Is there a name for this?
August 13, 2024 7:23 PM Subscribe
I responded to a post by someone (let's call them "X") and got a very weird response in turn.
I wrote:
"I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is it that once someone offers an opinion on a current situation, they should never speak (or in this case, write) of it again? Over, done, finito? Times and situations change, new issues arise, discussions take interesting turns, and open minds wish to discuss and contribute to discussions."
and X responded with, "No need to get upset."
What is this kind of response called? It almost seems like gaslighting in that it tries to tell me something about myself that isn't true. But is it? Or is there a name for this kind of statement?
I wrote:
"I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is it that once someone offers an opinion on a current situation, they should never speak (or in this case, write) of it again? Over, done, finito? Times and situations change, new issues arise, discussions take interesting turns, and open minds wish to discuss and contribute to discussions."
and X responded with, "No need to get upset."
What is this kind of response called? It almost seems like gaslighting in that it tries to tell me something about myself that isn't true. But is it? Or is there a name for this kind of statement?
Best answer: Passive aggressive comes to mind, too. It's a way for one to say, "I'm not going to argue anymore," while also ensuring that one has the last word, or, if not, that whatever the other person says is automatically read as defensive.
posted by papayaninja at 7:49 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]
posted by papayaninja at 7:49 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Their reply has a presupposition that, insofar as there's not clear evidence for it, violates the maxim of quality, guiding you to an interpretation that they're being manipulative. I would understand what you mean in calling it gaslighting. I also wonder if they took the length of your comment--e.g. the repetition of "over, done, finito"--as flouting the maxim of quantity, guiding them to an interpretation that you meant something beyond your literal meaning, e.g. a display of heightened feelings.
posted by Wobbuffet at 7:54 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Wobbuffet at 7:54 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Are you responding to someone you know is a real person? Because if it's on social media you could be engaging in a 'conversation' with a bot. And I concur it could be gaslighting or minimizing.
posted by lulu68 at 8:01 PM on August 13
posted by lulu68 at 8:01 PM on August 13
Best answer: None of these are exactly right and some are straight up wrong, but maybe they’ll spark something: Dismissal… straw man… pulling the football… bad faith… deflection…. projection… ad hominem…
posted by seemoorglass at 8:06 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by seemoorglass at 8:06 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: @lulu68 100% sure it's a real person.
posted by Dolley at 8:08 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Dolley at 8:08 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Best answer: It's just a way to deflect instead of being forced to say "you've got a point there." Some people can't stand to do that and will avoid by any means necessary.
posted by ctmf at 8:11 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 8:11 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think they were intimidated by your response and they didn’t have the wherewithal to either engage or concede the point. That made them feel attacked and so they projected the responsibility onto you. “I’m feeling this way because they are angry shouting at me.”
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:24 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:24 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Does the other person ID as male?
I'm inferring from your username that you ID as female and that this person doesn't like it when women assert themselves.
posted by brujita at 8:25 PM on August 13 [3 favorites]
I'm inferring from your username that you ID as female and that this person doesn't like it when women assert themselves.
posted by brujita at 8:25 PM on August 13 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Male or female, the word is "patronizing".
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:37 PM on August 13 [10 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:37 PM on August 13 [10 favorites]
Best answer: It's extremely efficient lowkey DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.
They've done something annoying and are now quickly turning your reaction back onto you and framing it as a flaw in YOUR character, rather than something justified - or in fact, something THEY actually caused.
So they:
Deny that your response is valid and that they had any hand in provoking your response - so they're not admitting that you are "making a point" or "having a conversation" or "reacting to them" or any other adult method of communication. No, they say you're just "upset", like it's an emotion without a cause. And they're even implying that they are not upset, only you, which probably isn't accurate. It's condescending and minimizing.
Attack your legitimacy and composure. They are dismissing the content of your response with a simplistic and condescending word like "upset" - rather than framing your response as, for example, "raising good points" or "being transparent" or "calling them out" or "opening a discourse" or "responding to them in kind" or "offering constructive points" etc etc.
And they are disparaging your method of communication, ie, your judgement at what level of escalation is appropriate, by saying "there's no need". As if that's their call to make.
