How to use demagogic techniques correctly?

January 19, 2021

Hello, dear readers of the KtoNaNovenkogo.ru blog. In the Russian language there are concepts that do not belong to profanity, but are often used in a negative sense.

For example, demagoguery is a sonorous word with an ancient history. What was wrong with it and why is it considered abusive?

A glance at the dictionary is not enough; you have to dig deeper. So, demagoguery: what is it really?

Technique number 1 – Attribution

Also called “Thesis Substitution.” The essence of the technique is to argue not with the arguments of the opponent, but with the arguments attributed to the opponent by the conservatives themselves. This is done in order to move the conversation to another topic that is less inconvenient for the conservative (and to move away from the one where he is completely wrong). Classic use case:

You: I sent you a certificate from the 1st special department of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs about the number of those arrested and convicted under Stalin, even there hundreds of thousands of people killed...

Conservative: And your Solzhenitsyn is lying that 120 million were executed! You liberals only know how to lie!

With the help of this technique, a substitution occurs. The conservative’s opponent may himself hate Alexander Solzhenitsyn and consider him a falsifier, but the conservative invents commonalities with Solzhenitsyn for the opponent. Thus, one can even attribute the murder of babies to the opponent (“Psychologist Ted Bundy was a serial killer, rapist and necrophiliac, which means all psychologists are necrophiliacs!”). Also, Solzhenitsyn may never have written about 120 million executed, and his opponent may not be a liberal - this will not stop a conservative from blaming him for all this, since he did not check Solzhenitsyn’s quote, and in his narrow worldview, everyone who is against Joseph Stalin - liberals.

The main thing you should know is that a conservative, using this technique, is lying (after all, he attributes to you words that you did not say), because he is backed into a corner and wants to change the topic from an inconvenient one to a convenient one - he may actually have 2-3 example of some crazy publicists falsifying data. And he will play this as a trump card - he will turn the conversation from Stalin’s crimes to the falsifications of crazy people (using them as evidence that Stalin was allegedly “lied”, and making the enchanting conclusion that, therefore, that’s why you are lying too). An inexperienced opponent can “buy” into this technique and begin to shield the falsifiers simply in the heat of disagreement, and the conservative gains an advantage. It is necessary to expose this fraudulent method of conservatives immediately, and in response indicate at what specific moments the attribution and lies of the conservative occur.

Reception Running Associations

It is considered an active learning method.
With its help, you can systematize acquired knowledge by comparing new information with already acquired experience. The technique is based on connecting the subconscious and sensory sphere to the educational process. The result of using the “running of associations” will be a strong assimilation of information and motivation of schoolchildren for further learning. For problematic lessons, with its help the teacher sets the main goal of the lesson. The teacher divides the class into pairs. Then the main topic of the lesson is given. The child names 2-3 words that he associates with the topic of the lesson. For example, in mathematics “running associations” is suitable for studying the topic “circle”. The teacher shows the children round objects. The main task of the students is to complete the logical chain started by the teacher. If the lesson involves the development of students’ speech, the “running associations” method also helps the teacher cope with the assigned tasks. The class team is divided into pairs. One child names two unrelated words. The task for the second student will be to compose a sentence from them in which the words will be logically related to each other. The classification of methodological techniques used in the modern educational process has been proposed by various teachers. Different points are chosen as the basis for division, taking into account the specifics of the subject and the type of training session. Methodological techniques must be rationally and effectively used in the educational process. Professionals believe that at different stages of the lesson the degree of mastery of the material changes dramatically. At first, the guys are able to remember about 60 percent, from 4 to 23 minutes of the lesson they absorb 90% of the information, from 23 to 34 they remember only half of the knowledge. Knowing these statistics, the teacher can build his own methodological system of work.

Technique number 2 – Arguing with form, not content

The essence of this technique is not to argue with your arguments, but with the way you present them or discuss you as a person. The spread here is quite large - they can find fault with you, ranging from spelling errors to your profession. Usage example:

You: Stalin did not fight against thieves at all, he himself was a thief - for example, he had about 20 palaces, he drove ZiS and Packard limousines, and soda was delivered to him by plane from Georgia.

Conservative: You speak like a Trotskyist, repeating the fairy tales of the Trotskyist Khrushchev. And everyone knows that the Trotskyists are the fifth column.

Please note that the conservative did not refute your facts about Stalin’s luxurious life, because this is an uncomfortable topic for him and he will definitely lose if he continues the conversation in the direction where you are leading him. Instead, he tries again to shift the conversation to another topic, as in the previous case, hoping that you have little understanding of it and that you can be beaten with some fairy tale from the legendarium of Stalinists like “Trotskyist Khrushchev” or “Trotskyist traitors” (if you beat him there too, he will change the subject again). You can’t follow the lead of a demagogue, you need to immediately tell him not to stray from the topic about Stalin’s luxurious life.

In this particular example, the dispute with the form occurs due to variations of this technique - Ad hominem and labeling. Ad hominem is a classic technique of demagogues, about which you can find enough information on the Internet. Its essence is to address not the essence of the dispute, but the individual - the one who is arguing, the one who is quoted by the arguer, and so on. Labeling is also quite well known; the essence of this technique is to label an opponent - say, “liberal” - and this will allow the opponent to attribute the mistakes of those who were also labeled “liberal”.

Technique 2.1 “Do you know where they came up with this? In the West"

This is part of technique number 2, the technique here is about the same as labeling. Example of use - let's say you prove that brushing your teeth is good for health and hygiene, the conservative answers: “Jews invented brushing your teeth.” Since the conservative sees enemies in all those who are different, for him the “invention” of brushing teeth, allegedly by Jews, is proof that brushing teeth is harmful. In this case, you must tell him not to use demagogic technique number 2.1 and provide refutations of your arguments about the usefulness of brushing your teeth.

Reception 2.2 “Senior”

Sometimes a conservative (most often, if he is of age or he knows your age, so he can lie about his own) tries, again bypassing the argumentation and the essence of the matter, to simply shut you up, justifying this by the fact that he is older, and therefore smarter. Examples of such attempts: “don’t contradict your elders,” “you haven’t seen life yet,” “how old are you?” and so on.

