Important note: The Facebook fan page for "Demagogy for Dummies" is not affiliated with this website.

I apologize for the unplanned "vacation" - due to financial difficulties, I was unable to pay for the renewal of the domain name. I thank everyone who sent new demagogic tricks for the year-long existence of "Demagogy for Dummies". I would love to include them all in this guide. This is what I will be working on in the coming months.

You know how it is. You are relaxing in a bar or maybe in a library; or you are studying or surfing the internet, engaging in short conversations. The conversation turns to a trendy topic: you are talking about a group of people with whom you have nothing in common, who are absent from your world. And they are also subjected to terrible discrimination - at least they claim so. You calmly discuss the issue, getting closer and closer to the truth. It cannot be otherwise, because your conclusions are based on information from books, journals and scientific articles, not to mention your inner sense of infallibility.

Here is your unsurpassed ability to analyze anything is under surprise attack. One of the people you were talking about appears. It can be a colored or homosexual, a transvestite or a prostitute. He claims that you misunderstand everything and he, as a representative of this social group, is extremely offended by this. He is trying to tell you something, but you know in advance that this is meaningless and false information. You you can't be wrong.

What to do with it? Fortunately, there is a way out of this delicate situation. You should simply confuse him, divert the conversation from the topic, ridicule his life problems, criticize his conclusions, present his testimony as out of touch with reality and irrelevant nonsense. Thus, your opponent, as he was, will remain outside the society, and you, as before, will be considered an expert. I was not mistaken that you have a deep inner confidence that you are always right?

Then congratulations, you are a Privileged®!

This guide will teach you how to talk to the Outcasts™. By following these simple and step-by-step techniques, you can drown any uncomfortable discussion in demagogy and chatter and make your intellectual superiority even stronger and more invincible.

By the way, you don't have to actually be superior, i.e. be white when talking to a colored man, be heterosexual when talking to a homosexual, be upper class when talking to a lower class. The technique called "horizontal discrimination", will allow you to feel superior, even if you do not have such superiority! You may even belong to some Outcast™ social group yourself. The main thing is that you have a Privilege® that your opponent does not have!

Please read and try the following tips carefully. They do not have to be applied in the same order in which they are described. Combine them as your fantasy and intuition tells you. The thing is, the Outcasts™ have been through this many times, and if you're not creative and can spur their anger and irritation, the discussion will quickly become insipid and boring.

If you don't tell me, how will I know?

Although at first glance this technique may seem simple-minded, it has a cunning connotation.

First, you are shifting the responsibility for your enlightenment to the Outcast™. Since the topic is naturally very important to the Outcast™, the Outcast™ longingly waits for the Privileged® to start listening. When you put the responsibility on his shoulders, you are exploiting his expectation. I recommend asking as many questions as possible. The Outcast™ is so selfish that it wants you to learn on your own from the hundreds of resources available to you, just like any Privileged®. If you were self-taught, you would be acting like an adult, which you should never do!

Insist that you can only learn if they take the time Here and now. Most likely, they will not want to retell material that they have recounted hundreds of times, and will simply spit on you as hopeless. Thus you will win.

Moreover, you give the impression that you really want to study, they do not give you! Yes, yes, you really strive for understanding - to become a sympathetic, kind person - and it's not your fault that you don't succeed! Nobody taught you! Now add that the very person in front of you, who is obviously obligated to take care of your training, is depriving you of your Privilege® to receive training on a silver platter!

Which brings us to another key component of this move - it's very important when talking to Outcasts™ to constantly remind them that you are a Privileged®. By forcing Outcasts™ to cater to your every whim, you give them a place in society. After all, they did not come into this world to live a happy and fulfilling life! God forbid! Outcasts™ exist to satisfy your curiosity and make you feel better when you look at them and compare them to yourself. They must remember this!

One point for you!

If this question is important to you, you should enlighten me.

This technique is a natural extension of the previous one, but can be used independently.

There is such a situation: The Outcasts™ tell you that they are not obliged to enlighten you. This is because the Outcasts™ think that they have some more important priorities, such as work, school, family care.

It is clear that they simply misunderstand the situation - as a Privileged®, you have a lot more rights to their time than they do. Don't they want to make the world a better place? After all, it was they who pointed out to you that you were an insufferable brute. Therefore, it is their duty to enlighten you!

By shifting the responsibility to their shoulders, you prove once again to the Outcasts™ that they have a very difficult task - to serve the Privileged® - to which they must dedicate all the time. For other pleasant and innocent activities (for example, the deconstruction of discrimination), time should be distributed according to the residual principle.

You emasculate their lives, interests, and needs to the sole occupation of messing around with ignorant Privileged® all the time, spending hours repeating what they repeated three thousand times before to three thousand Privileged®.

After all, if they need it, why aren't they doing something to change the situation? After all, they need some kind of trifle!

Of course they won't agree. In general, Outcasts™ feel like they're banging their heads against a brick wall with rusty nails when talking to the Privileged®.

Excellent. Let them stay exhausted as long as possible. Maybe they'll get tired of it.

you act rude

This move is good to use when the Forsworn™ get too pushy. That's right, they don't want to be "rude". In a culture strictly regulated by social protocol, designed solely to please the Privileged®, people must carefully take care of "coexistence".

This is especially true for Outcasts™! Do you know why? Why, because they are Outcasts™, they are constantly, thoughtlessly, routinely discriminated against during any of their daily activities. Not surprisingly, the Outcasts are accustomed to the fact that it is necessary to be very careful about the issue of coexistence with the Privileged®. Discrimination is nothing but violence, silence, coercion or (good old-fashioned) ridicule and humiliation. Life overwhelms and debilitates the Outcasts™, so they have developed elaborate strategies to avoid running into the Privileged®.

In addition, the Privileged® have come up with a set of behaviors for the Outcasts™ - the so-called "acceptable" behavior. You didn't think the same rules existed for the Outcasts™ and the Privileged®, did you? Outcasts™ are trained in "acceptable" behavior at a very young age, making the behavior almost subconscious.

Accusing them of being rude will bring on their usual sense of unease. You may also be able to induce guilt for not being "acceptable" in their behavior.

Even more, by blaming them, you dismiss any hint that you yourself said something offensive and humiliating, which caused the “rudeness”!

If you can offend and piss them off, that's fine.

They treat me the same way!

In an attempt to elicit your sympathy, the Outcasts™ may use examples from their personal lives. Many of these situations are completely harmless to the Privileged®. These stories simply demonstrate the existence of such a phenomenon as "rejection". Rejection is a system of social markers, with the help of which people divide the whole multitude of people into “us” and “them”, thus simply and effectively assigning to each person a suitable place for him in society. It's easy to create a safe and positive place for yourself in the world by "stigmatizing" "others." In other words, we are dehumanizing anyone who is not the Elect Privileged.

The Outcast™ you're talking to has just experienced this kind of rejection.

This means that his body is treated as public property and his private life is treated as public information intended for free circulation.

When the Outcast™ tries to evoke your sympathy by telling you about the hardships he has endured, nod understandingly. As soon as he gets to a really embarrassing incident, you should say, “Yeah, I get treated like that too!”

For example, people of African race do not like it when white people touch their hair without permission. Usually such an invasion of personal space is accompanied by flattery: “What beautiful hair you have!” - at the same time, permission is not asked (and not given). You should object: “This happens to everyone!”; “My child has beautiful blonde hair and people touch it all the time!”

Another example. Prostitutes are often asked intimate questions about their lives, their sexual habits and the treatment of their clients. If they hint that such an unceremonious invasion of privacy is unpleasant for them, you should give your own example: “Yes, I know, I am a lawyer, and therefore all people want to know from me what is happening in court!”; “I am a doctor, and everyone asks me what the most disgusting diseases I have seen!”

In a conversation with a transvestite, people are waiting to hear the details of the surgical operation. The expression of dissatisfaction should be sympathized with: “How disgusting are all these men who require you to explain how to do makeup or take care of your skin!”

If a certain fat man complains to you how hard it is to find fashionable and beautiful clothes in his size, answer: “Yes, all fashion designers are assholes! They don't make clothes for real people, I mean just because I'm a size 4 doesn't mean I'm short! All jeans are too short for me!

One of the most successful tactics is to compare male and female circumcision. In any discussion about female circumcision, don't forget to put in your two cents: "Why does everyone think it's okay to circumcise boys? Why is no one talking about this? You must do this, because the removal of a small piece of skin is, without a doubt, comparable to the mutilation that girls undergo.

In this way, it will become clear to everyone that you have never experienced "rejection" in your own skin. You seem to forget that you are in the position of the Privileged® and that your life is fundamentally different from the life of the Outcasts™. If you are a Privileged®, you simply cannot experience the “same” discrimination because then you would stop being a Privileged® and become an Outcast™. Your forgetfulness looks very insensitive and rude. No doubt the Outcast™ will grind his teeth until he grinds them into tooth powder!

You must use the following perk: Privileged® people are "all about". Don't get into the habit of sitting quietly in the back row and listening to other people's problems. The real Privileged® should be the center of attention. Remind yourself how important you are. In this way, you increase your self-esteem and once again remind the Outcasts™ about yourself. (Yes, yes, you can actually make fun of their experiences just by reminding them that all this applies to you too!)

You are too emotional

Outcast™, in order to decide to discuss his Outcast™ with you, despite all the unpleasantness and delicacy of the topic, it is necessary to make a conscious effort. Throwing the "You're being rude" bomb can cause anger or resentment, leading to a more violent argument.

This is good, because then you can accuse the Outcast™ of being emotional. You can also use the word "tantrum". Since the word "tantrum" carries negative connotations, it is very effective. It is certainly recommended to use this word in a conversation with a woman, because historically the word "hysteria" just denoted the feelings and opinions of a woman. Don't forget to ask her, "Do you have PMS?" Old, but effective.

If you like variety, it will be convenient to speculate about the mental state of the interlocutor. Ask if he is "neurotic" or "squishy". Suspecting people of mental illness is a great way to discount their problems; also it's rude to people with real mental disorders!

Remember that "intellectual" discussions must take place in an atmosphere of detachment and rationality. What is "rationality"? It is a method to discuss sensitive topics without pity. This method is, of course, encouraged by the Privileged® because it increases existing inequalities. Since the issue is not sensitive for the Privileged® due to the lack of Life Experience ©, it is easier for them to be "rational".

You are hypersensitive

This sentence is very similar to "You're too emotional" but with a slightly different emphasis. What you mean by this is that Outcast™ looks for insult where there is none.

You must deny responsibility for insults, as this is the basis of any demagogy. Just repeat as often as possible, because butter will not spoil the porridge: whatever it is, you are not to blame for anything - not a single word of yours was offensive, humiliating, intolerant or discriminatory, because you are absolutely not to blame! Have you given up your prejudices before? Why do it now?

You must be sure to tell the Outcast™ your view of the situation. If he didn't look for insults, the world would be a much nicer place!

Do you like being insulted

Closely related to the previous technique, this technique is a critical element of successful demagogy. Don't forget to let the Outcast™ know that you think his problems are completely trivial. It is insensitive to the highest degree. Your arrogance must be unsurpassed!

Let them see that you feel so secure and so comfortable in the world of the Privileged® that the problems of the Outcasts™ do not touch you at all. Believe me, this will make the Forsworn™ bitterly disappointed - because it is the Privilege® that is the very thing that they do not have and never will have. Showing how nonchalant you are about your Privilege® and how condescending you are about their experiences is guaranteed to raise their blood pressure to dangerous levels.

The Outcasts™ make every effort to avoid unpleasant discussions. If they decide to talk, it is most likely due to a conscious effort, and they understand that the conversation will be difficult. If you just laugh at their effort and say that this is just a fun game for you, it will add an extra juicy crack to the ulcer.

Don't you have anything else to talk about?

If you feel like you've been cornered, you can use this technique. Like all best practices, it works on several levels. First, you tell the Outcasts™ that the entire discussion is not worth a damn. In this way, you show your insensitivity to their worries and problems. Secondly, you again disclaim responsibility, that is, you deny that everything you previously said could be discriminatory or offensive.

