There is a factor in most human discourse called “the presumption of shared values.” The idea behind this is that in any disagreement, if it is possible to find points of agreement then a consensus can be reached. It is also, quite unconsciously, a powerful control mechanism that can be a serious trap for the unwary. The trick works like this. X disapproves of something said or done by Y and, operating under the assumption that Y will respond in a way that he wants, points out that Y’s activity seems to violate a given principal, P. Now, at this point, Y usually will get flustered and start to protest that no, he is following P and then proceed to attempt to prove it. And in doing so he has dug himself into a hole.
He has bought into not only P, but by doing so given X the right to define P because Y has now put himself in a serious position of inferiority. He has allowed himself to be put into the position of justifying something by someone else’s terms. He has lost the initiative and will, in all probability, lose the exchange.
What is to be done? The answer is very simple. Abandon the idea of consensus and agreement and go for stalemate. A skilled arguer does not give a hoot in hell if the other person agrees with him. His goal is to emerge with his position intact as well as his freedom of action, which, after all, it is the goal of the other party to limit. By refusing to fall into the trap of shared values that goal is frustrated.
The traps usually fall into buzzwords. Decades ago I coined the concept of the “No words,” words that were used to try to control adults because brute force was simply not available. At that time I was referring to such words as “maturity,” and “responsibility,” but there were a number of others as well. The way of dealing with them was to reject them outright, not only as words, but also as ideas having any value in one’s life. So one could respond to the argument that one was being immature by saying that one had tried maturity for two weeks at one time and found it so boring that one had abandoned it years ago. Now, that is a pretty hard thing to answer.
Or a favorite one of mine occurred many years ago when I was having an argument with my mother. She said, “Don’t you ever think of anyone besides yourself?” Stupid question on her part to be sure! The pit yawned before her with that one.
And I responded, “Of course not. Who the hell else should I think about? You?” Well, talk about pulling a rug out from under someone!
The key is to make it clear that you honestly do not care what the other person thinks. You have your own way and you aren’t going to change and it that conflicts with the other person’s view of the world, then too bad for him.
Now, how does this work in dealing with perv matters?
Well, we have our controllers out there, those who have their peculiar little molds and want everyone to fit into them. And this method is the best way to deal with them. So when the Safety Scum say something is not safe, in their peculiar and paranoid view, respond with a joke about dead bodies and Dahmer barrels. The trick is simple. Never give in to the values of the other side. Oh, they won’t like you very much, but who cares what they like? Simply keep reminding yourself that the opinions of the controllers are as the squeaking of mice. Their words do not persuade and they lack the power to enforce them.
With that in mind, go out and break the rules and if the controllers object, well, happy hunting!
Copyright Dagger Dom
Reproduced by permission of the author and archived on The BRC All written material by Dagger Dom on this page is freely available to be downloaded, copied and distributed provided that no charge is made for the material. My only request is that those who do so give proper attribution to the material and include a link to this site. Contact Dagger Dom Need more info on copyright law? Click here