In the case of the Bad-Faith Interrogator, the purpose of the question is a little different. Rather than attempting to make a statement while appearing to be engaged in reasonable questioning, this breed of troll’s entire purpose is to make you waste time and energy explaining things that don’t require explanation or demanding impossibly oversimplified answers to complex issues.

These questions tend to be the type that make you facepalm and wonder “why would anyone even ask this question” or “why would they frame the conversation like this?” The sorts of things that leave you thinking “how am I supposed to answer this without communicating a four year education in the subject, plus a few survey courses in logic and critical thinking?”

You: “Working people deserve a living wage.”

BFI: “What exactly is a living wage, how much is that?”

You: “Enough to live on.”

BFI: “No, I am running a business [probably a lie] and I have a [insert some phrase denigrating the work or workers, e.g. “coffee server” or “dishwasher”], how much exactly am I supposed to pay them per hour?”

Clearly there’s no answer to this question without further information – a living wage in Plainwell, Michigan is going to be quite different from a living wage in Brooklyn, NY or San Jose, CA or even in Lansing or Detroit.

Sometimes these questions will target information so basic that the average person will have forgotten it entirely: “but how do you know the Earth isn’t flat?” The average person is likely not going to remember how this proof was historically developed. Indeed, the concept predates history entirely; the earliest documented mention of the theory references long-held belief documented by Greek historians in the fifth century BCE based on information exchanges with cultures on the Indian subcontinent, and the sources of their information are largely lost to history. Attempting to explain the evidence will likely leave out examples or perhaps spell a name wrong or misremember a date, or provide other minor errors or holes in the information. Then the troll can focus on that error and claim it as evidence you don’t know what you’re talking about, and therefore the world is flat or Barack Obama was born in Kenya or vaccines cause autism or what have you.

This is a critical aspect of the tactic: to goad you into saying anything that can be seized upon to discredit your position artificially – a spelling error, a bit of linguistic laziness, a euphemism or analogy that can be twisted out of shape, or a simple answer to a complex question that the troll can then build up into an argument – not a refutation, mind you, just quibbling over minor and often irrelevant details – discrediting the respondent.

BFI: How much exactly is a living wage?

You: Twenty dollars an hour.

BFI: That wouldn’t last five minutes in Berkeley, you clearly don’t understand regional variances in cost of living!

or

BFI: That’s ridiculous, here in Fyffe Alabama that’s enough to feed a family of six with money left over, why should I subsidize the luxury lifestyle of a coffee server? Obviously you’ve never run a business, I suppose you think the bus boy should make $40!

or

BFI: What about people who don’t live in the US? Dollars aren’t going to do poor people in the Democratic Republic of Congo any good, why do you hate poor people/emergent economy nations/Africa?

…and we’re off to the races. Now you’re on the defensive, your character is under attack, and you’ve been labeled as a racist or some other irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem that further diverts attention and energy away from the core point, that being “working people deserve a living wage.”

Dealing With Them

Frankly the best way to handle this line of attack is to refuse to validate it at all by engaging. The troll will then accuse you of being unable to prove your point. At this point it’s entirely acceptable to say out loud, “you’re not asking a question in good faith or seeking discourse, you’re trying to bait me into a pointless argument and I choose not to participate.” If they persist, reach for the block/ban/ignore button and move on.

Historically, politicians and pundits and others engaged in persuasive speech have leaned on a set of tropes and tactics that are intended to sort of short-circuit your thinking processes and appeal to you at a level more subtle than surface perception.

That sounds like the lead-in to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but long before Ed Bernays began codifying and industrializing the tactics of salesmanship, they were cliches that we all know in nearly every field of human endeavor.

Speaking particularly of the political realm, for example, there are a series of “rally ’round the flag” calls that we are all so familiar with that we don’t even notice them. It’s always about what we have do to for “working people,” or “families,” or “the middle class,” or “our community.” Sometimes that chord is at a more dissonant pitch: “real Americans,” nationalism, racial supremacist movements.

What we are beginning to recognize – and a great example of the sorts of change and literacy CUSTODE aims to advance – is that this qualifying process, ultimately, is rooted in ideas, values, and behaviors that we as a social species are now in the process of rejecting as obsolete.

Tribalism, othering, exclusion, and stigma aren’t always about naming and targeting a particular identity group. All that’s required is an “us” and a “them.”

Consider the following tweet from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA):

The Problem

Let us say first that by no means are we “picking on” Rep. Jayapal or targeting her specifically, nor even her ideological band of the spectrum or her party. Hers just happened to be the first tweet that turned up in a search for “working people” as this column was being written. This is a problem for all of us.

