The Double Entendre Defence

A problem that we have in society is taking a term and naming a branch of thought after it. Say I create a new theory — called ‘Lifeism’ — through my new theory I analyse how through Lifeism we interact with each other on mutually beneficial and consenting trade.

Next I meet my interlocutors, say socialists, and I declare that they by refuting my idea of mutually beneficial trade are:

1. Denying that Lifeism exists
2. Being anti life
3. Would do anything to destroy life
4. Being intolerant towards my beliefs

We’ve now intertwined a few things together that make it next to impossible to critique the core premises of the ideology. We’ve also leveraged a British value to do a lot of heavy lifting for us.

Lodgings to Let, an 1814 engraving featuring a double entendre. He: “My sweet honey, I hope you are to be let with the Lodgins!” She: “No, sir, I am to be let alone”.

Us Brits’ are deeply proud of our values. We do a lot to try to defend them.

Not only have we dropped enough arguments as to trap the person, but we’ve also accused them of not living up to their cultural standards. All of this for free by naming our ideas of the most universally recognised quality of our theory — being alive.

Ignoring the strategy, and simply shaking ones head will no longer work. We have seen it play out in more than enough spaces to witness the ideas can be propagated through this mechanism.

The idea must be met with the same rhetorical force as if someone has just accused you of doing some indignity with a pig.

At first you might realise that the strategy of ignoring this ideology might work. You’ve not broadcasted it into the wider world, or as some post modern types like to phrase it; given a platform to the idea. However, as time ticks by without any real reply, it will be assumed that you cannot reply to this argument, and thus it is valid by default.

I cannot tell you how you should make your rhetorical defence to these attacks if you’re met with them. I can, however, tell you that you must defend yourself and your beliefs.

Should you be performing in a hustings against someone who is presenting this argument the following strategy is my preferred method:

1. Point out that the ideology and the name are separate concepts
2. Ask how by naming the ideology after the most recognisable trait to someone outside of their in-group they can claim to have ownership over it
3. Remind them that tolerance not only does not shield them from criticism, but it actively encourages it
4. Use my silly example of ‘Lifeism’ and accuse them of the same

These arguments only help you to win the minds of audiences, and doesn’t do much to win the argument with an interlocutor. In instances where you don’t have an audience it may not net you any results at all.

Winning the hearts and minds of people you are conversing with one-on-one is much harder than trying to win the minds of the audience. People behave differently in groups than they do outside of groups.

I do not have an answer beyond trying to talk with people calmly and with compassion. Belief is a funny thing, someone else’s genuine belief in something that you do not believe in shouldn’t be mocked in private. It serves no end to mock