And finally, you use the Privilege®, which you, as the Privileged®, must set the topic of the discussion. Indeed, do you really think that the Outcast himself can decide which topics are important and which are not, because he is dumb as a cork! Only you, with your Privileged® experience, know what is really worth discussing. (And that doesn't make you ignorant in any way!)

You take it too personally

Similar to "You're too emotional", but has its own characteristics.

By saying "you're taking this too personally," you're showing that their personal problems aren't personal!

Now you have caused a really strong offense, because you deny the reality of their problems. This way you can tempt them into further argument. And when they try to give you educational materials that will help you understand at least a little of their situation, you can demand that they start teaching you again (see "If this matter is important to you, you must enlighten me").

Denying what them problems really exist, you show a new degree of insensitivity. You discussed not because the topic for someone important, but just for fun. Of course, such neglect will constantly put pressure on the psyche, preparing it for the next operations.

You are bad at it / you are too smart

These two approaches seem to be incompatible. Oddly enough, to cause real rage, you should use them in parallel.

Regardless of the Outcast™'s arguments, you must maintain a mixture of contempt and disdain. Outcasts™ must know their place.

Usually the conversation takes place on a practical plane, but you should definitely insist that the discussion should be on a scientific basis. If the Outcast™ you are talking to is simplistic and places too much emphasis on Life Experience©, you should immediately say that you do not take seriously that “debate” in which theory and philosophy do not play a key role and there are no polysyllabic words that usually found in scientific articles. Use your Privilege® and demand that the conversation be in terms the Outcast™ is new to. Although academic teachings have little to do with reality, it does not matter if you managed to humiliate your opponent. You can also elegantly humiliate the Outcast™'s intellectual abilities by telling him that he is uneducated/not well educated to participate in such a discussion.

But if it turns out that an Outcast™ is educated, or other Outcasts™ who are educated join in, and even the topic of the conversation has a solid scientific basis, you can cross over to the other side and claim that they talk too much. Remember that the Forsworn™ who only appear to be "intellectuals" are simply over the top and deserve nothing but your ridicule.

You must say that with their intelligence they scare people away, despise them and treat them very condescendingly. Choose your words carefully to show them the depth of contempt you feel for their "intellectual" and "good manners." For example, the word "uppity" ["upstart" - translator's note] acts like a red rag on colored people, especially blacks, since this word was constantly used in relation to those blacks who "think too much about themselves." "Hoity-toity", "highhanded" and "snob" are also suitable. All these words imply that the Forsworn™ think too much of themselves and talk to you in an unacceptable tone. Every cricket know your hearth, and the Outcast™ hearth is right under your shoe.

Let them know that their intellect and education - whether acquired with someone else's help or on their own - is not up to par and that they are humiliating other people using their education. They need to be ashamed of their education and intelligence. As a last resort, simply remind them that the Privileged® consider them unworthy of education and intelligence.

It's not bad to have this conversation with a friend - one of you will demand "intellectuality", and the second will mock her. This will come in handy if there are multiple Outcasts™ in a conversation. Shoot them from both sides until exhaustion.

It is also very good to correct grammatical errors and criticize the form rather than the content of the arguments. So you go even further off topic. Your goal is to make illiterate people who don't pay attention to spelling aware of their shortcomings, and to make others who are educated feel ashamed of their mistakes (although in heated discussions, mistakes happen often and in no way reflect a person's literacy).

This technique covers the whole range of situations and will inevitably cause a feeling of shame and humiliation.

You are speaking from the wrong position.

This approach is very specific. However, we recommend using it without any restrictions. In other words, you should use it as often as possible.

With this technique, you can humiliate the interlocutor's mental abilities so that he does not even guess about it! This technique is useful when discussing literature and other works of art or science. Its essence can be expressed as follows: there's nothing offensive about it you just don't get it(because you're unimaginably dumb)!

For example, you might express the belief that context is not relevant (no racial parallels to an imaginary planet where beautiful white-faced elves enslave the dreaded beast-like orcs - that has nothing to do with Earth's history!).

Once again you are demonstrating that you don't give a damn about their problems (don't forget this fundamental principle of demagogy). You also make it clear that the Outcasts™ are wrong only because the Privileged® know more and better.

Burn with napalm!

You support your point of view not with facts, but with beliefs

If you want to become a worthy Privileged®, you must learn to value statistics and experimental research above all else, but especially above Life Experience©.

Pretend you've forgotten that most of the research is done by The Privileged®, and therefore the results are biased. Insist that the entire "experience" of the Outcast™ is made up by the Outcast™ himself.

Life experience© is not considered experience because it is subjective and cannot be trusted.

This technique serves two important functions: 1) you tell the Outcasts™ that their personal testimony cannot be trusted and is therefore useless, which is, of course, extremely offensive; and 2) you redeem your Privilege®.

What Privilege am I talking about. The fact is that the very ability to conduct scientific research, collect statistics and write detached reports "based on facts" is the activity of the Privileged®. The ability to read these reports is also an inalienable gift of God to the Privileged®. The Privileged® do this job much better than the Outcasts™. Therefore, you must remind once again that you have this privilege. A world where large numbers are analyzed is closer to reality than they are with their so-called "personal experience".

The ability to value "facts" over "opinions" is essential to maintaining privilege. With this methodology, it is possible to ignore the humiliation of millions of people because their experience is based on "opinions" (emotions) and not on "facts" (rationality).

This technique is also useful in that it requires the Outcast ™ to do a virtually impossible job - to find such facts that would averagely describe the experience of all his fellows. There is simply no such thing as a common experience! You must lead the Outcast™ to this thought in order to use the next move.

Don't speak for everyone

Of course, for successful demagogy, the fight against windmills is necessary. It's important to mock the Forsworn™ experience at every opportunity. Not only is this offensive and defamatory, but it forces the Outcast™ to be constantly on the defensive. If an Outcast™ has given you any personal experience, immediately pretend that you thought he was speaking on behalf of all his fellows and immediately note that he has no right to do so.

This diversion will force him to answer the accusation. Okay, you missed the point again.

Here you are exploiting a very important belief for the Outcasts™: that they, the Outcasts™, various. The thing is, the Privileged® were relentlessly lumping them together into the same face, people who look the same, think the same, talk the same, dress the same, eat the same, feel the same—you get the idea. Sure, Outcasts™ all this They do things differently than the Privileged®, which gives the Privileged® a moral right to discrimination and stigmatization, that is, the right to consider Outcasts™ as subhuman. Therefore, the Outcasts™ greatly appreciate the fact that their social group is as varied in appearance and experience as the Privileged® group.

You can play on this belief by accusing them of homogenizing their own social group.

It's also helpful to say that their experience doesn't matter because it doesn't match the Experience © of others - in particular the Experience © of those you've chosen as Privileged®. As a model Experience, you must, of course, choose the Experience that reinforces your prejudices. Usually, what matters to people is their own experiences. It's very humiliating to be treated like trash. So be prepared for the Outcast™ to come on the defensive with great viciousness. While he untangles your web, you can just sit back and enjoy a job well done.

Victory is near!

I won't believe you until you prove that your experience applies to everyone.

So far, we have successfully led them into a trap: we have firmly established the fact that the Outcasts™ social group is not monolithic, that is, members of this group have different feelings, thoughts and actions.

Now demand from the Outcast™ prove that his experience applies to most of his brethren.

If the Outcast™ is angry enough, he no longer follows the words and will actually claim that his experience applies to most of his social group. Then immediately correct with the “Do not speak for everyone” technique. So you can walk in a circle for quite a long time. I recommend this looping performance, because sooner or later the Outcast™ will lose his temper and you can move on to the "You take it too personally" or "You're being rude" techniques.

I don't think you are being discriminated against as much as you say

This technique is similar to “You don’t have to speak for everyone”, and at the same time it is much more painful and effective.

If Outcast™ wins an argument, convinces other people and even The Privileged® suddenly start apologizing for their "mistakes", you can hit it like this: he's not an Outcast™ at all.

Again you informed him that you regard his stories as nonsense, irrelevant to the case. And in addition, they reminded that he is "not like everyone else (Outcasts™)".

For example, if you are talking to a person whose first language is not English, but he speaks English well (so much so that you first thought that English was his first language), then you can say that because he received a good education ( most likely in an English-speaking country), then he has thus ceased to be a representative of his people, and therefore cannot speak on their behalf - he, so to speak, has gained too many Privileges®.

If a person has any mental defects, you should say that a person with real defects is simply not able to talk (in principle, he is not even able to think).

This technique can also be applied to prostitutes - if a prostitute says that her work does not humiliate her and gives her pleasure and that the problem is not in work, but in a negative attitude from a respectable society, you must say that in this case she is, so say "Privileged® Prostitute", as "real prostitutes" are bound to be dumb, hate their jobs, and suffer under the control of a cruel pimp.

In essence, you must establish a false hierarchy of Outcasts™, in which your interlocutor is at the top and therefore cannot experience all depth discrimination experienced by an ordinary member of their social group.

After that, the Outcasts™ will give more and more examples to prove that they belong to their social group. These examples should be taken as evidence to the contrary, namely that your interlocutor belongs to the Privileged® after all, and therefore does not have the right to cite his experience at all.

But don't overdo it - while you imply that an Outcast™ is a Privileged®, don't forget that you must still treat him as inferior, with the usual contempt and arrogance.

This vile move in a real fight would look like a kick to the stomach: The Outcast™ sighs sharply, stunned by your distilled cruelty and ignorance. Do not forget to deny their experience - dehumanization leads to the exhaustion of the enemy and to your victory!

You still treat each other even worse

This is a powerful technique - and it is rightfully considered forbidden! This technique leads the conversation away from the topic and at the same time once again demonstrates your narrow-mindedness (as if they did not know!). It demonstrates the full extent of your Privilege® - that you are so out of touch with reality that you are unable to understand the connections between marginalization, objectification and ostracism and the internal problems that Outcasts™ experience in trying to survive in a world that perceives them as inanimate objects or funny freaks .

When Outcasts™ gives you "terrible" examples of the discrimination they experience from the Privileged®, you may feel uncomfortable. Tell them about violence between blacks to move the conversation away from police brutality; tell them about how women gossip behind each other's backs and criticize other people's appearance to move the conversation away from the public assessment of women's appearance.

It may even be recalled that it was only because of the wild, unbridled orgies of pederasts that AIDS spread to dampen the severity of homophobia. (If a real man is afraid of catching AIDS from a passing bugger, who will condemn him if he sweeps away the aforementioned bugger with an iron pipe?)

In the end, the Outcasts™ must understand that they are responsible for their own misfortunes - but by no means society! Society does not treat them with respect because they themselves cannot treat each other with respect. However, we did not expect anything else from subhumans. Only complete degenerates can treat each other so cruelly! Correctly?

I'm sure the Outcast™ will go crazy with your inhumanity. And even if not, he will still lose the thread of the conversation and will only look around helplessly under your condescending gaze.

But you are not like that!

Ambiguous insults are pretty confusing. This technique is useful if you said something discriminatory, forgetting that the object of discrimination is sitting right in front of you and hears everything. Of course, he will be offended, so you must reassure him: your words referred to other Forsworn™. “But you are not like those bitchy women” or “Despite the fact that you are fat, you are attractive!”

Other examples: "When I said that majority transvestite women looks ugly, I didn't mean you. You look very even nothing!”; "But you don't look like others Black people who don't want anything. You have a good education!”; “Because you don’t touch drugs, you are different from those prostitutes."

Let's take a closer look at the following example: Majority the mentally ill act selfish, but you're not like that!" This is how you bring to life the prejudices associated with your chosen type of Forsworn™ and at the same time show that you firmly believe in these prejudices. You are giving Outcast™ a double entender compliment. You are playing on his emotions because the Outcast™ is used to being "different" and you are trying to separate him from the other Outcasts™ by implying that he deserves a better place somehow as he (almost) lives up to high standards set by Privileged®.

