Now You Can Derail Any Discussion!

  In my role of 'educating' new hams, I'm going to explain a few very effective (though clumsy) techniques amateur radio operators use to derail discussion of the hobby. 

 When I started this blog, it was about "news, discussion, and commentary". There was news (though local in nature), and commentary (a/k/a 'heresy"), but "discussion" never happened beyond "Shut the hell up". I was really surprised to discover that hams don't "do" discussion. Instead, I noticed common and recurring patterns used by disparate operators. There was too much similarity for it to be coincidence. 

Look over the techniques below. Familiarise yourself with them, and soon you can boldly join the vanguard devoted to flattening independent thought and trenchant discussion in all its ugly forms.


- "There are exceptions!" (TAE). This handy technique is a proven winner, both for online and on-air discussions. Rather than address the point being made, it's much easier to ignore the premise and attack whatever generalisations or terms are employed by those attempting to engage in discussion. This ensures that the discussion never gets off the ground, and instead dwells safely in the realm of quibbling over semantics and the credibility of the person brazen enough to initiate discussion. TAE is best employed in an outraged tone, and it's essential to portray yourself as someone "who has been around" because this 'logically' means that the other person is inexperienced and not worth listening to. 

  Let's practice this. Suppose someone says something innocuous like, "Generally speaking, amateur radio uses radios to communicate". In response, you bellow an exception to that statement. If you immediately thought, "Echolink", then good for you. If you completely ignored the words, "generally speaking", then I'm impressed. By making an initial effort to define the hobby, very dangerous ground is being trod upon, and you're just the person to put a stop to that. Start with something like, "Obviously you've never heard of Echolink! People use it all of the time, and you don't even need a radio to use it." Even if you loathe Echolink, you should present yourself as someone who's defending Echolink users from being dismissed and excluded. You could include the URL echolink.org, but that gives the other person too much credit for intelligence. Instead, suggest that they "do a Google search" (a separate technique in its own right) for Echolink. You've now 'helpfully' informed of them the existence of Google, on top of everything else. Nobody will listen to that other person now.

  A more practical example might be in response to someone saying that amateur radio operators are predominantly over 50. Again, ignore the word "predominantly". You have a discussion to shut down, and you can't be distracted by things like this. TAE comes to the rescue here, as well. Think hard. Maybe you read about a "young" ham who is only 46. Maybe you knew a 46 year-old ham ten years ago. It doesn't matter. Bring it up, and make it sound good. Remember, if there's one example, there must be millions of others, so you're on steady footing here. The important thing is that the focus of the discussion has now shifted, and the hobby is safe from unsanctioned introspection.  

  TAE is used continually on this blog by critics. Any discussion of rude or unconstructive behaviour by other operators can always be neatly neutralised by pointing out that "everyone isn't like that". Obviously, if everyone isn't like that, then no one is like that. Simple logic, right? Problem solved.


- "The Anomalous Example" (TAE). Yeah, it's the same acronym because it's the flip side of "There Are Exceptions". While "There Are Exceptions" requires that any critical statement made be absolutely, 100% true for every case, "The Anomalous Example" allows you to make positive sweeping generalisations based on only one case. Sure, the rules are different, but you're the good guy here so the rules don't apply. Maybe the discussion is about CW, and it's leaning toward the idea that most hams don't use the code any more. You can stop that by mentioning a single case of a 12 year-old and their Trans-Pacific CW QSO. Broadly state that kids are learning the code in unprecedented numbers, that it's more popular than ever before, and that it's the wave of the future. That one example is all of the proof you need, buddy. You've shut down that dangerous discussion, and hams everywhere thank you.

  This also works when someone starts talking about low activity on the repeaters. Whoa! Wait a minute. There was a weekly net that one time that had thirty check-ins! It lasted an hour, so the other 167 hours of the week must 'naturally' be active as well. That net may have had numbers like that four months ago, but it's still one example, so you can extrapolate it however you please. 

  If anyone points out the anomaly of your anomalous example, it's time to raise the volume, thus 'proving' your case in the ham world. Turn the discussion to the validity of that one example, not its frequency of occurrence. "It's absolutely true! There were at least thirty people that one time! I was one of them!" You've now bravely distracted anyone from pondering why activity continues to decline, and instead focused it on someone calling you a liar. Well done! 


