Speaking with rights: How to best argue and counter

It was a completely normal conversation – until the acquaintancesuddenly talked about the fact that the children would no longer be able to go to the playground in the future because accommodation for refugees had been built at the other end of the town. “That came as a huge surprise to me because I had previously assessed the person differently,” remembers Helga B. Gundlach. She didn’t have much time to react at the time, he didcontinued talking, jumping from one topic to the next. “I was very taken with the person and I just thought, ‘Help, can someone help me?'”

Today Gundlach knows: That was slogan hopping; a method by which an interlocutor is bombarded with political views in a quick thematic monologue. A strategy that people with right-wing extremist views like to use to encourage othersto overwhelm, to absorb and to impress.

After the incident, Gundlach dealt with the situation. Today she is a communications coach and offers seminars and workshops that are about exactly that: speaking with rights. They don’t just hang out at demos and in certain networks. Political discussions can also escalate at work, in the family, among friends, acquaintances or during sports. What is the best way to deal with it? A few tips and tricks:

How do rights argue?

Anyone who wants to discuss political views should first know who they are talking to. Right-wing populists usually claim to represent the “will of the people” – thus presenting themselves as “close to the people”. The otherness of minorities and people with a migration background is always emphasized. Complex issues are presented in a simplified manner, both in terms of content and language.

The population’s fears, worries and needs serve as a basis for designing doomsday scenarios and presenting oneself as an alternative, solution or savior. Right-wing populist statements are not always based on empirical data (More on the topic of countering theses in the fact check). For the right, it is more about appealing to certain population groups emotionally – preferably when no justification is expected and they can present themselves as “people’s understanders”. In addition, there are other clues that suggest a person might be right-wing:

Generalizations, Framing and Stereotypes: Complex topics are generalized. Example of migration: Instead of talking about individual migrants, people talk about refugee flows in order to emphasize a supposed danger that comes from people. They are also attributed characteristics that do not apply to everyone.

Slogan hopping refers to a conversation pattern in which a person jumps from one topic to the next in a very short space of time. From the antipathy towards trans people, it goes directly to the danger posed by refugees who benefit from money that goes elsewheremissing, for example in schools or in agriculture, to man-made climate change, which does not exist. “The aim is to impress the other person with the supposed range of topics,” explains communications coach Gundlach.

Whataboutism and De-railing are used to distract from the actual topic. That means,For example, conversation partners respond with a counter question or take up a new topic in order to steer the discussion onto a different track.

Ethnicization and culturalization: Ethnic groups are valued and/or devalued. Characteristics are attributed to certain minorities (similar to stereotyping) in order to make them look worse compared to the majority (e.g. German citizens).

Pushing the boundaries of what can be said: Some people put forward a thesis or give an opinion, only to then immediately apologize for it and interject that they are no longer allowed to say that anymore and that they don’t actually mean it. However, the restrictions are only an illusion; the goal has already been achieved: “The message has been placed,” says Gundlach.

Using someone as a stage: With this strategy, the other person tells their own stories and arguments, but gives the other person hardly any opportunity to express themselves and position themselves. It’s mostly about being validated by the other person.

Are discussions even worth it?

“You shouldn’t leave such statements uncommented,” says communications trainer Gundlach. Because silence can be seen as silent consent. In any case, it makes sense to react. Even a simple contradiction is sufficient. However, you always have to be clear about who you are talking to. Is it a sympathizer or someone who is part of a right-wing network? If people don’t adhere to the rules of conversation, a discussion is almost impossible anyway.

Or do you meet a frightened person who simply repeats right-wing arguments and theses? It’s easier to have discussions with these people. And: “Privately at home, you still have the option of telling the person that they should not express themselves in this way in these rooms,” emphasizes Gundlach.

In public spaces, however, it is not so important to address the person who expresses right-wing slogans. “It’s often more important that people around you know that you don’t share a discriminatory statement in silence – whether in the supermarket queue, at the sports club, at a family celebration or at work.”

In the end, what matters is that you have positioned yourself at all – based on Erich Kästner’s motto: “We are not only responsible for what we do, but also for what we don’t do.”

How do I best argue?

“When you are surprised by right-wing theses and arguments, they are usually the first to help W-questions“, says the communications expert. One could react to the thesis “Migrants are alienating our country” as follows: How did you come to that conclusion? What experiences have you had with it? What scares you and do you have any suggestions for solutions? Where did you hear, see or… Here it makes sense to ask for the specific source – “on the Internet” is not a sufficient answer.

When making statements that are hostile and contemptuous of people, Gundlach advises you to focus on this Basic Law to appoint. It doesn’t just say “Human dignity is inviolable”. The law also stipulates that freedom of expression is preserved until it violates the honor of another person. “Hate and insults are not an opinion and are not covered by the Basic Law, as some people think,” says Gundlach.

If you can’t come up with powerful arguments straight away, you should get one mental break take. “At the company party, for example, you get a drink or suggest postponing the conversation.” If you no longer feel like having a conversation in which you only serve as a “stage” for the other person, you should communicate that openly, clearly and calmly. In any case, both conversation partners should get out of the situation while saving face. Appreciative, polite and objective the conversation should always remain. Even if the topics are often emotional, you should talk to othersdo not embarrass or insult.

It could make sense, Separate person and political views: “You can tell your counterpart that you value him or her as a person, but you don’t share their opinion,” says Gundlach.

The to break off contact, but should remain the very last resort. Completely excluding people because of their views could lead them to turn even more to right-wing networks. “There is so much talk about division and we don’t want to deepen that.” Gundlach recommends that you instead ignore the topic in the future or think about how you want to deal with it together with the person you are talking to.

Can rights be convinced?

That all depends. “You should always ask yourself whether the person is still available,” says Gundlach. Convinced right-wingers and Nazis who are active in relevant groups and networks “cannot be convinced in the short term with one or two conversations.” However, the communications expert does not want to completely rule out the possibility that these people will leave their network.

However, it might be easier to change followers or concerned people from your own environment. There you can be persuasive even in short conversations – even if success is not always immediately obvious. It is unlikely that the person will thank you immediately after the conversation and admit that something has changed in their attitude.