…of rhetorical devices sometimes used by various organizations and personages to disrupt or control discussions through manipulation and distortion.
If someone is employing enough rhetorically manipulative devices, you should probably ignore them...unless you have no choice. Fortunately, on the Internet you've got a lot of choice. Too bad that there are folks that like to ruin forums by using these tactics, though. Here are three links to sources that can help you spot the kind of personalities that lead to dissension and disruption to any mediation process:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php
www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html
ezinearticles.com/
Understanding and dialog builds peace. Emotional rhetoric typically just builds walls.
(My apologies for how wordy the rest of this post is--emotional manipulation through rhetoric is not a simple subject; we are all human and there susceptible to thinking we're entirely clearheaded when the case may be far from the mark. The complexities are almost unfathomable when it comes to what some folks will resort to and the amount of energy, their's and others', when they want to get their way or achieve something...whatever that something may be.)
By becoming familiar with manipulative-disruptive verbal tactics, many of which are designed to wind us up emotionally, building up frustration levels rather than designed to lead to an agreement, acknowledging that these tactics often openly discount or denigrate the opinions of those of us who express honest and open opinions and who are trying to reach useful consensual conclusions, one may then switch to tactics of inclusion that reward better behavior to reduce the potential disruption to your particular discussion interest. Introducing the person(s) who resorts to emotional manipulation to these documented methods, which are very often counterproductive in dialog and more designed to create emotional sides than break them down so that rational consensus can be reached, can sometimes lead to successful resolution by making the problematic participants see the emotional manipulation that they themselves may feel is reasonable but appeals only to the irrational and those not able to stand their ground before an emotional assault.
Of course, to have a very successful peace mediation, all parties must leave in at least grudging agreement. However, in cases where the harm to a peace process is greater through inclusion than exclusion, it is often wise to exclude those personalities that cannot learn to talk dialog and openly with others...for whatever reason, stated or unstated...until they are ready into enter into a dialog where they are open to listening to another side...rather than just trying to emotionally browbeat it into the ground.
I do not post this lightly I might add. There is a history of such disruptions occurring in other progressive forums on tribe and it behooves all of us to 1) calm down and 2) ask ourselves if the use of these sorts of tactics are appropriate in any particular forum. Frankly, I think it is ashame that we even have to consider these things...but, again, it is part of learning what the differences are between peaceful dialog and disruptive emotional or verbal assault (aka "debate"; debate assumes an external judge to the two parties, "dialog" refers to a reasoned discussion between the participants...the two should not be confused...and there are certainly much gray area in between the two.)
I know that some of you hear are well aware of some of this sort of stuff. However, for those of you just dropping into this forum...and the lurkers...the links provided here may be quite useful in understanding some of the interactions that you may observe around the Internet and also in discussions regarding politics, peace, and war, domestic life, school, etc.
Understanding and dialog builds peace. Emotional rhetoric typically just builds walls.
If someone is employing enough rhetorically manipulative devices, you should probably ignore them...unless you have no choice. Fortunately, on the Internet you've got a lot of choice. Too bad that there are folks that like to ruin forums by using these tactics, though. Here are three links to sources that can help you spot the kind of personalities that lead to dissension and disruption to any mediation process:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php
www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html
ezinearticles.com/
Understanding and dialog builds peace. Emotional rhetoric typically just builds walls.
(My apologies for how wordy the rest of this post is--emotional manipulation through rhetoric is not a simple subject; we are all human and there susceptible to thinking we're entirely clearheaded when the case may be far from the mark. The complexities are almost unfathomable when it comes to what some folks will resort to and the amount of energy, their's and others', when they want to get their way or achieve something...whatever that something may be.)
By becoming familiar with manipulative-disruptive verbal tactics, many of which are designed to wind us up emotionally, building up frustration levels rather than designed to lead to an agreement, acknowledging that these tactics often openly discount or denigrate the opinions of those of us who express honest and open opinions and who are trying to reach useful consensual conclusions, one may then switch to tactics of inclusion that reward better behavior to reduce the potential disruption to your particular discussion interest. Introducing the person(s) who resorts to emotional manipulation to these documented methods, which are very often counterproductive in dialog and more designed to create emotional sides than break them down so that rational consensus can be reached, can sometimes lead to successful resolution by making the problematic participants see the emotional manipulation that they themselves may feel is reasonable but appeals only to the irrational and those not able to stand their ground before an emotional assault.
Of course, to have a very successful peace mediation, all parties must leave in at least grudging agreement. However, in cases where the harm to a peace process is greater through inclusion than exclusion, it is often wise to exclude those personalities that cannot learn to talk dialog and openly with others...for whatever reason, stated or unstated...until they are ready into enter into a dialog where they are open to listening to another side...rather than just trying to emotionally browbeat it into the ground.
I do not post this lightly I might add. There is a history of such disruptions occurring in other progressive forums on tribe and it behooves all of us to 1) calm down and 2) ask ourselves if the use of these sorts of tactics are appropriate in any particular forum. Frankly, I think it is ashame that we even have to consider these things...but, again, it is part of learning what the differences are between peaceful dialog and disruptive emotional or verbal assault (aka "debate"; debate assumes an external judge to the two parties, "dialog" refers to a reasoned discussion between the participants...the two should not be confused...and there are certainly much gray area in between the two.)
I know that some of you hear are well aware of some of this sort of stuff. However, for those of you just dropping into this forum...and the lurkers...the links provided here may be quite useful in understanding some of the interactions that you may observe around the Internet and also in discussions regarding politics, peace, and war, domestic life, school, etc.
Understanding and dialog builds peace. Emotional rhetoric typically just builds walls.
posted by:
|
