Skip to main content

Why you can't win an argument with a bully

Bullies appear to be single minded in their determination to win. Their intimidation tactics make it difficult to believe they are concerned about facts other than how to make them serve their own interests. Bullies appear to operate as though they are the centre of the universe who can't be touched or challenged by marginal forces.

Arguments are conversations directed towards an outcome: persuasion, defending a point of view, making a case.  A good argument is one that contains two sides where  willing listeners and intellectually present minds engage in the topic. An argument is not what you see on Coronation Street or reality shows.  It's not a p!$$ing contest of verbal abuse. An argument is not a diatribe or a rant where only one voice is present.

An argument requires honesty and sincerity among equals. Proving the point requires logic, insight, enlightenment, and some humility. However this is not easy as we have been raised in societies where 'right' and 'wrong' have been co-opted by self interest, and the ego feels a need to believe it is inherently right.  It takes strength of character to understand we are not always right and that our interests are not always the best interests for all.

Bullies establish their place early in life.  Perhaps in the crib when their demands were never negotiated, or in the school playground first victimized by bullies, or the narrative played out in television and movie plots where the winner takes all.  Mostly the bully's personality has been arrested by simplistic constructs of relationship where there is only one winner.

The values of a civil society, such as justice, fairness, empathy, nurture, stewardship, love and reason are beyond the bully's comprehension.  So the bully will interrupt, shout louder, use put downs, shore up racist, sexist prejudices, make false claims, use devices to confuse, use foul language and even weapons in order to win.  This is because all things are a threat to the bully.

The point then is not to win an argument with the bully but to state your truth, to bring to the arena the option of a reality that is different from the bully's world view which serves no-one but the bully. Whatever the bully says he/she has already lost credibility in civil society, dismissed or tolerated by intelligent, questioning souls. Raising the point reaches those who are hungry for justice and beauty, for a better example of human nature.

Issues of justice puts everyone in an uncomfortable pew, not because you brought it up, but because they are about to witness the very thing that caused them to acquiesce to the status quo. The thundering denial of diverse views.

Let the example stand and let the witnesses choose for themselves, in the private place of their conscience, what is right. Striving to get the last word removes the focus from the issue onto the egos.  Better to let the truth echo.

We are all capable of being bullies and most of us have at some point been victims of bullying.  What has been lost to our current society is the representation of civil discourse in government institutions and corporations. A reverence for life has been sacrificed when we allow bullies to silence the future of the human imagination.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.


In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…