How to Recognize the Weasley Tongue, the Insinuating and Otherwise Loaded Language People Use Against You

A loaded tongue surrounds us. Whether it’s the media, politics, or the people around us, someone is always trying to use words and phrases to support their agenda and change our minds in bad faith.

Ali Almossavi’s Illustrated Book of Loaded Language uses Alejandro Giraldo’s beautiful pen and ink drawings and the metaphorical conflict between badgers and rabbits to show some of the ways language is shaped by those in power to influence the way we think and subtly strengthen the status quo. And transforming opposing forces into cartoon animals allows the reader to reflect on the deep-seated prejudices expressed in language without personal insult, making rhetoric easier to recognize.

While the book is mostly about public discussion – headlines, news writing, political speaking – the rhetorical tricks described are widespread in our personal and professional lives, whether it’s your spouse who subtly excuses you with fake apologies or your boss tries to get you. work on Sunday because your office is like family.

The power of a passive voice

I’m sure your high school English teacher taught you to avoid using the passive voice in writing. This makes your suggestions weak. But if the goal is to make your proposal weak, passive voice can be a powerful tool, especially if you want to remove responsibility from someone.

The public relations departments of the police departments do this all the time. A simple phrase like “a police officer shot a man last night” can be reworked to remove or diminish responsibility by using a passive construct: “There was an officer shooting last night that injured a suspect.”

Along with the passive construction of the policeman’s actions, there is a description of the “incident”, for example, the shooting took place without an actor, and a description of the person who was shot as a “suspect.” Both help remove responsibility. You will never see a police press release that says, “There was a civilian shooting last night that injured an officer.”

This tactic is constantly used by employers. Instead of sending an email that says, “Management changed the break room policy to prohibit microwaving fish,” the company might instead say, “Microwave fish policy has changed.” This is an attempt to hide who actually changed the policy, as if it were a natural disaster and not a decision by the leadership.

We did this with my child when he was three years old, hanging up a poster that read: “Time to go to bed – 8 pm.” If he didn’t want to go to bed, we pointed to the rules and said, “Sorry, sport. The rules say you have to go to bed. “

In the end, our child grew wiser and said: “Wait, you made the rules!” I suggest you do the same. When you see a language like this, ask yourself who made the rules? Who changed the policy? Who shot the pistol? Then ask yourself why.

“Mistakes were made” and no apology

The phrase “mistakes were made” may be the last caress. This is usually used when someone can no longer deny a fiasco. It’s like accepting responsibility, but it’s actually an attempt to deviate. Essentially, he ascribes mistakes to himself and hides what mistakes were even made. The inevitable continuation most of the time does not even need to be said: “So, let’s leave this trouble behind.”

This can be a useful (albeit annoying) ploy for a company or politician to avoid political or legal repercussions, but on a personal level it is rarely effective. An oil company may shrug off a crude oil spill by claiming that “mistakes were made,” but that only works because deep sea oil drilling is difficult (and they are trying to avoid legal liability). Description of absence from work without a valid reason. or being wrong to say “mistakes were made” will not work.

(This should be self-evident, but: if you screw something up, don’t try to dispel the blame. It’s almost always best to fully admit your mistake, apologize, and state how you’re going to prevent it. You are probably not as good a liar as a professional. crisis PR man, and no one believes them anyway.)

Another non-apology tactic is to use phrases like “I’m sorry if what I did hurt you.” Or even “I’m sorry you think so.” It sounds like an apology, but if you take a closer look, you can see why it isn’t. They do not take responsibility and instead shift it onto the person who has been wronged.

(Never qualify an apology. Never put “sorry” for “but.” Consider the most famous literary apology, “It’s Just That” by William Carlos Williams. You’re so angry that I ate your plums, but you shouldn’t have left them in the fridge. to seduce me. “)

Lack of context

What people don’t say is often just as important as what they say, and omissions are often used to encourage readers to “fill in the blanks” with their own biases and preconceived notions.

If I write something like, “Justice Department investigation showed Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was tied to Russian intelligence,” liberal audiences will nod their heads vigorously, while conservatives are likely to shout “witch hunt “. But if I say, “A Justice Department investigation showed that Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign was linked to Russian intelligence,” conservative and liberal positions might change.

The truth is that both statements are true and are based on the same , and that the report of the Ministry of Justice . The only difference is how you feel about the politician involved.

It’s common in professional life to be misled by lack of context, but one of the most common situations you come across professionally is a resume. “I helped our company triple its sales targets” may technically be true, but if your instrumental input was sweeping the floors, it won’t work. This is easy to see, especially from people who read resumes all day, so HR will ask you what exactly you did to triple your sales goals, and again, you’re probably not a convincing liar enough to pull that off.

Hidden negative assumptions in seemingly positive phrases

Billy Joel’s wimpy ballad “Just as you are” has been played in billions of weddings since it came out in 1977, but if you think about the lyrics, it’s pretty damn passive-aggressive. “I will take you as you are” – subtly implies that something is wrong with who you are, and the speaker still agrees to you, because he is such a wonderful person. It’s like saying something like, “I don’t care what others say, you are a wonderful person.”

If someone says something like “I love you no matter what,” they may be completely innocent trying to say something good, but it could be a poisoned pill, almost like a pickup truck “persuading” you. In any case, it deserves a deeper conversation. A relationship based on one person’s reminder that they generously ignores your flaws can be a harbinger of gaslighting and the like.

Assuming universality of opinions

The problem with phrases like “everyone knows” or “many people say” is obvious – what do you mean by each? And who exactly are these “many people” who are saying this? – but it’s just as powerful because of the transparency.

We seem to want to be part of a larger group that agrees with us, so we are predisposed in advance to admit that “everyone” already sees it differently. As you add to our increasingly online life and the dark algorithms that determine what opinions we see, it becomes even easier to believe that everyone already agrees with your opinion (at least, everyone who is not an evil idiot). It’s so insidious because it’s easy to see when the “other side” is doing it, but it’s so hard to accept that “your side” is doing the same.

Keep your eyes open and tell us what you see

The war between the badgers and rabbits at the heart of The Picture Book of Loaded Language won’t end in our lives, but you can still recognize and trigger bad rhetoric when you see it. To this end, I would like to hear some of your personal examples of the loaded language.

More…

Leave a Reply