Breaking the Stonewall: How to Expose and Counter Deflective Responses from Authority Figures
Here's a sentence that can effectively derail one of the most common tricks used by people in authority to dodge fair criticisms of policy.
This tactic is so widespread that anyone proficient in public relations likely knows it well. It’s a standard, almost reflexive, method used around the world to sidestep challenges to questionable policies or decisions that those in power have no intention of changing.
Any critique of a policy or decision takes time, whether it's from a TV interviewer or a concerned citizen speaking to a manager. Time is precious, so the common way to deflect these attacks is by wasting that time. How? By offering a response that doesn’t address the issue at all—a technique often called “stonewalling.”
The most common version of stonewalling is to simply restate, emphatically and repeatedly, what the current rules or policies are. When someone questions whether the rules should change, the defender responds by reiterating what the rules say, refusing to engage with the 'why.' Time runs out, the challenge fizzles, and the authority figure thanks everyone, having successfully dodged any real accountability.
This tactic works because many people don’t know how to counter it effectively. It's used so often because there isn’t a widely known comeback that forces the defender to justify the 'why' behind their decision, instead of just restating 'what' the decision is.
In essence, their rebuttal boils down to: “It is that way because that's the way it is.” Or, "The decision is right because it's what was decided." The mere fact that a decision was made is presented as proof of its correctness, an absurd but all-too-common defense.
So, the way to defeat these people is to call them out by using these sentences. Reply to them "you're telling us it is that way because that's the way it is." Alternatively, say "you're telling us that's the decision because it's what was decided".
Expect a hostile response. People in authority, especially those with power-hungry personalities, don’t like being challenged. They might accuse you of sarcasm. But you’ll likely disrupt their bluff, which is what this entire tactic amounts to.
Updated October 10th, 2024 #CriticalThinking #Accountability
- - ArgueGuru - -