How to Use Questions to Hide the Fact That You're a Douche Bag

How to Use Questions to Hide the Fact That You’re a Douche Bag

June 21st, 2010

There’s one thing that really irks me: it’s people who use the whole “I’m-not-saying-anything-I’m-just-asking-questions” routine.

I find there are two kinds of people who do it:

Conspiracy theorists.

For example Jesse “the idiot” Ventura uses the whole question line to tout 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Jesse: What’s wrong with asking questions? Isn’t it possible that controlled demolition knocked down 7 World Trade Center?

Dude…just give me your point so I can shoot it down. You’re not asking questions, you’re asserting something, you just don’t have the guts to say so directly.

People who are scared

Some people like to use questions as a cover, so they can crawl back in their corner and say, “hey I wasn’t saying anything, I was just asking a question.

Glenn Beck uses this technique all the time. And I’m thinking Glenn, you don’t like Obama. It’s cool. But don’t ask “questions” like “With parents like this, how could he be anything else but a communist?”

That’s not a question. It’s an assertion phrased like a question. You can see I never asked Glenn these types of questions during my “interview” with him.

So, now what?

You’re wondering how can I pretend to be an honest seeker of truth while deep down inside I’m a douche bag who is too lazy to argue my point?

Well, here’s how you do it. You too can disguise the fact you’re a douche bag by phrasing your douche bag comments in the form of a question. Let’s count the ways:

Ask loaded questions

A loaded question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. In plain, English it means that the question asserts a fact that isn’t proven.

Let’s have some fun:

Ask a man: Have you stopped watching internet porn?

If he says No, then it means he still watches internet porn.

If he says “yes”, then it means he used to watch internet porn.

It’s win/win for you because you get to assert that the guy watches internet porn NO MATTER HOW he answers. Isn’t it fun?

Ask implied questions

These are AWESOIME things to have in your douche bag artillery. You just ask questions that imply that you know something that you really have no clue about.

For example:

Doesn’t Jim have a brother in jail?

Jim probably doesn’t have a brother in jail, but it sure looks like you know it. And it sure looks like Jim is a scumbag for having a jailbird brother.

Some others you could use:

Doesn’t your sister stand out on 5^th street every night?
Isn’t your mom on crack?

No, she’s not? How interesting…just give that knowing look…they’ll go home and ask their mom if she’s on crack..because hey you might just know something.

Ask Double-barreled questions

Here is where you combine two unrelated things but only allow for one possible answer. These are great for douche bags. I found a good example on Wikipedia on how a douche bag lawyer might use it:

A: “So instead of murdering your neighbor, did you go home and bake a pie which you donated to the Girl Scouts bake sale?”

W: “No”

A: “So you admit you murdered your neighbor!”

There you go.

Next time one of those idiots pulls the whole “I’m just asking questions” things, look out! They aren’t asking anything. They’re just too cowardly to say what they think.

Don’t fall for it. Just sit back and say, “Is that a question?”

Pingback: Carlon Haas
Pingback: Anna Goh
Pingback: 911record
Pingback: Michel Fortin
Pingback: Ryan Healy
Pingback: Carlon Haas
http://www.MichelFortin.com Michel Fortin

Excellent post.

Yes, lawyers do this very well. It's a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” question. And, if answering the question either way can be incriminating, you can plead the fifth (unless you have a smart enough lawyer to object to the line of questioning, since it's leading the witness). Problem is, pleading the 5th amendment makes you look guilty in the eyes of the jury no matter what — they think, “What as he got to hide?”

This was certainly the case with O.J. Simpson. Sure, Mark Furhman was racist, and it was proven that he is. When asked if he tainted the blood evidence, he pleaded the 5th. Problem is, the prosecuting lawyers were just as much douchebags because they didn't object — or the judge was, if he allowed the line of questioning if the prosecutors DID object.

In the end, it added just enough “reasonable doubt,” along with the “if the glove don't fit” theatrics, by the defense to get a murderer off scott-free.

Excellent post as always, Carlon.
http://www.ryanhealy.com/ Ryan Healy

Carlon,

Good post. I agree with you… mostly.

I believe a line of reasoning that beings with “Isn't it possible…” can actually be effective. Asking questions can be used to persuade and is sometimes a better approach than a direct statement.

That said, neither questions nor direct statements will work if somebody has already made up their mind about the issue at hand. (I believe you have decided that 9/11 was caused by Muslim jihadists who hijacked commercial airline flights — and you probably will never be convinced otherwise.)

