Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words

*     *     *

Introduction

We humans have a tendency to want to win others to our own opinions and points of view. Ideally, discussion and debate would always proceed in a dispassionate, reasoned manner, with every party being willing to follow wherever truth leads—even if it means abandoning one’s own cherished opinions and convictions. The reality, however, is that we tend to allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the conviction of our own rightness, and by our desire to win the day with our own views. The result is that we may be tempted to take rhetorical shortcuts—shortcuts designed, whether consciously or unconsciously, to enable us to win the debate without having to apply ourselves to the hard work of an honest, humble, willing-to-be-taught process of dispassionate, reasoned discourse. Probably we all take rhetorical shortcuts; probably none of us are exempt.

To the extent I have contributed to this so-called glossary, and there may be other contributors, it is my goal to identify ways we can attempt to win the debate in manipulative ways, without regard to the substance of the issues themselves. Methods (gambits, ploys, tactics, strategies, etc.) can be manipulative. The use of words can also be manipulative.

In what follows, where I am the author I am using the term “doctrinaire apologists” to refer to the worst offenders. Generally speaking, I intend this term to refer to those who are simply unwilling to try to see another person’s point of view. In extreme cases, they are not even able to see another person’s point of view. In all of my edginess, these doctrinaire apologists are the people I have in mind. Still, maybe we can all take warning lest we overmuch indulge the manipulative methods of the doctrinaire apologists. Oh, and just to be fair, doctrinaire apologists will tend to be found on every side of every hotly contested issue. I do not wish to discuss whether or to what extent I have ever been a doctrinaire apologist.

Thank you, and enjoy.

by Gary W.

*      *      *

Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words

Biblical

Biblical: An adjective applied to elevate any given opinion to the status of infallibility, as though it were Scripture itself. Is useful for inoculating the said opinion from criticism, for cutting off discussion, and for discounting any attempt to subject the opinion to an objective testing against actual Scripture. Generally used in an attempt to force one’s personal opinions on others.

Positive self-esteem

Positive self-esteem: A condition which invariably masks a child’s understanding of the utter contempt with which God views the child in the child’s unregenerate, fallen condition; a condition of such grave concern as to necessitate the withholding of all love, the experience of which must inevitably lead to a child’s infection with the said unalterably damning condition of positive self-esteem.

Condescension

Condescension: An attitude and tone of moral and intellectual superiority adopted when announcing that one does not deign particular persons, questions, points or positions as being worthy of serious consideration, or even of receiving the courtesy of a response or answer. May be coupled with an actual insulting of the other person’s intelligence. Useful in avoiding discussions in which one’s own position is unlikely to prevail.

Verbal Subterfuge

Verbal Subterfuge: The art of manipulatively communicating a morally reprehensible idea or impression to a target audience, but in a manner that allows the speaker or writer to claim that something else of a morally neutral, or even laudable, nature was intended. Sometimes referred to as plausible deniability. Note the etymological similarity between “subterfuge” and “subtle,” as in “the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made.” Gen. 3:1, ASV 1901.

Taking Out of Context

Accusatory terminology typically deployed as a tactic to avoid responding substantively to legitimate questions and observations. Specifically, what a doctrinaire apologist, often a pastor, groundlessly accuses a fellow believer of committing when asking a question or making an observation, whether relating to Scripture or to some other source. Often involves the commission of an emotionally aggressive interpersonal putdown/shutdown, i.e. a demeaning, shaming, putting down (by implying the deficiency of a fellow believer’s intellectual and/or moral capacity), coupled with a disrespectful, alienating, shutting down (as in refusing to extend the courtesy of actually responding to the substance of a fellow believer’s concern). Is useful in camouflaging the apologist’s lack of knowledge and/or the error of their views.

Tactical Exaggeration

A form of deceit wherein some one or more factual circumstances are inflated, either quantitatively or qualitatively, in an attempt to discredit, demean, distract or otherwise gain an advantage by means other than an honest and forthright discussion of issues. Is a species of outright misrepresentation. May be deployed as one of several tactical gambits in an overarching strategy of avoiding a reasoned discussion of matters wherein one’s point of view is unlikely to prevail on the basis of dispassionate discourse.

Truth

A code word used in place of opinion. Specifically, a word used to refer to any opinion for which a doctrinaire apologist can find the flimsiest of Scriptural proof texts. May be used manipulatively in a manner similar to the manipulative use of the code word “Biblical.”

By Gary W.