How to silence the opposition without really trying

Like many people, I’m a fan of Seth Godin’s writings.

Few people know how to craft a message as well as he does.

For example, see this short post.

On the face of it, it seems like little more than a powerful insight. And yet, intentional or not, it serves another purpose altogether. Namely, it serves to silence anyone with the gall to ask questions.

When someone preaches a message of hope, who dares to ask for specifics? Who dares to ask if the message is realistic or even desirable? Cynics. That’s who. And who wants to be labeled a cynic?

Of course it is just as plausible to call these people realists. Or maybe concerned citizens. But those labels don’t serve to shame others into silence. So cynics they are. And probably despicable ones at that.

As I said, it’s a brilliant message. And unfortunately, it works because in today’s social climate it’s too easy to disparage critical thinking.

Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 05:40 PM

Printer friendly

Share Blair:

(13) Reader Comments about How to silence the opposition without really trying

seth godin says...

My feeling is that the devil doesn’t need an advocate. He’s (mostly) doing just fine.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 07:14 PM

Blair Warren says...

Hey Seth,

Just out of curiosity, what “devil” are you referring to?

And for the record, I really am a fan of your work. Mostly.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 07:33 PM

John says...

I don’t get it. Maybe I’m a nimrod, a trogladyte or simply a, well, simpleton, but I don’t get it.

Can you (Seth and Blair) be a bit more specific.

To what do you refer?

If you’re simply referring to hope in general, it isn’t hope that is the issue, it is, rather, in what or who the hope lies.

If you are referring to Obama, in my estimation, there is no substance to that hope.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 08:52 PM

Tom Welsh says...

Thanks for this. A long time ago, I heard the saying that “a cynic is a romantic who mistakenly transformed his/her ideals into expectations.” Or something like that.

Stepping back, I would be loathe to define cynicism as a “strategy.” More like an approach, perhaps.

The substitution of hope for reality leads to some bad places. It corrodes communication, forecloses debate, and invites presupposition, sometimes deadly. One might say that the scientific method has cynicism as its base.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 08:59 PM

Blair Warren says...

John,

I can only speak for myself here, but at this point in time I don’t think there is much question that “hope” and Obama (two women just fainted) have become synonymous.

My issue with Seth’s statement was that it serves to stifle meaningful discussion so as to keep the “hope train” a rollin’.

I’m not disagreeing with Seth’s statement as a statement of fact. He IS right. Cynicism IS a lousy strategy - if you are trying to win a popularity contest. But as Tom points out in his comment, as an approach, cynicism is perhaps the best tool we have to separate fact from BS.

For example, as I type this I’m watching Obama (three women in the back just started crying) whoop up on Hillary in Austin.

One theme that keeps getting repeated is that we must bring the country together. It gets thunderous applause. In fact, the only line that seems to be getting bigger applause is when they stop trying to “bring us together” and instead polarize us by demonizing President Bush.

But to point out this hypocrisy is to risk being portrayed as a cynic. If so, I’ll take that risk because I’m tired of being told that I should just shut up and let “hope” - whatever the hell that turns out to mean - prevail.

Still, I have to admit Barack (a small child just collapsed) is one hell of a speaker. I don’t always know what he’s saying, but by god he says it beautifully.

Again, I’m only speaking for myself here. Heck, Seth may have been referring to a dog or cat named Hope for all I know.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 09:26 PM

john says...

Thanks Blair.

That’s what I was looking for. Just a little clarity.

I may be a redneck, but I ain’t dumb redneck. I am, however, a SWAT team member who was detailed to “baby-sit” Mr. Obama (three women just achieved the ultimate level of climax) and I must say, I’ve never been in the presence of a more pure, well spoken and utterly able man to lead this country into the next 4 years.

His ability to listen intently to a question, and then answer in another manner...totally unrelated to that particular question, tells me he is the next Oprah Winfrey demagogue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demagogue) with a handsome smile, wit charm and a disarmingly “devilish” sense of charm.

