Showing posts with label Browbeating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Browbeating. Show all posts

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Browbeating

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Overtalking; vituperation; bullying; polemics.


Description

This fallacy usually occurs in face-to-face discussion. A discussion in which this fallacy occurs is likely to be heated and aggressive in tone. The advocate is loud, threatening and voluble. He or she does not allow the opponent an opportunity to make his or her case. When the opponent seeks to make a point, he or she is cut off abruptly and not allowed to finish. The speech rate of the browbeating advocate is rapid with minimal pauses. The fallacy of browbeating can also occur in print, but the histrionics characteristic of browbeating are limited by the mode of communication. Browbeating expressed in print or writing is better described as polemics.

Example

Gertrude Grimace is an ageing cultural icon and professional expatriate. She is also a needy exhibitionist who seeks every opportunity to hold forth on any subject. A compliant and fawning media can always be relied upon to afford her plenty of opportunities to pontificate during any of her fleeting visits to the country of her birth.

On this occasion she is taking part in a panel discussion on youth. She calls for the voting age to be lowered to twelve. Another member of the panel begins his response: "But don't you think voters need a certain level of maturity to exercise a responsible vote, after all..." This is as far as he gets. From this point on Gertrude overtalks him, all the other panellists and the moderator. She is loud, obnoxious, strident and rapid-fire in her delivery.

Comment

Most interactions would be improved if participants engaged in more attentive listening. After all, everyone is entitled to express his or her own point of view. But this minimal entitlement is not enough - when a point of view is expressed, the person expressing the idea is entitled to a genuine hearing. This is common courtesy. It is also an essential requirement for the amicable resolution of conflict.

When confronted with browbeating, the detached doubter will make a firm claim for the right to be heard. If this claim proves fruitless and the pontificating browbeater continues to be intransigent, the opponent should terminate the interaction and explain why this proved to be necessary. Attempting to match the browbeater is almost always the wrong approach, especially when a discussion or debate is happening in front of an audience. Even a hostile audience can be trusted to see what is going on.

In the example given, the moderator of the hijacked discussion could turn off Gertrude's microphone after a minute or two of her tirade and calmly point out that he will not accept such hostility in response to honest opinions freely expressed by other members of the panel. Gertrude's pattern of behaviour suggests that she is suffering from LAME disease (Look At Me Everybody). Like most browbeaters, she has an overwhelming need to "win" an argument through physical suppression of her opponents' arguments. To the superficial observer, she may come across as confident and self-assured, but her browbeating suggests that she has very little faith in the soundness of her position. The skeptical observer will draw the obvious conclusion - Gertrude is all hot air, and her browbeating is a substitute for intelligent analysis and truth seeking.

Browbeating is a common feature of political interviews on television news and current affairs programs, and talkback radio. Sometimes the interviewer is the aggressor, sometimes the politician is the aggressor, and sometimes both are aggressive.

Consider the more common case where the interviewer is aggressive. He or she will ask a loaded question and interrupt the answer with a supplementary question. The interruption will be cynical and aggressive in tone. More interruptions will follow and the interviewee will not be permitted to finish an answer. The interview will conclude without extracting substantive information. The interviewer will thank the interviewee for appearing. The thanks will be insincere.

Politicians are often characterized as evasive by the browbeating commentariat (political journalists and commentators). This is ironic. Politicians are circumspect and guarded in their speech because the commentariat is forever on the lookout for the unguarded moment. They seize upon and distort trivial lapses. They quote out of context, "beat up" and manufacture stories. The ego and career considerations of the commentariat often outweigh any commitment to conveying valid information to an informed electorate.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 12: Browbeating (feat. Jenny McCarthy, Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Evil)



In this podcast we discuss the dodgy tactic Browbeating. It’s also our last look at the fallacies of Jenny McCarthy. We’re totally sick of her. Other examples from Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Evil.


Here's the link to direct download: (31 mins & 14 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.
























Subscribe with iTunesAdd to my GoogleAdd to my Yahoo

Saturday, January 07, 2006

9-11 Conspiracy theorist - Aka cretinous cretin who badly needs (brow)beating

If you believe in government cover-ups apropos to Sept 11, UFOs, faked moon landings etc., raise your hand. "You are a moron." Now, I know that for me to say this might seem somewhat hypocritical (see Personal Abuse), but there you go…

Some humans are so devoid of thought that it is actually impossible to reason with them. If this is the case, then on occasion, I feel the need to unleash upon them all my (underhanded) tactics of fallacious argument (one can use knowledge of poor reasoning for good, or for evil). Conspiracy theorists are so stupid (Personal Abuse), that it's best to not let them get a word in, just shout them down with your points (Browbeating), then when you're done, walk away, ignoring anything they have to say. If need be - if what they say is so offensive - take it a step further and give them a head-butt (actual beating of brows). (Disclaimer: the last part was only to illustrate my disgust with certain types of these people, such as "distortatured" 9-11 conspiracy theorist Dave von Kleist. In no way do I condone actual beatings, as much as they may be asking for it.)

