QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
That's not what I said… A paper on meeting debates shows a simple trick: replace someone’s wording with a loaded label, then argue against the label. The author calls this “square resemanticization” and shows how it steers group decisions.
The straw man argument itself doesn’t require you to rephrase what someone just said using a loaded buzzword. But that is one method of creating a straw man.
Oh neat. I ought to learn more about those tricks. I would’ve called it “a pivot” and I called things “false binary” but the real term is “false dichotomy”
I feel like I always see ”square resemanticization” before a “straw man.” 👍🏼
So a classic example of this would be… in the US, if you argue for public health care like all other civilized wealthy nations have, your opponent says, “Oh, so you’re in favour of Communism eh?” Because “communism” is a loaded buzzword in US discourse, most people having no idea what it really means but just translated it to “double plus ungood”? have I got the right idea here or did I miss something?
It’s only a strawman if it’s wrong. It’s not wrong to call the Trump administration facist and then argue against them using anti facist arguments, even though they have never called themselves that.
If they said something like "you're a dumb fascist, no one should listen to you" that'd be an ad hominem. Saying "you're a dumb fascist, no one should listen to you for x y z reasons" is not.
My narcissists do this. What I usually do is stop and reassert my original unedited point. As many times as it takes. Drives 'em fuckin crazy. Which I think is a good thing in this case.
Or you might be the poor jerk born into a family with untreated generational trauma leading to narcissistic personality disorder, and may just have a shot at making it out with your empathy intact if you reduce contact and get therapy.
I think I understand what your saying but you give an example. I kind of have to deal with this with my boyfriend. He will turn conversations around and then I’ll notice that we’re not even talking about the same thing at all certain point and he’s completely steered the conversation away from the original matter and confused me lol.
Im a big fan of, "Wait, what we were talking about was..." or "No, what i said was...", but you know your situation better than I do. Follow your gut and remember that the playbook is denial and deflection. The truth will likely need to be repeated.
My immediate interpretation of this is you’re a professional therapist with narcissist clients? My second interpretation is a Brady Bunch situation, except most folks in the bunch are narcissists and it’s a lot less zany wackadoo fun.
Basically, maga uses this to scream about immigrants ("OPEN BORDERS!!!!!!!"), trans people ("MOLESTATIONS IN BATHROOMS!!!!"), vaccines ("AUTISM!!!!!!!!"), etc. They rail against things nobody said they were for, that they just inserted into whatever discussion was tangentially related (or not).
Funno. a really famous and well credited guy going around testing corporate coaching, sales coaching and motivational speakers in order to see if their methods are sound would help a lot.
"This article will try to show that certain discursive-semantic mechanisms of disqualification in political assemblies come close to the strawman strategy without, however, falling into this category. The aim is to describe some of the semantic particularities of these cases, which will be grouped together under the name of square resemanticisation."
I'd reflect more based on the paper but sadly I don't know Portuguese.
Oversimplification is a similar tactic, dumb something nuanced down until it doesn't really make sense anymore, then argue against the simplification. The burden is then on you to explain something complex to someone who does not want to understand it and they have the time to make pithy counterpoints.
I find you have to jump on the simplification with mockery or insults as soon as they deploy it, if you try to explain as if they accidentally misunderstood then you've fallen for the trap.
Obviously this is for public conversations where they are performing for an audience, in private you can expect and explain in good faith.
subito_lucres | 4 hours ago
Is this not straw man?
SplendidPunkinButter | 3 hours ago
It’s a version of straw man.
The straw man argument itself doesn’t require you to rephrase what someone just said using a loaded buzzword. But that is one method of creating a straw man.
rhesusMonkeyBoy | 2 hours ago
Oh neat. I ought to learn more about those tricks. I would’ve called it “a pivot” and I called things “false binary” but the real term is “false dichotomy”
I feel like I always see ”square resemanticization” before a “straw man.” 👍🏼
Tazling | an hour ago
So a classic example of this would be… in the US, if you argue for public health care like all other civilized wealthy nations have, your opponent says, “Oh, so you’re in favour of Communism eh?” Because “communism” is a loaded buzzword in US discourse, most people having no idea what it really means but just translated it to “double plus ungood”? have I got the right idea here or did I miss something?
Bowgentle | an hour ago
I think you do. If one was being a bit subtle, you might recast it as “oh, you want socialized healthcare?” to get people to think of socialism.
JustinsWorking | 2 hours ago
You create a straw man using this “square resemanticization” technique.
Also, that’s such a painful word to spell, the American use of Z always throws me for me loop.
This isn’t a logical fallacy, this is a technique which could be uses to create logical fallacies (and often is.)
HowDoIEvenEnglish | 2 hours ago
It’s only a strawman if it’s wrong. It’s not wrong to call the Trump administration facist and then argue against them using anti facist arguments, even though they have never called themselves that.
veggietabler | an hour ago
A straw man is a misrepresentation by definition
HyperSpaceSurfer | an hour ago
That would be ad hominem, though. Although, in a meta sense, what you said actually was a strawman.
