Phrase, Craze, Raze: Shut Down Debate in Three Steps

Co-authored by Christopher Kilmartin, Ph.D.

In our many years as college professors, we have frequently communicated to students that, in discussions of social issues such as reproductive rights, gun safety, and same-sex marriage, “this doesn’t feel good to me,” is an acceptable place to begin an argument. It is, however, a very poor place to advance that argument. To do so effectively, one must appeal to evidence and philosophical principles. It is a messy process that involves considerable intellectual effort.

But if you just want to maintain the prejudicial stance of “this doesn’t feel good to me,” without the inconvenience of having to engage the issue at hand and consider another's point of view, we offer a time-honored, tried and true method for foreclosing debate in three easy steps.

Step One: Phrase. Find a phrase or term used by proponents of the opposing side of the issue.

Step Two: Craze. Distort that phrase or term to characterize these opponents as either evil or deranged at worst, or silly or oversensitive at best. You can also coin your own term to describe the opponent in similar ways.

Step Three: Raze. If you do Step Two well, Step Three will resolve itself. Whether the opponent is evil, deranged, silly, or oversensitive, there is no need for discussion. Why argue with a person who is so misguided?

Some examples:

Step One: Phrase:

Liberal

Feminist

Socialist

Step Two: Craze:

Liberal: Not a progressive social movement to improve the quality of life for marginalized people, but rather an evil plot to destroy a way of life that has worked for everyone. Recall Ronald Reagan’s description of political opponents as liberal, as if that characterization is a criticism in and of itself and needs no further explanation.

Feminist: Not a social movement to bring rights and freedoms to women equal to those of men, but rather a man-hating, freeze-the-sperm-and-kill-‘em-all effort to eradicate males from the face of the earth. Recall Rush Limbaugh’s coining of the vulgar term “feminazi,” equating this social movement with the systematic murder of millions of human beings in the middle twentieth century.

Socialist: Not a movement for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but rather an effort to wrest these things away from those who rightly deserve them.

Step Three: Raze:

Again, this step resolves itself. No need to engage in any discussion with people who are deranged or evil.

We turn now to describing two recent examples in which social conservatives have used this strategy to distort and discredit progressive discourse.

Toxic Masculinity

This term was intended to describe a version of gender ideology, one that is often held by bad actors, and that has sometimes resulted in remarkable levels of harm, the worst of which are mass shootings. The Craze Step has been to distort the term to mean a suggestion that all men and boys are bad, evil, or worthless people and that therefore the term is nothing more than the disrespectful bashing of all men and boys. But that was never the intent of the use of the term. A parallel: If we use the term “poison mushroom,” few people would think that we are saying that all mushrooms are toxic. We are describing one type of mushroom that is harmful, not a whole variety of plants, many of which are beneficial (not to mention delicious).

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

This term is perhaps the most recent target of the phrase-craze-raze popular discourse. If we look at these terms, they seem to be desirable outcomes in a fair and free society. The craze strategy is to suggest that DEI is a smoke screen for shifting power from those who deserve it (wealthy white men, although that is rarely mentioned) to those who seek a free ride to resources for which they did not work. One social media post described the acronym as “Didn’t Earn It,” and in the aftermath of the collapse of the Key Bridge in Maryland, there were barbs directed at Baltimore’s African American mayor Brandon Scott as the “DEI Mayor.” Much like Reagan’s characterization of “liberal,” this term was used as a criticism in and of itself, with no further explanation necessary. As columnist Eugene Robinson wrote, “DEI has come to mean “any Black or Brown person who holds a position of authority that we think should have gone to a White man.”

That’s the way it’s done. If one side of a social issue does not feel good to you, just phrase-craze-raze it away without the inconvenience of having to engage in any sort of meaningful debate and thereby maintain your prejudicial stances and uphold a power structure that is unquestioned even when it is unfair and sometimes destructive.

Defense Mechanisms Essential Reads

A New View of Defense Mechanisms

When Moral Reasoning Isn’t Just Rationalization

Co-author Christopher Kilmartin, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Mary Washington, an author, trainer, and activist in preventing violence in schools, the military, and the workplace. His latest book is The Fictions that Shape Men's Lives.