Like to be truthful, they could at least own up to this opinon by saying something personal and subjective, such as,"I don't like that you're upset"... but instead they're responding in the passive voice as if they're somehow connected to an "authority" on what's "needed".
Reverse Victim and Offender by implying that you're breaching protocol and wronging them with your "upset" tone.
What they mean is "When I hear your message, I feel a feeling that is uncomfortable, and I don't like it, so I wish you would stop." That's all about THEM and is truthful and personal (and makes it clear they're being kind of immature in trying to shut you up). But instead their comment "There's no need to get upset" is all about YOU, and pretends to have an outside unquestionable authority on what's appropriate or needed.
It's actually infuriating and it's a prissy and dishonest way to communicate.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 9:12 PM on August 13 [14 favorites]
They've done something annoying and are now quickly turning your reaction back onto you and framing it as a flaw in YOUR character, rather than something justified - or in fact, something THEY actually caused.
So they:
Deny that your response is valid and that they had any hand in provoking your response - so they're not admitting that you are "making a point" or "having a conversation" or "reacting to them" or any other adult method of communication. No, they say you're just "upset", like it's an emotion without a cause. And they're even implying that they are not upset, only you, which probably isn't accurate. It's condescending and minimizing.
Attack your legitimacy and composure. They are dismissing the content of your response with a simplistic and condescending word like "upset" - rather than framing your response as, for example, "raising good points" or "being transparent" or "calling them out" or "opening a discourse" or "responding to them in kind" or "offering constructive points" etc etc.
And they are disparaging your method of communication, ie, your judgement at what level of escalation is appropriate, by saying "there's no need". As if that's their call to make.
Like to be truthful, they could at least own up to this opinon by saying something personal and subjective, such as,"I don't like that you're upset"... but instead they're responding in the passive voice as if they're somehow connected to an "authority" on what's "needed".
Reverse Victim and Offender by implying that you're breaching protocol and wronging them with your "upset" tone.
What they mean is "When I hear your message, I feel a feeling that is uncomfortable, and I don't like it, so I wish you would stop." That's all about THEM and is truthful and personal (and makes it clear they're being kind of immature in trying to shut you up). But instead their comment "There's no need to get upset" is all about YOU, and pretends to have an outside unquestionable authority on what's appropriate or needed.
It's actually infuriating and it's a prissy and dishonest way to communicate.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 9:12 PM on August 13 [14 favorites]
Best answer: It's similar to a loaded question in the sense that it presupposed a condition ("upset") that is very much not in evidence and that is intended to cast you in a negative light however you respond or don't respond.
In that sense it is also quite dismissive, as it states explicitly that you are getting emotional in this discussion - but implicitly that the writer is merely being rational and dispassionate.
And of course this brings us to patronizing because the writer is portraying themselves as holding a purely deep, rational, logical discourse (superior) whereas you are characterized (unfairly/inaccurately!) as responding with an emotional and content-free emotional outburst (inferior).
posted by flug at 10:01 PM on August 13 [3 favorites]
In that sense it is also quite dismissive, as it states explicitly that you are getting emotional in this discussion - but implicitly that the writer is merely being rational and dispassionate.
And of course this brings us to patronizing because the writer is portraying themselves as holding a purely deep, rational, logical discourse (superior) whereas you are characterized (unfairly/inaccurately!) as responding with an emotional and content-free emotional outburst (inferior).
posted by flug at 10:01 PM on August 13 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Another good fit is ad hominem: Instead of responding to your actual points or arguments, the writer has turned the discussion to be about you and your supposed emotional state.
Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining: Ad hominem is " . . .a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background."
In short: Taking at dig at you personally rather than responding to your arguments at all.
posted by flug at 10:10 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]
Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining: Ad hominem is " . . .a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background."
In short: Taking at dig at you personally rather than responding to your arguments at all.
posted by flug at 10:10 PM on August 13 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I don't think it's gaslighting, because gaslighting is about manipulating you into doubting your own perceptions and simply saying that your response reveals that you're upset when you weren't isn't going to achieve that.
