It is my contention that the mess we are in today is in part because not enough of us are prepared to share our misgivings about social/corporate/political policies for fear of losing our job or social situation. What needs to happen is for more of us to speak up and stop the woke mind virus from further entrenchment. For instance, there must have been someone working in Number 11 who was uneasy about the Chancellor’s plan to remove all pictures of men from the State Room. I have a fantasy of a cleaner bravely approaching Rachel Reeves and asking her to reconsider, suggesting it sends a dangerous message to working class white boys who are the most educationally unsuccessful in the U.K. Rachel Reeves would suddenly realise her error and shout: “Yes – boys need role models too!” Yet no-one spoke out and the Chancellor’s misguided iconoclasm continues. (And the worrying thing is, if she’s getting these small decisions wrong what sort of Horlicks is she making of the big ones?)
Whether it’s a new HR wheeze at work that seeks to entrench difference, a dinner party debate or an inappropriate initiative from our children’s schools, we small folk must find our voices and speak out, politely and firmly before more damage is done.
What stops us from speaking out?
- There is a gulf between our instincts and our ability to articulate what we object to and why
- We instinctively dislike conflict
- We worry we will speak clumsily so instead of voicing our legitimate concerns we say nothing at all
- We have hopeless memories and are unable to remember those useful facts when required
- If of a conversative disposition, we fundamentally avoid attempting to change anyone’s mind for the simple fact we are comfortable with allowing people their own thoughts
How to get better at objecting to unedifying ideas
- Ask the person suggesting an obviously daft idea if he or she would mind if you shared your opinion about it, rather than foisting it on him or her uninvited.
- Respect others’ intentions. Most people are good and are trying their best, so avoid a heavy-handed aggressive disapproval.
- Ask questions: “That’s such an interesting idea Chancellor, what are you hoping to achieve by it?” Often, that is sufficient: if the idea is flawed it will unravel itself in no time.
- Remember your Aristotle: to win debates you need ethos, logos and pathos. Ethos is your good character and your authority to speak on the subject – most crudely used by those who say “as a mother…”. Logos is the truth of the matter. Pathos is your ability to persuade your opponent. Emotion alone is insufficient to win the point, it must be backed up by truth, but an ability to connect with and respect the emotion of your opponent is vital.
- Remember you are debating the idea not the person. Don’t make him or her feel threatened, belittled or ill-informed.
- Just try it! You don’t need to present a fully formed Douglas Murray-style-gotcha speech, initially it might just be sufficient to say, “I’m not yet sure why, but this idea is making me feel uncomfortable, may I have a think about it and get back to you?” If social or career disaster doesn’t follow, then you may feel emboldened to make a more spirited and researched objection later.
- Be prepared to flatter. “You will know more about this than me but have you thought about…”
- Listen to your opponent. Don’t stand there rolling your eyes, tutting or guffawing,
- Remain calm and never shout.
- Be prepared to use their own language. “Chancellor, this act of removing artworks of men might be considered by some to sit adjacent to sexism…”
- Be satisfied with having planted a seed of doubt in those who listen to you, rather than furiously fighting for decisive victory.
- Remind yourself why making a stand is important: “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
Joanna Gray is a writer and confidence mentor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I hope in the heat of the moment I am able to remember all this excellent advice!
F..k it—-Just tell it like it is. They are still going to talk about you behind your back anyway, no matter how subtle you are. ——Remember the Pudd’nhead Wilson Story by Mark Twain
Thank you, Joanna. Really useful guidance that I’m certainly going to put into practice. Particularly about sowing the seed of doubt rather than completely skewering. Will get practising on my brother. He’ll welcome my new approach.
You say it’s growing exponentially. Could you explain how a finite variable gets itself off of a curve to infinity?
Can you explain how this fits the definition of a finite variable?
I remember doing jury service. On the first day the prosecution put their case and I went home convinced that the defendant was guilty. The next day the defence showed that what we had heard the previous day was hogwash. I suppose one could say that one would like to hear the matter debated, with both sides allowed to put their case. Real toe-to-toe debate seems very rare.
Good idea but not possible.
https://substack.com/@boriquagato/p-149053659
A managerial course many moons past once taught us that when reprimanding an employee, focus on the behaviour, not the person. Quite right, as you say, but today impossible, as you say.
Typical unLiberals today vehemently support covering our fine and green country with silicon deserts, bird choppers and iron gallows and refuse point blank to discuss the basics, thus, any feedback or questioning is taken wholly personally and an uncrossable chasm appears. Such a discussion occurred in our dining room last week.
