How to Talk to Normies

Party Conference Season is a salutary reminder that it is not MPs who are going to lead us out of the mire. With each hollow-chested speech, it becomes more apparent that more of us are going to have to put our back to the wheel and lean into uncomfortable conversations in order to change the fortunes of this once great nation. I was recently asked to speak to a group of women in Westminster about ‘How to Talk to Normies’. It coincided with a recent report from More in Common and University College London that unsurprisingly revealed 69% of people are afraid to speak their mind. Sadly we quieter folks are going to have to channel our inner Iain Duncan-Smith and turn up the volume. This is a shortened version of my talk on why and how to disagree agreeably.

Why bother?

1 It is personally liberating to speak the truth. Not speaking, pretending to agree with a group, telling half-lies, nodding along, staying silent, are all deeply corrosive to the human soul. Ask yourself, ultimately: how do I want to live my life?

2 Because we are the forces that move nations. At the end of War and Peace, Tolstoy writes a magnificent essay about freewill. His novel is a grand examination of why on earth millions of people across Europe and Russia started to kill each other. He examined the great man theory of history, divine predestination, inevitable flows of history, and lands on the understanding that the movement of nations is caused by the activity of all the people who participate in the events. Our silence around issues and events is just as impactful as speaking out.

3 We are the Normies. Always remember that in general, the British population is Right-leaning. The latest British Social Attitudes survey demonstrates only 36% think the Government should increase taxes and spend more, only 27% think the Government should spend more on welfare and only 32% think migrants have enriched the country’s cultural and economic life. Niche concerns, such as trans issues, have been pushed into mainstream by a very small vocal minority. By actual ‘normies’ speaking up, other ‘normies’ will find their voice and suddenly Left-wing nonsense is not being quietly waved through HR and dinner party conversations.

How to disagree when in a majority setting.

We’ve all been there, with a group of people either at work or socially agreeing with one another about something you think is completely insane. For me recently, it was a dinner where everyone was saying how amazing Andy Burnham was. Previously I would have blown my top, spoiled the evening by saying aggressively that he was Starmer2 with eyelashes. By dismissing everyone else’s opinion I would have soured the jolly atmosphere and put their heckles up. So instead:

Remember Socrates and ask questions. Knocking around in Athens in 2,500 years ago Socrates simply asked questions of the rich, powerful and apparently wise. He famously didn’t write anything down, but the records of his conversations by Xenophon and Plato are just devastating, with those he interrogated often ending up saying: “I don’t seem to have any confidence Socrates in my answers.”

Rather than aggressively sharing your opposing view, weaken the opposition by asking questions. In the case of Andy Burnham, I simply asked innocently: “What are you most excited about? How do you think he’ll pay for his National Care Service? Do you think he’ll get his backbenchers on side?” What initially seemed like the most vocal Andy Burnham supporter began immediately to flounder, having nothing to really go on but vibes. And then another dinner guest said she had reservations too. The whole conversation shifted and it turned out the pro-Burnham majority view was not actually the majority view at all.

How to give your opinions directly: remember your Aristotle

This is where things can get sticky. Your opinion is making itself felt: you begin to sweat, the heart races, your mouth dries. But don’t whatever you do just blurt it out. Here it is vital that we call upon Aristotle, who cannot be beaten when it comes to the art of persuasion. His unsurpassed book On Rhetoric is, for me at least, heavy going, but there are some absolute simplified nuggets of wisdom within that every halfway decent orator or speech writer knows about. Remember these when delivering opinions and you will be less likely to be called a far-Right thug.

Ethos: establish your credibility around the issue you are discussing so you don’t across as some pub bore or loud mouth. ‘I volunteer at a food bank’, ‘I work as a paediatrician’ – demonstrate that you have knowledge and insight into the issue under discussion, that you are coming from a place of goodwill. Show that you are not unhinged. Instead of saying: ‘this makes me angry, I am cross, I am furious” say: ‘I am upset, this makes me sad, I am troubled by, I find this really challenging.’

Pathos: use emotion to pull at the heart-strings of your audience. This is the area where the Right fail catastrophically. As a general rule, Right-minded people think common sense and a couple of facts are enough to win an argument. But as the trans issue amply demonstrated, facts are irrelevant: emotion is king.

Aristotle teaches us that we must pull at the heart strings of our audience. In order to successfully appeal to the emotions of those listening, you must be prepared to bring out a sad story about a victim before they do. We’ve witnessed Starmer’s inability to reform welfare by the simple fact of backbench MPs crying in the House of Commons about constituents who would lose out. It’s no good simply relying no arguments about finances or the moral disaster of having one million NEETs, there is not enough personal emotion to win the argument.

As novelist Josephine Tey wrote: “The sorrows of humanity are no-one’s sorrows. A thousand people drowned in floods in China are news: a solitary child drowns in a pond is a tragedy.” This is most obviously true where conversations about abortion are concerned. A reasonable suggestion that you find 250,000 abortions a year unsettling is immediately trumped by someone saying: ‘My daughter was raped when a teenager, are you saying she doesn’t deserve an abortion?’ It also explains why the rape gang stories have failed to grip the public imaginations: the vast numbers involved have become meaningless, and who can expect the victims to relentlessly tell their horror stories?

Alas emotion does need to be personal. When trying to convey an argument, do not be afraid of pulling out personal stories to support your case; the sadder the better. Those arguing for welfare reform need to counter emotional examples with emotional stories of individuals whose lives have been ruined by welfare, for example.

Logos: back up your argument with facts and figures. ‘I heard it on a podcast’ will not do. It’s worth just spending a few minutes memorising the relevant figures. I know no-one likes a try hard, but the artful deployment of a devastating fact to someone already impressed by your compassion and emotionally wrought by your sad stories is all that’s needed to win.

Good luck everyone!

From dailysceptic.org