Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Vindictive Protectiveness

  1. #1
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Vindictive Protectiveness

    Many of us have read on this forum about incidents where OCers have dealt with people who claim guns are "offensive", that OCers have no right to scare people, etc. Many of us have asked "how do you deal with someone who..." The online discussions generally exhibit a lot of head-shaking, "I don't understand how a person could think/say that" responses and the consensus is that they can't seem to discuss the issue rationally.

    It turns out this is true--they aren't thinking rationally, so rational arguments cannot easily or quickly overcome their emotions. There is a very interesting article that addresses the root of this behavior in this month's Atlantic magazine
    FUQ:
    Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” ...But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong. Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your emotional responses represents something true or important...Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense.
    The title of this thread is a term they coin in the article to describe a new, aggressive form of political correctness. The old political correctness was "You shouldn't say that." The new PC is "Nobody should have to hear that. It's wrong to say that, and you should be punished for saying it. We're going to engage in a campaign to make you sorry you ever even thought it." Groups like Moms Demand Action are the epitome of vindictive protectiveness. Their attitude is "We shouldn't have to see guns. In fact, nobody should have guns, and anybody that thinks they should is morally wrong, and we'll make a big fuss until we get our way." Further, the article illustrates how colleges are tolerating--if not actively promoting--these behaviors and thus cranking out thousands of emotionally fragile, vindictively protective Millenials who genuinely believe that they have the fundamental right to go through life without ever having to deal with anything unpleasant, and anyone who doesn't believe/comply with that must be punished. So basically, it's only going to get worse.

    I would argue the increase in road rage is another example of emotional reasoning--and the belief that no one has the right to inconvenience you--run amok: "I'm a good driver. You somehow interfered with me getting where I want to go at the speed I chose to get there. Therefore you are a bad driver and you should be punished. Since no one else will do it, I will harass/punish you myself."

    Although the article's primary focus is on colleges, OCers have experienced many of the same effects of "emotional reasoning" first-hand. In the interest of "knowing thy enemy," I think OCers would find it helpful to understand the concepts discussed in the article (labeling, selection bias, over-generalization, catastrophizing, etc.). It's not difficult to see how Psychologically Fragile Gun Control Dingbats (PFGCDs) are applying emotional reasoning in confronting or complaining about OC. Thus, we have to think more like a therapist and less like a 2A-rights activist when dealing with them. I'll illustrate with a paraphrase of a paragraph from the article:

    According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. A person who fears {guns} may panic and think she is going to die when {she sees one}. That frightening experience can change neural connections in her amygdala, leading to a {gun} phobia. If you want this woman to retain her fear for life, you should help her avoid {guns}. But if you want to help her return to normalcy, you should take your cues from Ivan Pavlov and guide her through a process known as exposure therapy.
    I've always been a fan of the Socratic tactic of responding with questions as much as possible, and this article reinforces that belief: it's basically the talk-therapy the authors advocate. Rather than bludgeon the PFGCD with facts (which they won't acknowledge), try to patiently guide/trick them into examining their own irrational beliefs. Rather than defending your position, which gives them something to attack, focus on asking questions which force them to defend their assumptions and beliefs. Be patient and don't raise your voice even when they do (Love thine enemies. It will drive them crazy.). This will put the PFGCD on the defensive and they won't be able to get any traction.

    P.S. I'm sure the responses here will be full of creative attempts to re-define their term "trigger warning" :smile:
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    You're not Socrates. In my work we called it malicious compliance.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hadji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    Rather than bludgeon the PFGCD with facts (which they won't acknowledge), try to patiently guide/trick them into examining their own irrational beliefs. Rather than defending your position, which gives them something to attack, focus on asking questions which force them to defend their assumptions and beliefs.
    An intriguing concept.
    What is an exmaple question that might invoke that response?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. -Citizen

  5. #5
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Subtle ?

    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by hadji View Post
    An intriguing concept.
    What is an example question that might invoke that response?
    It depends, and there's a nearly-infinite combination of questions and counter-questions. I think you need to assess what they're specifically afraid/ignorant of based on what they say. I think it's also vital to quickly determine whether they're being confrontational or genuinely curious (getting all Socratic on someone who's just seeking information will frustrate them to no end).

    If they say something like "you can't have that here"/"you can't wear a gun like that" [#7 Overgeneralizing} it suggests that they're ignorant of the law, so I'd open with "Really? What law [or rule, or corporate policy, as applicable to the situation] says that?" That will probably be enough to end that line of attack, but if necessary continue to peel that onion (Do you know the situations to which that law applies? Can you cite the specific code section? etc.) until they can't ignore the fact that they have no idea. Of course, you need to know the laws/rules/policies very well (or at least have them available on your smartphone) for that to work.

    As the article implies, some people just don't want to have to contemplate unpleasantness, so they might ask/order you "to cover that up" so they can feel safer. So attack this as Emotional Reasoning {#11}: "The gun will still be here, so how will that change anything?"

    If they're expressing fear {#6 Negative Filtering} ("What's to stop you from killing everyone in here?"), explore that: "Have I done anything [or What have I done] to make you think I might be violent?" The strategy is to ask questions that force them to examine why they feel you're a threat, until they realize that it's only the inanimate object that scares them. "Have you ever seen a mass-murderer shopping for ice cream with his 5-year-old daughter?" "If you think I'm so scary, why are you talking to me instead of running away?"

    If they're Mind-Reading {#1}or Labeling {#4} ("you must be compensating for something" or "it must be sad to live in fear all the time"), then I'd ask "Why do you think you know what my thoughts are, or how my experiences have shaped me?"

    I'm sure others can chime in with equally good or better examples.
    Last edited by Eeyore; 08-14-2015 at 04:32 PM.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Wink Fun way to pass the time

    Hey, kids! Try this fun scavenger hunt:

    Start with the list of cognitive disorders at the bottom of the article, then go to the Moms Demand Action website and find examples of all twelve.

    Of course, that'll only take about 10 minutes. For a bonus round, find an article or speech by Wayne LaPierre and do the same thing.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    "...uh, you must not be too concerned, you walked right up to a dude with a pistol on his hip to complain about the pistol on his hip."

    Me thinks, the overthinking in this thread is...misapplied.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I personally have to say I'm disgusted with the idea of validating their ideas by any attempt at persuasion or really even logical debate.
    It's one of those vile movements that deserves no other response than "Go eat a bowl of *****!"

    On a personal note I will confess to intentionally using some of the most vile, offensive language (stuff I would never personally use normally) in the most matter-of-fact way in conversation with a certain progressive libtard in-law who is a strong supporter of the new PC movement just to remind her of what offensive speech really is. She might get in a huff if you use the word "oriental" but shocked silence and (hopefully) nightmares is all that followed after that chat.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Just call them a idiot and wait to see what happens...you do have a pistol on your hip.

    You'd be surprised how quickly the presence of the pistol is forgotten.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •