There are times when you’re talking to someone and, while they may push back initially, once they see your logic and understand that there’s more to the issue then what they originally thought, they change their mind and you’re now both in agreement.
But there are other times when you’re going back and forth with someone and regardless of how obvious the truth may be, they simply refuse to change their mind.
They’re not just “stubborn.” It goes deeper than that. It’s as though they’re invested in something that will not allow them to consider any perspective other than they’re own.
Its as though they’re basing their assessment of the issue on a scale that is calibrated according to a fluctuating standard as opposed to a fixed point of reference. The end result is a conviction that is not at all consistent with reality.
When you’re confronted with this kind of individual, you want to be able to understand the way they think and what is the root cause of the irrational vitriol that often characterizes these kind of situations.
Buckle up!
I Am My Own Absolute
This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.
Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.
And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)
In many instances, the person who refuses to change their mind is someone who sees themselves as their own absolute. They see themselves as not only entitled to discern the difference between right and wrong, they live in a manufactured reality where they have the right to dictate the difference between right and wrong.
It breaks down into three main poisons:
Three Poisons
Truth
Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me. The problem with that perspective, however, is that if truth is not based on a fixed point of reference, then all knowledge is reduced to a meaningless collection of personal preferences.
People who want to pretend that truth is whatever it is they want to believe ignore the fact that by saying that they have declared themselves to be irrelevant. According to their own logic, they don’t have a point, they have only a preference.
Right
A right is a term that’s been emptied of its original meaning, as far as the way its used in the Declaration of Independence, and instead is used to justify being selfish and immoral.
According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. They are Divine entitlements that exist independently of the way any human convention may try to alter them. That’s what makes them immutable.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The moment you remove God from the equation, however, while you have eliminated the transcendent nature of the “right” you want to assert, you have also removed the moral standard that you would otherwise be accountable to.
That is the intent of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. Whatever is sacrificed in the context of now being dependent on like minded individuals in order to secure a legal endorsement for one’s behavior, that is a trivial concession when compared to the way in which a person can now be morally accountable to no one other than themselves.
Victim
A self-serving paradigm can’t be championed directly without sounding both absurd and pretentious. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you. You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how a person who sees themselves as their own bottom line can avoid having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.
S.I.C
People who think this way do not process those who disagree with them as intellectual adversaries as much as they see them as existential threats. You are not questioning their logic, you are challenging their authority. This is what shapes the way in which they attempt to defend the way they think and this is how you can tell when you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as their own absolute.
Rules for Radicals
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) (Saul Alinski’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they attack the character of the person who’s speaking. By making them look bad, anything that they say is now assumed to be corrupted and therefore something you don’t need to listen to. They do this in three phases…
Stupid (They’re not qualified)
Phase One is to criticize their intellect. You don’t need to pay attention to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Immoral (They can’t be trusted)
Phase Two: If your opponent’s platform can’t be effectively refuted by accusing them of being “stupid,” the next phase is to accuse them of being immoral. You don’t have to have any basis for your accusation. Your opponent now has to prove their innocence before they can be perceived as credible, and because of the way it’s assumed that a guilty person will insist they’re innocent, apart from something irrefutable, there is now a shadow of suspicion that will linger over anything your adversary would say.
Criminal (They can’t be supported)
The final phase is to indict them. Charge them with a crime and make it difficult for anyone to support or agree with them given their criminal status.
Untouchable
Embedded within each of these accusations is the idea that the person who’s having to contend with these dynamics is being forced to conform either to an inferior intellect or a depraved character. They are sophisticated victims attempting to stand up against uneducated villains. And because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel or hateful, all a person has to do is claim to be either offended or oppressed and they become untouchable – perpetually excused from having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.
Joseph Goebbels was a National Socialist politician and propagandist. He held several roles in the Nazi Party. He served as Nazi Party chief for Greater Berlin from 1926 until 1945. From 1930 until 1945 he was head of propaganda (Reichspropagandaleiter) for the Nazi Party. In 1933, Adolf Hitler appointed Goebbels Reich Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, a position he held until 1945. Goebbels was an unconditional follower of Hitler and a radical antisemite. (Holocaust Encyclopedia).
This is a portion of a speech he made to an audience gathered in Nuremberg in 1934 where he talked about the power and the influence of propaganda…
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even today, large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing the facts, and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about German soldiers chopping off children’s hands and crucifying women to realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense. (Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934)
This is how bad ideas and solutions that don’t work get introduced into the marketplace. Not because of their intellectual or practical merit, but because of the way anyone who opposes them is dismissed due to their supposed lack of intelligence or integrity. But they’re not accusations as much as they’re distractions. By keeping the focus on the person speaking rather than on what is being said, topics are replaced with tactics and principles are subordinated to preferences.
