Eight Simple Ways to Bully-Proof Your Healthy Conscience

Bullies taunt not just with insults and threats but with shaming and blaming. They moralize—weaponizing morality. They get on their moral high horse and scold when it serves them. They blare their moralizing police sirens at others to distract from their own behavior.

It’s not just them. We all do it in a pinch. Whenever we feel threatened we’re likely to forget that we do what we’re accusing others of doing.

These days people feel threatened. Moralizing is on the rise. Here’s how to wise up about it.

Loaded terms are the moralizer’s weapons. A loaded term has strong positive or negative connotations. “Kind” sounds good. If you’re called kind, you’d take it as a compliment. “Unkind” sounds bad. If you’re called unkind you’d take it as criticism.

Connotations aside, what does kindness really mean? It’s debatable but probably accommodating others. But it’s interesting how little debate there is about it.

That’s how it is with loaded terms. The positive or negative connotations dominate which is how moralizers use them for domination. They call you "kind" if you accommodate them and "mean" if you don’t. To them, morality is getting whatever they want.

If you want to build immunity to such loaded-word bullying, here are some exercises, though with a warning: If you moralize, these will weaken your power to bully others.

1. Counter-attribution: You’ll find a lot of loaded terms in memes and cliches. For example, “Always be kind (positive). Or “Don’t be judgmental (negative).” You might “like” a meme like that from a friend or ally, but try attributing it to an enemy or rival. Imagine someone you find truly evil saying “Be kind and don’t judge me.” It’s easier to spot the moralizing from rivals than allies, even if it’s the same moralizing.

2. One exception: A loaded term implies a universal rule. Judging is bad, so never judge, which makes “don’t judge” redundant: The negative connotation already means “don’t”. Is “don’t judge" a universal rule? Sure you can think of times when you shouldn’t. Still, if you can find even one exception, it’s not universal. Is it wrong to judge a violent criminal as wrong? Should there be no judges in our legal system?

3: Load-flipping: Moralizers have an arsenal of terms loaded in opposite directions. They whip out the opposites, thereby making the same behavior moral or immoral depending on what they want. “Steadfast” (positive) and “pigheaded” (negative) both mean sticking to something. The only difference is preference: A moralizer will call it steadfast if they like it and pigheaded if they don’t. To inoculate yourself against it, get good at flipping connotations. If someone calls you pigheaded or stubborn, pair it with steadfast or loyal. If someone calls you steadfast or loyal, pair it with pigheaded or stubborn. That way, you’ll get your mind back from their moralizing so you can decide for yourself whether to stick with what you’re doing.

4. Line drawing: Moralizers will often say things like “Pigheaded and steadfast are totally different! Apples and oranges!” If you ask them the difference, they’ll just pile on more loaded terms: “Pigheaded is stubborn and closed-minded (bad); dedicated is principled and loyal (good). To expose their false distinction, ask them what instructions they would give a stranger to distinguish between pigheaded and dedicated. If they can’t come up with a neutral descriptive distinction, chances are the only difference is that they’re loaded in opposite directions.

5. More-on Moralizing: Loaded terms imply that you can never have too much or too little of some behavior. Kindness is always good, so pile more and more on. Judgment is always bad, so zero tolerance. So long as the terms are ill-defined, it’s easy to give such more-onic moralizing lip service. To counter the more-onic assumption that you can and should turn kindness to infinity, imagine what would happen if you did. For example, “let he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone” taken to the extreme would mean no court justices, since nobody’s perfect.

6. Paradoxes: The loaded terms, when applied to themselves, are usually contradictory. Intolerance, negativity, and judgment have bad connotations. So, be intolerant of intolerance? Say no to negativity? You shouldn’t be judgmental? Noticing such contradictions helps you recognize the real burden morality entails: Cultivating the wisdom to notice the differences that make a difference in what you should tolerate, when to say no, and when to judge.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

Do People Everywhere Cheat?

Maybe We Need to Say Less About Ethics

7. Always throw: If someone says “always throw,” you’d ask, “Throw what?” Verbs like “throw” require an object. With other verbs, objects are optional. You can say “love children” or just “love.” Moralizers exploit the open-ended vagueness of loaded terms, so it’s useful to demand an object. When someone says “love”, think “love what? Terrorists?” In other words, be careful where you point that thing.

8. Winding-road equanimity: True morality isn’t more-onic. It’s staying alert to opposite threats. One can be too tolerant or intolerant, too kind or not kind enough, too judgmental or not judgmental enough, too assertive or not assertive enough. True morality is like driving a winding road in the dark watching out for threats on both sides of the road, weaving left and right depending on the bend.

Moralizers are like backseat drivers looking out only one of the two side windows, nagging you to pay attention only to whatever side they happen to be on, even if it means risking threats on the opposite side. If they’re nagging you to always be kind, never judgmental, keep this inoculation in mind: “I’m not trying to be kind or unjudgmental; I’m trying to figure out where to be kind and judgmental.

The equanimity that true morality seeks is being equally alert to opposite excesses.

This article as a video: