Conversation Stoppers
Today’s post originated as a Twitter/X thread. The focus:
Many on social media, blogs, and podcasts claim to want to start a conversation.
In reality, they want to start a monologue.
They use a number of conversations stoppers to shame others into shutting up.
Twitter/X Thread
A Thread on 10 Plays in the New “Conversation” Playbook: Or,
“How to Pretend to Invite Public Conversation and Dialogue, When You Really Only Want a Monologue—To Hear Yourself Talk, and Have Everyone Else Agree with You.”
Preamble: Is this a “sub-tweet”? Is this addressing something specific? No, it’s not sub-tweeting or addressing any one specific current/recent conversation. It is addressing 100s of current/recent public interactions that don’t actually invite healthy conversations at all.
Context: I started thinking about this when I stumbled upon a feisty Twitter/X interaction between Seth Dillon and Tucker Carlson, where Seth said:
“This is the new playbook for many on the right. They make provocative statements in hopes of generating objections, and then they cite those objections as proof that no one is allowed to have the conversation. I guess they think you’re too stupid to see that the objections are themselves part of the conversation.”
Disclaimer: My thread is not about Seth and Tucker. I don’t follow either of them on Twitter/X. I don’t have a “pony in that race.” Seth’s quote just got me thinking…and here’s what I’ve been pondering about 10 Conversation Stoppers in the New “Conversation Playbook.”
10 Conversation Stoppers
Conversation Stopper #1.) Start a supposed “conversation,” but fill it with provocative statements, mischaracterizations, strongly worded accusations, and demeaning labels.
Conversation Stopper #2.) Pervade the “conversation” with a binary, all-or-nothing way of thinking that paints oneself as 100% right; 100% on the right side of the discussion, debate, issue.
Conversation Stopper #3a.) Conclude the “conversation” by accusing those who differ with you, or who will disagree with you, of being 100% wrong. Predict that any disagreement proves your point!
Conversation Stopper #3b.) If the “conversation” is on a biblical topic, conclude the “conversation” by accusing those who disagree with, or who will disagree with you, of being unbiblical, while presenting oneself as the lone guardian(s) of the one biblical way of thinking about the issue.
Conversation Stopper #4.) Communicate that you are inviting interaction; that you are encouraging open conversation; and that you want iron-sharpening-iron engagement—when in reality you are only looking for agreement, only wanting to hear yourself talk.
Conversation Stopper #5.) Accuse those who enter into the conversation of “punching back,” and “protesting too much.” Proclaim any pushback as a kind of micro-cancelation. Play the victim. Be addicted to finding “cancel culture” everywhere. Cite any objections as proof that those who object are seeking to silence you!
Conversation Stopper #6.) Seek to cancel people who dare to disagree with you by citing any objections as “I told you so” proof of predicted unreasonable objections.
Conversation Stopper #7.) Seek to cancel people who dare to disagree with you by citing any objections as flowing from a mean spirit, divisiveness, a lack of gentleness, or a lack of character. (If the interaction is between fellow Christians, the “other” is accused of lacking Christlikeness! This is the ultimate Christian shaming device.)
Conversation Stopper #8.) Enlist others who align with you to do the “additional dirty work” of publicly shaming those who dare to disagree with you and with your “exclusively correct” way of thinking. Shame people by dismissively demanding submission: “Stop! Just stop!” Imply that others have zero right to stay in the conversation.
Conversation Stopper #9.) Implement the silent treatment when you’re losing the public argument. Refuse to engage in the very conversation you started. Smugly stop communicating, which not-so-subtly implies, “My original post said all that needed to be said. These supposed objections are ‘nothing-burgers’! You are unworthy of being listened to. I ignore you.”
Conversation Stopper #10.) Assume that those who follow the interactions are sheep who are not smart enough to realize that objections and reasoned disagreement are supposed to be a legitimate part of a healthy conversation.