We must immediately make it clear that this is a demagogic device, since age does not guarantee intelligence. There are many young PhDs and old illiterate people. If a conservative uses this technique, you can also quote to him Ivan Krylov’s fable “The Stone and the Worm”:

So another boasts that he serves for forty years: But there is no use in him, like in this Stone.

Ivan Krylov - Stone and Worm

Technique 2.3 - Appeal to Hitler

A logical trick, also known as "argumentum ad Hitlerum". Its essence is to find compromised phenomena or personalities that share the thesis, and “refute” the thesis precisely due to the compromised nature of these phenomena/personalities. Reasoning formula: “Hitler (or the Nazis/or anyone else) supported X, therefore X is evil/something undesirable/something bad.” Typical examples of use: “Hitler supported the fight against smoking, therefore, all such campaigns are evil,” “Stalin called himself a socialist, which means socialism is evil,” and so on.

An example of a counterargument: “And if Hitler says that two times two is four, then two times two automatically equals five?” In the case of this technique, we must immediately understand that such an appeal does not prove anything. Otherwise, using this logic, one can come to the conclusion that if Chikatilo drank water, then drinking water is a crime.

The Demagogue's Code of Practice (50 Basic Rules of the Demagogue)

1. Never answer a question directly and never fully reveal your position. This will give you more room to retreat by saying “that’s not what I meant.” 1.1. If you are asked uncomfortable questions, answer the question with a question, and then quietly move on to another topic. Remember, after a few posts everyone will forget what question was asked in the first place. 1.2. Countermeasure: tire your opponent by asking and referring to a post with a question, and foaming at the mouth to demand an answer. The most stubborn one wins. 2. Remember - your opponent must always prove that he is not a camel. If he proves and makes excuses for any nonsense, then he will not have time to expose you, and it will seem to the audience that you are winning the argument. 2.1. Countermeasure: The best defense is offense. At the first doubt, accuse him of demagogy, stand his ground, and let him prove it. Like in that game known from childhood: “buy an elephant” - everyone says... and you buy an elephant. 3. If your opponent’s post contains 90% of compelling arguments that have nothing to object to, ignore them, but find a weak point in the remaining 10% and promote it to the fullest. 3.1. Countermeasure: pretend not to give a damn and say: “Whatever you say is unimportant, let’s get back to the point.” Or write posts with 100% compelling arguments - which is almost impossible - accordingly, make short posts where it is difficult to find errors and get to the bottom of it. 4. If you are caught in a fraud or mistake, pretend that nothing happened, ignore the question and answer, and move the dispute to another topic where you can seize the initiative. 5. A real demagogue never admits his mistakes, does not justify himself, and does not defend himself - this is unworthy of a demagogue. 5.1. Countermeasure: If you come across an experienced demagogue, and you can’t cope alone, call your friends, or witnesses/like-minded people, and attack the unfortunate demagogue in a crowd. Sooner or later he will leave amid general hooting. 6. A good technique is to appeal to your opponent, as if admitting that he is smart: “You are a smart person and you yourself understand that...” If your opponent nevertheless objects, it will seem to everyone that he himself admitted that he is an idiot. 6.1. Countermeasure: - correct answer: “Yes, I am an intelligent person, but I don’t understand that... Apparently, you and I have different concepts about an intelligent person.” 7. Never argue with another demagogue. If you have a choice of whose post to respond to, choose newcomers who are naively trying to talk to you as if you were a sane person. They are the easiest victims and you can't lose to them. 8. Dirt does not stick to a demagogue. No matter what they write to you, always remain cheerful, calm and polished. It's infuriating. 9. Don’t engage in primitive rudeness and flaming. Caustic mocking jokes are a hundred times more offensive. Besides, the moderator will not find an excuse to shut you up, no matter how much he might want to. 10. Create an aura of self-evidence in your posts. The phrases “everyone knows that...”, “only a fool doesn’t know that...”, “they found out a long time ago that...” work wonders. 11. There are no absolutely indisputable truths in the world, so an experienced demagogue can turn any post against his opponent: if someone expresses an expert assessment, say that this is just his opinion; if they give you any facts, say that the source is unreliable; if they say that two and two make four, answer that this is not an argument. 12. One of the best tactics is to drive your opponent into a rage (a good demagogue can do this without difficulty), and when even the slightest hint of flame appears, insultedly declare that your opponents have run out of arguments and have become personal. 13. If you are pressed against the wall, yawn demonstratively and say: “This is all complete nonsense. I believe that…". The “it’s all nonsense” argument is fundamentally irrefutable. 14. The phrase: “Opponents never provided any evidence” is a demagogue’s best friend. Don't be afraid to use it, even if there was irrefutable evidence in every line. Opponents still won’t be able to object to this. 15. Don’t be afraid to boldly declare that white is black and black is white. Oddly enough, it is very difficult to prove the opposite. 16. There are no ranks or titles for a demagogue. A reference to someone’s authority, an authoritative opinion is never evidence and can be debunked by a simple “Don’t you have your own thoughts?” 17. Remember that the word “justify” is a rude curse. If you are called “we’ll justify”, state in response that everything has already been said before, and that your opponents do not know how to read your posts. 18. Appeal to the mind of the listeners, saying that the listeners of your argument have it. For example, the phrase addressed to the audience “... but I don’t see a single crazy person here who...” Within a few seconds the audience will understand that they are not crazy and your opponent is crazy, and will hate him, has a good effect. 18.1. Countermeasure, answer: “Well, one was found after all.” 19. Write some nonsense, and after receiving an answer, edit your post and ask: “where did I write that?” Rarely used - why? See Rule 19.1 19.1. Countermeasure: point to the line “message has been edited..” Or (have time in advance) take a screenshot of the page after each comment post. Butthurt is secured. 20. If you are required to provide proof links (a confirmatory link), feel free to provide a link to yourself or your friends as an eyewitness (without specifying names, of course). More often citing the well-known phrase: “Google to the rescue” 20.1. Countermeasure: “And my neighbor told me that you are sick. And not only her.” 21. If the topic under discussion has a public resonance, the arguments of your opponents are weighty and obvious, simply state: “What, there are no other problems in the country? The point is to discuss this.” The phrase should also be supported by a mention of these problems: starving children, war, rampant drug addiction, crime, etc. “Are there no other problems?” - an irrefutable position. After all, somewhere children are definitely starving, drug addiction is rampant - your opponents are automatically exposed as insensitive brutes who are bubbling over some nonsense. 21.1. Respond with humor that is off topic, showing that your opponent has gone off topic, for example: “Have you heard the blackbirds sing?” 22. If you’re pushed to the wall, then, depending on the position your opponent takes, accuse him of: not patriotism/paranoid fear of the West, Russophobia/aggressive nationalism, licking power’s assholes/disrespect for the legally elected government, etc., but also say the routine and standard “You don’t understand this”, “You can’t know this”, “You’re just jealous”. 23. Be sure to label your opponent as a “liberal”, “soviet”, “Kremlin henchman”, “Jew”, Nazi, etc. (depending on the situation and the opponent’s position). 24. Remember that a demagogue has no logic in principle, and he can write, depending on the situation: “EdRo are goats, Power, the Government are freaks, Putin is an angel” (and it doesn’t matter that Putin is the leader of United Russia and appoints power) , your opponent will spend a lot of time and effort to prove that these are links of the same chain and he simply will not have time to drive you into a corner. 25. Never end an argument first. Wait until your opponents understand that it is useless to talk to you and leave, and then declare your victory. 26. If you have nothing nice to say, quote famous blogs. This is very cool and respectful. Take two or three quotes, phrases and repeat them constantly. 27. A true demagogue never pokes. Be sure to call your opponents on you. don't move away from this. 28. If you have nothing to answer your opponent, then you should carefully check his message for spelling and punctuation errors. 29. If you have nothing to answer, declare that the question is stupid. 29.1. Countermeasure: “So you’re so stupid you can’t answer it??” 30. Feel free to attribute to your opponent thoughts that he didn’t even have in his head. You are a great psychic! It is easily countered by a direct indication of the attribution of non-existent thoughts and an attempt to be a psychic. 31. In the end, throw a tantrum, say whatever comes to mind (even if it has nothing to do with the subject of discussion), or stupidly start ignoring your opponent, and if they demand to “continue the banquet”, declare that you are done said and consider further communication pointless, but continue to write what you need, without addressing or noticing your opponent. 32. The longer you are considered a sane interlocutor, the more lulz. Don’t try to use all the rules of this article at once - they might quickly discover it and stop paying attention. 33. For experienced demagogues: know your audience and adapt to it. 34. Turn all the disadvantages of your side into advantages! For example: “And it’s right that Stalin personally shot a billion people, this solved the problem of hunger and overpopulation on the planet.” The weapon is effective, but in some cases you cannot use it - they may be considered a psycho or a moral monster. 35. Keep on hand any electronic encyclopedias you can find. Before answering a question, open the encyclopedia, read the relevant article in it, and then present its contents to your opponent. It is fundamentally important that the article must be presented, that is, tell its essence in your own words, and not copy-paste it. Otherwise it will fail. After a while, everyone around you will consider you omniscient, capable of conducting competent conversations on absolutely any topic. 36. If the conversation is about some scientific topics, do not hesitate to overwhelm your opponent with a bunch of numbers, formulas, graphs and other obscenities. And the more there is, the better. Matan has a truly magical effect on beginners. It is, of course, forbidden to explain the meaning of the matan. 37. Refer to non-existent printed sources and provide fictitious quotes from them. Your opponent won't be able to test you anyway. And if he runs and doesn’t find anything, you can always say that this book is rare and it simply isn’t in the library where he was. Or declare that the opponent does not know how to use the library. The effectiveness of the technique increases if, in addition to fictitious ones, you refer to existing sources. on coursework and diplomas, so that even the professors did not suspect anything. 38. Give your opponent quotes in some foreign language, highly preferably in one that the opponent cannot know, for example, Swahili or mgf. And ask if he understood... and wait for a detailed answer. 39. If all the arguments are over, parrot, then you can copy-paste your previous comments and arguments, preferably the most convincing ones. Any attacks like “Are you stuck?” cold-bloodedly ignore. 40. Learn more of all sorts of catchphrases in Latin and use them more often in discussions, this will create an aura of learning around you in the eyes of others. Knowing what the quoted phrases mean, although desirable, is in principle not necessary. 41. And most importantly, remember, everyone around you knows that you are a demagogue. So you shouldn't care what they think about it. After all, the main thing is to prove that you are cool. Cool demagogue.

