sorry, but I have to say this don’t rock the boat approach seems to have a flaw in it. You get close to them to say what you want, but you don’t say what you want because then you won’t be close enough to say it. And in the meantime you enjoy the canapés.

And besides the obvious self-defeating strategy, it’s next to impossible to distinguish from just crawling up people’s arse to enjoy the fringe benefits. You may find your brothers and sisters don’t take to your plan with the utmost enthusiasm. Put down that canapé, there’s work to do.

Refusing the dismissal? Perhaps this is the angle you want. At the very least it seems to lack fatal flaws like the above two approaches. Perhaps it depends on how you take the metaphor. Do you want to be arguing in to the small hours of the morning, metaphorically or literally?

Keeping in mind that we’re talking about matters that matter, and entrenched privilege, mere late-night Internet argument (or discourse about as productive) probably isn’t what you should have in mind.

I think the only solution left is this…

They can bring an abrupt finish with a goodnight, but you can bring an abrupt new beginning with a timely good morning.

Which is to say, prepare your case and in your own time, go on the attack.

Don’t simply respond to their allegations. If you’ve been doing that ad nauseam, and doing it to the best of your ability in good faith, there are three things you need to recognise:

• More of the same is just more of the same and if your good faith isn’t good enough for them, more of the same is what you’re going to get.
• If you’ve been arguing in good faith, ad nauseam, you have a track record. You have evidence.
• If you continue arguing ad nauseam, and you don’t change tack, at some point you’ll test the patience of your allies just that bit too far. Then it’s game over.

This isn’t a case of attacking your interlocutor to defend the argument of X. That’s a separate issue.

This is a case of attacking your interlocutor, because through their ample track record of bad faith, they’ve made themselves a legitimate target of criticism.

Put another way, it’s not that your interlocutor is prejudiced towards X, therefore X is all rainbows and twee; it’s that your interlocutor has acted this, and this, and this way toward X, therefore your interlocutor is prejudiced.

If your interlocutor is anyone of note, with noteworthy privilege and opinion that carries weight, they’re worth going after.

If this sounds too aggressive, and you’d like to engage in diplomacy, please consider… That bit about the ad nauseam – that’s diplomacy. If it’s gone this far, diplomacy has failed and you’ve given it your best shot. If it’s gone this far, you’ve got a track record to demonstrate your attempts at diplomacy.

You can point to this track record when people criticise your apparent aggression.

Yes, an aggressive approach can polarise. There are risks. But there are risks of inaction as well.

Yes, people will talk of “growing incivility” as if no precedent for incivility had already been set by their own privileged in-group. Since when has this ever not been the case when the member of an out-group speaks out?

You need to remember that the people making these kinds of accusations are usually in a position not to have to give them much thought. That’s part and parcel of being a privileged in-group. Take these accusations as seriously as the thought and evidence provided to support them.

***

The aggressive approach may mean complaining to radio stations. It may mean writing in to television stations, or firing off emails to the editors of online media. It may mean organising petitions, or filing complains with ACMA or the media regulatory bodies in your jurisdiction. It may mean making a formal complaint against University staff (not because they are offensive per se, but because of the poor and prejudiced quality of their argument and the consequences thereof).

This isn’t to say that you advocate for censorship, but it doesn’t mean that your tolerance of free speech needs to result in free kick after free kick either. Nor should the aggressive approach lead one to launch vexatious or frivolous complains; again, if you’ve gone this far being fair and patient…

If you’ve gone this far, and been so fair and so patient, it’s time for you and yours to stop being put on trial. It’s time bring the cycle to an abrupt finish with an abrupt new beginning.

~ Bruce

Advertisement