Take the following premise. Bob sees Mike (who has blue hair) rob an orphanage, and considers him a bad man.
Bob exclaims in a public forum, “That blue-haired sneak! He should be found and put in jail.”
Mike (wearing a mask while on the run) highlights this statement, replaying a record of it in another location, and adding: “I can’t believe Bob would say such terrible things about blue-haired people! This is extreme bigotry!”
Jill, who also has blue hair, and Derek, who simply doesn’t like bigotry, both miss the context of the robbery that happened earlier, and are shocked at the isolated statement.
When the town meets later, the issue of a robbery at the orphanage is downplayed, and the town instead spends the meeting condemning Bob’s bigotry.
While a lot could be said about the whole sequence, I want to find out if there is a shortened term used to refer to the deception by Mike when deliberately misrepresenting the grouping of a targeted statement; eg, to build class solidarity the wrong way. The closest I’ve found might be “Strawmanning” or “Divide and Conquer” but it seems common enough I’d like to see if there’s a name.
I tried to generalize by picking “blue hair” for the example, but I admit it’d be an odd, off-color statement by race or appearance. There are still other forms of grouping that are more common to state in conversation, like “gamers” or “voters”, or “farmers”, in which such statements could apply to all, or just some, of that broad group.
Bob is doing the grouping. He segregates (also himself) by saying things like “they all…”
People don’t like segregation, because it’s groundless gatekeeping, and also don’t like being called bastards. Bob is only being unfair and expects people to do what he wants. Not sure if I would trust Bob when he said anything about anyone, especially when it’s about blue haired people.
No, you’re doing the grouping. Here, I’ll give you the full quote that I didn’t include in my above context (easy to do in this case since it’s a made-up scenario)
“I can’t believe there are farmers out there that would sell people rotten produce, knowingly! That’s a betrayal of everything agriculture stands for! They’re all bastards!”
“Those are harsh words.”
“They are. I grew up on a farming community. So many of these people are working with what they’ve got, and will still give you the shirt off their back. Wonderful folks all around. So hearing about cheats like that, not caring about who they poison, really boils my blood.”
But-!..You may cry. This full excerpt makes clear he loves farmers! He just specifically hates the ones that sell rotten produce! That doesn’t matter. I could still say that: When talking about farmers, Bob was quoted: “They’re all bastards” and that simple statement would be correct.
So I’m sure you are ready to give a wealth of reasons why “that doesn’t count”, but this really does happen in modern contexts, over just a few words.
You just didn’t say it like that before. Did Bob or anyone clear this up? I’d say whoever twisted his words is selling rotten products. And also an idiot for trying to denounce him for whatever was available and would upset people.
I’d still say whataboutism … by using a lie
Part of the whole point of this sentence is that I am, very intentionally, including that quote, absent of context. So yes, I didn’t “say it like that before” - that’s the point.
The theoretical Bob also might not follow online conversations, or feel he owes anyone any apologies. So no, in many real cases, he will not clear anything up with anyone. In many real cases, the “full interview” will be harder to find than the selected bit that deceivers will highlight. It comes down to individuals being willing to ask clarifying questions about these partial-context presentations.
This deceiver is clearly not an idiot, because they got you to say: “Bob is only being unfair and expects people to do what he wants. Not sure if I would trust Bob when he said anything about anyone, especially when it’s about blue haired people.”. I could even extend the example: Now, another Michael who wants to generate division can come to this forum, and point to the way you describe him, and get Bob to believe you hate him, even if you were only interpreting twisted words.
I think youre making some great examples of what youre looking for here.
I don’t know if there is a word to describe it though, but I’m leaning towards DARVO or at least the subset “Reverse Victim and Offender”, or something simpler like blame-shifting or attention-shifting.
What’s wrong with you. Only you made me say this by providing insufficient information lol.
Bob can clear up things. Talking to everyone.
What do you want? You don’t like people talking shit about you because of what others might think. But then you claim you don’t care about other people’s opinions at all and don’t want to correct wrong statements because you wouldn’t feel the need? Of course “Bob” is dependent on other people, just like every human.