Religions, cults and radical ideologies oftentimes use deceitful subterfuge when conversing with people in order to try to trick them and perhaps convert them into the ideology.
The tactic is: Rather than directly blurt out the doctrine they are trying to convince the other person of, they start with statements and questions that are easy to agree with, and which touch on beliefs of the ideology. So they will have a half-hour conversation with the person, constantly making easy-to-agree statements and asking subtly leading questions that most people will answer in a way that conforms to the ideology (at least superficially), and the conversation will slowly veer deeper and deeper into the topics of the ideology, slowly luring the person into it. After all if the person has been agreeing with everything for half an hour, and everything seems to be ideologically very comfortable and agreeable, and when one has built a sort of social connection with the other person, it's then naturally much easier to keep agreeing as the subject matter goes into more dubious territory.
Thus, suddenly, after half an hour or so of agreeable conversation, the person might find himself agreeing or at least putting thought on things that he would have had doubts or even outright disagreed with if it had been presented at the beginning of the conversation. The victim was slowly but surely lured into being agreeable with topics that may be significantly more dubious, like slowly reeling in a fish. It's like a conversational trap that the unwary person is slowly lured into.
It's a good thing to inform oneself and being able to spot when one is being lured into agreeing with dubious topics.
Many radical ideologies engage in this practice, or at least some of their members are instructed to do so. And the modern "neo-communism" isn't an exception. It might be somewhat rarer among them, but it does happen, and if you dig deep enough you'll even find instructions and "tutorials" that they write among themselves on how to do it, what things to talk about, what questions to ask, and how to slowly lure an unwary person into agreeing with their ideology.
The first thing you should pay attention to is if the other person starts talking about economics, how the economy of a country, or a company, or one's personal economy is run. This in itself, all alone, rather obviously isn't yet a red flag, but you should put a pin on it: Notice that the subject suddenly went into economy and raise your level of awareness a bit, and wait to see where the conversation goes next. This particularly if the topic came out of the blue, rather than having naturally arisen from the overall conversation (although even then you should raise your level of awareness a bit, and pay attention.)
Another pin should be put on it if he starts talking about his or someone else's economic problems and hardships (this or the previous topic may come first, it's not a strict list.) Again, still not a red flag per se, but pay attention.
If you are being asked questions about either topic, you might want to be a bit careful about how you answer. It may still be nothing, and the other person might not have any agenda behind the topic, but tread slightly carefully.
If the topic of the conversation moves to salaries and how managers, bosses and CEOs have such high salaries, or other topics closely related to that, now that should be considered a red flag. Perhaps not yet so big that you should walk out of the conversation, but by this point you should most definitely start paying very close attention to where the conversation is going, and be careful about what you say and how you answer questions.
(By this point you might actually want to do some reverse-luring: In other words, pretend like you are just casually agreeing with what the other person is saying, without giving away anything about you being hyper-aware of what's happening. Just be agreeable, carefully, with what's being said, in order to see how far the conversation will go. After all, there's still a possibility that this was a false alarm.)
If the conversation eventually goes into the idea that wouldn't it be better and more fair if every worker was paid the same, rather than the bosses getting enormously larger salaries than the workers, then it's pretty much confirmed: You are dealing with a neo-commie.
At this point it's up to you what you want to do. Note, however, that if it really is a neo-commie trying to lure you into agreeing with socialism/communism, it's highly unlikely that trying to have a reasonable rational conversation is going to go anywhere useful. You could try, but most likely it will be unfruitful. Deeply indoctrinated ideologues will never be convinced by one single conversation. "Deconverting" an ideologue, a cult member, takes months or even years, and requires some deep and long self-reflection and realization from the person himself. It's astronomically unlikely for you to put a dent in his doctrine with one single conversation. Thus, you might want to save your time and effort, unless you really want to do it just for the intellectual exercise.
Comments
Post a Comment