Technique number 3 – “Everyone around is a liar”

The essence of this technique is to accuse either you, or all historians, or anyone else of lying, and better before you accuse the conservative himself of lying. Since conservatives themselves lie a lot, they need to call their opponent a liar before him, so that accusations from him of lying (fair) will look like “a fool himself.” The highest aerobatics for them is to call their opponent a liar in the first sentence of a conversation. Sometimes they develop this technique by calling you a liar a lot of times, guided by the almost Goebbelsian principle “a lie told too many times is easier to believe.” Usage example:

You: If you don’t believe that Stalin didn’t care about the people, read the orders on punishment for being late for work or on the introduction of paid higher education.

Conservative: All these orders were falsified by the lying liberals who seized power in the 90s and rewrote all the archives.

In this case, the conservative knows well that you can prove your position with documents, and decides in advance to accuse these documents of falsity. An important point is that this does not include accusing a specific person of lying with specific evidence. Typically, conservatives either blame a lot of people, or do it without evidence, or all of the above.

In the case of this technique, the fact is that conservatives cannot even admit that a person with a different opinion can be right, that is, according to their logic, he can only be a liar. We observe this behavior in young children - they also cannot admit that they are wrong about something or may be wrong.

Here we can get a little stuck - there is nothing else to do but demand concrete evidence that the archives were rewritten and the orders were falsified, and then prove that it is the conservative who is lying.