_ManMadeGod_ | an hour ago
If they said something like "you're a dumb fascist, no one should listen to you" that'd be an ad hominem. Saying "you're a dumb fascist, no one should listen to you for x y z reasons" is not.
_The_Cracken_ | 5 hours ago
My narcissists do this. What I usually do is stop and reassert my original unedited point. As many times as it takes. Drives 'em fuckin crazy. Which I think is a good thing in this case.
asilentflute | 3 hours ago
How many narcissists u got over there?
_The_Cracken_ | 3 hours ago
Man, too fuckin many.
princelySponge | 2 hours ago
Careful dude, you know what they say, if you meet one asshole you met an asshole, if everyone you meet is an asshole..you might be the asshole
phenomenomnom | an hour ago
Or you might be the poor jerk born into a family with untreated generational trauma leading to narcissistic personality disorder, and may just have a shot at making it out with your empathy intact if you reduce contact and get therapy.
Injvn | an hour ago
Look I'm just gettin up an makin coffee, there was no need to call me out like that.
(A year of no contact an therapy, I've never felt better mentally. Happy is even on the table.)
sunsetpark12345 | an hour ago
What a pithy summary!
antiduh | an hour ago
Their original comment - having to constantly keep arguments on the argued point - obviates your point.
Asshole bend arguments, they don't try to keep them on track.
princelySponge | 55 minutes ago
Haha I'll admit I didn't read past their first few words, thanks for the new term though
witheringsyncopation | 3 hours ago
Binders full
asilentflute | 3 hours ago
Mitt is that u??
mirrrje | an hour ago
I think I understand what your saying but you give an example. I kind of have to deal with this with my boyfriend. He will turn conversations around and then I’ll notice that we’re not even talking about the same thing at all certain point and he’s completely steered the conversation away from the original matter and confused me lol.
Runningoutofideas_81 | an hour ago
You should look up “crazy making”, might be enlightening.
_The_Cracken_ | 15 minutes ago
Im a big fan of, "Wait, what we were talking about was..." or "No, what i said was...", but you know your situation better than I do. Follow your gut and remember that the playbook is denial and deflection. The truth will likely need to be repeated.
OldButHappy | an hour ago
It’s a short drive
TheArcticFox444 | 2 hours ago
Good strategy!
BigRedSpoon2 | 55 minutes ago
My immediate interpretation of this is you’re a professional therapist with narcissist clients? My second interpretation is a Brady Bunch situation, except most folks in the bunch are narcissists and it’s a lot less zany wackadoo fun.
Genuinely curious which case it is
the_red_scimitar | 4 hours ago
Basically, maga uses this to scream about immigrants ("OPEN BORDERS!!!!!!!"), trans people ("MOLESTATIONS IN BATHROOMS!!!!"), vaccines ("AUTISM!!!!!!!!"), etc. They rail against things nobody said they were for, that they just inserted into whatever discussion was tangentially related (or not).
hotprof | 2 hours ago
Yep. That's the first thing that came to mind.
TacosAreJustice | 2 hours ago
“Who’s assaulted more teenage girls, the current president or trans people in bathrooms?”
One-Organization970 | 33 minutes ago
They're calling it "sex rejection procedures" now because it sounds scarier to the illiterates who vote for them.
Willing_Box_752 | 2 hours ago
Same with RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC
the_red_scimitar | 2 hours ago
If you mean that Maga likes to use those terms to deflect the clear fact these describe them perfectly and very much verifiably, then yes.
Opposite-Winner3970 | 5 hours ago
So now corporate culture is bringing back sophism? XD. We need a new Socrates.
HyperSpaceSurfer | an hour ago
How would that help?
Opposite-Winner3970 | an hour ago
Funno. a really famous and well credited guy going around testing corporate coaching, sales coaching and motivational speakers in order to see if their methods are sound would help a lot.
jerbthehumanist | 2 hours ago
Excerpt from the abstract:
"This article will try to show that certain discursive-semantic mechanisms of disqualification in political assemblies come close to the strawman strategy without, however, falling into this category. The aim is to describe some of the semantic particularities of these cases, which will be grouped together under the name of square resemanticisation."
I'd reflect more based on the paper but sadly I don't know Portuguese.
Artistic-Yard1668 | 2 hours ago
That’s what bots have been doing in journalism for 15 years.
Working-Business-153 | 2 hours ago
Oversimplification is a similar tactic, dumb something nuanced down until it doesn't really make sense anymore, then argue against the simplification. The burden is then on you to explain something complex to someone who does not want to understand it and they have the time to make pithy counterpoints.
I find you have to jump on the simplification with mockery or insults as soon as they deploy it, if you try to explain as if they accidentally misunderstood then you've fallen for the trap.
Obviously this is for public conversations where they are performing for an audience, in private you can expect and explain in good faith.
SensibleChocolate | an hour ago
Woke. This is what they did to woke.
quad_damage_orbb | 4 hours ago
The entire paper is in Spanish.
113avocado | 3 hours ago
Portuguese, not Spanish