- The Selective Memory (TSM). This is a dandy technique that, rather than directly shutting down discussion, simply renders it pointless. It's often used in conjunction with with the broadly popular "I've Never Seen That!" (INST) technique. Suppose that someone is complaining about ill treatment by the regulars on a repeater. You've got a lot of options at hand to keep anyone from considering if there really is a problem that could be addressed. Both variants of TAE can be employed, but INST might be your first move. INST not only politely implies that the other person is a liar (thus discrediting anything they might say), but it also places you in the position of an expert who would be aware of anything happening anywhere. Because, surely, if your broad experience hasn't exposed you to that, then it simply doesn't ever happen. Gosh, you've searched your memory and can't recall that ever happening, and you would know if it did. This is TSM, and it's entirely possible that you were one of those operators that mistreated someone. TSM works on your absolute certainty that you are one of the good guys, so therefore you wouldn't do something bad, and therefore you can't remember it. You're smart, so you never said that stupid thing, because a smart person wouldn't say that. 

  Many long-time hams simply cannot remember getting hysterical over the threat of Chinese radios, for example. Or their numerous predictions of doom over dropping the code requirement, Gateway to HF, Echolink, or new hams. Nope. Not you. Sure, some people said stuff like that, but they're the stupid ones, and you're one of the smart ones. In fact, the more that you 'remember', nobody ever said stuff like that. You can now use INST to attack anyone that mentions any of these things. 

 TSM allows you to make any ridiculous prediction, outrageous parallel, or false claim. When it becomes untenable, it simply evaporates. And, why have a discussion when everything that someone says was never 'said'?

  One example that I personally experienced was when I was talking about how rude and cranky operators kept me from being interested in HF. Several hams used INST to deny that this situation existed. I pointed out that, only two weeks previous, they had all bitterly complained about the abundance of rude, inconsiderate, and generally stupid HF operators during a contest. Nope. TSM convinced them otherwise. None of them admitted even hinting at such a thing, but it was in my scribbled notes over the course of the previous conversation, along with their callsigns. So there isn't a problem, and we can't discuss a problem that doesn't exist, can we? Can't imagine where I got that idea. 


- The Scripted Response (TSR). Nearly all of the common ham radio topics have been discussed before, and there are neat little responses that have developed into a script. They have become well-worn ruts, and very many hams don't even listen to what is actually said. Instead, some "trigger word" activates their Pavlovian reaction, and they bleat out an unrelated response. 

  Sadly, this is one that I see far too often on this blog. Rather than reading a post, some operator skims through it and hits a trigger word. They now 'know' what I'm 'saying', and they rattle off the proper scripted response. It has nothing to with the discussion at hand, but they have "set me straight". 

One example is that whenever I talk about Gateway to HF and try to have a discussion on what more sensible Technician HF privileges might be, I mention that Technicians are restricted to CW except on ten metres. For some really strange reason, something about that statement sets off a trigger word. In an amazing number of cases, people truly believe that I just said that there's a code requirement for the Technician licence. They inform me that the code requirement has been dropped, usually in a quite smug manner. Now, as a Tech myself, wouldn't I know that already? 

I could provide at least a dozen other examples. When we arrive at a juncture where we already 'know' what everyone else is saying in advance, and we know exactly which pat response to offer, then what point is there in discussing anything? 

TSR places minefields in discussions. One trigger word derails everything. Even when you explain the discrepancy, it persists because that script is essentially the limit of the other person's input. Since you really aren't 'supposed' to have discussions that wander outside of the pre-ordained scripted boundaries, TSR does a fine job -- and it does it unconsciously.

You now have a basic introduction to a few of the tools that you can use to shut down "unapproved" discussions of amateur radio. Even though the hobby of amateur radio is strong, vibrant, and compelling, it's also simultaneously weak, fragile, and easily undermined. Don't ask how that can be possible, or we'll have to shut that discussion down. Just know that it would be A Very Terrible Thing if hams started to move beyond technical discussions and into contemplating what the hobby is really about, where it is going, and why it's the way it is. 

Your job, as a licensed operator, is to be vigilant for any signs of introspection and critical thinking. You have more in your toolbox than "Shut the hell up", and you should bravely tackle this insidious threat with proven techniques.