Innocuous Antagonism – What Is It?
Consider “Innocuous Antagonism.” It took me 8 years to clearly realize how widespread this is now, and how it works to rapidly remove truth from any important discussion. This behavior is always an unhealthy idea for serious matters. Take a look at how “innocuous” and “antagonism” are conjoined into a highly manipulative discussion-steering behavior in this video:
@ 17:42 in the video link below, notice the liberal woman asks Jordan Peterson, “What’s so terrifying with gender equality?”
Video of interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iudkPi4_sY
The Pathology of The Tactic
That was a typical liberal discussion disruption with “innocuous antagonism.” It is extremely popular in social media and in policy discussions whenever powerful, conservative-leaning, persuasive talking points are introduced by a conservative voice: In one sentence,
- You and you’re idea are falsely labeled as angry, fearful, racist, or insulting.
- …While the narrative is simultaneously pushed into a feelings, belief, or opinion contest.
Jordan Peterson is not terrified, nor has he suggested such. The woman is provoking him with an accusation he appears terrified, when all he had done was explain methodically how the ideas she pushes are pushing men and women apart, dividing society along sexual lines.
She has characterized his gracious, measured, logical, reasonable discussion as appearing terrified!! She has to be lying, because JP has zero exhibits of being terrorized, quite the opposite. She had to fabricate the accusation with no evidence. A lie.
Step By Step
Let’s examine the step-by-step process of the insulting and truth-burying tactic:
- The host asks for proof of gender divergence.
- JP answers by providing clear references to decisive studies of CONCERNING correlation, very calmly. Correlation does not prove causality, but the RED flag remains: Anything POSSIBLY causal needs to be questioned, not ignored. That’s mandatory best practice in problem solving science.
- The woman employs “innocuous antagonism” – suggests JP is “terrified” – a false accusation. It’s also a full 90 degree topic change away from the question asked and answered. Then she begins to promote “gender equality,” again, TOTALLY uncaring if the policy is correlating with dividing men and women – just as legal racial preferences always INCREASE division among races.
I see women giving their men a hard time EVERYWHERE I look. I only know 2 women whom I think are really flat liners who respect their husband enough to always talk nice to them. Almost all liberal men use this tactic frequently in policy discussion, as well.
In a respectful, business or counseling discussion, the idea of tainting the opponent as terrified, and changing the topic, would not be allowed, it’s disrespectful. And it is counter to established problem solving dialogue and practices.
Respect is not a part time virtue, it has to be full time. Part time disrespect in maintaining dialogue always creates NEGATIVE results. If a tiny part of a larger discussion employs deliberate misreading of the opponent to gain emotional advantage, the ENTIRE discussion has been a waste of time. It is an act of deception, not debate.
We MUST mandate business decorum and make antagonism contraband, to have productive human policy discourse.
What Are These Tactics Becoming Popular?
Why is this happening? Much of this is Saul Alinski’s teaching, he taught to polarize quickly. But it’s worse: Read some articles on how genders are dividing under current equality laws, a well know outcome of institutionalized legal bias.
Gender Paradox – more equality programs correlates with less women in STEM, the opposite of the goal. (STEM=Science, Tech, Engineering, Math).
A collection of articles on how men and women are being driven apart by gender preferential policies.
Pushing personalities apart:
Psychologists determine men are toxic:
Manhood is “toxic” – poison – now.
Gillette deplores manly behaviors:
When asked about the anti-Semitic representatives at the women’s march, Ocasio-Cortez used innocuous antagonism: Insult plus topic change.
“I think that concerns of anti-Semitism with the current administration in the White House are absolutely valid and we need to make sure that we are protecting the Jewish community and all those that feel vulnerable in this moment,” Ocasio-Cortez said.”
A series of topic changes and evidence dodging:
Read this 5 star book from the Author: Atlas Shouts