Technique number 4 – “Is it different in the USA?”

Armenian radio received a question from America: “Can a simple engineer buy a car in the Soviet Union?” The Armenian radio was silent for 3 days, after which it answered: “And you have blacks lynched!”

Soviet joke

The essence of the technique is to “turn the arrows” to criticize something else. Let’s say, if you tell a conservative Stalinist that hundreds of thousands of people were shot on the orders of his idol, he, well aware that this is bad, responds by saying that ten people were once shot in the United States. And even if you reasonably say that 10 is much less, the conversation will already be transferred to another topic. A conservative is trying to trick you into defending shootings in the US, even if you don't approve of them.

This technique even received its own term - whataboutism, you can read more about it on the Internet. The conservative cannot be allowed to move away from the original topic; it must be explained that criticism of the shortcomings of the United States is a different topic, and can be moved on to it after deciding on the original thesis.

Technique number 5 – “No alternatives”

In some cases, conservatives defend any decision of a monarch, Stalin, Yeltsin or other dictator, arguing that there are unprecedented difficulties that supposedly mean that a different policy could not have been pursued, or that no one else would have managed it. There is a logical error here - there are absolutely always huge difficulties in the politics of most countries, and it does not follow from this that they have no options for development. Moreover, for example, Stalin had alternatives in the form of the left and right opposition in the CPSU (b), which we will consider in a separate article. Conservatives try to make it seem like these oppositions did not exist at all, or that they could not have achieved victory in World War II; They have no right to say this, since in the first case there was opposition, and in the second, no one can know for sure how they would behave in that situation (a situation in which they would have coped much better is more than possible). All we can know is that there was another way, that is, the conservative is already lying.

The famous “If not Putin, then who?” - this is just one version of the long-proven technique number 5.

Technique number 5.1 “Subjunctive Mood”

Reception number 5 also includes the phrase “History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood” (as an option - “the time was such”), with which conservatives veto the conversation about historical alternatives. For example, Stalinists respond with this phrase if you tell them about alternatives to Joseph Stalin. Which, however, does not prevent them from asserting in other conversations that “if it weren’t for Khrushchev/Gorbachev, everything would be fine.” The “subjunctive mood” differs from pure technique number 5 only in the desire to demonstrate, with the help of a “beautiful” phrase, education and thoughtfulness where they do not exist.

First of all, we should ask the question - who decides what history tolerates and what it does not tolerate? Not calculating alternative paths in history means not drawing any experience from it. Because if we think that “it couldn’t have been done any other way,” this means that we will live in the past all our lives, we will not think about how we could have done it better and we will not create anything new. This turns history into a useless memorization of facts, depriving its study of any meaning at all.

As foreign researchers note, “Russians are still overly fond of the Stalinist cliché “History has no place for the subjunctive mood,” which is often thrown out to reject any discussions about historical alternatives and options”1.

Technique number 5.2 - False alternative

The essence of the technique is to impose an alternative solution to the problem, but only one that is beneficial to the conservative in this dispute. In this case, he offers a false alternative that no one would want. Examples of use: “Do you want me to turn the music down? Maybe I should also stand on my head?”, “Are you against the fact that people were killed under Stalin? So, in your opinion, it is better for all Russians to die? In fact, techniques number 5 and 1 merge here.

Teacher control of his speech

Let's return again to our proverb, which interprets that intelligence is the second characteristic by which we are assessed

And since pedagogical technique is primarily oral skill, it is very important for a teacher to be able to correctly express his thoughts. To do this, the teacher needs:

• be technically literate in the material he explains to his students;
• observe the correct pronunciation of the text;
• present information in the simplest and most accessible form;
• decorate your speech with epithets and metaphors;
• have a rich vocabulary and good diction;
• correctly place pauses and semantic stresses.

Particular attention should be paid to the last point. Pauses are necessary in order to attract the attention of listeners and give them time to comprehend what has been said.

They are made either after an important statement or before it to create some kind of intrigue. Semantic emphasis is made in the text to create emphasis on certain points

With them you can begin to improve the teacher’s pedagogical technique. Typically, stress is manifested by a slight increase in the volume of the teacher's voice or a change in its tone. For example, semantic loading can be done when reading a term.

Technique number 6 – “You’re just paid for”

Often, technique number 6 is the last one used, when all other techniques have failed and you have defeated the conservative with arguments. In this case, the choice is usually between this technique, number 14 (more on it later) and number 3 - accusing you of either betrayal or simply lying. List of labels that are usually assigned with technique number 6 (depending on the political color of the conservative who accuses you):

• Fifth column;
• State Department/US Agent;
• Agent of the bourgeoisie;
• Agent of Zionism;
• National traitor.

And so on. The point is to either reduce the authority of the opponent, or to emerge from the dispute undefeated, at least in the eyes of like-minded people and sympathizers. In this case, you need to politely ask the conservative whether he is so ideal that it is only possible to disagree with him for money, whether he is not flattering himself, and ask where you can get paid for having a different opinion.

For example, according to the logic of the Stalinists, all of humanity is overcome by such a violent love for state security and repression that people can extinguish this powerful feeling in themselves only for huge amounts of money.

This must be how Freemasons, State Department officials, reptilians and other bad personalities pay people

Technique number 7 – “Machine gun”

We have already briefly mentioned this technique above. It lies in the fact that if you have defeated the arguments of a conservative, he does not enter into an argument with you, which he cannot win, but bombards you with new false short theses, which you must refute with reason (that is, do what he himself does not do in relation to your arguments). Simply put, when you rebut one short thesis of a conservative, he immediately moves on to another. Usage example:

Conservative: Under Stalin, the country developed, people lived well - the population grew by 70 million people.

You: Population growth has nothing to do with living standards and economic development, and therefore cannot serve as evidence of their improvement. On the contrary, in the poorest countries in the world the population is growing much more than in the most developed ones, here is a link to the statistics.

Conservative: You’re just paid, everything was possible under Stalin, thieves were shot, and the war was won only thanks to him.