It's nice to watch him take an agonizing pleasure in this flattery. This will happen if prejudices are deeply rooted in his mind - everyone is pleased to feel that he is better than others! In theoretical language, this is called "use internalized stigma." The implicit humiliation of fellow Outcast™ will cause a conflict of emotions that will be useful later on.

And, of course, you once again reminded that judging and evaluating people is yours and only your Privilege®.

I know a person from your social group who disagrees!

When cornered, use this technique. If the Outcast™ has swayed a lot of sane people to his side and you have the unpleasant feeling that you are really wrong - you definitely need the help of a friend. He must be a transvestite, or a Negro, or have a mental disorder, or be a prostitute, and he must absolutely and unconditionally support your views.

Of course, you shouldn't be reminded that your friend can also be discriminated against by the Privileged®. As in the previous techniques, you deny the diversity of opinion of the Forsworn, but at the same time support it. Of course, if your friend has a different opinion, you are forced to accept that different opinions exist among the Outcasts™, but since your friend agrees with you, you have every right to ignore other opinions. By "other opinion" I meant, of course, the opinion of the Outcast™ you're talking to right now.

This way you get rid of the label of a conservative dogmatist - look, because you have friends from the same social group and they speak of you as a progressive and very good person, so all accusations of racism / sexism / ableism / whatever are simply unfounded!

Do I need to say that friend can be imaginary!

Well, yes, a friend can only exist in your head, emerging from non-existence when you need his help! Even if the Outcast™ begins to suspect something, he has no proof.

So you've got the edge.

A in Situation B is not the same as X in Situation Y

As a final attempt to get through to you, the Outcast™ can use an analogy. For example, if you yourself are a member of the Outcast Group™ and are exercising your privilege over another group, the Outcast™ will point out discrimination against your group and draw parallels with discrimination against his group. He appeals to your humanity. He hopes that you will experience this experience for yourself and express sympathy.

No panic! There is an exit!

Indignantly declare that your experience is absolutely and 100% unique and has nothing to do with their experience. It's important to hint here how much you think their experience is pointless, stupid, and unworthy of consideration. Genuinely resent the fact that your experience has been compared to these completely trifling and unimportant issues.

Of course, Outcast™ wasn't trying to equate your experiences, just trying to find common ground. It is necessary to completely ignore this hypothesis and at all costs stand on your own, namely that you are outraged by such a comparison.

You must again remind them that they are not human and that comparison of the Privileged® with subhumans is unacceptable. This will weaken their position and pave the way for your victory.

Who wins the Paralympic Games?

If you're a member of another Rogue Group™, say that your problems are more important than theirs - this will show additional contempt.

Claim that there is a certain hierarchy of discrimination, in which you, of course, are one step higher.

The fact is that Outcasts™ are most infuriated when they are discriminated against by the same Outcasts™! Let them tear their hair out in frustration that even their brethren are behaving like the Privileged®.

You do not understand

This often applies to women: women who dress only in traditional women's clothing (they live in a patriarchal society), women who flirt with everyone, regardless of gender (this is their role in a patriarchal society, and they cannot choose), prostitutes who claim they don't enjoy the job and do it themselves (this is how female sexuality should be in a patriarchal society, and they can't choose).

But this technique also applies to people with mental disabilities ["people with disabilities" in the original, which most likely means dyslexia and similar mental defects - translator's note], who are constantly told that they cannot know what is good for them, so they they need a Privileged® mentor who makes decisions for them. That is, people with mental defects cannot decide for themselves. Place emphasis on that it's for their own good.

When talking to a transvestite, you should deny their new gender and treat their experience as if it were the person who had the previous gender. For example, to show that you are in denial about the phenomenon of gender dysmorphia, you would tell a female transvestite that her childhood memories are of a boy because she was raised as a boy. Thus you deny her belief that as a child she felt like a girl in a boy's body.

When discussing race issues, the argument takes a slightly different form. Whites should tell people of color that they are paying so much attention to race for nothing, since we live in an age where there are no races, no colors. They themselves invented that there are some differences between people of different races, so discrimination against colored people exists only in their heads. If they did not interfere with their idea of ​​races, the whole world could live in harmony!

You should definitely discount the conclusions of the Outcast™, which he made on his own. You must deny his autonomy. Nothing angers a person more than being treated like a child and told that he lives in a world of illusions. Whatever they say you know better.

You're talking non-constructively

As you already understood, the main tactic is shifting responsibility from a sick head to a healthy one. Do not take the slightest responsibility for discrimination and violence. Do not acknowledge your prejudice and arrogance. The Outcast™ must always remember that he is and always will be a fringe (if you win, of course! - but that's what the Privileged® were born to do!).

Both of these goals are achieved by the following method. You accuse the Outcast™ of not thinking constructively, using dishonest tactics, not listening to other people (by "other people" I mean your Privileged® friends).

“Look, we're all trying to have a civilized discussion here, only you want to turn it into a fight. It's impossible to talk to you!"

In other words: “If you would say what we Privileged® want to hear from you, life would be a lot easier (for us). For you, maybe not, but who the hell needs you?

This move borrows in part from "You're taking it too personally", "You're backing your point of view with facts, not beliefs", "You don't understand" and makes the Outcast™ feel like the whole world is against him.

It is very useful to humiliate the whole crowd, as they are subjected to such humiliation every day. You will increase the feeling of isolation and disorientation, which will weaken their position.

To make your strike truly inhuman, say it all in the right condescending tone...

Since you've become emotional, I won't talk to you.

This technique causes a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. Under no circumstances should the Outcast™ win even one bet. In the end, and so it is clear that your opinion is correct, and therefore there is nothing to discuss here. If you're following my recommendations, then Outcast™ should be seething with anger by now. Most likely, he will start talking aggressively and rudely. He decided that you are a complete moral monster, and therefore you should not waste politeness on you. So he tells you everything frankly.

And then you do the hook! This is how you trash everything that the Outcast™ said before, as well as your actions that led to an emotional breakdown. Good manners require discussion to be calm. If a person breaks down, the rules give you a convenient “output” that allows you to not admit defeat and ignore their problems.

Again you pretend that you went towards with open arms, and they ruined everything. You have to impress on the Outcast™ that if he were a little obedient Outcast™ and walked the line, maybe he could beat someone!

No successful discrimination should be without such disgusting tricks.

When you get angry, you only make it worse

The previous techniques helped you to piss off the interlocutor well. Because they face discrimination every day, they just can't take it all with a grain of salt.

And that's how you can reverse their weakness to your strength! Everyone knows that the Outcast™ must meet the vicissitudes of fate with quiet resignation and humility, so if your victim starts to get angry, you have already won! Why? Because they are responsible for their social group. It's very simple! Say one of the following: "Do you understand that you will be judged by all the Outcasts™?"; “Congratulations, you have further strengthened my belief that all Outcasts™ are ill-mannered, irrational whiners!”; “I tried to listen to you, but since you started insulting me, I have every moral right not to listen to you!”

Suppress unnecessary pity in yourself - after all, they are adults, they can tolerate it. At all costs, you must prove that the discrimination is completely legal and justified, and avoid the uncomfortable analysis of your prejudices. Try this cute bombshell: "When you get angry, you only make it worse, because real understanding can only be achieved if all parties respect each other and talk calmly."

Not only will you be a self-righteous snob (although you may prefer the term "big brother"), but you'll also help the Outcast™ feel guilty for unworthy anger! And everyone is happy! To be precise, everyone is happy except for the Outcasts™.

You are no better than your oppressors!

Use this technique only in desperate situations when the Outcast™ is stronger and has you cornered.

This technique consists of a direct insult. Let's say the situation is such that the Outcast™ has dissected and criticized your prejudices and the entire system created by the Privileged® as a whole. You are most likely very annoyed, as he mocks everything that you believe in, so that you even began to doubt your thoughts and actions that seemed crystal clear to you.

Here's what you should say: you are no better than your oppressors!

Point out that at the moment the Outcast™ is angry at this attitude and is acting aggressively and stubbornly (also point out that this is not right for the Outcasts™ - at all times the Outcasts™ behaved like quiet and patient), and do the conclusion that he, the Outcast™, had become the monsters he fought every second of his life. His response to discrimination is completely inadequate and unfounded, which will once again show how unaware you are of the depth and power of this discrimination.

This technique demonstrates that you are a complete asshole. But there is no prettier hit when you use this technique for its intended purpose!

Did you know that all this time I was playing the "devil's advocate"?

Not everything is Shrovetide for the cat, not everything for the mouse is donuts, and the day will come when the Outcast ™ will achieve that you will begin to suspect that he is, in principle may be right. Of course, you wouldn’t wish this on your enemy: to discover that you can be wrong. What's worse, you're in for a humiliating recognition of this!!!

Fear not, all is not lost! You can still get out of the trap!

Just say:

"I was doing a social experiment!"

And it's all right! First, the Outcast™ has to think that you're not some of the insensitive, arrogant snob you've been shown to be. Second, you showed yourself really insensitive really rude and really a complete asshole because you treat vital questions like frivolous academic research for the sole purpose of having fun!

This is how you cover your ass and reassert your privileges!

Congratulations! You won!

Important note: This website is not affiliated with Wiley Publishing, Inc, publisher of the For Dummies series of books.

Fomenko and demagoguery

This article was published in the journal "Science and Life" N9 for 1989 under the title "Demagogy: An Experience of Classification". The author is Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences B.Z. Katsenelenbaum (MIPT). Here it is given practically in the same form, but with the addition of examples of demagogy from the new chronological books of A. Fomenko.

***

For many centuries of the existence of this term, its content has changed several times. For example, in the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1985 edition, the words "deception", "unconscious masses" and so on are included in its definition. We will understand by demagogy a set of methods that make it possible to create the impression of being right without being right. With this understanding, demagogy is between logic and lies. It differs from logic in that it is used to defend an incorrect judgment, and from lies in that the demagogue does not formulate this judgment, but only leads the listener to it, instructing him to deceive himself.

Of course, the above definition is not the only possible understanding of demagogy, but it is the form that is probably most interesting to readers of Science and Life. From this definition follows the classification of methods of demagogy - according to the degree of their proximity to logic and according to the gradual transition to lies. Note, by the way, that a lie deserves not only condemnation, but also analysis, or at least classification.

The four main types of demagogy are given below. In each of them, a further division was made. Most of the examples given for illustration are not fictitious.

1. Demagoguery without violating logic

1a. An omission of a fact that the listener cannot suspect, but which changes a seemingly obvious conclusion. Example: "N. discovered three comets. Is he a great scientist?" "My mother-in-law discovered five comets." Omitted: "my mother-in-law is a world-famous scientist."

An example from A. Fomenko: "Materials of this conference ["Myths of the New Chronology"] were repeatedly published with minor variations under different covers."

Omitted: "the same can be said about the new chronological opuses."

1b. An omission of facts that is seen and filled in by listeners "obviously" leading to an incorrect conclusion. Example: at a meeting of the department, the issue of an error in the lecture of Associate Professor N. is discussed. It turns out that there was no error. It was decided to raise the level of teaching. Only the first and third sentences are given in the meeting report.

An example from A. Fomenko: "The groundlessness of the Scaligerian chronology is clearly indicated in the works of scientists of the 17th-19th centuries."

Omitted: "the works of I. Newton and E. Johnson have nothing to do with Fomenkovism."

1c. Skipping facts that change the conclusion; this omission can be guessed by the listener only if he does not trust the speaker. Example: "The theorem that N. proved, I also proved." Omitted: "I proved it later".

An example from A. Fomenko: "In the figure ... we present an old engraving of 1702 with a view of the Novodevichy Convent and its environs at the beginning of the 18th century. You can clearly see a large field that remained undeveloped until the beginning of the 18th century. Thus, as we see, Dmitry Donskoy, speaking from the Moscow Kolomensky, crossed the Moscow River and ended up on the Maiden's Field, where he held a military review.