What’s truly bizarre is the way people who see themselves as their own bottom line will accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. By pointing an accusatory finger in the opposite direction, it’s assumed that the person making the accusation is innocent of the stupidity, immorality, and criminality they would insist is being perpetrated by another. This was a tactic applauded by Joseph Goebbels, the head of Nazi Propaganda during the second World War (see sidebar).
Ask the Right Questions
Overcoming these tactics is not accomplished by reason and debate. All the boundaries otherwise established by truth, logic, and common sense are nonexistent once truth has been redefined as something that is based on a personal preference as opposed to a fixed principle. In addition, if you’ve been labeled in a way that makes everything you say resonate as something either stupid or sinister, you first have to prove you’re credible before you can prove that you’re right. Given the way guilty people are expected to claim that they’re innocent, regardless of how compelling the defense of your character may be, there is nevertheless a shadow of doubt that’s been cast over your platform that you can never completely eliminate.
There is, however, another approach that can prove very effective in revealing the lack of intellectual and practical merit that characterizes a particular perspective.
Simply ask the right questions.
Jesus did this every effectively when the Pharisees tried to trap Him with a topic they thought would incriminate Him.
When you ask a question, in that moment you control the conversation. Your opponent is now obligated to provide an answer that will either resonate as logical or hesitant. That hesitation can do more for proving your point than the argument you would articulate, regardless of how eloquently you might be able to state your case. Instead of providing the necessary space for tactics and distractions to be deployed, you’re now able to clear the field of everything save the reality that your opponent needs to either qualify or dismiss entirely.
You can see several examples of this approach that cover topics such as Racism, Homosexuality, and Voter Fraud by clicking here. Another issue that serves as a great example of the way those who recognize standards that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels are accused of being “SIC,” is Illegal Immigration.
Those who would label the current administration as a Nazi operation, given its direct approach to the deportation of illegal immigrants, will not sound especially confident if compelled to answer the following questions honestly.
| Illegal Immigration |
| Question |
Answer |
| Who said the following: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” |
Barack Obama in a speech given in 2005 (Obama’s 2005 remarks reflect strong stance on controlling immigration. Barack Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history (abcnews.com) |
| Who said this: “I think if they committed a crime, deport them immediately! No questions asked…” |
Hillary Clinton, 2008 |
| Which administration has deported the most illegal immigrants? Obama or Trump? |
The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in the 20th century. According to the Department of Homeland Security, that number was around 3 million. The Trump Administration has deported only 675,000. 2.2 million have self-deported.
For more info on the way the Democrat party has changed their attitude towards illegal immigrants, Nicole Russell from USA Today wrote a great piece which you can access by clicking here. |
| Is entering the country illegally a crime, or is just a civil infraction? |
Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense. This means that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place a person in removal (deportation) proceedings and can require payment of a fine, but the federal government cannot charge the person with a criminal offense unless they have previously been ordered deported and reentered in violation of that deportation order. (American Immigration Council).
However…
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien)
While it is possible to apply for naturalization, that only can be done if you initially entered the US legally. Should you try to leave the US and re-enter according to Immigration Law, you’re barred from doing so for a period of at least 3 years. If you try to re-enter illegally, that is considered a felony.
But an illegal immigrant engaged in criminal activity is to be immediately deported with no questions asked. |
Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise. (Prov 15:12)
Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.(Prov 9:8)
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. (Prov 18:12)
Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe. (Prov 28:26)
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves. (Ecc 4:5)
Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. (Ecc 7:6)
While you often see “SIC-ness” in the context of Politics, it’s not limited to the disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals. Anytime you encounter someone who sees themselves as their own bottom line, you inevitably encounter the approach where what’s being spoken is being ignored in favor of trying to discredit the person who’s speaking. While that’s not always inappropriate, it is a common tactic used by someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they’ve got something to hide.
In the end, it’s a spiritual darkness, given the way it can be accurately described as a person elevating themselves to the status of a deity. While that’s not something you can completely address from a human standpoint (Eph 6:12), we are nevertheless doing well to be capable of effectively explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).
Being able to ask the right questions is a good start. It’s an effective strategy that protects something we can’t live without…
The Truth…
The Marine Corps
It’s a phenomenal program and several drumming icons including 
Western Flyer would tour all over the country. We were featured on national television and my engagement to my future bride was announced in Country Weekly magazine. But, while it’s tempting to think that a record deal translates to a career, that’s not always the case. Regardless of how many arenas you play, or how popular your songs are on the radio, the business side of it can sometimes override your aspirations and you wind up having to reinvent yourself in order to pay your bills.
The NHL performance that has since gone viral was the result of a conversation with the mother of one of my drum students who happened to work as part of the Nashville Predators who was able to contact me with the right people who then got me on the ice.