Writing on conspiracy theories is something I've been meaning to do for some time, but a show I caught 20 minutes of this week - 911 in Plane Site - gave me the required impetus. It was actually quite offensive, suggesting the US government, CIA and military orchestrated 9-11. Amongst Dave's claims was that military planes flew into the World Trade Centre, and a bunker buster bomb was used on the Pentagon. The show was entirely a fiction, with so much Deck Stacking that it has a chance of winning Best Film at Cannes and Best Documentary at the Oscars (which is very impressive for only one work of fiction).

The favourite trick of the host Dave, was asking rhetorical questions, beginning each by loudly saying: "Question!" (Much as Americans - the ones on TV anyway - tend to end their spoken sentences when they're angry by saying: "Period!") Very annoying.

Well, I've got one for Dave: "Question! Where are all the people who were on-board the flights that were hijacked?" I guess being conspiracy theorists he'll say: "They were abducted by Aliens. The government knows about it too, but they are covering this up as well!"

As I've said, this show was entirely a fiction, so I'm not going to treat it with any seriousness. It's not really possible to reason with such people (as with fundamental Christian creationists, UFO and moon landing conspiracy theorists etc.). However, here are four points about such beliefs in general:

1) A wise man once told me, if it's a choice between a conspiracy or a "stuff up" (he actually used a less polite term), then go with the "stuff up" every time. 9-11 was a monumental stuff up by intelligence agencies.
2) The White House couldn't cover up something as small as (known to only a couple of people) Bill Clinton's "extra-curricular" activities and an intern with a love of cigars, and yet, supposedly, they are covering up 9-11?
3) Apply Occam's Razor: "If there are two (or more) equally valid, but conflicting hypotheses for an observed phenomena, one should choose the hypothesis that requires the least number of steps to explain it." If you have different explanations for something, all of which can explain it equally well, then you have no reason to choose a complex reason over a simple one.
Conspiracies never have equal explanatory validity with the standard explanations. However, if we are to grant a conspiracy - such as 9-11 in Plane Site - equal explanatory validity to the official version for 9-11, we can apply Occam's Razor and still refute it. By definition, conspiracies are always more complex than the standard explanation - given that conspiracies always involve steps to cover them up. More steps, more complex. To rationally believe a conspiracy, it must have better explanatory power than the standard explanation. But, of course, they never do (which, presumably, is why they're not the standard version!).
4) Apply Hume's Razor: "If we are asked to believe X, in deciding whether to believe it (give provisional consent) or not we should ask: is it more likely that X is true, or that the evidence for X is mistaken (or can be interpreted in a different or more realistic way)?" If it seems that it's more likely that the evidence is wrong, then we don't believe X. Is it more likely that the conspiracy is true or that the evidence of the conspiracy is mistaken (or can be interpreted in a different or more realistic way)?
Putting it simply - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Conspiracies such as the 9-11 in Plane Site show certainly fall under the category of an "extraordinary claim", yet their evidence - even with their deck stacking - is not extraordinarily convincing (and at times, quite laughable).
The official version - Al Qaeda (who have claimed 9-11 of course) hijacked and crashed 4 planes - is far more convincing. It's not that extraordinary - Muslim terrorists exist, have been and continue to be suicidal, and state their hatred of America and the West on a regular basis. However, it would be extraordinary if the evidence from 9-11 was faked, mistaken or could be interpreted in a more convincing way.
Now, if you choose to use any of my points, if you are ever stuck talking to a conspiracy believer, remember you will only be going about it the right way if you browbeat them down using these three easy steps:

1) Shout your points at them, 2) Don't pause for breath so they can't respond, and most importantly, 3) At the end of every point you make, give your newfound friend a supercilious look and state his (or her) name - "Dumb-ass!" Eg: "You believe it was military planes that flew into the WTC, yet they used a bunker buster on the Pentagon? Why wouldn't they just use a plane on the Pentagon too? Dumb-ass!"

Update: 9-11 Conspiracy theorist - Part 2

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Examples of Browbeating

The advocate is threatening and overbearing in argument and doesn't allow the opponent the opportunity to state his or her case.