Omitted: "The Maiden's Field got its name from the name of the monastery, which was built under Tsar Vasily III, that is, two centuries later than the Battle of Kulikovo."

1g Creation of distrust among listeners to any fact by means of appropriate verbal turns. Here is an example of such forcing distrust “by degrees”: “Event A happened”, “I was told that event A happened”, “They tried to convince me that event A happened”, “I was intrusively told that event A allegedly happened. However, I knew that I could not verify this assertion.

An example from A. Fomenko: "Today it is believed that the foundations of chronology were laid by Eusebius Pamphilus allegedly in the 4th century AD and by the blessed Jerome."

2. Demagogy with an imperceptible violation of logic

2a. A logical error, known to ancient philosophers, is used, when the temporal connection between two events is interpreted as a cause-and-effect (“after this, therefore, because of this”). Example: "After my speech, the vote confirmed my correctness," but the speaker does not indicate that in his speech he only supported the generally accepted point of view.

An example from A. Fomenko: "The work of Eusebius was published (?) only in 1544, that is, later than the work of Nicephorus, so the question is appropriate: is the book of the "ancient" Eusebius based on the medieval work of Nicephorus?".

2b. From A follows B or C, but option C is not mentioned. Example: "If you don't agree with me, then you agree with N." - actually I can have a third opinion.

An example from A. Fomenko: "The chronology of antiquity adopted today, we will conditionally call Scaligerian, thereby emphasizing that it is the creation of several persons, of which Scaliger is best known. Apparently, the final version of the chronology of ancient and medieval history as a whole was proposed by A.T. Fomenko in 1979 year".

2c. It is understood that if B follows from A, then A follows from B. Example: "All loafers own demagogy, N. owns demagogy, therefore, he is a loafer."

An example from A. Fomenko: "All allegedly "earlier" segments of the dendrochronological scales shown in the diagram cannot serve for independent dating, since they themselves are tied to the time axis only on the basis of the Scaligerian chronology."

3. Demagogy without connection with logic

3a. The use of word blocks of "one-time action" ("you yourself understand that ...", "you are a smart person and you cannot but understand that ...", "you don't think that you can't be wrong", "this is not science! " and many others).

An example from A. Fomenko: "The fact that many biblical texts explicitly describe volcanic phenomena has been noted in history (!) for a long time."

3b. The answer to not asked, but to a close question. Example: "Can the speaker's statement be believed that he proved the fallacy of this theorem? - I know the speaker as a good family man and social activist."

An example from A. Fomenko: "There is obviously nothing to say to D.M. Volodikhin. The stream of his" valuable thoughts "ends after three and a half pages of the publication."

An example from A. Fomenko: "It turned out that G.K. Kasparov read many of our books and, comparing them with his own thoughts about history, came to the conclusion that we are largely right."

3y. A mixture of true and false statements in one phrase. Example: "At the seminar, you did not speak and did not refute the speaker, because you are afraid of him!". Meanwhile, the error in the report was pointed out by the very first speaker.

An example from A. Fomenko: "It is reported that on the field in the Tula region, considered by historians for Kulikovo, no traces of the battle have yet been found. This confirms our reconstruction."

3d. An incorrect statement is contained in the formulation of the question. Example: "Why were you silent at the seminar when you were being criticized?" - ask a person who was not at the seminar.

An example from A. Fomenko: "Who pasted the sheet with the Norman theory into the Tale of Bygone Years?"

In fact: there are no pasted sheets in the Radzivilov Chronicle. All Fomenko's perplexities are explained by D.M. Volodikhin in the book "History for Sale. Dead Ends of Pseudo-Historical Thought".

3e. Admitting your small and insignificant mistakes. (In response to the remark that the theorem is erroneous: "Indeed, proving the theorem, I made a grammatical error").

An example from A. Fomenko: "The final dating of the Nativity of Christ in 1152 obtained in the book ["King of the Slavs"] turned out to be not so much different from the one we proposed earlier as a working hypothesis of dating the Nativity of Christ in the middle of the 11th century."

In fact: the hypothesis of Christ-Hildebrand completely collapses (instead, Fomenko proposes Andrey Bogolyubsky), the new chronological dating of Easter "according to the conditions of the resurrection" hangs in the air, the hypothesis of a shift of 1053 years ("beginning of an era in 1054") is refuted.

4. Beyond the boundary of demagogy proper (transitional area between demagogy and lies)

4a. Forceful demagoguery (according to Krylov: "You are to blame for the fact that I want to eat").

An example from A. Fomenko: "In conclusion, let's quote Max Planck: a new scientific idea is rarely introduced by gradually convincing and converting opponents, it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. In reality, what happens is that opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation from the very beginning is mastered with a new idea" .

In fact: when Morozov died, the Morozov chronology went into oblivion with him; a similar fate awaits Fomenkovism.

4b. Blackmail, sometimes not even related to the opponent himself. Example: "You are right in proving that N. is not guilty of what I accuse him of. But if you insist on this, then I will bring him other, more serious charges. You will prove your case, but ruin him."

An example from A. Fomenko: "Recently, S.P. Novikov began to assert that he did not write this letter at all, and that I falsified this text. S.P. Novikov told the editorial board of the journal "Nature", in the mathematical department of the Russian Academy of Sciences. with this, I am forced to publish the corresponding scanned fragment of the original letter of S.P. Novikov, written by his hand and personally signed by him.

4c. Disruption of the discussion, turning it into a scandal (hysteria, complaints like "I'm being bullied", "I'm being insulted", insulting the opponent, [unfounded] accusing him of demagogy).

An example from A. Fomenko: "The scientific level of Yu.D. Krasilnikov's article is very low. However, it must be admitted that it is demagogically high."

***

The above scheme does not, of course, exhaust all variants of this method of conducting a discussion. It only illustrates the main idea: demagoguery (even in its highest forms) is effective only with the active and positive participation of listeners; the listener is also to blame for the success of demagogy. Demagogy is a performance, and it is possible only if the viewer accepts the rules and conditions of the game. But in this performance, demagogy is not an art, but a craft that anyone can master. Recognize him too.

Probably everyone who has repeatedly participated in discussions or observed them has encountered demagogy. It is not surprising that lists of demagogic techniques (written, of course, not to help demagogues, but to facilitate the fight against them) were compiled more than once.

However, as a rule, such lists are a simple enumeration, without attempts at classification and systematization; In this article, I make such an attempt. Where a set of techniques is considered as the sum of subsets, numbers are used to number the latter, where a private one worthy of separate consideration is distinguished from the general set, it is indicated by a letter.

At the same time, this article does not pretend to exhaustive coverage of all demagogic methods and will be supplemented if new ones are discovered.

So, first of all, let's define the concept under consideration.

This is a discussion tactic aimed at achieving victory (or creating the illusion of such) by using incorrect discussion techniques. Let us emphasize that we are only talking about methods that, at least formally, are debatable, that is, say, violence against an opponent or threats to use it do not apply to demagoguery. We also note that the position defended by the demagogue is not necessarily false, but the essence of demagoguery does not change from this. We also note the fact that the definition does not contain the word "malicious" - that is, demagogy remains demagogy even if the user who uses it does not himself realize the incorrectness of the methods used. Strictly speaking, demagoguery is used to solve two problems - to refute the opponent's theses and prove one's own, but since the techniques for the second case are a subset of the first, we will restrict ourselves to the consideration of the first problem.

So, demagogic techniques can be divided into 3 classes: refutation of the argument, ignoring the argument and discrediting the argument. An experienced demagogue usually masters all three and may even combine the techniques of different classes within the same thesis. Let's take a closer look at these classes below.

1. Refutation of the argument

It is obvious that only this class makes demagogy related to correct polemics - but, of course, only in terms of goals, and not in terms of means. However, from a formal point of view, such demagoguery is a dispute on the merits, which is why it is often more difficult to catch the use of the techniques of this class, especially to an inexperienced opponent.

1.1. Unsubstantiated claims

1.1.1. Direct unsubstantiated allegations

This is the most primitive kind of demagogy. Why prove something when you can just postulate it? Of course, if the final thesis is "argued" in this way, then the demagogue has little chance of success. Therefore, most often a direct unsubstantiated statement is used only as a starting point for a chain of further reasoning, which can be formally correct and thereby lull the vigilance of the opponent and the audience. Direct lies and promises of politicians in the spirit of "choose us, and everyone will be happy" can be attributed to the same type of demagogy. Direct unsubstantiated statements are also often used in combination with third-class devices, i.e. to discredit the thesis and the opponent; in the latter case, they are made not in relation to the disputed thesis, but in relation to the personality of its author.

Often, however, they try to disguise the unsubstantiated statements, referring to widespread stereotypes as evidence. At the same time, the stereotype itself can be both wrong in principle (for example, ideological dogmas imposed by authoritarian regimes, or once popular, but already refuted scientific hypotheses), and true for the majority, but not for the object in question (in the latter case, this technique is combined with incorrect deduction). It is also possible that the correctness of the stereotype has not been proven or refuted at the moment. In any case, in order for the argument to become correct from the demagogic, it is first necessary to prove the correctness and applicability of the stereotype for the situation under consideration. But a demagogue, instead of such a proof, can use the phrases "it is obvious that ...", "as everyone knows ...", etc. (which, however, does not mean that any use of such figures of speech is demagogy).

1.1.2.a. Using Implicit Defaults

The most dangerous form of reference to stereotypes is the implicit reference, in which the stereotype itself is not voiced, but only implicitly implied; in this case, the opponent of the demagogue is required to be extremely vigilant, because he must recognize and question the thesis that has not been voiced. For example, the statement "all women want love and children" (a simple reference to a stereotype) will be more objectionable than "women should not (or should) do this and that, because they still have children to give birth to." A skilled demagogue can use this technique both ways - both to "prove" that the stereotype fits the one who actually does not fit it, and to transfer the properties of the minority that does not correspond to the stereotype to the corresponding majority ("even my grandmother can easily solved this problem" - it is understood that the task is very simple and any elderly housewife can cope with it, but in fact the mentioned grandmother is a doctor of science). Implicit silences are also used in questions like "Have you stopped hitting your wife yet?" It is believed that a man who has never beaten his wife cannot answer this question correctly: the answer "yes" means that he beat before, and the answer "no", according to the implicit default, means that he continues to beat. In fact, the answer "no" is absolutely correct, because "stopped" means "did AND no longer does", so the inverse of "didn't stop" means "still does OR never did". The demagogue's opponent, faced with such a question, should give as detailed an answer as possible, exposing the incorrect implicit silence. Sometimes demagogues use such questions as examples, allegedly showing the inferiority of logic as such (see 2.7.)

The most "solid" way to "proof" really unsubstantiated statements is to provide links to sources. Sources may be vague ("foreign experts have proven"), unreliable ("my neighbor said", publications in the tabloid press, opinions of experts in other fields), outdated (which makes this method related to 3.1.6.b), or, in the most brazen and in a malicious case, simply invented (this also includes the situation when the source itself is real, but does not contain the allegedly cited information). In the latter case, the link is drawn up as solidly as possible, in the hope that the opponent, convinced by its scientific appearance, will not bother to double-check it; for greater assurance, a link can be given to an extremely hard-to-reach source, some second-hand rarity, and even in a language unknown to the opponent. As an option, a link to an allegedly secret document is provided. With this, the demagogue kills two birds with one stone: he makes the link unverifiable for the opponent and the audience and hints at his involvement in state or commercial secrets, which should put him a priori above the "uncleared" opponent.

1.2. Wishful thinking

Demagogy of this type is most often built on the principle "If A follows B and B is pleasant, then A is true" (as an option - "if it is unpleasant, then false"). Note that this technique is doubly incorrect, because even if B were true, it does not follow that A is true (see 1.5.1.). A demagogue has a chance of success only if his ideas of what is pleasant and what is not agree with him and his audience. For all the seemingly unpretentiousness of this technique, it has demonstrated considerable success over the centuries. Churchmen and politicians are especially willing to use it.