The problem, succinctly: “I don’t work, I have no family, and I’m not part of your community, so who’s fighting for me?” Let’s break it down.

“We’re fighting for working people.“ This implies that people who aren’t working, can’t work, or don’t work, where “work” is narrowly defined as “employment in service to someone else for a wage,” aren’t worth fighting for, don’t deserve advocacy, and aren’t fully entitled to the rights of their humanity nor the privileges of their citizenship.

“We’re fighting for families.“ This implies that if you’re single or somehow outside of a traditional “family” unit, we’re not fighting for you.

One can make an argument by applying more liberal or broad definitions of “family,” but we also understand the point of using that phrasing is to conjure up mental images which are positive and comfortable and which a broad segment of the population identifies with. Mom, dad, a kid or three, family dog. That’s the picture that’s being painted; that warm fuzzy little spark inside you as you read that description is now associated with Rep. Jayapal and her endeavor.

But not everyone has a family. Certainly not everyone has a standard-issue all-is-well happy and well-adjusted family secure in their material possessions and confident in their future together as a unit.

When we say we’re “fighting for families” the automatic implication is that we’re not fighting for “people who don’t have families,” and people who don’t have families or who for other reasons don’t feel connected to that social structure feel that. Even people whose families are not blood feel that, people who have made that extension of the definition of the word in their own lives. Even though they’ve chosen to live outside the standard model, they’re fully aware of it and surrounded by it every day and they will feel on some level, consciously perceived or not, that the honorable representative is explicitly not talking about them, without regard for whether that is her intent.

When we say we’re “fighting for families” the automatic implication is that we’re not fighting for “people who don’t have families,” and people who don’t have families…feel that. Even people whose families are not blood will feel on some level that the honorable representative is explicitly not talking about them, without regard for whether that is her intent.

– custode founder john henry

“We’re fighting for our community.” Consider our imaginary friend Jill. Jill lives in Illinois or maybe Michigan. Her representative is a centrist Democrat who has frequently pushed back against more progressive priorities. She’s of a different sexuality, ethnicity, religion, hair color, and cultural context from Rep. Jayapal. There’s no particular reason for Jill to feel like she’s part of a “community” with Rep. Jayapal.

Let us take as given – we’ll explore it elsewhere and when – that all communication is, by nature, persuasive. By invoking “our,” Rep. Jayapal is engaging in what noted author and pioneer in the science of persuasion Robert Cialdini refers to as “liking.” (I have frequently recommended his “Influence: Science and Practice” as it was a highly useful textbook in one of my comm classes. His latest work is a revised edition of his better known “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which is considered both by CUSTODE and many others as among the fundamental textbooks on the subject of persuasion, for good or evil.

Cialdini’s term “liking” refers to a compliance-gaining tactic in which the speaker attempts to establish that “we are alike” somehow. Not that “I like you,” but rather “I am like you.” This isn’t by any means something Cialdini invented; he just named it. The tactic is as old as persuasion itself, and you recognize the ways it’s invoked today: talk of “main street” and the “one percent” are examples which have been used exhaustively by the left; on the right you have “real Americans” and “true patriots.”

Rep. Jayapal inadvertently engages the opposite effect by emphasizing the lack of common identity between her and Jill. When we’re fighting for “our community,” we’re not fighting for “your community.” “Welcome to our community,” “we’re happy to have you,” etc. also do not suffice; quite frankly, it violates Jill’s agency by entirely failing to ask whether Jill wants to be part of “our community.” If not, does that somehow mean she’s not worthy of those rights and privileges we talked about? We fail to find an ethical argument supporting that position.

So why do we continue implying it, and so many similar things we neither mean, nor believe, and which greatly undermine our efforts?

The prefabricated response to all of this, unfortunately, tends to be “that’s just how it is,” the great passive-aggressive perpetrator of misdeeds. We are leaders. If “that’s just how it is,” then it is up to us as leaders to change how it is because how it is doesn’t work.

Finally it should be said “out loud” again that we’re taking no particular position on Rep. Jayapal’s integrity, ability, commitment, or competence. Nearly every politician uses these types of tropes and many others to garner support quickly by appealing to emotions, because explaining facts to people and ensuring they’re capable of understanding them is much more expensive and time-consuming, and there’s an election coming, always. The same observations would be true if similar statements were coming from Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or thousands of other people. In no way is any of this information intended to imply or suggest that Rep. Jayapal’s personal attributes – ethnicity, gender, sexuality, skin color, ideology – are relevant factors, beyond the blazingly obvious statement that no matter what your beliefs and attributes might be, the only one you share with everyone is that we’re all human.

