This business of saying (as Index on Censorship did) that we have to “build bridges” with people who say men are women if they say they are made me think there must be a handy label for that, like “gaslighting” and “sealioning” and similar, but I couldn’t think of one. I did what any sensible person would do and asked Twitter. “Motte and bailey” is close but it leaves out the building bridges bit.
This at least names the Index on Censorship part.
Ahhh yes. I haven’t incorporated that label into my vocabulary, and maybe it’s time I did. Wikipedia:
Flying monkeys[1] is a term used in popular psychology, mainly in the context of narcissistic abuse,[2] to describe people who act on behalf of a narcissist towards a third party, usually for an abusive purpose (e.g. a smear campaign).[3][4]
It’s not an exact fit, but it’s helpful.
It’s a kind of hostage-taking. We, the aggressor, take a hostage and then force you, the victim, to Build Bridges with us and we’ll let you visit the hostage every other Tuesday.
We need a good label for it.
Comments
20 responses to “Seeking: label”
The Persephone Effect?
“I understood that reference.” — Steve Rogers
At the risk of immediate Godwinning any discussion in which it’s used, how about “Nevilles”. After Chamberlain.
Just first thoughts. The Godwin quotient is a bit high, (and closer to trasperbole than I’d like), and the (now) relative obscurity of the historical reference necessitates more explanation than one should have to stop and give, but I think it’s in the ballpark, being a great example of a third party blithely giving away, to an aggressor, someone else’s rights.
While one could make a case for “useful idiot”, triangulation in the political sense, as opposed to the psychological sense, does a great job. One seeks the middle ground in every issue as a means of winning social status.
But if we want to stay in the psychological realm, there’s no reason to look beyond “enabler”. Per wiki:
YNnB: The word there would be appeasement.
This is the sort of thing I was getting at when I was rambling on here about compromises and negotiation a few weeks ago. The kind of gambit Ophelia is describing makes us all forget that we are the ones with the power here, are being asked (well, it’s being demanded of us) to submit to insane, unreasonable demands. That’s the whole purpose of this kind of maneuver, after all.
We should not concede to those demands. We should not compromise because that implies giving up some things that cannot be given: rights and truth. What we can do is give our opponents options. Many have, of course, and that strategy has not worked well so far.
But it’s all that should be on the table. We mustn’t compromise on rights or truth and the only bridge we should be building is Sun Tsu’s golden one.
I’ll also point out the turn of affairs regarding burden of proof. It is supposedly up to the gender critical to provide evidence that transwomen cause harm; that women need safe spaces; that there is no innate gender identity; and so forth. Technically, it’s the other way around.
And if any evidence is presented it is “transphobic.” That has certainly been the case any time evidence for harm when TIMs are housed in women’s prisons.
How about being The Robber’s Advocate? I am working off my take that the trans cult demanding that we “compromise” with invading males is like a robber breaking into a house in the middle of the night, who is confronted by an armed homeowner and then the robber calls his buddies over to berate the homeowner into “compromising” about how much of the homeowner’s stuff now belongs to the robber.
Maybe The Thief’s Advocate or The Bully’s Advocate would be catchier.
“Burglar’s Advocate” probably…
I think The Robber’s Advocate is pretty close. And I prefer Robber’s to Burglar’s because of the Robber’s Cave experiment.
But maybe we can get closer. Usurper’s Advocate? Appropriator’s Advocate? Intruder’s Advocate? Dominator’s Advocate?
How about we really cause a stir and call it The Colonizer’s Advocate? Or The Oppressor’s Advocate?
Or The Flaming Asshole’s Advocate?
I sort of like apologist. It gives it the religious feeling that fits.
Mock Diplomacy.
I like the hostage-taking analogy. They’ve taken something of ours and they want us to plead to get bits of it back. The whole con is that we already have the things they want to make us beg for.
Abductor’s Advocate needs too much explanation to make it work, though.
Captor’s Gambit has a nice ring to it.
Shanghaier’s Shenanigans is probably going a bit far…
Ooh, in case Arty Morty is reading (in-joke about an earlier Twitter conversation, sorry)
Gaoler’s Gambit.
Sw88:
Because that would waste a perfect opportunity to use “conquistador”.
To me, it seems you’re all reaching to verb “Stockholm Syndrome” (with insincere smirking apology to the gentleperson who previously mentioned an aversion to verbing nouns). The advocates have taken us rhetorically and philosophically hostage, and are attempting to engineer said syndrome in us (and seem to have succeeded beyond all reason already).
In light of that, I propose “Stockholming”.
Seth, like it.
Seems also like:
Moving the goalposts
Moving the Overton window
Dog in a manger
Mafia protection racket
Squatter’s rights, maybe?