Since you have refuted the first short thesis, and the conservative cannot answer with reason, he uses other techniques and other short theses, considering them arguments due to his narrow outlook. The calculation is also based on the fact that sooner or later he will reproduce a short thesis that you cannot answer, and then he will “press you”, forcing you not to deviate from this topic.

As with some other techniques, you must immediately prevent the conservative from going off topic and force him to admit that he is wrong on the first specific issue, otherwise you can spend a lot of time on technique number 7 and achieve nothing.

How to use the Insert technique in the classroom

1. Students read the text, marking it with special icons:

V - I know it;

+ - this is new information for me;

— — I thought differently, it contradicts what I knew;

? - This is not clear to me, I need explanations and clarifications.

Tip: it is more convenient to make markings in the text in the margins with a pencil. Or you can put a strip of paper so as not to stain the textbooks.

2. The table is filled in

Here is an example of filling out the Insert table in a history lesson on the topic “Reforms of Peter I”

3. Reading the table by several students (selectively). No discussion, just reading out the abstracts.

4. Re-reading the text. This stage moves the lesson into the comprehension stage. In this case, the table may be replenished, or some theses may already move from one column to another.

5. Reflection. At this stage, the entries made in the table are discussed. There is an analysis of how knowledge is accumulated. The path from old to new becomes more visual and understandable.

Reception number 8 – “If it weren’t for God, we wouldn’t exist!”

Here conservatives are trying to make us feel guilty and grateful to the object they are defending simply because it was and, from the personal views of conservatives, was endowed with some exceptional virtues. They may tell you that “if not for Stalin, we would not exist,” “if not for Hitler, we would not exist,” “if not for Krishna, we would not exist,” or something like that.

If we are talking about a historical figure, then the conservative must answer that this thesis of his is valid only to the extent that the “butterfly effect” is valid. If it weren't for some mammoth from the Ice Age, perhaps we wouldn't exist either, but that doesn't make that mammoth any kind of political or moral reference point, and it doesn't prove anything. In the case of gods, we must first clarify which god - Yahweh, Vishnu, Baron Saturday or some other - and then say that in this case, if not for Baron Saturday or Vishnu, then we too would not exist in accordance with other religions, so we must worship several thousand gods.

If it weren't for them, we wouldn't exist

Where is demagoguery used?

Demagoguery in simple words is the creation of an illusion, a veiled lie.
As practice shows, this method of attracting attention and persuading is most often used by people seeking power or already having it. Perhaps the first thing that comes to the mind of an ordinary person when they hear the word “demagogue” is current and future politicians. In fact, it is true - politicians are the main demagogues, but they are not the only ones. In modern reality, perhaps everyone does not disdain demagoguery. The media actively use techniques to introduce the necessary information into people's minds. It is not for nothing that the media have received the unofficial title of the fourth estate. Every day we listen, read and see information about the latest developments and super projects that in a short time will certainly change our entire lives for the better.

Economic demagogues convince people to invest money and then feed them promises to return it. Demagoguery can even be everyday. How many women follow the sweet promises of their chosen one and end up with nothing?

Feminist - Who She Is and How Relevant Feminism Is Today

Technique number 9 – Soft transition to personalities

Often a conservative begins a conversation by discussing not the opponent’s arguments, but himself (“Don’t tell me fairy tales”, “it’s easier for your kind to blame Stalin”), most often this is accompanied by expressions from the shoemaker’s vocabulary (“liberals”, “toadies of the West” "). The goal is to provoke the opponent to retaliate by getting personal, and then blaming him for this very transition and leaving the conversation. In this case, you need to immediately warn him so that he does not get personal, but speaks to the point and based on the available arguments.

Technique number 10 – “Boy’s quotation book”

Sometimes, in response to your arguments that appeal to common sense, conservatives cite some quote from some famous person that contradicts your words, believing that this has refuted you. Example:

You: Stalin was not any kind of military genius; in the transcript of the fifth meeting of the commanding staff at the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to collect experience in combat operations against Finland, he generally suggests landing planes on their backs.

Conservative: You are just paid, and your beloved Winston Churchill said that Stalin was the greatest thing that happened to Russia and the most brilliant military man in history.

Firstly, such quotes always need to be checked - the vast majority of them turn out to be fakes (for example, Stalinists especially like to attribute quotes they themselves invented for some reason to Churchill). Secondly, when a conservative uses the “Boy Quote Book” technique, he is not trying to achieve the truth, his real goal is to show how smart he is (he was able to memorize the quote). We need to ask the conservative the following: can he himself argue why this quote is correct, or is he simply quoting it without understanding the meaning?

It is necessary to make a distinction between the use of the “Boys Quote Book” and the situation when a person presents his arguments and confirms them with authoritative sources with references.

lLEYARE. DUBUY YADEKUEL ANKEMN

“ONVELS PEAEMNY OPNЪBKYER YUTSPEYAYAKHCH, Kommersant FE BYAETSDU SVHK ETSN PYUGPEYURE YNMTKHYRSH LHPMSHL OSREL?” — MEDNSLEBUCHR ONPNI PNDKHREKH, SGMYUB, VRN LYUKSH DUK YADYUVKH DERYUDNBYAINLS OPHЪREKCH. mu YAYULNL DEKE, LSH ONPNI ME GYULEVYUEL, YUY BMEDPYEL DPEBMKHI OPHMZHKHO “NYN GYU NYN” B ONDIANGMYUMHE PEAEMYU. sDYUPHK MNFYS N YARSOEMEYS – OKNUYU YARSOEMEYU, DUBUY EE RNFE SDYUPHL! KhDE "ONAHRE" YARSOEMEYS, YARSK, YMHFYS, YUFERYA LYUKSHYUL GUAYUBMNI, NMH ASHIARPN GUASHBUCHR N LHLNKERMNI ANKH NR SHAYU.

pH, VRN BYUL YUFERYA ESRYNI (BEDE PEVE KHDER N MENDSEBKEMMSHU OPEDLERYUU), PEAEMNY BNYAOPHMHLUER, YUY OPYUBKHKN. yu ONOSRMN OPNMHYUERYA KHDEEE BPUFDEAMNYARH LHPYU, TsDE YUFDU RYUASPERYU FEKUER ELS GKYU.

vRN DECURE?

lSH NAYASDHKH RPH OEDYUTSNTSKHVEYAYHU OPHELYU, YNRNPSHE BSH LNFERE HYAONKEGNBURE BLEYARN LEMEE SDYUVMSHU BNYAOHRYUREKEMSHU LERNDNB. sBEPEMSH, VRN HU PETSSKЪPMNE HYAONKEGNBYUMHE NAKETSVHR BYUYE BGYUHLNONMHLYUMHE I PEAEMYNL X ONLNFER ELS PUYARKH YAONYNIMSHL, YAVYUYARKHBSHL X SBEPEMMSHL B YEAE!