1.3. Issuance of analogies for proof

Analogy is a similarity between independent and heterogeneous objects (where "objects" can be understood as objects, actions, states, etc.) according to some sign (or signs). The key difference between an analogy and a model or related similarity is that the objects are independent and heterogeneous, that is, none of them duplicates the properties of the other, and the similarity between them is external, not systemic. Therefore, the analogy can serve only as an illustration, but not as a proof - which should be emphasized by an opponent who is faced with the techniques of this group.

1.3.1. Incorrect analogies

Since the objects of analogy are independent, it is obvious that similarity can be observed only between some of their features, and not between all (otherwise we would get just copies of one object). The widespread method of incorrect analogy is most often based on the fact that similarity is observed in one feature, while another is the key one within the framework of the thesis under consideration. Example: "fighting against sex is like fighting against food and air!" Even a double incorrect analogy is used here. First, it should have said not "food and air", but "nutrition and breath." And secondly and most importantly, the similarity is observed on the basis of "all the objects under consideration are physiological needs", while on the basis of the key implied by the thesis
sign - the need for life, the inability to live without it - sex is fundamentally different from nutrition and breathing. Incorrect analogies with something perceived by the audience as negative are often used to discredit the thesis as well (see 3.1.5.)

1.3.2. Correct analogies

Even when the analogy is correct, using it as evidence, by virtue of the above, is a demagogic device. For example, the analogy "such taxes are just robbery!" may be quite correct: in both cases, we are talking about the forcible taking of money from an honest person, and the key thesis is that this is bad and that it needs to be fought. However, if we conclude from this that the tax inspector can and should be met with a gun, the consequences will be very unpleasant.

1.4. Quantitative-qualitative substitutions

One of the techniques of this type is based on the fact that, while declaring the qualitative similarity of certain objects (scenarios, behavior patterns, etc.), their quantitative difference is neglected. Sometimes the alleged "inadmissibility" of quantitative comparison is even emphasized on purpose: "What difference does it make whether one person or ten people die, because in any case people will die!!!" Meanwhile, the difference is obviously very significant. A classic example of this type of demagoguery is "it's better that ten guilty people escape punishment than one innocent suffer!" The fact that ten criminals left unpunished will harm a much larger number of innocents is, of course, not taken into account. Another classic example is "what's the point of quitting smoking if you still live in a dirty city and inhale car exhaust fumes!" The demagogue ignores the fact that while it is harmful to inhale exhaust fumes, it is less harmful than smoking. Similarly, outcomes with significantly different probabilities, etc., can be identified.

Another substitution is based on the exact opposite method: objects are compared quantitatively, and their qualitative difference is ignored. "The terrorists killed only one, and the special forces - ten!" It is understood that the special forces are worse than terrorists. Meanwhile, the terrorists killed an innocent person, and the special forces killed the terrorists. From the same series of arguments that all life is sacred, that all people are equal, etc.

As can be seen from the above examples, all sorts of human rights activists, opponents of the death penalty, pacifists and others like them are especially willing to use this type of demagogy.

1.5. Logic errors

Logical errors are very common in discussions, especially when opponents try to argue on the merits. They are not always malicious, which, however, as already mentioned, does not remove responsibility from those who allow them.

1.5.1. Incorrect consequence

The simplest version of the incorrect consequence is the construction "if A, then B", in which in fact B does not follow from A at all. For example, "if there is no religion, nothing will prevent people from immoral acts" (while morality - a social institution, not necessarily tied to religion). More complex option - logically
erroneous construction "if from A follows B, then from B follows A". An example of a combination of this technique with the use of implicit defaults, and at the same time with discrediting the opponent, is the thesis "Crazy people never admit that they are crazy." Note that this thesis is false in itself - mentally ill people may well be aware of their illness and voluntarily go to the doctor - so here, firstly, there is a direct reference to a false stereotype. Further, it is assumed that the opponent, accused of insanity, does not have the correct answer. If he agrees with the accusation, then the implicit silence "he confessed himself, so he is like that" will work. Note that this directly contradicts the original thesis - that crazy people _never_ admit they are crazy! However, the bet is on the fact that the stereotype will be stronger than logic. If the opponent begins to deny the accusation, then an incorrect consequence is used: "if madmen do not confess, then all those who do not confess are mad."

1.5.2. Incorrect causation

Since the establishment of true causes is an important, sometimes the main point of many discussions, demagogues quite often try to replace the true cause with a false one.

1.5.2.1. Issuing an effect for a cause

The most brazen, but, nevertheless, often effective way is to turn the causal relationship in reverse, which allows you to distort the picture to the complete opposite. For example, a demagogue compares a country with a low crime rate and soft laws to a country with a high crime rate and strict laws - and concludes that the severity of the laws only leads to an increase in crime. While in fact, on the contrary, harsh laws were introduced in response to criminal lawlessness.

It is important to note, however, that in reality the causal relationship is not always one-sided. So, there are situations of positive feedback, when the effect, in turn, begins to influence the cause, strengthening it, which at the next turn leads to an increase in the effect, etc. In addition, there are processes that proceed both in the forward and in the opposite direction; for example, both demand can generate supply, and supply (through advertising, etc.) generate demand. For a demagogue, such situations are especially convenient, because he can choose from two opposite tendencies only one that meets his interests - and he will be formally right when talking about it, because it really exists! - but it will completely ignore the other.

1.5.2.2. Issuing a correlation for a cause

This kind of demagogy is based on the violation of the rule "after this does not mean because of this." The correlation between two phenomena does not always indicate the presence of a causal relationship between them - it can be like a simple coincidence (the probability of which is the higher, the more common the phenomena themselves or at least one of them; a classic example is "90% of deaths from cancer ate cucumbers"), and the result of the fact that both phenomena are consequences of a third. Particularly arrogant demagogues are able to pass off even phenomena with a negative correlation as a cause - that is, point to single examples that allegedly confirm their point of view, while ignoring the vast majority of refuting examples (“Churchill drank, smoked, was fat and lived to a ripe old age”). Most often, such examples actually fall under the category of "not thanks, but in spite of."

1.5.3. Vicious circle

This is a logical error known since ancient times, which consists in the fact that the thesis to be proved is derived from statements that are themselves proved on the basis of this thesis. The simplest (and yet still actively used by churchmen) example is "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." In practice, usually
the chain of reasoning is made longer in order to lull the opponent's vigilance.

1.5.4. Incorrect sampling

Methods of incorrect discretization are based on the fact that the entire set of options to be considered (which can be both discrete and continuous) is divided into several elements, each of which is considered as something unified. The incorrectness lies in the fact that either some of the options simply drop out of consideration, not being attributed to any element (or, what is the same, not all elements are considered), or within the framework of one element, significantly different, unrelated options are combined, which in fact In fact, it should be considered separately (“non-separation of flies from cutlets”), or, conversely, variants that can be part of one whole are spread according to different, opposed to each other elements.

1.5.4.a. Incorrect dichotomy

Most often, incorrect discretization of all three types occurs in the simplest (and, accordingly, "intelligible") form of dichotomy - splitting into only two alternatives. In the first case, the "logic" "if not a phenomenon, then its opposite" is used, ignoring the fact that we are not talking about Boolean variables that have only 2 states; out of the entire set of possible alternatives, two are selected, as a rule - extreme ones ("either complete permissiveness - or totalitarian tyranny"). Another example of an incorrect dichotomy of the first type is reasoning of the form "if not more, then less" (in this case, the case when "equals" is missed). In the second case (which, by the way, is often combined with the first), they fall into one heap - more precisely, into two heaps - completely different things from each other: "either democracy, freedom of pornography and prostitution and the abolition of the death penalty - or censorship, dictatorship and death camps. In the third case, the opposition "either - or" is made in a situation where "and, and" is possible ("either freedom - or order"). Incorrect dichotomy is especially loved by politicians (primarily radicals), moreover, by opposite directions.

1.5.5. Incorrect deduction

Incorrect deduction, i.e. reasoning "from the general to the particular" is based, respectively, on the incorrectness either in denoting the boundaries of the general, or in classifying the particular as part of it.

1.5.5.1. Incorrect use of the universal quantifier

A very common technique is that some property (as a rule, characteristic of most objects of a certain class) is unreasonably attributed to all objects of this class (and sometimes also other classes). In many cases, this technique is combined with reference to stereotypes: "All people have sex" (the narrow-minded science fiction writers extend this thesis, which is incorrect in itself, also to other types of intelligent beings), "All Russians love to drink," etc. Such statements can also occur in an inverted form - "no one / nothing ..." Disputants should be extra vigilant whenever they hear the words "everyone", "any", etc., and also take into account the fact that such the word demagogue can be omitted, but it is implied ("for a woman, love and family come first"). In general, it should be remembered that in the real world, classes and properties to which the universal quantifier applies (that is, having no exceptions) do not occur very often.

1.5.5.2. Incorrect reckoning

Even if the universal quantifier is used correctly, the deduction may be wrong, because the object in question simply does not belong to the class for which the quantifier is applied. Sometimes this technique occurs in its inverse form - incorrect exclusion, when the object that refutes the universal quantifier is arbitrarily excluded from the class, while the quantifier becomes formally correct (this form is also known as the "real Scotsman's method": the demagogue declares that all real Scots do so-and-so, and when he is given examples of Scots who do not do this, he replies that these are not real Scots). In both cases, to facilitate his task, the demagogue may formulate the boundaries of the class in a fuzzy way, allowing for arbitrary expansion and contraction; accordingly, the opponent should immediately insist on a clear definition of the boundaries of the class and the criteria for belonging to it.

1.5.6. Incorrect induction

Incorrect reasoning "from the particular to the general" is based on incomplete induction, that is, attributing some property to all objects of the class on the basis that some of them have it (usually forming a more or less logical sequence). The classic example is "the numbers 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 are prime, so all odd numbers are prime."

1.5.6.a. Temporal induction

A special subspecies of incorrect induction is the application of incomplete induction to time: "if something was not in the past and is not now, then it will not be in the future either." The demagogue thus excludes development and the very possibility of it from consideration. It is clear that this kind of demagoguery is especially loved by all sorts of retrogrades and enemies of progress, as well as simply narrow-minded people who are not able to think ahead.

1.5.7. Identification of part and whole

This technique is based on ignoring the fact that the properties of the system as a whole are not reducible to the properties of its elements. It can be applied both in one direction (attributing to an element the properties of the system, say, to an individual person - the properties of social institutions), and in the other (attributing the properties of elements to the system, in particular, personal properties to society).

1.6. Theoretical formalism

Perhaps this is the most cunning of the tricks of this class, for the demagogue who formally uses it turns out to be right! The catch is that he is right only from an abstract, formal-theoretical point of view, but in practice his statements are untenable. For example, the opponent claims that A is stupid, and proves this as follows: in his entire life, A has not done a single smart deed, but he has done such and such stupid things. The demagogue, without disputing the facts presented (because they correspond to reality), in response accuses the opponent of an incorrect consequence: they say, from the fact that every fool behaves stupidly, it does not follow that everyone who behaves stupidly is a fool. Indeed, strictly formally not having a certain property (in this case, the mind) and not showing it are not the same thing. Moreover, you can even give examples when a smart guy pretends to be a fool (in a certain situation and for a certain time). However, from a practical point of view, it is obvious that if someone never exhibits a certain property, even in situations where it would be clearly beneficial for him (and the opposite is not beneficial), then he simply does not
possesses (with probability tending to one). This technique is often combined with the inversion of the presumption (see 2.4.) and is used, in particular, by adherents of "political correctness" ("proving" that no category of people, including clinical idiots, is worse than others) and churchmen ("lack of evidence for the existence of God - not evidence of its absence).

2. Ignoring the argument

When a demagogue feels that he cannot object to anything on the merits, he may try to simply ignore arguments that are inconvenient for him. Opponents in this case should be vigilant and persistent, not allowing him to get away from the answer.