On a side note, I personally believe WTC-7 was destroyed by controlled demolition. My belief is just as much of a theory as the theory that it fell down because of a small fire inside. (Both are theories; one has more evidence than the other.)

As one author puts its, “…never before 9/11/01 in history has a steel building even partially collapsed from a fire. Neither has any since.”

A striking example of this happened on January 16, 2009. A steel building in China became engulfed in flames. The fire was much larger than the fire in WTC-7, yet it never collapsed.

http://freepressinternational.com/2009/01/build…

I've studied dozens of sources and multiple explanations for why WTC-7 collapsed. I can find no rational or reasonable explanation other than controlled demolition.

If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

Ryan

P.S. Why would Larry Silverstein, the man who took out insurance specifically for “terrorist attacks” about 6 months prior to 9/11, say they decided to “pull it” with reference to WTC-7? As you probably know, to “pull” a building is jargon for controlled demolition.

Here are some sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutte…
http://www.MichelFortin.com Michel Fortin

Ryan, I agree. But while I can't speak for Carlon, I think I understand what he's trying to say. The issue is not about questioning something, which is good and healthy. It's about using questions to make assertions indirectly in an almost passive-aggressive way — not to state an opinion but downplay and even berate the opinions of others.

Questions are the basis of progress and civilization. If we didn't question, we wouldn't have philosophy — or philosophers — who changed the world through the power of questions.

BUT…

While I agree with Jesse Ventura that there's nothing wrong to ask questions, I think it's better to debate something you are questioning rather than using questions to mask your true intent — which is to denigrate and condescend, or manipulate and quash other dissenting opinions, by not making an outright statement. Or even advance one's own agenda. Like politics, for example.

It's like Carlon who said, “Dude…just give me your point so I can shoot it down. You’re not asking questions, you’re asserting something, you just don’t have the guts to say so directly.” If Carlon has an opposing opinion, he wants something concrete he can shoot down. But if Jesse rebuts with, “Hey, I'm not saying, I'm just asking…” Then it puts the debate in limbo. It takes away any change of meaningful debate. And, to underline something based on what Carlon said, it's a sign of cowardice.

My 3 cents.
carlon

Ryan and Michel,

Great to have you two here at the same time.

@Michel

You totally got the point of the article. Healthy questioning is good. But too many people want to “debate” you with questions that:

#1 put you on the defensive
#2 are asked in such a way to make an argument rather than debate on the merits

And, yes, this happens very often in the political arena. And it is a popular method among conspiracy theorists who take the questioning to such absurdity that their whole line of reasoning becomes circular.

@Ryan

First of all, I find the whole “Isn't it possible…” line of questioning to be totally ineffective. And hence conspiracy theorists use it because they can assert facts that are not in evidence. Let’s put aside our views on WTC 7 for the time being, Ryan and follow me on this:

I think WTC 7 fell because of the heat.
Well, isn’t it possible that elves with invisible hammers caused it to fall down?
Uh…no.
Wait a minute…I’m just asking a question here. Is it possible that elves caused WTC 7 to collapse?
Anything’s possible. But I don’t believe in elves.
Well, isn’t it possible that elves exist?
Not likely.
But it IS possible. In fact, I have evidence that elves in fact do exist. And since it’s possible that they do exist, isn’t it possible that they caused WTC to collapse with invisible hammers? I’m just asking. If you think I’m wrong, then prove that elves didn’t do it!

See how that worked? It looks silly, but by asking you if it’s possible that elves caused WTC 7 to collapse, I am in fact asserting that elves exist. And then I ended it with the whole “prove me wrong” thing. And as we all know, it’s impossible to disprove a negative. It’s not enough to say that you are entitled to believe that elves exist just as another person is entitled to believe that elves do not exist. The fact is elves do not exist.

This is why the whole “Isn’t it possible…” line reeks of sophistry rather than the Socratic method of questioning.

As to your beliefs on WTC 7: I could devote a lot of time and effort into making a complete retort, but I will respond directly to what you wrote in the comments:

Why would Larry Silverstein, the man who took out insurance specifically for “terrorist attacks” about 6 months prior to 9/11, say they decided to “pull it” with reference to WTC-7? As you probably know, to “pull” a building is jargon for controlled demolition.

Your question here is one of THOSE questions. Your “added information” on insurance policies is making an assertion and leading me to draw a conclusion (he must of destroyed it for the insurance money…of course then he must have set the whole thing up, right?). But let’s strip your question down into its base form and then follow it with your assertion:

Question: Why would Larry Silverstein say they decided to “pull it” with reference to WTC-7?
Assertion: As you probably know, to “pull” a building is jargon for controlled demolition.

