Rhetoric – Outrage
One of the most interesting things about the rhetoric used by the BDS
“movement” and similar Israel-disliking organizations is that the BDSers’ life
on the psychological extreme means that the rhetorical tactics they employ also
tend towards the extreme.
When one is dealing with a “normal” political situation, there have
traditionally been forces that keep discussion within general bounds of
civility. Until recently, candidates primarily
dropped innuendos about their opponent’s inadequacy for the job, while
surrogates got much more specific and accusatory. But the simple fact that most of those
running for office still feel the need to be perceived as even-tempered and
fair implies an understanding that public discourse needs to follow certain
civilized rules.
The public is also interested in variety, which means using the same
tactic over and over again is likely to bring diminishing returns, especially
if that tactic is perceived as controversial or extreme. And one of the rhetoric tactics that tends to
wear out its welcome fast is Argumentation from Outrage.
Argumentation from Outrage is considered in informal fallacy, that is a
fallacy not based on breaking any formal logical rules (such as All Dogs are
Animals, All Cats are Animals, therefore all Dogs are Cats – a formal fallacy
which is wrong even if you substitute letters, imaginary animals or nonsense
words for Cats, Dogs and Animals). But with
an informal fallacy, the actual content of the argument is relevant or, in the
case of Argumentation from Outrage, how that content is presented.
Argumentation from Outrage is usually brought up in discussions of
cable TV or radio political talk show hosts who seem to be able to break into a
screaming fit at the slightest provocation, although in our current political
culture it has travelled from this venue to the candidates themselves (at least
as of now).
In the contexts of shock-political media, Argumentation from Outrage is
meant to short circuit reasonable debate by raising the temperature to such a
degree that the only choices an opponent to the screamer has are to (1) capitulate;
or (2) begin screaming back (usually a losing proposition for a talk show guest
inexperienced at public howling who does not control the microphone or editing
booth). And while such a tactic may play
well to a talk show’s fan base which gathers to watch their hero put
wrong-minded guests in their place, most people who play in politics put the
brakes on such tactics (especially when playing before a mixed audience of friends,
foes and undecideds).
But as we have seen, people playing the BDS game have no such brakes
for the simple reason that “the audience” for them are not real people, but
simply props in a fantasy-laden drama going on in the boycotters own
heads. Which is why if you point out the
inconsistencies in their arguments, they’ll fly into a rage. If you point out their hypocrisy of snoozing
while Hamas missiles fly but rousing themselves into righteous fury when Israel
shoots back, they’ll fly into an even bigger rage. If you point out that their “movement” draws
its strength from being aligned with the needs and goals of wealthy and
powerful states, they will burst a blood vessel.
In fact, doing or saying anything that challenges their self-perception
as courageous and virtuous human-rights champions speaking truth to power means
it’s just a matter of seconds before someone’s face is two inches from yours
shrieking abuse and spewing saliva (either literally or virtually – although
without the saliva when this dynamic plays out in online debate – as it
inevitably does).
The point of Argumentation from Outrage is to raise the discomfort
level so high that people will avoid further attacking (or even questioning)
the person having the tantrum. Most
normal people, after all, don’t like being in situations where emotions are
running red hot. And a boycotter losing
an argument knows this, which is why they tend to explode so readily in hope of
making it impossible for normal debate to continue.
This helps to explain why anti-Israel “dialog” tends to be so
shrill. I have occasionally teased
certain anti-Israel writers for starting their writing in a snit and then
working themselves into frenzy of accusation and fury. But if you think about it, starting an
argument in a state of outrage is yet another way of avoiding a debate you know
you cannot win.
The trouble (for the BDSers anyway) is this perpetual outrage is used
to justify all kinds of behavior that tends not to play well with a general
audience which does NOT like to be patted down on the way to class by a bunch
of Israel haters dressed up in Israeli soldier costumes during some campus protest,
does NOT like to have their concerts or theatre performances interrupted by
people shrieking slogans and waving banners, and does NOT trust people who seem
to be shouting, even when the situation doesn’t warrant it.
The good news is that the boycotters’ outrage tactic has done little to
further their cause. The bad news is
that they have help mainstream Argumentation from Outrage to the point where it
is now becoming the tactic of choice for people on all ends of the political
spectrum, an outcome that puts in peril the normal human deliberation upon
which democracy depends.
Thanks guys!