Jump to content

Talk:Thought-terminating cliché

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Janeuner (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 3 June 2008 (→Proper Assessments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Though I accept the possibility of a thought terminating cliche existing, and feeling there should be an article on it, this article is BLATANT propaganda, in that it consists almost entirely of an example which does not illustrate the subject matter properly and refers to off-topic items in a way intended to influence the reader. It has an obvious bias and does not address the issue from a neutral point of view.

Example

I believe the current drugs example is not as good as the example in this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thought_terminating_cliche&oldid=1581131

about money

Quite. It appears someone came along and just changed the already existing example to a very POV one about drugs. Poorly written, as well ('good' for MS striking me as especially funny word use. Not 'helpful' or 'useful in treating/treating the pain from such diseases as MS'. Just 'good fer it'.). MardukZero 19:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Cut from intro:

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, especially in cases where the person experiencing the cognitive dissonance might resolve it by reaching a thought-provoking epiphany.

This sounds like an argument for the theory of mind control, with an unfulfilled promise of some examples of thought-stopping, a technique "cult"s supposedly taught to recruits to prevent them from questioning dogma.

Is there any way to salvage the reference to cognitive dissonance or to explain the connection to Robert Lifton? --Uncle Ed 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing so dramatic, people are just lazy. That's why parents give them the most. They don't have the energy to bother to answer kids' questions, and eventually the kids learn to stop asking them of people who probably don't know, and figure it out for themselves.

Reversions

Anon reverted twice to 17 May 2006 version with these Edit Summaries:

  1. ah, I see, wonderful point [1]
  2. very good points, cults = good, liberals = trying to control your brain... i think i'll revert anyway [2]

Please explain the reason for your reversions. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liar paradox

Hi. The concept of a thought-terminating cliché is a thought-terminating cliché.--Loodog 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be if used to dismiss an argument or idea solely on that basis. Deepstratagem 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain this?

"The thought-terminating cliché is related to the opaque pigeonhole, or closed category, which also does not permit analysis."

It sounds fascinating and might lead to discovering patterns congruent with TTCs, but someone please elaborate on it? What's an opaque pigeonhole (or closed category)? And what is the object in the sentence, "which also does not permit analysis"; "permit analysis" appears to be a transitive verb phrase, meaning we need an object! Thanks. Deepstratagem 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politically charged examples

Delete or change the political ones; they are biased. All except the first are phrase that left wing supporters attribute to right wing supporters. Futhermore, "Support are troops" doesn't fall under this topic whatsoever. 76.248.69.27 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to 76.248.69.27: Of course the individual statements are biased - by definition, they are examples of bias. Their usage here should not bias the reader; to the contrary, they highlight the presense of bias in other settings. To attribute these statements to a specific political group is irrelevant...they can and are used in all debates to suppress any point-of-view. Lastly, "Support the troops" is in fact an example of a thought-terminating cliche, because it can be used as a Red Herring which draws attention from whether or not military action is desirable. However, it would be appropriate to add statements recently used by left-wing personalities, as it would improve the quality of the article and reduce its divisiveness. Janeuner (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are not going to eliminate politically charged examples, I added a few that are more common, and moved the God example, to non-political. I don't think God's plan is necessarily political. 96.231.80.3 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of effort that it takes to explain why these are "thought-terminating cliches" seems to undermine the definition of a cliche. "Support our troops" could be used as a thought-terminating cliche, just as "wash your hands" could be used as a political thought-terminating cliche, or "tie your shoes," or "look both ways." However, that they have to be explained in a very specific context and from a very specific political perspective suggests that they are not cliches at all. Better Dead than Red or ...At least Hitler built a highway, are actual cliches and have been used in this way. I'll give this some time for a counter-point before removing, but the "political TTC" subsection is needlessly politically biased, to the extent that it distorts the actual article.
Their usage here does bias the reader by taking phrases that may or may not have been used and then declaring that those are "thought-terminating" and that they are "cliches" which isn't necessarily true. "Support our troops" is a declarative statement and more often than not, is not used to "terminate thought," but rather -- generally -- to provoke thought. The looming fear that one political persuasion uses "support our troops" to quell discussions about the effectiveness or necessity of war is exagerated -- if anything this is a very contested point, probably biased, and in any event, not encyclopedic. The same can be said about "this is for security reasons" or "we can't talk about _this_ for security reasons." I mean, first, neither of those are cliches in any reasonable way, second, given context, those could be perfectly reasonable responses to something. If a child asks why he has to take off his shoes while going through an airport security terminal, respond with, "this is for security reasons," is not "thought-terminating," nor is it a cliche... it is a perfectly reasonable answer to something. "We can't talk about..." isn't remotely a cliche, I don't think I've ever heard anybody ever say that we can't talk about a specific topic for reasons of national security. Perhaps in a totalitarian despotism, but in all likelihood, the editor who added that did not have totalitarian despotisms in mind when adding it, and is likely not well enough informed to add it without citation anyway. 192.80.61.168 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up some old (>1 year) discussions from this subsection. Without addressing every detail of the argument from 192.80.61.168, I will say this: the English language allows for a given phrase to be used in a wide variety of ways. It is probable that all of the example TTCs can be used in situations where they would not meet the strict definition of a TTC. However, these are well recognized examples of how TTCs are used in political discourse. For this reason, I am restoring some of the political examples that were deleted on June 2. Janeuner (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