Let’s look at your assertion first:

FACT: Pull is a term used in controlled demolition. It is used when you pull a building away from another with cables. The Ground Zero crew used the word “pull” to talk about pulling WTC 6 down away from other buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxlrcQL5Dk&feat…

So, are you claiming that WTC 7 was pulled with cables away from other buildings? I am assuming that you think it was destroyed with explosives.

If not, then your definition of the jargon “pull” is different than the way it is used in controlled demolition.

So, my answer is that Silverstein was using “pull” to mean something else since the building was not being “pulled” with cables in a controlled demolition. Most likely, he was talking about firefighters being pulled from the area since he was talking to the fire chief. Sounds a lot more reasonable.
carlon

I agree with that on the OJ trial.

They asked Furhman if he planted evidence on OJ Simpson and he pleased the 5th.
The judge should have shut off questioning as well, since Fuhrman was going to plead the 5th the whole way. By letting him answer these loaded questions, the defense was given a free pass to make their conspiracy theory plausible.
http://www.MichelFortin.com Michel Fortin

Excellent post.

Yes, lawyers do this very well. It's a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” question. And, if answering the question either way can be incriminating, you can plead the fifth (unless you have a smart enough lawyer to object to the line of questioning, since it's leading the witness). Problem is, pleading the 5th amendment makes you look guilty in the eyes of the jury no matter what — they think, “What has he got to hide?”

This was certainly the case with O.J. Simpson. Sure, Mark Furhman was racist, and it was proven that he is. When asked if he tainted the blood evidence, he pleaded the 5th. Problem is, the prosecuting lawyers were just as much douchebags because they didn't object — or the judge was, if he allowed the line of questioning if the prosecutors DID object.

In the end, it added just enough “reasonable doubt,” along with the “if the glove don't fit” theatrics, by the defense to get a murderer off scott-free.

Excellent post as always, Carlon.
http://www.ryanhealy.com/ Ryan Healy

Carlon,

Good post. I agree with you… mostly.

I believe a line of reasoning that begins with “Isn't it possible…” can actually be effective. Asking questions can be used to persuade and is sometimes a better approach than a direct statement.

That said, neither questions nor direct statements will work if somebody has already made up their mind about the issue at hand. (I believe you have decided that 9/11 was caused by Muslim jihadists who hijacked commercial airline flights — and you probably will never be convinced otherwise.)

On a side note, I personally believe WTC-7 was destroyed by controlled demolition. My belief is just as much of a theory as the theory that it fell down because of a small fire inside. (Both are theories; one has more evidence than the other.)

As one author puts its, “…never before 9/11/01 in history has a steel building even partially collapsed from a fire. Neither has any since.”

A striking example of this happened on January 16, 2009. A steel building in China became engulfed in flames. The fire was much larger than the fire in WTC-7, yet it never collapsed.

http://freepressinternational.com/2009/01/build…

I've studied dozens of sources and multiple explanations for why WTC-7 collapsed. I can find no rational or reasonable explanation other than controlled demolition.

If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

Ryan

P.S. Why would Larry Silverstein, the man who took out insurance specifically for “terrorist attacks” about 6 months prior to 9/11, say they decided to “pull it” with reference to WTC-7? As you probably know, to “pull” a building is jargon for controlled demolition.

Here are some sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&NR=1

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutte…
http://www.MichelFortin.com Michel Fortin

Ryan, I agree. But while I can't speak for Carlon, I think I understand what he's trying to say. The issue is not about questioning something, which is good and healthy. It's about using questions to make assertions indirectly in an almost passive-aggressive way — not to state an opinion but downplay and even berate the opinions of others.

Questions are the basis of progress and civilization. If we didn't question, we wouldn't have philosophy — or philosophers — who changed the world through the power of questions.

BUT…

While I agree with Jesse Ventura that there's nothing wrong to ask questions, I think it's better to debate something you are questioning rather than using questions to mask your true intent — which is to denigrate and condescend, or manipulate and quash other dissenting opinions, by not making an outright statement. Or even advance one's own agenda. Like politics, for example.

It's like Carlon who said, “Dude…just give me your point so I can shoot it down. You’re not asking questions, you’re asserting something, you just don’t have the guts to say so directly.” If Carlon has an opposing opinion, he wants something concrete he can shoot down. But if Jesse rebuts with, “Hey, I'm not saying, I'm just asking…” Then it puts the debate in limbo. It takes away any change of meaningful debate. And, to underline something based on what Carlon said, it's a sign of cowardice.

