What To Do When Confronting Offensive Speech… an article in the New York Times seeks to instruct us all in how to perform the important task of policing our fellow citizen’s speech.
A body of psychological research shows that even mild pushback against offensive remarks can have an instant effect — as difficult as that can be, especially with a boss, a friend or a celebrity.
You should be unsurprised that there are Important Academics scurrying around pulling all-nighters looking for ways to shut-you-the-hell-up. Pity for them that almost all psychological research is bunkum. And the stuff that isn’t bunkum is ideologically impure.
This mysterious ‘body of research’ is probably crap. But it’s also irrelevant. It’s no big breakthrough to discover that most of us don’t want to get into pointless arguments all the time. Especially with folks who are thoughtlessly towing the party line… they’ve not thought anything through and they’re unlikely to start now.
Oh yeah, in case you don’t know: ‘offensive remarks’ = anything that contradicts the New York Times ideology.
It is research worth considering in a political season when ethnic, racist and sexual slurs, not to mention general insults, seem to have become part of everyday chatter.
I.e. Saying things the New York Times doesn’t like.
Polls show that people are increasingly unhappy with the tenor of the national debate but unsure what to do about the decline in civility.
‘Civility’ = quietly accepting the New York Times ideology without question or criticism.
Researchers have detailed the difficulty of confronting prejudice, but they have also found that even the politest of objections — or subtle corrections to loaded words — can almost instantly curb a speaker’s behavior.
‘Prejudice’ = noticing patterns and mentioning them. When someone politely objects to my noticing patterns and mentioning them, I call them, in the politest way possible, BRAINWASHED FOOLS and then Goose-step grandly away.
With a clearer understanding of the dynamics of such confrontation, psychologists say, people can develop tactics that can shut down the unsavory talk.
With everyone doing sterling work in shutting down the unsavoury talk on the internet (see: Twitter, YouiTube, Reddit, 4Chan. Etc etc) important work still needs to be done in shutting down ‘unsavory talk’ in real life. Government funded psychologists are working on it!
There are many approaches people can use to stop talk they find noxious, say experts in what is known as bystander education. Among them: distraction, such as abruptly changing the subject.
“Hey! There’s a squirrel!”
“Even in the locker room, guys can change the conversation, they can spray people with water, or crank up the music,” Dr. Potter said.
The locker room water fight… I guess the ploy here is to distract them with homosexual flirting. It’ll do the trick. Dr Potter is an idiot.
Gail Stern, an educator and a co-founder of Catharsis Productions, which gives sexual violence prevention training on college campuses and in the military, said that one deft approach might be to assume that the speaker is being outrageous on purpose, and to respond with something like this: “I love satire. It’s so weird that people believe that for real and it’s so cool you called that out.”
These people are geniuses. I’m so glad they get paid so well through government grants. I can’t think of a better thing on which to spend tax dollars.
She calls that tactic “verbal aikido,”
Oh yeah, it’s verbal something alright.
David Fleischer, director of the Los Angeles LGBT Center’s Leadership Lab, often sends gay and transgender people into socially conservative districts to do face-to-face canvassing… And if you correct the language, just use different words yourself, and your tone and demeanor are kind, people are very responsive, and you don’t have to get into a screaming match.”
In a recent study, Mr. Fleischer and other researchers found that this kind of canvassing can soften the views of some 10 percent of voters — a large shift when it comes to political behavior, and one that has prompted wider training in such cordial, respectful “correcting” of language.
I see, we’re trying to make sure people with the Wrong Political Viewpoints are shamed into having the Correct Political Viewpoints.
I suggest that if one of these volunteer auxiliary thought police do-gooders ever confronts you with their lame New York Times endorsed techniques look at them with derision and dismiss them from your life.
And never ever apologise. And vote Trump.