2.1. Direct ignore

The simplest option is direct ignorance, in which the demagogue behaves as if the opponent's arguments did not exist at all (in oral discussion, he may also prevent the opponent from opening his mouth or shout over him). That is, he either continues, as if nothing had happened, to develop his theses further, or, having listened to objections, allegedly in response to them repeats his previous statements, regardless of the fact that they have just been refuted by the opponent. Repeated abstracts can be changed in form, but not in substance. This simple technique works best in front of an intellectually unpretentious audience, especially one sympathetic to the position defended by the demagogue. In front of a more serious audience, demagogues can use a modified version of the technique: first, let the opponent speak out to the maximum (state many theses at once), and then begin to answer some of them in as much detail and verbosity as possible (best of all, the last or first), in the hope that for with this detailed answer, the audience will forget about the theses that remained unanswered at all. It is ideal for a demagogue if his answer is interrupted by the discussion leader, citing a time limit; "Here, they say, I was ready to answer the rest of the arguments in the same detail, but you see for yourself - they did not give me."

2.2. Distracting the discussion

A more serious method is not just to ignore the opponent's theses, but, having started to answer, as it were, to them, as far as possible imperceptibly for the audience and the opponent himself, divert the discussion aside.

2.2.1. Simple withdrawal ("translation of arrows")

When "translating arrows", the demagogue usually begins to develop a seemingly similar, but in fact different topic. Often, analogies are used for this (with subsequent discussion not of the subject of discussion itself, but of objects given as an analogy) and distortions. Arrows can also be translated not to another topic, but to another person, more often
of all - on the opponent himself, against whom his own arguments are trying to deploy (the most primitive device here is “himself like this”: “demagogues are accused of demagoguery”, “a person most actively criticizes in others those shortcomings that he himself possesses”, etc.). or come up with new ones, somehow related to the issue under discussion.

2.2.1.a. Answering a question with a question

A textbook example of "transferring arrows to an opponent" is the answer with a question to a question. The demagogue thereby turns from the defending side into the attacking side and tries to maintain the advantage he has gained by asking more and more clarifying and supplementing questions and thereby moving further and further away from the need to answer the original question himself. The opponent should stop these attempts at the very beginning, reminding them of the order of questions and answers.

However, there is a situation when the answer to a question with a question is quite correct - namely, when the original question is not formulated clearly enough, and before answering, it is necessary to clarify what the opponent actually meant. In this case, the roles may change: the demagogue may deliberately ask a fuzzy question, and, having received a clarifying question in response, accuse the opponent of using a demagogic device.

2.2.1.b. Lead to the upper level

The demagogue states: "Actually, your question is a special case of a more general one" and then transfers the reasoning to this "more general question". By itself, such a statement can be both false and true. If it is true, further demagogic tricks are used - incorrect induction (1.5.6.), identification of part and whole (1.5.7.), incorrect deduction (1.5.5.), etc.

Note, however, that the transition to a more general question may be quite correct.

2.2.2. Concentration on particulars

To divert the discussion, the demagogue can choose some insignificant particular in the opponent's arguments and try to focus the entire discussion on it. It is ideal for a demagogue if it is in this particular particular that the opponent made a mistake or inaccuracy (even if it does not affect the truth of the main thesis) - in this case, the demagogue will launch a verbose merciless criticism, which should give the audience the impression that the opponent has been defeated in all respects. But even if there is nothing to complain about to the opponent, only a detailed reasoning with the subsequent development of the topic in the direction given by this particular allows the demagogue to avoid answering the main arguments. Accordingly, the opponent (or the leader of the discussion) should return the dispute to the main topic in a timely manner.

2.2.3. Incorrect terminology

Manipulations with terminology are among the favorite tricks of many demagogues. One of the variants of this technique is the use of the term in a different meaning than the opponent, and the change of meaning can occur right in the course of the discussion: the demagogue first tries to prove the thesis using the generally accepted meaning, and then, feeling that he is failing, declares that "in fact actually meant something else." In a version that is more subtle and dangerous for the opponent, the translation of the discussion to this "other" is carried out imperceptibly, without an explicit statement of a different meaning. A demagogue can use the most ambiguous, vague and indistinct terms in order to build a thesis that allows for various, including mutually exclusive, interpretations - in the hope of either confusing the opponent or declaring himself right in hindsight, choosing the appropriate one from a variety of interpretations (this technique is often combined also with the method of implicit defaults, it is used not only in disputes - it is especially loved by various fortune-tellers and predictors, as well as negligent students on the exam). Incorrect terminology can also be used to identify non-identical concepts (for example, opponents of abortion and the death penalty love to call both murders). Another technique - instead of answering the opponent in essence, begin to find fault with the terminology used by him; for example, in a dispute about the crimes of fascism or communism, start furiously proving that in Germany there was no fascism, but Nazism, but in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. - not communism, but socialism (which, by the way, according to the classics of Marxism, is "the first stage of communism", but if the opponent does not know this, the demagogue is already celebrating the first victory). In addition to diverting the discussion from the merits of the matter to a dispute over terms, the demagogue achieves an additional psychological effect by putting the opponent in the position of a justifying party. In all these cases, the semantics of the term can be replaced by its etymology (for example, the very word "demagogue" originally meant "leader of the people" and did not have a negative meaning). Incorrect terminology can also be used to discredit the thesis (see 3.1.3.) and the opponent, or to exalt one's own; in this case, neutral terms are replaced by pejorative or praising ones (“some writer dares to encroach on our Great Victory!”)

2.3. Substitution of the thesis

There are two types of substitution of the thesis: either the demagogue replaces the thesis of the opponent and brilliantly debunks what his opponent did not actually assert at all (often pulling the opponent's words out of context is used for this purpose), or his own, and proves something completely different what he needs to prove.

2.3.a. Juggling and bringing to the point of absurdity

A very common form of thesis substitution is distortion, which can also be combined with incorrect discretization (when a demagogue, bringing the opponent's thesis to an absurd extreme, ignores that, in addition to this extreme, there are more reasonable and balanced options). This technique is often used by liberal politicians - in response to any proposals for any measures for control and regulation, they say: "Well, of course! Let's drive everyone to prison, let's go back to 1937," and so on. The favorite demagoguery of school teachers belongs to the same category: when a student says that he has forgotten something, he is told: "Haven't you forgotten your head?"

2.4. Presumption inversion

The presumption determines which of the opposite theses is considered true by default, and which one must be proved (for example, the presumption of innocence says that a person is considered innocent by default, and his guilt must be proven). Accordingly, the inversion of the presumption is that the demagogue, instead of proving his thesis, requires (contrary to the accepted presumption) that his opponent prove the opposite. This kind of demagoguery is especially loved by believers: "Why do we have to prove that there is a god? You prove that he does not exist!" The danger of this device is that, even if the demagogue cannot justify why his presumption is more correct than the generally accepted one, he can at least insist that it is no worse, and that the choice of one of these presumptions is pure convention. Accordingly, the opponent needs to be able to justify why this is not so. Thus, the acceptance of the "presumption of existence" would mean that everything, absolutely everything and any objects, including fictional and mutually exclusive by anyone, exist until proven otherwise; moreover, any statement is true, because (until proven otherwise) there is a proof of it - which is an obvious absurdity. A demagogue pressed against the wall in this way can
make another attempt at inversion through juggling terms - for example, agreeing that it is necessary to prove the presence, not the absence, will require to prove the "presence of absence".

2.5. Making demands

In order to alleviate his position or completely disrupt the discussion, the demagogue can put forward demands to opponents both in a polite and in an ultimatum form. In fact, this is also an ignorance of the argument, because in this case the opponent is also not answered on the merits. Note, however, that not every demand is demagogy (for example, the demand to apologize in response to obvious rudeness is quite correct).

2.5.1. Imposing asymmetric conditions

This reception, as a rule, has an ultimatum character; the demagogue makes his further participation in the discussion dependent on the fulfillment by the opponents or the leader of the discussion of conditions that, if fulfilled, would put the demagogue in a more convenient position than his opponents. As a rule, such a demand is somehow motivated by the fact that the demagogue is very busy, allegedly offended (we note that for a real insult, a single apology is enough, and not the provision of preferences), etc. If the conditions are accepted (which should never be done), the demagogue gains an advantage; if they are rejected, he declares that the discussion has been disrupted by his opponents, who are supposedly "afraid" to provide him with "normal" conditions. The last option is even more beloved by demagogues than the first (because, even with advantages, say, in terms of response time, it is more difficult to defend a logically flawed position than just slamming the door), so the conditions are often formulated as obviously unacceptable. To debunk this technique, it is necessary to show why the demands of the demagogue are unlawful.

2.5.2. Exchange of theses

The exchange of theses, as a rule, appeals to politeness: "I agreed with your thesis, now you agree with mine." A less polite, but exhaustive answer to this is "We are not in a money changer."

2.6. Relativism

A demagogue who understands that he has nothing to object to on the merits of the opponent's arguments may launch into rhetoric in the spirit of "Everything is relative", "Absolute truth does not exist", "Everyone is right in his own way", etc. A good answer to this is to ask the demagogue whether his thesis "absolute truth does not exist" is absolute truth or not. Generally speaking, there really are questions in which there is no absolute, more precisely, objective truth as such (the notorious "disputes about tastes", in particular - however, not everything is so simple with them, it is quite realistic to justify the superiority of high art over base kitsch ). But a competent disputant will point out this circumstance from the very beginning and simply will not enter into a senseless argument. To the statements of the demagogue that no one can know everything and that facts confirming his correctness may be discovered in the future, it should be answered that, according to the "presumption of non-existence", we recognize only those facts whose existence has been proven at the moment, all the rest consider non-existent; if in the future their existence is proven, we will return to this topic, but "if" does not mean "when", but for now we are forced to state that our respected opponent could not defend his position.

2.7. Negation of logic

Finally, a demagogue, pinned to the wall by his opponent's arguments, can apply the most absurd trick from the point of view of a normal disputant - having been defeated in the field of logic, he can begin to deny logic as such! As a justification for such a position, the demagogue can cite various logical errors and paradoxes as evidence of the "inferiority" of logic - although in fact they only prove the inferiority of those who do not know how to use logic correctly. A demagogue may not bother with any "evidence" at all (in fact, why would an opponent of logic need them), but simply declare that it is "inadmissible", "blasphemous" to apply logic to such areas as faith or love. Naturally, this kind of demagogy is used exclusively by irrationalists. Classic examples of such demagogy: "I believe, because it's absurd!" (Tertullian), "Russia cannot be understood with the mind" (Tyutchev), "You cannot see the most important thing with your eyes, only the heart is vigilant" (de Saint-Exupery). In an ironic form, this technique is played up in the aphorism "I think that sex is better than logic, but I can not prove it." In fact, the disputant, who has come to the point of denying logic, simply signs his defeat, which should be stated by his opponent.

3. Discrediting the argument

In addition to trying to answer the opponent on the merits or to completely evade consideration of his arguments, demagogues can also use an intermediate way - discrediting the opponent's arguments. At the same time, arguments can be discredited both directly and through discrediting their author. Most often, the demagogic methods of this group are not addressed to the opponent (because there are very few chances to convince him through attacks), but exclusively to the audience.

3.1. Discrediting the thesis

The techniques of this group are intended to "prove" that the thesis is bad, instead of deciding whether it is true or false. Further, the demagogue can either make the substitution "if the thesis is bad, then it is false", or defend the position "even if the thesis is true, it is bad, and therefore unacceptable" (on the latter, such a phenomenon as "political correctness" is entirely built).

Direct discrediting of the thesis does not even contain attempts to prove it, but directly declares the worthlessness of the thesis. For this, unfounded statements such as "this is nonsense!", "complete absurdity", "the opponent's statements are superficial and ill-considered", etc. are used. etc. Including, of course, a demagogue can accuse an opponent of demagogy. Naturally, this is a very primitive trick, which is easily parried by the demand to substantiate their accusations.