It may (and likely, will) not work is not the same as it’s impossible. Many people (there’s nothing particularly woke in that) will take any criticism of anything they expressed as an attack on themselves and retaliate in kind. Further, there’s a fair lot of people who know about this mechanism and try to exploit it consciously, ie, when you criticize an idea they expressed, they reply with an attack on you in the hope of distracting from the original topic.
Because of this, it’s important to take Joanna’s advice into account. Eg, don’t declare that such-and-such a thing is an idiotic idea because people will understand this as “Only an idiot like you could come up with that!” If such obvious avenues for misinterpretation are avoided, it’s always at least possible to point out that no attack was intended and/ or that a ‘tactical’ diversion towards a mudslinging contest is besides the point and thus, simply doesn’t matter.
If in doubt, assume you are treading on eggshells.
Unfortunately one of the tactics of ‘the woke’ is to imply that any disagreement with them constitutes threatening and belittling behaviour, which they maintain is on a par with physical violence.
Thank you Joanna excellent practical ideas to navigate difficult conversations.
I couldn’t give a toss what people think of me. Was in a class of around 8 to 10 the other day and there was two of us who were aware of the Globalist takeover. But most were curious and more interested in talking about Lockdowns, Common Law etc then the subject at hand. One guy said “Look up Cymbran man beats the Majistrates Court”, that got people taking note, only because I brought up the fact that the state owns your car etc.
I guess at work you may need to play a long game if you want to eat and keep a roof over your head but I am done pussyfooting with “friends” – we have hardly any left anyway. The rest were happy to see my life disrupted for nothing; they can all jog on.
You might as well talk to a chair it would take as much notice.
When you are dealing with people who “believe” Mankind is destroying the Planet, that a woman doesn’t have to have a womb and can have a prick, that a piece of cloth or paper can stop airborne particles invisible even under the most powerful microscope, who believe vaccination is to protect others not yourself, that plastic will kill all marine life, that maths is racist… well it’s a long list – a good kick up the Aris will have better results than 1 to 12.
At any rate make you feel better.
But it’s good to let the chair know your position- nay, you have duty to do so.
The author has clearly never tried to discuss the climate change scam with demented eco-fascist Ed MIliband. The only thing which could work with him would be an expertly-wielded 4 x 2
To the extent this helps get a point across it is all worthwhile. However I note the underlying assumption that one needs to skirt around faddish opinions because those who hold them are likely to push them hard and get irritable if challenged.
Interesting piece by Joanna Gray with some useful suggestions. But in practice it’s bloody difficult engaging with true believers!
I was at an academic conference a few weeks ago talking to someone I’d not met before who seemed charming, level-headed and intelligent.
But when he mentioned as an aside that he thought people would be living like medieval peasants in 30 or 40 years due to climate change, I calmly stated I’d recently changed my mind on the issue on realizing the thesis is primarily based on always-wrong computer models. I added that, in any case, net zero in the UK will surely achieve nothing as long as China and India are building hundreds of new coal-fired power stations. I wasn’t rude or personal in any way.
Nevertheless, the nature of the conversation changed immediately. Instead of explaining why he thought I was wrong, which I’d have welcomed, my interlocutor responded brusquely that he was rather more concerned about preventing medieval misery for his children and grandchildren due to climate change, implying my lack of moral fibre for supposedly being unconcerned about that.
I then expressed the fear that, if anything was going to turn our collective children and grandchild into medieval peasants, it would be the push towards net zero.
At that point the conversation ended abruptly. And the person avoided eye contract with me for the rest of the conference!
Gosh that’s depressing. That is exactly how these conversation go.
There is an obvious point that had bypassed me until recently. I think a lot of these people bring up e.g. climate change very early into conversations as a way of trying to find their “clan” – people that they can get along with or with whom they could easily make friends. It is an extension really of being asked in my earlier years which university you went to or what music you like. Your answer rules you straight in or out to their attentions, irrespective of context or detail.
Like a form of triage… don’t waste time on opposite thinkers (or even, thinkers)
Thanks, good point.
Bloody hell….I was reading a comment awaiting for approval, and it vanished right before my eyes!
i wouldn’t bother. A comment to an article elsewhere made an impression on me: “If you’re arguing with a libtard, you’re arguing with the television. The television can’t hear you, and doesn’t care.”
This article was very helpful thank you. Also full of good advice that I will try and follow.
It all feels particularly salient as yesterday I did not speak my mind/speak out during a conversation with a friend on an important topic. It quietly bothered me all evening, not least because I felt I had betrayed my own principles by what was effectively tacit acquiescence. When I ponder on my reasons for why I did not honestly engage with the subject, they are all captured perfectly by the reasons you give in your article.
Food for thought!
Check out the excellent book ‘How to Have Impossible Conversations’, which covers this sort of thing in much more detail.
Very useful – thanks.