I'd put it somewhere in the same cluster with patronizing, dismissive, narcissistic, performative, immature, entitled and fragile.
To the extent that I could possibly interpret this as gaslighting, it seems to me that the people that X is trying to gaslight is everybody else who might read this conversation, not so much you. So perhaps more like sealioning.
posted by flabdablet at 10:34 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
I'd put it somewhere in the same cluster with patronizing, dismissive, narcissistic, performative, immature, entitled and fragile.
To the extent that I could possibly interpret this as gaslighting, it seems to me that the people that X is trying to gaslight is everybody else who might read this conversation, not so much you. So perhaps more like sealioning.
posted by flabdablet at 10:34 PM on August 13 [1 favorite]
Best answer: but maybe they’ll spark something: Dismissal
I would go with Dismissal also - in fact that is why people may be suggesting you are talking with a bot. A bot is coded to respond on that basis of what are basically a series of "if...then...else" triggers. The "else" response happens when it want's to respond but doesn't have anything specific to go on. So it is with a human respondent who wants to have the last word but does not, under any circumstances, wish that to be a concession to you being right.
posted by rongorongo at 12:27 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
I would go with Dismissal also - in fact that is why people may be suggesting you are talking with a bot. A bot is coded to respond on that basis of what are basically a series of "if...then...else" triggers. The "else" response happens when it want's to respond but doesn't have anything specific to go on. So it is with a human respondent who wants to have the last word but does not, under any circumstances, wish that to be a concession to you being right.
posted by rongorongo at 12:27 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Nouvelle-personnes answer is on point . ..it also shows quite a bit of immaturity in the person who replied to you in that way , but that's just my take on it.
posted by SarahSarah at 4:59 AM on August 14
posted by SarahSarah at 4:59 AM on August 14
Best answer: X's response claims to read your mind and assign intent to you. Calling it gaslighting, in my opinion, is also a claim to read X's mind and assign intent to them (I mean, 'gaslighting' as a term has expanded so much that it's used to describe almost any lousy interaction these days, which I find problematic, but the original meaning was someone intentionally and systematically trying to convince someone else that they can't trust their perceptions).
Maybe X was trying to gaslight you, or condescend to you, or attack you. Or maybe X actually believed they were de-escalating, and their response was meant as a clumsy equivalent of raising their hands to show they weren't carrying any weapons. Who knows.
(To me it reads as patronizing and dishonest, but that's my own read, and I know how badly I've been misread on occasion and had motives imputed to me that I did not actually have.)
Looking at the response really neutrally, without trying to project intent or read anybody's mind, I'd say that X's response is one that fails to engage with any of the points made; it takes points about universal and philosophical issues and recasts them as personal and emotional. It is a response that does not acknowledge the plane on which the original statement was made and instead moves the discussion to a different plane.
If you're looking for a term, I think ad hominem and strawman arguments come closest to that - strawman because X creates a strawman (the idea that you're upset) and knocks it down ('no need'), rather than engaging with your actual points.
posted by trig at 5:27 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
Maybe X was trying to gaslight you, or condescend to you, or attack you. Or maybe X actually believed they were de-escalating, and their response was meant as a clumsy equivalent of raising their hands to show they weren't carrying any weapons. Who knows.
(To me it reads as patronizing and dishonest, but that's my own read, and I know how badly I've been misread on occasion and had motives imputed to me that I did not actually have.)
Looking at the response really neutrally, without trying to project intent or read anybody's mind, I'd say that X's response is one that fails to engage with any of the points made; it takes points about universal and philosophical issues and recasts them as personal and emotional. It is a response that does not acknowledge the plane on which the original statement was made and instead moves the discussion to a different plane.
