Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet?

[jamesq]

Questions questions questions. When is a question an honest request for information? When is it meant to illicit a particular answer? When is it used to control debate?

First, a little therapy. Don't worry, there's a point to it below.

There was a guy I knew many years back whom I will call Fleabite. Fleabite was a bully and decided that I was to be his target (Don't worry, I never considered myself his victim - it's hard to be bullied by someone when you realize they're pathetic).

Fleabite was never successful at bullying me, but he was successful at getting my former peer group (some of them at least) to ostracize me. I'm still pretty bitter about it. Turns out this is a common bullying tactic when a potential victim won't let them get away with their antics.

About a year after this all went down, I was managed to get one of my former group to talk about it. "Why wasn't I being invited to group outings anymore?" I asked.

"It's because you have a problem with Fleabite" was the answer.

It was awhile before I could put my finger on why that statement bothered me so much. I think it was the assumptions behind the statement. Namely, that I was the one with the problem - that a normal person would find nothing wrong with Fleabite's behavior. There was never any consideration that he was being a problem and that my reaction was justified.

Any sort of conversation I could have had with my former peers was effectively neutered. Because I "had a problem", I didn't therefore have valid objections. Without valid objections, anything I said could be dismissed. The statement controlled everything that could come afterward.

We've all heard the old joke "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" (or it's variants, like "Have you come out of the closet yet". Folks, beware of any question ending with "yet"). The joke is that a simple yes/no answer will always be damning. You see it in courtroom drama's occasionally, where the evil lawyer will try to get someone on the stand answer a complex question with yes/no, when that person really needs to explain themselves in depth. Of course, there's an adage about lawyer-ing and it goes something like this: Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. But I digress.

Politics is rife with this sort of behavior, which is one of the reason it both fascinates and repulses me. It's also why politicians are so good at not answering questions. You'd be like that too if every question was an attempt to make you look stupid.

Mr Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As we speak millions of ice weasels are descending on our unprotected cities. By denying funds for valuable ice weasel defense research he is clearly responsible for the thousands of deaths-by-nibbling that will shortly occur. Why does he hate Canada?

I bring all this up because on calgarians someone was asking why Ralph Klein was hated. The impression I got was of a Klein supporter doing a little trolling. Also, the topic (loaded questions and statements, not Ralph Klein) has been percolating in my mind for months now and now I get to jump into it.

Now the original submitter took the time to tell me that that was not what they had intended. I believe them, but it doesn't absolve them of making a better effort to clarify exactly what they mean next time. (late edit - Given more recent replies to assorted people, I'm forced to conclude he's a troll)

I do my best to write clearly so that my meaning is not lost or misinterpreted. I like it when other people do that too. However, I know that my lone voice in the wilderness will not change things. It does mean that I will call people on it when I encounter it. If I'm going to lose an argument it will be for legitimate reasons, not on a point of sophistry.