With that said, it thus becomes almost tautologically clear that while the “liking” tactic can be effective, it also carries the certainty of creating an outgroup, and that means you’ve excluded a bloc of voters from participating in your representation. This is precisely the opposite of the intended effect. Being aware of this problem and taking greater care in how you apply the technique of “liking” or other compliance-gaining or persuasive communication tactics will help you craft a much more effective message. Bonus points for including a cogent explanation to your audience as to why you’re not invoking given tropes and tactics, to help them be more effectively defended against attempts by others to unethically manipulate or disinform.

The Solutions

In every case, addressing the problem is simple: stop “doing that.” Fight “for people,” fight “for communities,” not for “families” and “working” people and “our” communities. The tactic is, while habitual at this point in any public speaker, also unfortunately rather low-effort, like the “cheap pop” that professional wrestler Mick Foley loved to expose by calling out the name of the town he was in at a performance. Here’s a clip of him working as a standup comedian, cued to the point when the event host brings up the trope.

As Foley quite capably points out, this is pandering, plain and simple. Pandering is a tried and true political tactic…but like so many things “tried and true” here in the twenty-first century, it’s losing its power because the people subject to that power see through it. It was already grist for the Spinal Tap mill almost forty years ago.

The deeper issue is the habit of reaching for those compliance-gaining tools in the first place, rather than simply leaving the qualifiers out of the conversation entirely. It reflects an endemic problem in our discourse; that we are far more focused on the mechanics of “winning an argument” than on the objective merits of the position we’re arguing. We’re so locked in on finding ways to engage those sub-intellectual responses, that we’ve lost sight of evaluating whatever’s being proposed on its merit. Everything devolves into pedantry and lawyering, pandering and cheerleading, until we forget what we were even talking about in the first place, or why.

As information consumers, we have to break the habits of allowing ourselves to be manipulated by these kinds of rhetorical flourishes and shortcuts. Helping to educate consumers and teach ourselves how to deprogram ourselves from a lifetime of advertising sleight of hand, is part of why the Musk For A Minute initiative exists.

As information sources – and we are all information sources! – we have to break the habit of allowing ourselves to keep reaching for the ‘easy button’ of compliance-gaining tactics rather than taking the time to make a well-reasoned argument and offer comprehensive discussion and explanation. We’re so busy trying to keep our numbers up and stay popular so we can stay in office or on television, we lose sight of why we wanted to be there in the first place. Encouraging leaders to be bold about addressing and correcting the fundamentally misleading nature of our discourse is another part of our purpose and goals at CUSTODE.

Teaching leaders and speakers and others with large platforms how to build and reinforce that infrastructure of social approval honestly and organically, while (as a natural consequence) modeling more careful and complete thinking, more valid reasoning and analysis of bias, more acknowledgement and accounting for personal bias in decision-making, is essential to our ongoing success and progress as a species.

Without addressing these issues in a forthright manner, we will remain mired and weighed down by archaic and obsolete thinking and behavior. The longer that continues, the longer our systems and institutions will waver and crumble and perhaps even fall, until we accept that this is the reality, the old ways don’t work anymore, and it’s time to move forward.

Put plainly: the train is loading and the engine’s hot. You can choose to get on board. You can even choose to stay behind. But the train will move, and while you certainly can choose to stand on the track holding your hand up and stomping your feet and explaining in twenty thousand word oratories why you don’t believe in trains, if that is your choice then you are choosing suicide and, as will we all, you will have your choice.

– John Henry, “Your 2022 Reality Check…”

This is why the decision was made to develop CUSTODE as the first cohesive “product” or “brand” created with funding from the Musk For A Minute initiative. There can be no question that we as a society – local, national, or global – must focus now on helping everyone understand what literacy of information, media, and politics means in the twenty-first century and beyond, and why it is the critical life skill of the future.

We hope this article has been informative and useful to you, and we’d like to remind you that this entire initiative relies heavily on your engagement. If you’re applying the things you read here, we’d love to hear about it. Tell others. Contribute to the Musk For A Minute initiative if you can (we’ll have our own fundraising mechanisms for CUSTODE in due course, but right now 100% of our funding comes through MFAM). Follow and engage with our Facebook and Twitter platforms (both are linked elsewhere on this page), and together we can deprogram ourselves from vulnerability to the unethical or illicit application of compliance-gaining tactics and techniques of persuasion, while also ensuring that our own communication is effective and meaningful.

CUSTODE is entirely funded by your contributions. Please consider adding your support via PayPal, or you can explore other options here! Engagement is vital to our growth so please like, share, subscribe, follow, and do all you can to tell everyone about CUSTODE!