If you're looking for a term, I think ad hominem and strawman arguments come closest to that - strawman because X creates a strawman (the idea that you're upset) and knocks it down ('no need'), rather than engaging with your actual points.
posted by trig at 5:27 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I don't think it's a logical fallacy of any kind. It reminds me of people who say, "Take a breath," or otherwise try to suggest that the other person is overwrought. It's something one can say to anyone, at any time, and cast a doubt on their reliability.
posted by BibiRose at 7:11 AM on August 14
posted by BibiRose at 7:11 AM on August 14
It basically boils down to expressing their opinion that "I think you are overreacting." I would not call that a strawman argument or gaslighting. Given how the algorithms work these days, a lot of people do overreact to things they read on social media. Whether or not your reaction was outsized is beyond the ability of anyone here to say, given that you've not included the original text that you were responding to.
posted by coffeecat at 8:08 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeecat at 8:08 AM on August 14 [1 favorite]
Best answer: This is called tone policing. From wikipedia: "A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person's argument."
posted by cmcmcm at 8:54 AM on August 14 [4 favorites]
posted by cmcmcm at 8:54 AM on August 14 [4 favorites]
the word is "dismissive." the response carries the clear and concise implication that you are overreacting to or demanding overmuch clarity from some statement of theirs that they consider to be fairly minor. without knowing what you were responding to there is no way to tell whether they are correct or justified in implying this, or in considering their unknown original remarks to be undeserving of scrutiny, and all answers pretending to know these things so are exercises in imagination.
In my own personal experience, "I’m not sure what you mean by this" is, when sincere, usually left at that, as the unsure party awaits clarification. when followed by multiple pointed questions and the questioner's own concluding position statements, it usually makes me think that the claim to not know what I meant was insincere, and that my interlocutor believes they do know what I meant, whether or not they do. certainly my own use of "I'm not sure what you mean by this" is as likely to be a rhetorical fiction as not.
I am sure I have been wrong about perceiving this rhetorical posture in others at times, and so perhaps was the other person in this case. but it is one possible interpretation of what you wrote and some explanation of the tone in which you were answered.
insincere and dismissive rhetoric falls far short of gaslighting or "tone policing," no matter what direction(s) it may be coming from in this case.
posted by queenofbithynia at 12:59 PM on August 14 [2 favorites]
In my own personal experience, "I’m not sure what you mean by this" is, when sincere, usually left at that, as the unsure party awaits clarification. when followed by multiple pointed questions and the questioner's own concluding position statements, it usually makes me think that the claim to not know what I meant was insincere, and that my interlocutor believes they do know what I meant, whether or not they do. certainly my own use of "I'm not sure what you mean by this" is as likely to be a rhetorical fiction as not.
I am sure I have been wrong about perceiving this rhetorical posture in others at times, and so perhaps was the other person in this case. but it is one possible interpretation of what you wrote and some explanation of the tone in which you were answered.
insincere and dismissive rhetoric falls far short of gaslighting or "tone policing," no matter what direction(s) it may be coming from in this case.
posted by queenofbithynia at 12:59 PM on August 14 [2 favorites]
Best answer: The interaction is already trying to shut down further conversation, it's usually an act of 'tone policing' to tell people that they're upset and that they have 'no need to get upset' and that (supposedly) rational discourse will only carry on when you're balanced and calm. It's also dismissive.
posted by k3ninho at 1:34 PM on August 14
posted by k3ninho at 1:34 PM on August 14
u mad, bro?
("I think you are angry, and I am hoping I can goad you into embarrassing yourself")
posted by agentofselection at 9:47 PM on August 14
("I think you are angry, and I am hoping I can goad you into embarrassing yourself")
posted by agentofselection at 9:47 PM on August 14
Without any further context this reads to me like they think you are speaking disingenuously in that you know exactly their perspective (changing one's opinion is considered a bad or embarrassing thing in comparison to consistency over the years and doubling down when that opinion is challenged is preferable to reevaluation) but are pretending not to.
I think that is true (that your reply seems disingenuous at least to me), but also the only reason their bewilderingly dumb stance is understandable is because unfortunately it's a common stance to genuinely hold but maybe you just haven't encountered it yet.
posted by firefly5 at 4:15 AM on August 15
I think that is true (that your reply seems disingenuous at least to me), but also the only reason their bewilderingly dumb stance is understandable is because unfortunately it's a common stance to genuinely hold but maybe you just haven't encountered it yet.
posted by firefly5 at 4:15 AM on August 15
« Older Brief vacation ideas for August | In search of organizing content for people with... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Miko at 7:25 PM on August 13 [5 favorites]