Discussion ending cliches.
Sometimes these are called THOUGHT TERMINATING IDEAS.
I was in a discussion recently about the difference between truth and “alternative facts”. *
And it seemed like the inertia of being give and take and listening to one another dropped to zero.
How?
He said, “We are not going to talk about that.” I felt the verbal slap and the dominance within the remark. Another time I was driving with a person opposed to the Covid vaccine and before there could be any exchange of ideas I was told, “I’ve done my research.” This response came across like with a smidge of condescension. The type of battle to discount her research was more than I cared to attempt. I have also heard conversation enders that unfold like this, “You are letting fear rule your life.” Each of these acquaintances said they wanted dialogue but when I addressed facts they relied on discussion ending cliches to close the dialogue. In each case the cliche made it clear that if we spent more time it would get very oppositional. When aggression is at play it is better to drop your end of the power struggle.
Here are several more. It helps to listen for them and have a heartfelt wise answer. I wish I had not been so flabbergasted. I wish had pointed out the action and words being weaponized.
It’s hard. It is futile to introduce a new thought to a closed mind.
‘Doctrine over reality’ (which includes the rewriting of history and reinterpretation of the past)” Many MAGA supporters are “ideological totalists” meaning they can’t and won’t disassemble any of the components of an action or executive order. This sounds like, “If Trump did it I don’t doubt it.” If you say Musk isn’t elected or under any oversight they say, “Trump is wise and he picked him. End of story.”
“It’s not that deep.” – dismisses attempts to expose faulty logic by asserting that logic isn’t necessary in this particular case.
“Lies of the devil.” – used as a response to any fact that threatens the integrity of an individual or group
“Stop thinking so much.” – redirects attention from the topic, idea, or argument at hand to the alleged overuse of thought itself[10]
“It’s all good.” – you are upset about “water under the bridge. This nullifies, without evidence, any possible debate by asserting the issue is already settled.
“Here we go again.” – implies that the redundant, cyclical nature of a given disagreement means it will never be resolved
“So what?” What effect does my action have?” – this is used to dismiss an individual’s involvement in a larger cause on the grounds that one person is too insignificant to ever have a meaningful impact
“Let’s agree to disagree.” – used to stop discussion of an issue rather than attempt to resolve it;
“It is what it is.” – implies that things are unchangeable, therefore there is no point in further discussion
What-Aboutism– this is dropping your critique and saying, “Others are just as guilty.”