In principle, all discrediting techniques are somehow based on an appeal to emotions instead of reason, but techniques of this type implement this in the most explicit form: it is directly stated that it is impossible to agree with the opponent’s arguments for purely emotional reasons. Examples: "Can some dry rational calculations make us give up the greatest happiness of love, the enjoyment of sex?", "In a country that gave so many millions of lives in the war, the very thought of questioning the greatness of our Victory is blasphemous!" "Can we agree with the inhuman atheism that robs people of faith and hope?" etc. Of course, such hysteria should be stopped with calm words that emotions are not an argument, but rather evidence of the absence of arguments (the latter is not always true, therefore the word "rather" is necessary, otherwise the phrase itself will become demagogic), and that the truth or falsity of the statement does not associated with its pleasantness for individuals, groups and humanity as a whole.

3.1.2.a. Objective-subjective substitution

A common special case of a direct appeal to emotions is the substitution of an objective picture specially selected on the basis of the most unfavorable subjective one, in the hope that the latter will be emotionally unacceptable for the opponent, and he will either retreat from his position or be branded as a hypocrite who wants to impose on others what he which he considers unacceptable. "The opponent claims that executions due to judicial errors are extremely rare - but would he himself be a victim of such a mistake?" Correct answer: "No, I wouldn't. But we are not talking about my subjective interests, but about the objective benefit for society as a whole. While the victims of the side effects of technology (in this case, the death penalty) are rare, the objective benefit outweighs the subjective harm." You can also play with the demagogue on his field and ask if he himself would like to become a victim of the position he defends (in the example under discussion, become a victim of a bandit who was not executed on time), and then compare the probabilities of both unfavorable outcomes. Often this demagogic device is combined with distortion and substitution of concepts: "The opponent proposes to euthanize clinical idiots, but would he like to be deprived of his own life?" You don't even need to say "no" here, it's enough to state "the question is irrelevant, because I'm not a clinical idiot." In order to neutralize the emotional impact of the demagogue on the audience, it is worth adding: "But if, due to some misfortune, I become one, then, of course, euthanasia will have to be applied to me."

3.1.3. Using emotive terms

This widely used technique is to prejudice the opponent's arguments (rarely, one's own) in the audience by using derogatory (praising) terms instead of neutral ones. Instead of "a small group of oppositionists" they say "a miserable bunch of renegades"; no less classic examples - "we have
scouts, they have spies", "we have rebels, they have rebels". In addition to replacing terms with tendentious synonyms, the effect can be achieved by adding the words "so-called", "notorious", etc. to neutral terms. This technique is by no means used only in political disputes - it is "suitable" for any areas, including scientific ones, but it works the better, the more passions are heated in the audience.It can be applied not in relation to the opponent's theses, but in relation to himself, but in this case can already be classified as insults or slander.

It should be noted, however, that the use of emotionally colored terms is not always incorrect. It is certainly inappropriate in scientific discussions, but it can be acceptable in acute journalistic controversy - the main thing is that such terms should be used in relation to objects that really and undeniably deserve it. For example, the crimes of some maniac or tyrant are quite appropriate to call "monstrous atrocities."

3.1.3.a. Discrediting supporters / praising opponents of the thesis

In a particular case, tendentious coloring can be given not to the thesis itself (and its elements), but to its supporters/opponents. At the same time, unlike the methods of 3.2., formally no incorrect statements are made to the opponent himself, moreover, the demagogue can even express regret that such a worthy person repeats, perhaps unconsciously, the arguments of "extremists", "enemies of our Motherland" etc. (In the case of praise, the demagogue, of course, also does not praise himself, but modestly declares something like "let me repeat, following the glorious sons of our Fatherland ...") At the same time, in contrast to the methods 3.1.5.-6 ., "bad" (or "good") are not objectively such (or, at least, it is not obvious), but precisely because of the tendentiously used
terminology.

3.1.4. Appeal to morality

An appeal to morality is appropriate only in one single type of dispute - in disputes, the purpose of which is actually to give a moral assessment (and even here there is room for demagoguery, because morality, firstly, can be very different for different groups of people, and " "the most correct" morality does not exist by definition, and secondly, it is often internally contradictory). In all other disputes (primarily scientific), the purpose of which is to establish not the morality of the thesis, but its truth, references to morality (the immorality of the opponent's theses or the high morality of the opposite position) are a crude demagogic device. Faced with such a technique, one should answer that the appeal to morality indicates the absence of substantive arguments, and if such arguments are not presented, it remains only to state the defeat of the opponent.

This technique is based on the fact that the contested thesis is declared part of some negatively perceived concept, or equally condemned individuals are recorded among its supporters (the latter may be accompanied by skillfully selected quotations from such). Difference from 3.1.3.a. is that discrediting like-minded people are "bad" not because of the manipulation of terms, but objectively (or, at least, they are unquestionably condemned by the absolute majority of the audience even without the efforts of a demagogue). In practice, this is a device that is the reverse of 3.1.3.a.: there the real supporters of the thesis are declared "bad", here the real "bad" ones are declared supporters of the thesis. Especially popular among those who use this technique are fascism, racism, communism (Bolshevism), as well as the main ideologists of these concepts. The demagogy here is that either the thesis under consideration is actually not related to
corresponding concept (“calling a Negro a Negro is racism!”; the technique is combined with an unsubstantiated assertion), or it is really included in it, but is not specific to it and is also included in others, by no means odious (“fascists loved Wagner’s music, which means love Wagner is fascism!"; the technique is combined with an incorrect consequence), or, finally, not everything in the condemned (albeit generally fair) concept is so unconditionally bad, and the idea under discussion is just one of the positive (or, as at least deserving an impartial analysis, not stigmatization) exceptions ("sterilization of the mentally handicapped is fascism!", "only "scoops" nostalgic for communism can demand free education and medicine!"; the technique is combined with an incorrect attribution of the negative properties of the whole to all its parts ). The concept may not be generally bad (at least unequivocally condemned) - in this case, of all its ideologists, the demagogue chooses the most odious and refers exclusively to them (for example, Novodvorskaya is especially "popular" among opponents of liberalism and democracy).

This technique is "mirror" in relation to the previous one and can use all the same manipulations (unreasonable attribution to a "good" concept, belonging to its non-specific or non-positive elements), however, it is separated into a separate paragraph, since it contains additional techniques in terms of referring to approved authors.

A demagogue can refer to truly respected people who support his views - however, these people deserve respect for their achievements in completely different areas. These areas can be either very distant (say, in matters of politics or science they refer to the opinion of a famous athlete or artist), or closer (another branch of science). In the latter case, especially in front of an unprofessional audience, the demagogue has more chances, so the opponent should be vigilant and, in response to statements like "my opinion is shared by a doctor of sciences such and such", immediately be interested in: "What sciences?" This type of demagoguery is loved, in particular, by politicians who enlist well-known but clearly incompetent people in government under their banners, and by various "subversers" of official science.

In this case, the demagogue refers to figures who are authoritative in the area under consideration - but at the same time to those of their ideas that are already outdated and refuted (for example, even professional Russian psychologists, not to mention amateurs, like to refer to Freud's pansexual theory). This technique can also be used with the opposite purpose, that is, to discredit the concept as a whole; in particular, so-called creationists are fond of pointing out Darwin's individual errors and weaknesses, ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory has since advanced.

3.1.7. Intimidation of the consequences

In this case, the demagogue usually does not even try to deny the truth of the opponent's arguments - he only emphasizes that the recognition of this truth will allegedly have unacceptably difficult consequences. "Freedom of speech and creativity is a good thing, but if we use it, Muslims will be offended and arrange jihad for us", "If we admit the mistakes of our leader, people will turn away from our teachings", etc. The opponent should point out the cowardice and unworthiness of such a position, that one who is not ready to defend his views in the face of the enemy cannot be considered a true supporter of these views, that once he has compromised the truth out of fear, he will compromise it again and again, and finally, the exaggeration of alarmist sentiments.

3.2. Discrediting the opponent

This group of devices is even more incorrect than discrediting the argument, because, no matter how bad the opponent is (even if it is true), the truth or falsity of the thesis does not depend on who is its author. Nevertheless, the discrediting of the opponent is widely used by demagogues; such an area of ​​political technologies as "black PR" is entirely devoted to it, although demagogy of this kind is used not only in politics.

3.2.1. Slander

The easiest way to discredit an opponent is slander, that is, deliberately false (in extreme cases, unsubstantiated) discrediting statements addressed to him; at the same time, in form, slanderous statements can be quite polite. This technique is most effective when it is carried out "behind the eyes", that is, the opponent does not have the opportunity to answer; it is not surprising that journalists are especially willing to resort to slander. However, slander "in the eye" can play into the hands of the demagogue if it puts the opponent in the position of justifying himself. In order to avoid this, the opponent should not refute the slander, but recall the presumption of innocence and demand that the slanderer prove his accusations - and bear responsibility (up to criminal, Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) if (when) he cannot do this.

3.2.2. Insults

Insults, unlike slander, are not necessarily false in content, but are always rude and unacceptable in form. The purpose of insults, as, indeed, in the case of slander, can be not only to create a negative image of the opponent among the audience, but also to drive the opponent out of himself, in the hope that this will further discredit him in the eyes of observers (especially against the background of the offender keeping Olympic calm and the slanderer; see also 3.2.3), and also prevent him from thinking logically and making substantive arguments. Insults should also be held liable up to criminal liability (Article 130 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). However, it should be remembered that the impartial truth, expressed in a correct (not in the sense of "tactful and sparing", but simply not in a boorish) form, is not an insult, no matter how offensive it may seem to the addressee.

3.2.3. Provoking the Opponent

This type of demagogy is aimed at pushing the opponent to some unconstructive, unapproved actions and thus causing a negative attitude towards him from the audience. Most often they provoke rudeness, harshness, etc.; the technique can be combined with slander and insults (in the hope of causing even more insults in response and referring to the stereotype "the truth pricks the eyes!"), But not always. A skilled provocateur tries to look as polite and correct as possible in order to create an advantageous contrast with a flaming opponent. One of the simplest tricks of this kind is "playing dumb", combining a direct disregard for the opponent's arguments with a demonstrative "misunderstanding" of his theses and endless stupid questions; moreover, when the opponent realizes that he is simply being mocked, this often only increases his irritation, which only contributes to the success of the demagogue. Provocateurs also like to "hit sore spots", talk about things that are unpleasant for the opponent (including the circumstances of his personal life, the lives of his relatives, etc.), which are not related to the topic (it is important, however, to emphasize that if these things relate to the topic of discussion, then addressing them is completely correct and if the opponent does not know how to "take a hit", then he is to blame for this himself; one should also distinguish between boorish attacks on the opponent's beliefs and "shrines" and impartial, but correct criticism of such ). The goal of the provocateur may also be to completely disrupt the discussion, so that the responsibility for this falls on the opponent who refused to continue it. In order to counteract these techniques, one should always remain calm during an argument and stop provocations by immediately pointing to them and explaining reasonedly why they are not "innocent questions", but precisely provocations.

3.2.4. Indication of condemned like-minded people

This technique is similar to 3.1.5., but the difference is that the goal is not to discredit the idea, but the author - for what reason the idea is completely excluded from consideration, and like-minded people can be found in areas completely unrelated to the topic of discussion, and then comes reasoning according to the principle "tell me who your friend is..." Like-minded people can be both imaginary (here again, it is most popular to attribute resemblance to the opponent to the ideologists of fascism and Bolshevism; to discredit politicians, it is also often rumored that they are supported by criminals or homosexuals ), and genuine (but this does not affect the truth or falsity of the opponent's thesis).

3.2.5. Emphasizing the real features of the opponent

In addition to various insinuations and accusations of "defamatory connections", a demagogue can also use the opponent's real qualities to discredit him.

