Tactics Used by Malicious People in Discussions

Communication, which makes up a large part of our daily lives, may not always be trouble-free and ill-intentioned. The ulterior motive can bring with it various manipulation methods.
 Tactics Used by Malicious People in Discussions
READING NOW Tactics Used by Malicious People in Discussions

Have you ever thought that in almost every conversation and discussion, the other party may use various argumentation methods or misconceptions to get you to accept their point of view?

These discussion methods and misconceptions may be used in your daily life more often than you think. We have compiled 10 of them for you and explained them with examples.

“Ad Hominem” or “Personal Slander Sophism”, a tactic of attacking one’s personality during an argument.

Those who resort to this misconception target the personality of the other party instead of expressing their opinion on the issue being discussed. Thus, they think that they have proved the other party wrong.

However, this situation only indicates that the party who made this mistake has no valid argument.

“You’re just a pavement engineer! Who the hell are you to teach me how to fix my car?”
“I will not comment on this argument. The one who told me that is our worst enemy! Don’t believe it!”

The fallacy of “Tu Quoque” or “But you too…” is the inconsistency of trying to justify someone’s mistake by pointing out your fault.

Those who resort to this fallacy argue that the mistake of one side justifies the mistake of the other party. In other words, the other party makes the same mistake by using your mistake as an excuse and blames you as the main responsible.

This fallacy can also be counted as an “ad hominem” since it falls under the category of attack on the person.

“Arif beats everyone every day, but once I hit someone, am I a criminal?”
“You cheated on me, and I cheated on you. What’s wrong here?”

The “Kafka Trap”, the irrationality of treating the accused as a criminal in self-defense.

Suppose a person or group has already decided that you are guilty.

While defending yourself and trying to prove the contrary, defending yourself makes you guilty. Because they see you proving yourself as proof of crime. After defending yourself, you are often faced with arguments such as:

“You broke all these vases and you say, “I didn’t do it!”
“What do you mean you don’t know? You definitely have a hand in this.”

The “false dilemma” is the misconception that you only have two options on an issue.

In the video above, George W. Bush said several times, “You’re either with us or with the terrorists!” word is included.

People don’t want to take sides on some issues. Sometimes they may not be in a position to make one choice and sacrifice the other. Therefore, the false dilemma is unfounded.

The party applying this method may want to control the other party or to adopt their own views.

“Tell me! Which side do you choose! Us or them?”
“You’re either with me or against me. There’s no in between!”

“Scarecrow Logic Error” or “Strawman Fallacy” is when someone takes an argument and distorts what you’re saying and makes you a target.

Let’s say you gave a long speech in front of a large audience. You have arranged everything word for word as the audience expects, without saying anything wrong, and waiting for the audience’s questions.

Someone from the crowd comes out and distorts your words by making irrelevant inferences. While you are trying to explain yourself, the crowd gets angry and starts to blame you. You are being targeted. You suddenly become a “scarecrow” or a “scapegoat”!

“He’s constantly criticizing our society, but he doesn’t give a damn when it comes to foreigners. This person is a traitor!”
“Analyze his words carefully. His tone is very hostile. What does “You can say whatever you want, I don’t interfere” mean? Is our opinion worth nothing?”

The “Compromise Delusion” is the mistake of assuming that two parties that normally cannot be reconciled can be reconciled.

It has to be accepted that life can sometimes present you with inextricable situations.

The two people or parties arguing may not want to make any concessions to the other party. In such cases, it is not logically possible to reach a compromise.

“I have an idea! I know you’re very offended, but why don’t you go and try to reach a compromise? Maybe it will work!”
“For peace to be achieved, both sides have to make concessions. It doesn’t change anything if one side is wrong.”

The “Astonishing Question” is a tactic of asking questions that are overly loaded and that the other party would be ashamed to answer.

Imagine you are asking a question. But your goal isn’t to get a response, it’s to embarrass the other person for what they’ve done. Asking the “surprising question” falls into this category.

The person to whom the question is asked often feels guilty and remains silent because they cannot answer your question or come up with a logical answer.

“I haven’t forgotten any of what happened. Have you stopped stealing money from the safe?”
“Why are you here? Are you going to beat me like you beat him?”

The “Tweezer Sophistry” is the tactic of picking only the parts of someone’s words that will work for you and ignoring the rest of the conversation.

Imagine you are picking cherries in a garden. When picking cherries, your goal is not to collect all the cherries, you just pick the cherries you like, “tweezers”.

Now consider the same method in a discussion. The other party may choose only the parts of your words that will justify itself and try to justify itself.

This method is called “cherry picking” in English, as in our first example.

“Your tone was critical and hostile when you talked about women in part of your speech. Well, women weren’t perfect either.”
“You said we would solve this problem together. What, are you inadequate alone? Are we your servant?”

“False Equivalence”, the inconsistency of two unrelated situations being presented as being equal.

Presenting an opinion that has nothing to do with the topic and not being relevant to the current situation is false equivalence.

You witness a sudden departure from the subject and inferences that would not normally be made. You don’t know what to say to the other party, you think to yourself, “What does it matter?” comes to shout.

“You’re telling me not to bullshit because you can’t digest my talking.”
“So… is that why you were there that day?”

The “Historic Fallacy” is the mistake you will make if you criticize people who lived in the past according to today’s conditions.

As you can imagine, there is a gap between the past and the present, both technologically and socially.

A situation that is taboo or not possible today may be a normal situation centuries ago or a problem that has not yet been resolved.

If we do not have clear information about the customs, traditions, norms, political situation and social structure of that time, it is unreasonable to make a definite inference.

“Why was trade so stagnant in the 11th century? How ridiculous with so many trade routes and opportunities!”
“Did so many people die from chickenpox? But chickenpox isn’t a deadly disease!”

What do you think about these misconceptions and discussion methods? Which ones have you come across so far?

Sources: University of North Carolina, Purdue University, University of Texas

Comments
Leave a Comment

Details
138 read
okunma55545
0 comments