My 3 cents.
carlon

Ryan and Michel,

Great to have you two here at the same time.

@Michel

You totally got the point of the article. Healthy questioning is good. But too many people want to “debate” you with questions that:

#1 put you on the defensive
#2 are asked in such a way to make an argument rather than debate on the merits

And, yes, this happens very often in the political arena. And it is a popular method among conspiracy theorists who take the questioning to such absurdity that their whole line of reasoning becomes circular.

@Ryan

First of all, I find the whole “Isn't it possible…” line of questioning to be totally ineffective. And hence conspiracy theorists use it because they can assert facts that are not in evidence. Let’s put aside our views on WTC 7 for the time being, Ryan and follow me on this:

I think WTC 7 fell because of the heat.
Well, isn’t it possible that elves with invisible hammers caused it to fall down?
Uh…no.
Wait a minute…I’m just asking a question here. Is it possible that elves caused WTC 7 to collapse?
Anything’s possible. But I don’t believe in elves.
Well, isn’t it possible that elves exist?
Not likely.
But it IS possible. In fact, I have evidence that elves in fact do exist. And since it’s possible that they do exist, isn’t it possible that they caused WTC to collapse with invisible hammers? I’m just asking. If you think I’m wrong, then prove that elves didn’t do it!

See how that worked? It looks silly, but by asking you if it’s possible that elves caused WTC 7 to collapse, I am in fact asserting that elves exist. And then I ended it with the whole “prove me wrong” thing. And as we all know, it’s impossible to disprove a negative. It’s not enough to say that you are entitled to believe that elves exist just as another person is entitled to believe that elves do not exist. The fact is elves do not exist.

This is why the whole “Isn’t it possible…” line reeks of sophistry rather than the Socratic method of questioning.

As to your beliefs on WTC 7: I could devote a lot of time and effort into making a complete retort, but I will respond directly to what you wrote in the comments:

Why would Larry Silverstein, the man who took out insurance specifically for “terrorist attacks” about 6 months prior to 9/11, say they decided to “pull it” with reference to WTC-7? As you probably know, to “pull” a building is jargon for controlled demolition.

Your question here is one of THOSE questions. Your “added information” on insurance policies is making an assertion and leading me to draw a conclusion (he must of destroyed it for the insurance money…of course then he must have set the whole thing up, right?). But let’s strip your question down into its base form and then follow it with your assertion:

Question: Why would Larry Silverstein say they decided to “pull it” with reference to WTC-7?
Assertion: As you probably know, to “pull” a building is jargon for controlled demolition.

Let’s look at your assertion first:

FACT: Pull is a term used in controlled demolition. It is used when you pull a building away from another with cables. The Ground Zero crew used the word “pull” to talk about pulling WTC 6 down away from other buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxlrcQL5Dk&feat…

So, are you claiming that WTC 7 was pulled with cables away from other buildings? I am assuming that you think it was destroyed with explosives.

If not, then your definition of the jargon “pull” is different than the way it is used in controlled demolition.

So, my answer is that Silverstein was using “pull” to mean something else since the building was not being “pulled” with cables in a controlled demolition. Most likely, he was talking about firefighters being pulled from the area since he was talking to the fire chief. Sounds a lot more reasonable.
carlon

I agree with that on the OJ trial.

They asked Furhman if he planted evidence on OJ Simpson and he pleased the 5th.
The judge should have shut off questioning as well, since Fuhrman was going to plead the 5th the whole way. By letting him answer these loaded questions, the defense was given a free pass to make their conspiracy theory plausible.
http://www.MichelFortin.com Michel Fortin

And many of these questions are close-ended.

By asking you a close-ended question (and forcing you to answer it, which they can by asking the judge), they also close any chance of giving context or elaboration. They skillfully do so to lead the witness, manipulate the answer in their favor, or influence the jury's perception.

It's like when a lawyer asks you this type of question, and you attempt to explain or try to give it context before you do answer, or even answer with “it depends,” they stop you and say “Yes or No, Mr. Haas. Please answer the question!”

How can you work around that? You simply can't.

Yup, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
elaine

Have you seen this episode of South Park?
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251890…
carlon

I saw that. Hilarious! What was funnier is that Glenn Beck thought it was funny. Maybe he has a sense of humor after all.