Quite frankly, I’ve never been more loathsome of the term “hope” than I am currently...Seth be damned.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 10:23 PM

Melissa says...

I’m sharpening my pitchfork...would anyone prefer Hillary in the White House?

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 10:40 PM

Blair Warren says...

Hey John,

Interesting perspective on Obama (three men in the front just started giggling like girls).

In the years I’ve studied charismatic leaders, one of the most consistent traits people report is that guru-figures make them feel as if they (the listeners) were the most important people in the world. For the duration of the encounter, it’s as if no one else exists except for the charismatic leader and themselves.

I think this is a great trait in a spouse or lover - to be able to make the other person feel like the most important person in the world. But when a politician can do it and complete strangers fall for it, that’s frightening. To me, at least. Clearly, Obama (the first three rows just stood up with their heads back and their arms reaching towards the heavens) supporters would disagree.

Still, if he’s half as good a president as he is a rock star, he’ll do great.

P.S. This may sound trite, but I’ll say it anyway…

I deeply admire people who do the kind of work you do. When I was a young punk in the late 70s and thought I knew everything, my Dad told me that one day I’d come to respect police officers, members of the military and others who put their lives on the line for the rest of us. I laughed. But it’s amazing what a few decades of living and a couple of kids of one’s own can do for one’s perspective.

PPS - As for Seth, I’d just like to “un” damn him if that’s okay. After all, he just wrote a couple of sentences and I probably read a lot more into them than he intended. If so, I apologize. Either way, he’s a brilliant marketer and fantastic writer as far as I’m concerned. In fact, if he ever decided to run for office, I’d probably vote for him.

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 11:04 PM

Blair Warren says...

Melissa said…

“I’m sharpening my pitchfork...would anyone prefer Hillary in the White House?”

Now that you mention it, President Obama (George Lopez just fainted) doesn’t sound that bad.

I’m still confused how Hillary can be running at all. Think about it…

Years ago she said, “We’re the President.” If that’s true - and if she said it you know it has to be true - and a president can only serve two terms, how can she run again?

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 11:18 PM

Steven Sashen says...

The problem is not with Seth’s one-liner, it’s that Americans have so little training in debate and argument that we don’t recognize it for what it is: an articulate variation of “So how old where you when you stopped having sex with your dog?”

In other words, it makes an unspoken assumption (e.g. “Whatever I’m referring to is ‘hope,’ and ‘hope’ is a good thing") and then asks you to defend your position against that unspoken assumption. And, really, who would want to be against anything good?!

Sadly, responding intelligently with something like, “I can’t address your question, because I disagree with the validity of the premise,” makes you sound like you’re avoiding the question.

Add it to the list that includes “death tax” and “anti-terrorism” (instead of domestic wire-tapping).

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 11:21 PM

Blair Warren says...

Steven said…

The problem is not with Seth’s one-liner, it’s that Americans have so little training in debate and argument that we don’t recognize it for what it is: an articulate variation of “So how old where you when you stopped having sex with your dog?”

I completely agree. For those who might be interested, there is an *excellent* book on this subject called Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion by Jay Heinrichs.

In my opinion, all humans should be required to read this book before they’re ever allowed to speak.

That may sound a tad unrealistic, but hey, ‘tis the season of hope so I don’t want to hear any cynicism about it. Got it?

Posted on 02/21/2008 at 11:33 PM

Rational Thinking says...

Hi Blair - long time reader, via Cosmic Connie.

I’m a Brit. The SAS motto is “who dares wins”

Cynics, realists? D’you know what the correct label is? Well, I do, and it’s a four letter word - it’s Sane. That’s who asks the awkward questions.

Love your stuff. Great work.

Posted on 02/22/2008 at 02:14 AM

RJay says...

Blair,

I want to second your opinion regarding Thank You for Arguing. It’s an easy read and great primer on rhetoric.

Posted on 02/22/2008 at 11:15 AM