05/31/2017 ONDTSNRNBHKYu yMMYu oEPBSHMYU

Technique number 11 - “The enemies are to blame”

The eleventh trick is to shift your blame onto someone else. Perhaps as a child you met such vile children who pushed some of their dirty tricks on you. Such children grow up to be excellent conservatives, and if you tell them that, say, the standard of living is low in Russia now, they can tell you that the Americans and their sanctions are to blame for this. To this we must immediately answer that enemies and difficulties do not bother a truly competent person, because everyone has enemies and difficulties, but for some reason only losers complain about them. Everyone knows what gets in the way of a bad dancer.

Functions

The teaching aids used in a modern school perform several functions.

1. Compensatory helps to facilitate the educational process, helping to achieve the goal with minimal time and physical costs.
2. Adaptive helps the teacher to correlate the content of the academic discipline with the individual and age characteristics of schoolchildren, to obtain favorable conditions for the harmonious development of children, and to create conditions for organizing independent work of schoolchildren.
3. Informative involves the use of various textbooks, videos, projection equipment, and laboratory equipment.
4. Integration consists in the totality of the phenomena and objects being studied, identifying the essence and properties of processes or laws.

Technique number 12 - Reducing to false Achilles' heels

This technique is not to answer your thesis, which the conservative is not able to answer, but to find the community to which your thesis belongs, and find the Achilles heel in this community in order to transfer the dispute to it. Moreover, most often this generality is generally invented by a conservative, and then, it turns out, this technique merges with technique number 1. Example of use:

You: A free market economy leads to increased social inequality and the impoverishment of the majority of the population - this was suggested by Marx, and recently proven by Thomas Piketty in his work “Capital in the 21st Century”.

Conservative: Well, you know, the Marxists somehow didn’t really succeed in the USSR. Only totalitarianism and poverty.

As you can see, the conservative again does not argue with the thesis because he cannot answer anything. This means you need to cheat using demagogic techniques. Therefore, he does the following: scans your message, sees the names of Marx and Piketty there, but he has not read the latter and knows nothing about him; He hasn’t read the first one either, but he knows that the USSR was founded by Marxists (he doesn’t even know about Joseph Stalin’s conservative coup d’etat). This means we need to put pressure on the mistakes made in the USSR. The conversation ends up being diverted away from the problem originally discussed. At the same time, you may not even be a Marxist and you yourself may know better than him the weak points of your like-minded people or the object of conversation you are defending, and want to correct them.

Reduction to false Achilles' heels differs from technique number 4 in that in the case of the latter, the conservative turns the conversation to a completely different community of objects, but in this case he looks for weak points in objects in the already discussed community. Therefore, it is technically more difficult to recognize reception number 12 than reception number 4.

Here, again, one should correctly point out the use of demagogic techniques and ask them to speak out primarily on the essence of the problem.

The many faces of demagoguery and areas of its application

“Currying the people” is often adopted by those who are in power or eager to gain it. Therefore, many people associate the concept of “demagoguery” with politics. Following the example of their ancient Greek “colleagues,” modern public and political figures use demagogic techniques in speeches, public statements, and interviews.

They cannot do without demagoguery and the media (what is that?). Here she helps to introduce into the consciousness of the audience the desired idea of ​​​​the state of affairs (not always true, but sometimes false). This gave rise to the definition of “fourth estate” for the media.

Profound discussions about the effectiveness of superprojects, accompanied by numbers and formulas that can only be understood by fifth-generation academics, are economic demagoguery.

This also includes promises to return savings from lost deposits and funds invested in financial pyramids. Economic demagogues often speculate on demographic indicators.

Social demagoguery is based on “dancing with a tambourine” around social relations, social norms, and human behavior in society.

Promises to give land to peasants, to allocate an apartment to each family, to solve the problem of alcoholism once and for all, to prevent prices from rising... this list tends to infinity.

Legal norms may be distorted and presented from the required perspective - this is legal demagoguery based on ignorance of the current legislation by the majority of the population.

Everyday demagoguery is very common. On the Internet, in family life, in the office and at the university - this legacy of the ancient Greeks has penetrated everywhere. “You forgot to take out the trash today, but what about tomorrow? Will you find a lover?

Technique number 13 - Exception against the rule

This technique is also called “passing off a correlation as a cause.” The idea is to find some kind of exception that should supposedly refute the rule you noticed. A typical example of reasoning:

You: Under Stalin, a huge number of people starved and lived in barracks.

Conservative: What are you talking about? But my grandparents lived very well. There was a dacha, a car, non-GMO cucumbers. So you are lying about the “starving people”.

Using this technique, we can conclude that leading an unhealthy lifestyle is good for health, because Winston Churchill drank, smoked, was fat and lived to a ripe old age. Or that no one died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because there were survivors. In the case of this technique, it should be noted that rare counterexamples without corresponding statistics do not refute the existence of the rule. And the best thing is to have comparative statistics that refutes the words of a conservative.

nTsPYUMHVEMHE. ME DECUI SCHRNTSN

“ME AETSYUI S DNPNTsKH, RYUL LYUHMSH!”, “ME YAMHLUI YUOIS, OPNYARSDKHEYAYA!”, “ME GYUKEGYUI B KSFS, OPNLNVKHE MNTSKH!” mYUL YUFERYA, VRN ShRN EYAREYARBEMMNE OPNЪBKEMHE GUANRSH, MN EYE 100 KER MYUGYUD MHYRN ME NYPSFYUK DEREY GYUOPERYULH, KH EYAREYARBEMMSHY KHMYARKHMYR YAYULNYANUPYUMEMH NAEPETSIU TO LYUKSHYEI ME USFA, VELT MYM H AYUASYU.

