Guest Post by: Duncan Smith
Doing research into a completely unrelated matter to address conflict resolution I stumbled across CHSAlliance, an organization whose mission is “To promote respect for the rights and dignity of people and communities vulnerable to risk and affected by disaster, conflict or poverty and enhance the effectiveness and impact of assistance by building a culture of quality and accountability”[emphasis mine].
CHS does support the Climate Change narrative in a news article where they go onto state:
“Against the background of climate change and rapid urbanisation, slow disasters – also frequently referred to as slow-onset crises – are expected to increase.”
This comes as no surprise especially coming from a Humanitarian organization, I could have left it at that.
Interestingly the article I concentrated on initially was “Ten psychological tactics for avoiding accountability and how to address them” by Kelly O’Donnell (PhyD). According to the article, here are the “tactical tricks”:
- Delegate the matter to someone else internally – diffuse it, distance yourself from it – and do everything to avoid an internal and especially an independent review.
- Avoid, reword, or repackage, the issues – obfuscate the facts, or at least talk tentatively or vaguely about some mistakes in the past and that you or someone could probably have done a better job on … but go no further; rationalise and/or disguise any culpability.
- Focus on minor or “other” things so as to look like you are focusing on the central things, punctuating it all with the language of transparency and accountability.
- Appeal to your integrity and to acting with the highest standards, without demonstrating either.
- Point out your past track record. Highlight anything positive that you are doing or contributing to now.
- Ask and assume that people should trust you without verification. Offer some general assurances that you have or will be looking into the matter and all is okay.
- State that you are under attack or at least that you are not being treated fairly or that people just don’t understand.
- Mention other peoples’ (alleged) problems, question their motives and credibility; dress someone else in your own dirty clothes, especially if they are noisome question-askers or whistleblowers.
- Prop up the old boys’ leadership club, reshuffle the leadership deck if necessary yet without changing leaders or their power or how they can cover for each other in the name of “loyalty” and on behalf of the “greater good”. Try to hold out until the dust settles and the “uncomfortable” stuff hopefully goes away.
- So in short, don’t really do anything with real transparency and accountability; rather, maintain your self-interests, lifestyle, affiliations, and allusions of moral congruity, even if it means recalibrating your conscience – essentially, acting corruptly via complicity, cover-ups, and cowardice.
Becoming side tracked from my original mission, I could relate each and every one of these attributes to the current state of Climate Science.
I wished to share it as nowhere have I seen a comprehensive list like this. Without being opinionated or giving examples, the article stands on its own merits. I would like to get readers thoughts where these tactical “tricks” have been used before.
I may be wrong but this post seems to be misleading – from the link
“Here are ten tactics used to avoid accountability for mistakes, poor practice, dysfunction, and outright deviance that I have seen firsthand over the past eight years as part of a network confronting a major international fraud (see PETRA People, Tricks for Feigning Good Practice, February-March 2016). These tactics illustrate what not to do when we and our organisations are asked to give an account of our work – be it via routine self-assessments or requests to explain our actions. They can serve to minimise cognitive dissonance, to protect ourselves, or to intentionally misrepresent the facts. Understanding how we can get it wrong can be a helpful way to avoid some of these proven “tactical tricks” for avoiding accountability.”
seems this is PETRA that this should be aimed at.
[seems you should read the 2nd to last last paragraph -mod]
We get a lot of ‘professionals’ trying shoot-from-the-hip psychoanalysis on the skeptic crowd, but really, the more interesting psychological/sociological study are the warmists themselves.
It makes me think of Clarice Starling: “What if you pointed that high-powered perception at yourself – or maybe you’re afraid to.”
Some great parallels in these comments, here’s more, titled “The Liberal Rules of Argument” although I suspect these will work regardless of side or world view, sorry for the length.
#1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother — or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument — everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he’s doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Dittohead (meaning he’s a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell “Republican” and “America” with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK — but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.
#2: Switch Your Arguments
If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to “of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam”. Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn’t exist — the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory!
#3: Raise The Bar
When your opponent presents you with proof of anything — UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc — state that it’s not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called “proof” doesn’t mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn’t count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof… and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry — and then you know you’ve got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was “laughable”.
#4: Attack The Source
When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there’s only one way to beat him — attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent’s facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect. Put down FOX news channel and anyone that refers to it — ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing. If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument — you know that “left wing” and “correct” are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist’s web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point.
#5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency
It’s very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam’s humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America’s own “atrocities”. Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam’s 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law. Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Convention did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries. Never give credence to your opponent’s arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc… it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in Platoon.
