Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet?
Apr. 4th, 2006 06:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqQuestions 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.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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.
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.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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Hate Ralph?
Date: 2006-04-07 03:28 am (UTC)I have a great suggestion for replacement. Kevin Taft. What say you? It's a great way to build up what Ralph has torn asunder.
Re: Hate Ralph?
Date: 2006-04-07 11:59 am (UTC)On the other hand, if you're not part of the solution...
Ultimately, this is a democracy, and as long as a majority of Albertan's use the "but I have no choice, I have to pick Conservative" method of voting, we'll be stuck with them.
Of course, Calgary did elect three liberal MLAs last election, so maybe there's hope.
Re: Hate Ralph?
Date: 2006-04-07 03:47 pm (UTC)My guess is the PC's would have collapsed after Getty if someone with Ralph's personal appeal hadn't shown up. (what that appeal is utterly escapes me - but I didn't particularly care for him as mayor either...)
I'll give the Liberals in Alberta under Kevin Taft a fair bit of credit - he's done a good job of making the party seen and heard as a voice of reasoned ideas in the last year or two.
Re: Hate Ralph?
Date: 2006-04-09 09:46 pm (UTC)And nobody questioned it....
Re: Hate Ralph?
Date: 2006-04-11 04:55 am (UTC)That's why we always hear about those 'closed door sessions' and the eventual 'corruption' of politicians who remain in their positions for such a long time. Over the years they are said to become separated from the people in how their decisions are made, usually because their closest advisors know the mechanisms for presenting their propposals to get the results they need.
However, in Ralph's case I think there was much less considreation of his closest advisors in some key instances. The $400 rebate cheques, his stance on the definition of 'marriage' and his policies on health care reforms all seem personal whims more than a provincial party policy. All of these stink to me of being someone determined to play "Devils Advocate" on key political issues, regardless of the outcome, or what the original intention was supposed to be.
Personally, I trust those who are in positions of power for more than three terms far less than those who are in their first or second term. I am sure there were people who held more than three terms in various offices with high responsibility who were very capable quite a few years ago, but there seems to have been fewer instances of these individuals in the past thirty years. (Chretien and Klien are the two that come directly to mind, I am sure there are others)