YNTSDU PEAEMYS RPH TSNDYU, ShCHRN, ONKNFHL, DUFE BUL MU PSYS, MN YNTSDU ELS ASDER RPKHJURE, BSH RNVMN NAMYUPSFKHRE, VRN ShRN ASHKYU ME KSVIU BNYAOKHRYUREKEMYU YARPURETSKH Kommersant ONSHRNLS NYARYUBERE YARNO-TPYUGSH, MYUVKHMYUCHYKHEYEYA I "ME" DK DEYARBKHREKEMN YPHRHVEYAYHU YAKSVYUEB, YNCDU FKHGMKH PEAEMYU STSPNFUER MEONYAPEDYARBEMMYU NOYUMNYARE.

Technique number 14 - “You have merged”

This technique is that a conservative can continue the argument, not paying attention to any arguments, endlessly using other demagogic techniques. And when you realize that it is useless to waste time on him, and he takes away precious minutes of your life (which is especially sensitive if you carefully select sources and spend a lot of time on it, and the conservative responds only with demagogy, invented in half a minute) - you end the conversation , and then the conservative responds with technique number 14. He says something like “you’ve lost your nerve,” “you’ve run out of arguments,” and so on. In this case, you cannot answer him; you need to end the conversation. He has already clearly shown you that he does not accept arguments, and his time has no value and he has a lot of it - he can continue indefinitely. However, if you posted a link to this article before finishing the conversation, then those readers who read it will understand that your opponent is using a demagogic technique and will not take it seriously.

How the word demagogue has become corrupted

Appearing in ancient Greece, this word did not have a negative connotation. It comes from two concepts: “demos” - people, “ago” - “I lead”. Ancient Greek leaders (demagogues) sought to explain to the people the essence of decisions made by the authorities. This was not an easy task, requiring oratory skills.

In the 5th century BC, a demagogue was a highly educated democratic leader who came from a noble family. Demagogues enjoyed mass success because they expressed the interests of the people not only in words.

They often became rulers. For example, famous demagogues were Pericles and Themistocles, highly respected personalities.

The situation was changing: people of humble origins who did not shine with intelligence and eloquence (for example, the owner of the Hyperbol lamp workshop) found themselves at the political “steering wheel”.

To maintain their position, they learned to “play” with human instincts for selfish purposes. So the word “demagogue” acquired a negative meaning.

Microtechniques

There are also techniques that are not used so often, but are still used.

Micro-technique number 1 “Who gave you the right to say that?” And who can take this right away from me? According to the logic of a conservative, it turns out like this: in order to speak, you must get permission from someone to do so. This only shows that this conservative is a slave and serf.

Micro-method number 2 “Eat, pray, learn history.” In most cases, it is used by Kremlin bots who need to earn a salary and are too lazy to come up with something. The following short phrases are heard: “Study history”, “Have you tried working? Try to work”, “Read books” and so on. That is, there is absolutely no argumentation why you are wrong, the point of the post is simply to insult you in a slightly more complex form. You shouldn’t waste time on these, at most you can just write that this is demagogic micro-trick number 2 and send a link to this article.

Microtechnique number 3 “Stole from you personally?” For example, if you accuse someone of corruption, a conservative might throw out the phrase “Did he personally steal something from you?” This is a demagogic technique; here it is necessary to discuss the fact of the theft itself, and not its details. You can also ask the conservative if he gives permission to steal all the money from one of his relatives, because nothing will be stolen from him personally.

Microtechnique number 4 “You have no evidence.” Often, even if you have presented a ton of evidence, the conservative will use a phrase like “My opponent has never provided any evidence.” This demagogic technique is used to manipulate the witnesses of the discussion. For example, if a demagogue knows that those around him do not understand the topic he is discussing, this is an excellent opportunity to declare that his opponent did not provide any evidence, especially if there was a huge amount of it. After this phrase, the demagogue looks meaningfully at the witnesses to the dispute and points a derogatory finger at his opponent.

Pros of taking the Basket of Ideas

It is very important here to help students independently determine the goals of the lesson. After all, usually the teacher sets goals and structures his lesson in such a way as to get as close as possible to achieving these goals

In this case, by default it is assumed that the students also know these goals or, in extreme cases, the teacher simply reads them out, presenting the students, so to speak, with a fait accompli.

But psychologists and didactic scientists note that the learning process is much more effective if the student himself determines the purpose of learning and the purpose of a particular lesson. Here, along with the cognitive function, motivation also works: this is what I want to know, this is interesting to me.

The second problem that is solved at the challenge stage using the “Basket of Ideas” technique is to involve all students in the work. In a regular lesson, the stage of updating knowledge does not always make it possible to reach all students in the class. Many sit back passively, allowing others to complete the task. The “Basket of Ideas” includes a stage of individual work, which will allow even the most passive to contribute to the common cause.

The third important point: everyone participates in the creation of records - after all, one of the conditions is that the terms and proposed ideas should not be repeated. That is, each student not only listens carefully to the suggestions of others, but also simultaneously analyzes his knowledge, noting what he also knows and what is unfamiliar to him

By recording their gaps, students will subsequently pay attention to correcting and adjusting their knowledge of knowledge

Reception covers two types of student activities: individual and group.

Wolf Pack Tactics

Often conservatives do not attack alone, preferring to “hunt” in a pack. The tactic follows the "Wolfpack" concept used by Nazi submarines during World War II to destroy merchant ships and their convoys. Its essence was to simultaneously attack the convoy with as many submarines as possible - in order to reduce the effectiveness of the defense due to the dispersal of the convoy's forces.