#6: Reductio ad Absurdum
Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “a process of reasoning which involves the denial of the first of a series of dependent propositions as a consequence of the denial of the last”, but YOU define it as “an invaluable arguing technique”. Every child can understand “If that’s true, then I’m a monkey’s uncle” means “it’s NOT true”, because while you may be a monkey’s great- grandnephew, you can’t be its uncle. If your opponent says something like, “Iraq refused to obey 17 UN resolutions that it agreed to”, immediately take that argument past its furthest “logical” conclusion and reply, “Then by your logic, we must invade every country that disobeys a UN resolution!” If your opponent doesn’t catch the end run you made around the “logical” end-point of his argument, you can involve him in a long, drawn-out argument over exactly how many UN resolutions HE feels must be disobeyed before automatically triggering an invasion! With luck, he will forget that he was going to say there were many other reasons to remove Saddam from power, and you can win by “proving” that he wants to invade other countries!
#7: Wear Hawk’s Clothing
Facts don’t matter; consensus does. People need constant reassurance that they’re not alone in their views. Conservatives needs constant validation from others that think like they do, whether they want to admit it or not. A lack of validation leads to self-doubt. You agree with me, right? Good. All people (except Liberals, of course, who don’t need validation… right?) are sheep at heart; they just follow each other’s arguments. You can use this against them by beginning statements with “I used to be a Conservative/Republican, but…” or “I used to support George W. Bush, but…” (remember, don’t use a diminishing/patronising nickname for Bush to feel like you have power over him; it makes you more believable). If you can make your opponent believe that you USED to be on his side, but have changed sides, he will be more likely to change sides to follow you like the sheep you know he is underneath his pretense of speaking his own mind. If it doesn’t work, attack him (as per Rule #1: Attack Your Opponent) for being a sheep following the Conservative/Republicans. Completely ignore any reply he makes that claims you were trying to make him follow YOU. You still agree with me on this, don’t you? Good, I must be right, then.
#8: Hijack the Argument
Take any portion of your opponent’s argument, drop the useless context (well, it’s useless to YOU), and use it to change the subject entirely. For instance, if you are being attacked by someone for saying that Bush lied (or about WMD, terrorists, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, or whatever you are supposed to attack him for on that particular day) and your opponent demands that you show him proof to back up your statements (as if YOU need proof, when you know you’re right!), take his demand for evidence of your “allegations” and demand that HE show YOU evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or ties to Al-Qaeda! When he responds with some boring cut-and-paste from the 1997 UNSCOM report saying Iraq hadn’t turned over its known WMD, or the article about the court case that decided Iraq trained the 9/11 hijackers at Salman Pak, you’ll know you’ve succeeded in hijacking the argument HE was making about “proof” to put HIM on the defensive!
#9: Play the Hate
How do you know your opponent hates you? Why, by his attacks on you, of course! Yes, even when he pretends to frame his attacks as questions, like “do you know a better way to stop terrorism other than by going after countries that support them?” what he’s REALLY saying is ” You’re stupid! I hate you!” When he says “Don’t you think Saddam was a bad person?” or “What’s your plan for fighting terrorism, then?” it’s easy to see that what he’s really saying is “YOU’RE a bad person! I hope you die!” Let him know you’re on to him — ask him why he hates you and is attacking you. Tell him how his obvious hate makes you feel. This will put him on the defensive. Be careful; your opponent is likely to try to use this one against you. Even your most innocent, gentle and justified questions, like “Bush is personally murdering people on purpose to steal oil!”, “Republicans hate Muslims!” or “You’re a moronic dittohead sheep!” are likely to be met by your opponent pretending that you’re attacking him or Bush (the nerve!). Ask your opponent why you’re not being allowed to question the government. Let everyone know that your First Amendment rights are being violated! Better yet, ask your opponent why he hates America and freedom of speech. This will almost always cause him to splutter and gasp as he tries to respond to your revealing his true intentions. Best of all, you will have diverted his questioning your unquestionable objectivity.
#10: Return to Start
After leading your opponent in a wild goose chase by attacking him personally, switching your arguments, raising the bar for and attack the sources of the proof he offers, finding ways to Blame America First, and all the other argument techniques listed here, your opponent will be exhausted, his nerves ragged. Now is the time to return to your very first, original argument, as if the entire exchange never even occurred! Ignore any proof that your opponent has offered (it’s all made up anyway), and the fact that you’ve switched your argument (from “there were no WMD” to “the US supplied them”, for instance). Just go right back to the very start and force your opponent to begin all over again. If he claims that you have already argued over this before, inform him that he couldn’t convince you! The best thing about this tactic is that you have already attacked his sources and raised the bar on them, so that he will have to START with his best sources and go even further to find “proof” that you will accept! He will likely give up entirely at this point, allowing you to claim a complete victory, which you deserve. After all, your opponent obviously has no regard for your feelings, or he wouldn’t upset you by arguing!