Customary Rhetorical Deceptions
Conversation, seen as the free exchange of ideas, is actually speaking and listening regardless of either freedom or ideas. "Verse" and "con" suggest "verse-making together." Poetry might arise among us. But "con" has other connotations, of control and utility.
Rhetorical techniques have been taught for centuries as the art of Debate, careful application of friction to sharpen wits and empower mutual discovery. But even the most humble tools can be destructive. As my father would say, "It all depends on what you're after." Without a lineage of guided practice, only an impoverished artifice of distraction, deflection and denial remains. Jurisprudence, for instance, has been inverted and reduced to a fancy set of lock-picks and escape tricks.
In the time of open and unrelenting genocide, "Conversation is the free exchange of ideas" makes the word itself a euphemism for verbal abuse. Which might tell us something about "euphemism," but for what follows it's up for grabs, as is "bias." The thin shell of language is part of the terrain we all must negotiate as best we can.
The District of Columbia isnt exactly a euphemism-free zone. The following examples actually occurred in a conversation last week, with a presumed Washington insider. This wasnt just the proverbial guy-in-a-diner, and his focus was entirely on winning a second term for the incumbent. Opinions were cordially invited and freely aired, as usual.
Accordingly, I stated my case as a disenfranchised voter, as there is no viable candidate I can vote for: none has called for a ceasefire, much less denounced an open genocide in stronger terms than conflict. I asserted that the president has the sole power to stop it, and has been using his power instead, in my name and with my taxes, to protect and perpetuate it. Challenged as to solutions (a deflection ploy), I said: "We have to stop the killing, now: Biden can stop it in a minute."
D.C. was in the house. To raise the pivotal issue in that great flag-draped parade-float of hackneyed tropes, one needs a mental hygiene exemption. Our interlocutor (hereinafter "denizen of the Swamp") spoke from the cramped Elephant Room, yelling from the Overton Window. Maybe a cry for help.
It is taboo in some circles to be caught acknowledging even the possibility of unilaterally ending the bloodshed. The free exchange of ideas washed against the submerged obstacles of the Party Line, rippling the surface of our conversation. Each attempt elicited another of the classic verbal jujutsu counters, instead of a direct answer to a serious proposition.
Some of us became annoyed, more at the disturbance than the deception, which seems so normal. But our guest was merely toying with us, probing our reactions. Gearing up for the real fight, for which this was but calisthenics. Even that battlefield is a euphemism: the "election." The actual ground is our shattered common worldview.
False Dichotomy:
"We have to stop the killing now." "Return 100 hostages, then it will stop."
The claim: The Palestinians choose not to stop the war by releasing their captives.
The false dichotomy: hostages or genocide, a free choice.
The reality: Its not about hostages. No hostage situation requires open-ended mass killing.Only Biden and Israel have any choices in the matter.
Not a reason to keep slaughtering civilians.
Red Herring:
"We have to stop the killing now." "Remember, there are two sides to this."
The claim: Its not fair to blame Israel if the Palestinians refuse to give up.
The red herring: false equality of agency.
The reality: Only one "side" can survive under conditions it has imposed.
Not a reason to keep slaughtering civilians.
Straw Man:
"We have to stop the killing now." "So, if somebody kidnaps your daughter, you will do nothing."
The "straw-man": You, obviously an irresponsible parent.
The claim: Biden/Israel is forced to bomb more and more families to save the hostages, and only someone who would abandon their own child would disagree.
The reality: there are infinite practical ways to save hostages that do not require further killing, much less genocide.
Not a reason to keep slaughtering civilians.
Begging the Question:
"We have to stop the killing now." "October 7!"
The claim: The Palestinians started this on October 7, so we can never be safe while they live in Palestine.
The begged question: What happened before?
The reality: October 7 stopped on October 7.
Not a reason to keep slaughtering civilians.
Our unexamined assumptions don't seem dangerous; they don't seem at all, period, they're unexamined. They trap us in circular arguments and false choices.They're structural, upside-down and inside-out, and prone to roll like icebergs into new configurations:
- The "Veneer Theory":Human Civilization is a thin candy shell over our innate beastliness.
No: the Beast is a thin candy shell covering our innate truth, goodness and beauty.
This is obvious if we consider the rising costs of the towering infrastructure of violence. "Veneer Theory" is the delusion that underlies the "Security Dilemma,"* the notion that we must strike first because the risk of being struck first is too great. The most absurd assumption underlying all that is "security" itself. Vonnegut put it like this: "no damn cat; no damn cradle."
The Law-of-the-Jungle, might-makes-right, dog-eat-dog, devil-take-the-hindmost worldview mistakes force for power. To counteract the weight of lived experience there are corollary assumptions propping up Kipling:
- Trauma is a manifestation of individual weakness.
No: trauma is an intelligent neurobiological response to overwhelming stress, not unlike cauterizing a bleeding wound. It is also collective, appearing in the coercive and biased structures of our institutions, penal, military,religious, scientific, medical, educational and governmental. Shaming and ostracism, suppressive and even repressive reactions to visible signs of trauma, even in educational and therapeutic settings; a healthcare industry that's traumatizing from top to bottom; coercive labor policies, militarized municipal policing and violent national foreign policy; all are symptoms of a deeply wounded collective psyche.
- Addiction is a mental illnesses caused by drug use.
On the contrary, self-medication is a normal (but dangerous) response to the cumulative effects of abuse, trauma, denial. When use becomes an integral component of the cycle, treatment must address the whole structure, in a healing context. Incarceration, "cold turkey" and so forth, address symptoms and not causes, to repair the civil veneer, not the struggling human.
But addiction is not limited to drugs. Anything that stimulates brain endorphins will do. This has staggering implications: trauma, abuse, addiction and denial are a collective condition. In other words, a culture may be an addicted to self-destructive behaviors. Even a cursory glance at our world should be sufficient evidence, but for the denial component.
- Necessity is the mother of invention.
No: invention is the mother, not necessity. This is a horse-and-cart problem, not chicken-and-egg. The "Security Dilemma" reveals this: the initial perception of a threat is invention, not necessity; but once the cycle gets rolling it makes little difference.
Our inventions create far more compelling necessities. The veneer of civility invokes threat. If, collectively, we saw humanity as the substance rather than as mere camouflage, we might invent community first.But change must occur at the foundations of collective experience, no amount of convincing or proof will be effective. As our social context, the automatic assumption of hostility will remain our default setting until we revoke it. That is the crux of the matter, and it is an awful crux: a collective assumption to which individuals have little access, if indeed any awareness at all.
However, the most impactful conversations we have are with ourselves. We act according to our perceptions; our perceptions are interpreted in language; so we do have a say. This also implies that the world in which we live now represents the collective worldview.
Revocation of this bankrupt worldview would be an evolutionary step. We probably won't be able to recognize it, this far down a slope that's all but frictionless now, but we may take that step anyway. The real necessity to restore our real connection to our common reality may be the catalyst.
*For more on the "Security Dilemma," two good sources:
"Honor, Humiliation, and Terror: An Explosive Mix And How We Can Defuse It with Dignity" by Evelin Lindner MD PhD (2017), a comprehensive work on the current human predicament.
"The Killing Star" by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski, a sci-fi thriller about light-speed bombs from space.