3.2.5.1. Issuance of neutral and positive qualities for shortcomings

This technique is often combined with the use of tendentious terminology: for example, firmness and adherence to principles are declared "stubbornness" and "fanaticism", honesty - "naivety and ignorance of life", courage - "recklessness", caution - "cowardice", but dislike for demagogy, Naturally - "intolerance to criticism." But some demagogues are so impudent that they do not even resort to such a distortion of meaning, but openly scold people for their virtues! Thus, a science fiction writer can be criticized for a riot of fantasy, and a convinced rationalist for a dry, rational approach; at the same time, the demagogue, of course, does not try to explain why the quality he criticizes is bad - apparently, hoping that the audience will take it for granted, on the basis of already one condemning intonation. A fairly effective answer in this case is "yes, and I'm proud of it; and if you think it's bad, prove it." However, here one must be careful not to allow the demagogue to shift the discussion from the discussion of the thesis under consideration to the discussion of the personality and qualities of its author.

3.2.5.2. Emphasizing flaws that are not related to the topic

The "logic" of this technique is expressed by the aphorism "What smart can a humpbacked man say?" However, most people consider references to physical disabilities to be extremely dishonorable, so they are not used very often (although they are used anyway). Much more common are equally, in fact, incorrect references to the "insufficient" (or "excessive") age of the opponent. In general, a demagogue using this technique can find fault with anything. The opposition is obvious - to emphasize that the indicated shortcoming is not relevant to the case, and the desire to discredit the opponent at any cost indicates the absence of substantive arguments.

3.2.5.3. Emphasizing deficiencies relevant to the topic

The most insidious in this group of techniques is emphasizing the opponent's shortcomings that are really relevant to the topic under discussion. Nevertheless, this technique is also demagogic, because, no matter how bad the opponent is, it is necessary to analyze not him, but his arguments! For example, even if a person is an alcoholic, this does not mean that he cannot say anything intelligent about drunkenness; and vice versa - lack of personal experience is not proof of incompetence.

However, there are drawbacks that make a discussion with their owner really pointless. It is useless to argue with a madman, a fool, an ignoramus (especially one who is militant in his ignorance), a fanatic, an aggressive boor - and, of course, with a stubborn demagogue. However, interrupting the discussion, one should reasonably explain to the audience the reasons for this.

A special case of incorrect underlining of a flaw related to the topic is a reference to the fact that in the past the opponent has already been defeated in an argument; it does not take into account that either the topic was still not quite the same, or, more often, the opponent had new arguments.

K. Capek, "Twelve techniques of literary controversy or a guide to newspaper discussions"

1. Despicere (look down- lat.) consists in the fact that the participant in the dispute must make the opponent feel his intellectual and moral superiority, in other words, make it clear that the opponent - Such an a priori premise then gives you the right to that lordly, arrogantly instructive and self-confident tone, which is inseparable from the concept of "discussion".


2. Termini (terminology- lat.) consists in the use of special polemical turns. If you write, for example, that Mr. X, in your opinion, is wrong about something, then Mr. X will answer that you "treacherously attacked him." If you think that, unfortunately, something lacks logic, then your opponent will write that you are "weeping" over it or "shedding tears." Similarly, they say "spit" instead of "protests", "slander" instead of "notes", "sling mud" instead of "criticize", and so on. Even if you were an unusually quiet and harmless person, like a lamb, with the help of such expressions you will be visually depicted as a subject irritable, extravagant, irresponsible and somewhat deranged.


3. Caput canis(here: attribute bad qualities- lat.) It is in the art to use only such expressions that can create only a negative opinion about the beaten opponent. If you are circumspect, you can be called a coward; you are witty - they will say that you claim to be witty; you are inclined to simple and concrete arguments - you can declare that you are mediocre and trivial; you have a penchant for abstract arguments - it is advantageous to present you as an abstruse scholastic, and so on.


4. Non alphabet(here: state the absence- lat.). If you are a serious scientist, you can easily be defeated by the third trick, by saying that you are slow-witted, a garrulous moralist, an abstract theorist, or something like that. But you can be destroyed by resorting to the Non alphabet technique. We can say that you lack subtle wit, immediacy of feelings and intuitive fantasy. If you turn out to be just a direct person with a subtle intuition, you can be struck down by the assertion that you lack firm principles, depth of conviction and, in general, moral responsibility. If you are rational, then you are good for nothing, because you are deprived of deep feelings, if you have them, then you are just a rag, because you lack higher rational principles. Your true properties do not matter - you need to find what is not given to you, and trample you into the dirt, starting from it.


5. Negare(here: deny existence- lat.) consists in a simple denial of everything that is yours, everything that is inherent in you. If you are, for example, a pundit, then you can ignore this fact and say that you are a superficial talker, windbag and amateur. If you have insisted for ten years that (let's say) you believe in damn grandma or Edison, then in the eleventh year you can be declared in polemic that you have never risen to a positive belief in the existence of damn grandma or Thomas Alva Edison. And this will do, because the uninitiated reader does not know anything about you, and the initiated one experiences a feeling of gloating from the consciousness that you are denying the obvious.


6. imago(here: substitution- lat.) lies in the fact that the reader is given some unimaginable scarecrow that has nothing to do with the real enemy, after which this fictional enemy is destroyed. For example, thoughts are refuted that never occurred to the enemy and which, of course, he never expressed; they show him that he is a blockhead and deeply mistaken, citing as examples really stupid and erroneous theses, which, however, do not belong to him.


7. Pugna (beating- lat.) is based on the fact that the opponent or the concept he defends is given a false name, after which the entire controversy is conducted against this arbitrarily taken term. This technique is used most often in the so-called principled polemics. The enemy is accused of some obscene "ism" and then dealt with this "ism".


8. Ulises(Ulysses (Odysseus) - a symbol of cunning - lat.). The main thing in it is to evade and speak not on the merits of the issue. Thanks to this, the controversy is profitably enlivened, weak positions are masked, and the entire dispute becomes endless. This is also called "wearing down the enemy".


9. Testimonia (evidence- lat.) is based on the fact that sometimes it is convenient to use a reference to authority (any one), for example, to state - “Pantagruel also spoke” or “as Treichke proved”. With a certain erudition, for each case, you can find some quote that will kill the enemy on the spot.


10. Quousque… (how long...- lat.) is similar to the previous one and differs only in the absence of a direct reference to authority. They just say, “This has been rejected for a long time,” or “This is already a passed stage,” or “Any child knows,” and so on. Against what has been refuted in this way, no new arguments are required. The reader believes, and the opponent is forced to defend "long ago refuted" - a rather ungrateful task.


11. Impossible(here: should not be allowed- lat.) - do not allow the enemy to be right in anything. It is worth recognizing even a grain of reason and truth behind him - the whole controversy is lost. If another phrase cannot be refuted, there is always the opportunity to say: “Mr. X undertakes to teach me ...”, or “Mr. X operates with such flat and long-known truths as his “discovery ...”, or “Wonder the whole world! The blind chicken found the grain and now it cackles that…” In a word, there is always something to be found, isn't it?


12. Jubilare (triumph- lat.) - one of the most important tricks, and it consists in the fact that the battlefield must always be left with the appearance of a winner. A sophisticated polemicist is never defeated. The loser is always his opponent, whom they managed to "convince" and with whom he is "finished". This is what distinguishes controversy from any other sport. The wrestler on the carpet honestly recognizes himself defeated; but it seems that not a single polemic ended with the words: "Your hand, you convinced me."

The problem of demagogy is most fully described in the work of B. Katsenelenbaum, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences "Demagogy: Classification Experience", in which the author describes various methods of misinformation using demagogy.

Here is a fragment from this work: “Over the many centuries of the existence of this term (demagogy), its content has repeatedly changed. For example, in the Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1985 edition, the words “deception”, “unconscious masses” and so on are included in its definition. We will understand by demagogy a set of methods that make it possible to create the impression of being right without being right. With this understanding, demagogy is between logic and lies.

It differs from logic in that it is used to defend an incorrect judgment, and from lies in that the demagogue does not formulate this judgment, but only leads the listener to it, instructing him to deceive himself. Of course, the above definition is not the only possible understanding of demagogy, but it is the form that is probably most interesting to readers of Science and Life. From this definition follows the classification of methods of demagogy - according to the degree of their proximity to logic and according to the gradual transition to lies. Note, by the way, that a lie deserves not only condemnation, but also analysis, or at least classification.

Below are the four main types of demagogy that Igor Nezhdanov showed in his book "Analytical Intelligence", in accordance with the work of B. Katsenelenbaum. In each of them further division into subtypes is made. Most of the examples that are given for illustration are not fictional, but taken from real life.

1. Demagoguery without violating logic

• An omission of a fact that the listener cannot suspect, but which changes a seemingly obvious conclusion. Example: "N. discovered three comets. Is he a great scientist? "My mother-in-law discovered five comets." Omitted: "my mother-in-law is a world-famous scientist."
• An omission of facts that is seen and filled in by listeners "obviously" leading to an incorrect conclusion. For example, from the minutes of the meeting of the department it follows: “At the meeting of the department, the issue of an error in the lecture of Associate Professor N was discussed. The issue of the level of teaching at the department based on the results of tests was also discussed. It turned out that there was no mistake in the lecture of Associate Professor N.. A decision was made to raise the level of teaching.” And in the report on the meeting only the first and last phrases from the protocol are given.
• Omission of facts that changes the conclusion; this omission can be guessed by the listener only if he does not trust the speaker. Example: "The theorem that N. proved, I also proved." Omitted: "I proved it later."
• Creation of distrust among listeners to any fact by means of appropriate verbal turns. Here is an example of such a build-up of distrust “by degrees”:
  • "Event A happened";
  • “I have been informed that event A has occurred”;
  • “They tried to convince me that event A happened”;
  • “I was persistently told that the event A allegedly happened. However, it was known that I could not verify this statement.”

2. Demagogy with an imperceptible violation of logic

• A logical error known to ancient philosophers is used, when the temporal relationship between two events is interpreted as a cause-and-effect(“After this means because of this”). Example: “After my speech, the vote confirmed my correctness,” but the speaker does not indicate that in his speech he only supported the generally accepted point of view.
• From A follows B or C, but option C is not mentioned. Example: "If you don't agree with me, then you agree with N." - actually I can have a third opinion.
• It is understood that if B follows from A, then A follows from B. Example: "All loafers own demagogy, N. owns demagogy, therefore, he is a loafer."

3. Demagogy without connection with logic

• Using "one-shot" word blocks(“you yourself understand that ...”, “you are a smart person and you cannot help but understand that ...”, “you don’t think that you can’t be wrong”, “this is not science!”, - and many others).
• The answer is not to the given, but to a related question. Example: “Can the speaker's assertion be trusted that he proved the fallacy of this theorem? “I know the speaker as a good family man and social activist.”
• Reference to the authority of non-specialists. Example: “People’s artist N. really liked my theorem, and some junior researcher. proves that she is wrong!
• A mixture of true and false statements in one phrase. Example: “At the seminar, you did not speak and did not refute the speaker, because you are afraid of him!”. Meanwhile, the error in the report was pointed out by the very first speaker.
• An incorrect statement is contained in the formulation of the question. Example: "Why were you silent in the seminar when you were being criticized?" - ask a person who was not at the seminar.
• At knowing your small and insignificant mistakes.(In response to the remark that the theorem is erroneous: "Indeed, in proving the theorem, I made a grammatical error.")

4. Beyond the boundary of demagogy proper (transitional area between demagogy and lies)

• Forceful demagogy(according to Krylov: “You are to blame for the fact that I want to eat”).
• Blackmail, sometimes not even related to the opponent himself. Example: “You are right in proving that N. is not guilty of what I accuse him of. But if you insist on this, then I will bring him other, more serious charges. You will prove you are right, but you will destroy him.”
• Disruption of the discussion, turning it into a scandal(hysteria, complaints like “I am being bullied”, “I am being insulted”, insulting the opponent, accusing him of demagogy

You can encounter these methods of demagoguery anywhere - both at work and at home. Although most often, of course, you see them in Internet discussions. If you want, I can tell you more about each of them and about countering such techniques.