#debate tactic

[bathinginlye]

whenever I’m losing an argument I just pretend like I don’t understand the other person’s vocabulary

“I’m too chronically offline to know what these made-up words mean 😅”

“And other words that mean nothing 😒”

Works everytme

[mintedwitcher]

I personally find it hilarious when anti choicers use aggressive language to describe abortion, in order to justify their bizarre need for control over people's bodies.

Anything can sound horrifying if you use the right words and an undercurrent of misinformation. Look:

"A foreign object ruptures through the skin, tearing down through layers of tissue and muscle. Blood erupts from the body in a huge rush. The area swells to twice its size! Then the foreign object is violently ripped out of the body!"

I just described a splinter.

A splinter.

Do you see? How words and emotions can be manipulated and spun to create violent visuals where none exist? How easy it is to foster feelings of nausea, unease, and disgust, simply by choosing different words? Here's a more accurate description of a splinter, for comparison:

"A bit of wood got stuck in the skin. It was pulled out carefully, and a tiny drop of blood surfaced when pressure was applied."

That sounds much calmer, doesnt it? Much less painful and violent. For some, the second description may even bring pleasant memories of having their own splinters and wounds cared for by a loved one.

Words can manipulate how we see things. Even how we see people. Words have power. In order to effectively shut down emotional manipulation you need to understand how they use their vocabulary to deliberately mislead and manipulate you.

The next time you see a post by an anti choicer describing the violence of abortion, I encourage you to look for medical reports on how abortions are actually performed. Spot the differences in the language used to describe the same procedure.

Anti choicers like to dismiss posts like this one due to "semantics", but they fail to understand that this is one case in which semantics actually impact and change the argument at hand.

This is why they love to use words like "children", "baby/infant" etc, when they're actually talking about fetuses. Not only is it emotionally disarming, but it can also be very easily spun to suit their narrative.

It is vital that we understand this tactic so it can be properly defended against. Even if that defense is just calling out the emotional language.

Minimise the damage they cause with their words, and then you can dismantle their arguments completely. Good luck.

[mightyoctopus]

“So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.”