These examples are terrible, the first one states "John tells his friend Steve, who is considering a promising but risky investment, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" Steve takes his friends advice and rejects the investment". This isn't a thought terminating cliche, its a piece of advice as it states itself, John gave his friend advice regarding a risky inestment and advised that holding on to what one has now is a safer bet. The next example is better, to compare them "Why?, because I said so" to "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", one is a piece of advice on an investment of arguable merits, the other is designed to quell all conversation and dissidence and get the other person to do as you ask without argument. Another good example would be "don't do as I do, do as I tell you to". the next example "that's a no brainer" is also good, as it is designed to make the other person feel as though their contribution was obvious and unwarrented. The one after that "when you get to be my age... (as in "when you get to be my age you'll find that's not true") is also good, but the one after is worse "The Lord works in mysterious ways". As with all linguistics one should look at how people actually use the cliche (because there is no doubt all these examples are cliches, just not all thought terminating cliches). Are people using this as a way to end discussion and stop argument, as a response to a person questioning a core belief or asking why they need to do an unpleasant task? (ie: "But is there a God, really?", response "the Lord works in mysterious ways" or "why do I have to go to work?" response "the Lord works in mysterious ways"). Or are they using this as a religous way say "I don't know" or as a way to sympathise with what many people may find inexplicable?, (ie: "why the hell is it snowing?" response "the Lord works in mysterious ways" or "why is my loved one dying of cancer?" response "the Lord works in mysterious ways"). The next one is pretty clear cut "if your not with us your against us", but the one after that is problamatic, it clearly could be a thought-terminating cliche, but it doesn't have to be. It depends on what one says after that or before and how one says it, ie: "you know that's just a conspiracy theory" designed to find out if the person actually believes in what they are stating, whether its a strongly held belief or weak and whether their pulling your leg, depending on the likelehood of the supposed conspiracy theory. Or "That's just a conspiracy theory, but go on" which is a statement on your feeling on the other person's theory, but an opening to discuss their reasons for believing what they do. Even just stating "that's just a conspiracy theory" is not always a thought terminating cliche, if a person says it in a angry or flat way it could be, but said in a friendly way it could be an implicit opening to dicuss the veracity of your theory. A better one would be the less poetic but more clear cut "that's stupid" or "what are you, an idiot?". The next one is good "you don't always get what you want" being designed to end complaints or quell dissapointment, but the next one just doesn't apply, "the best defence is a good offense" this is advice regarding tactics, its designed to give the opinion that an aggressive stance is better than a passive stance, usually regarding an action, it isn't designed to quell discussion or dissidence on a given subject. the next one is the same "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" is a rather oblique cliche, but I don't see how it is designed to stop discussion, argument, complaints or dissapointment or any other behaviour, its just a reference to tactics in dealing with life. As well "a rising tide lifts all boats" might be designed to end dissent, but it might be a generally held view on politics or economics. A better one would be the again less poetic but more applicable "what are you, a communist". And lastly the line at the top "especially in cases where the person experiencing the cognitive dissonance might reach it by experiencing a thought provoking epiphany" how?, who says so?, this whole article is unreferenced but most of it is well written enough, but this is a bone of contention. The thought terminating cliche is designed to stop discussion, argument, complaint etc. I don't see how using his examples or mine a person using a thought terminating cliche is trying to stop a comprehension of something previously not understood, or a religous or mystical experience. I don't mean to bother the editor(s) of this page, please feel free to tell me why I may be wrong on this my talk page Colin 8 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory?

Would anyone consider the mere mention of the words "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory" a thought-terminating cliché? In my personal experience many people shut down all thought processes and consider further discussion on the topic meaningless if the words are uttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.160.79 (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There needs to be some mention of this phenomena. Sweetfreek (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Assessments

I'm not certain that "Do as I say, not as I do" is actually a "poisoning the well" case. Similarly, I think that "My body, my choice" may be a "bare assertion fallacy" and not an "ignoratio elenchi". Anyone? Sweetfreek (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the first example is not a case of poisoning the well, because it is not an active attempt to discredit an argument. However, I am having trouble with body/choice: I cannot recall a situation where that cliche was even remotely successful in suppressing a discussion. I would suggest removing it from the list entirely.

Your Mum!

An example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.132.99 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thought-terminating_cliché&oldid=216780936"