Conservatives also try to attack the discussion massively. Let’s say the classic scheme is when one simply uses demagogic techniques in a dispute with an opponent, but in a correct form, and two or three periodically provoke this opponent (for example, by getting personal). Often the opponent breaks down and begins to get personal towards all participants in the discussion, including the “correct” conservative, who immediately accuses the opponent of inadequacy. Sometimes, of course, “wolf packs” work in an organized manner, but more often than not they form spontaneously, stemming from the very nature of conservative ideology - “crush the dissimilar.”

Once again about pants

When we talked about conservatism in the corresponding article, we talked about the concept of “crappy pants” - in the opinion of a conservative, “why change crap pants if others may also be crap?” (hence “if not Putin, then who?”, “who could cope if not Stalin?” and so on). The conservative techniques we have listed in this article are suitable for defending any nonsense and nonsense. Let's look at the example of long-suffering pants - let's say a conservative shits his pants, and you convince him that they should be changed. Then he can use demagogic techniques to rebuff you:

You: Change your pants, they stink.

Conservative: Well, of course, that’s how everyone believed you about the billion pants that I personally crap (trick number 1). Aren't you funny?

You: Change your pants, they stink.

Conservative: You reason like a typical leftist (technique number 2). You should believe less in pro-Western fairy tales. Do you know that the Trotskyists and other national traitors were the first to change their pants (technique number 2.1)? Then a bunch of Western agents wrote lying books about how shitty pants supposedly stink, and now fools like you believe in this nonsense (technique number 3).

You: Change your pants, they stink.

Conservative: Do you think it’s somehow different in the USA? Do they all wear clean pants there? Read Yuri Mukhin, at least the book “How they lie to us about Americans’ clean pants.” At least in Chicago alone, several people go with the Russians (technique number 4).

You: Change your pants, they stink.

Conservative: And if not crap pants, then what? Where is the guarantee that other pants will not be crap (technique number 5)? I would like to know who pays you extra money to spout such nonsense (technique number 6).

You: Change your pants, they stink.

Conservative: Son, how old are you? You are still young, you have not seen life. I’m already 60 years old, it would be better if you didn’t point things out to your elders, but showed respect (technique number 2.2). This is the first thing. Secondly, if you bought glasses (trick number 9), you would see that the shit in my pants is American, and not mine at all (trick number 11).

And so on. What is most curious is that this is exactly what conservatives look like in the eyes of objective others, but they do not understand this, and do not even realize that they are exposing themselves to ridicule.

The worst thing about the techniques of conservatives is that, hearing them used by state propaganda, people are imbued with the logic of these techniques and use them in everyday communication with their loved ones, which especially negatively affects children who grow up incapable of effective thinking and intellectual development.

Zigzag technique

This methodological technique is suitable for situations in which it is necessary to assimilate a large amount of information in a short period of time. In the school curriculum in many academic disciplines, a minimum number of hours are allocated to the study of specific topics. In order to cover as many paragraphs as possible during a lesson, it is precisely these methodological techniques that come to the aid of the teacher. At school, “zigzag” allows you to remember the details of a large amount of information in a short period of time. The material is learned in an interactive form; the teacher does not offer students a ready-made solution; the students themselves search for it. These methodological techniques are group work skills. All students are mobilized. They learn to work together to search for the main idea in the text and systematize information. Such types of methodological techniques as “pivot tables”, “essays”, “cluster” are suitable for “zigzag”.

The main purpose of using the zigzag technique is to assimilate a large layer of new material. Initially, the teacher divides the text into several separate parts. There are several study groups in the class, each with the number of children not exceeding 5-6 people. These are considered "primary" blocks. New material is divided into as many parts as there are participants in each block.

When considering a large text, you can increase the number of children in primary groups to 6-7 people. They offer the guys the same text. Each group member receives their own numbered passage. Next, the student works through his part of the text individually and compiles a supporting summary. Its main task is to obtain a high-quality “squeeze” from the read passage. Methods and methodological techniques for carrying out such work are not limited to the teacher. You can draw up a diagram, make a table, design a cluster.

At the next stage of work, group work is carried out. Students join “colleagues” and expert groups are formed. One block will bring together children working with different passages from the same text. The discussion is being accepted. The guys exchange their opinions, their works, and choose the best option for presenting their “piece” of text. As an additional task, the teacher suggests making up questions based on the passage so that the rest of the children can understand whether they have mastered the material. Next, schoolchildren return to the “original blocks”, a stage of reflection is expected. It involves a presentation to the rest of the schoolchildren of that part of the text that the children worked on individually. As a result, each representative of the mini-group gets an idea of ​​the entire text. The final stage of the “zigzag” technique involves the overall work of the class. One of the experts presents his part of the text, and the text is listened to again. If necessary, the “colleague” is supplemented by other “experts” from the same group. At the reflection stage, there is a selection of those presentations that turned out to be the most accessible to memorization, understandable from the presentation of the material presented.

Similar methodological techniques in kindergarten are offered in a simplified version. Preschoolers are also divided into groups, but they are not offered text, but part of a large drawing. For example, the illustration for “The Tale of the Turnip” is divided into several separate pictures. One child receives an image of a turnip, the second of a grandfather, the third of a grandmother, the fourth of a granddaughter, the fifth of Bugs, and the sixth of a cat. As a result, together they must present to the children from another block a ready-made version of a fairy tale story known to everyone.

Bottom line

Conservatives are constantly coming up with new and new techniques so as not to change their minds or change something else in their lives - so as not to develop (after all, this is difficult and requires effort) and not to admit their mistakes (after all, this will have a bad effect on the self-esteem of a notorious conservative ), you can come up with a wide variety of excuses. Therefore, not all techniques are described in this article. But, as we see, their mechanics are the same, plus or minus, most often - to shift the conversation from the essence to something else. Therefore, it is very important for us to remember that if there is a dispute regarding one thesis, the thesis itself should not change until the end of the discussion. And having learned to understand the essence of the dispute, you can easily come up with your own methods of neutralizing conservatives. We also strongly recommend reading Sergei Povarnin’s work “The Art of Argument” (1918), which is one of the most significant studies of the methods of discussion and argumentation in the Russian language.