An indirect personal attack (ad hominem) involving a positive but unsubstantiated self-association and the implied assertion that the opponent lacks the ability to perceive, analyze, or understand.
This type of debate tactic can be found surprisingly often on social media, for example in the following form:
“Once again, we free thinkers are the only ones who can recognize the truth.”
By describing himself and his peers as “free thinkers,” the speaker implicitly denies others the ability to “think freely” (and the resulting “knowledge of the truth”) – or at least casts doubt on it – while at the same time elevating his own views, without any evidence, to the status of “truth”.
For the latter in particular, of course, solid evidence would have to be presented. Simply making the claim is definitely not enough.
As a rhetorical device, self-aggrandizement involves presenting oneself or a group with which one identifies in a particularly positive light, notably with the intention of thereby distinguishing oneself from an opponent or opposing group.
This is usually understood as an indirect ad hominem, since it targets the opponent as a person, rather than the subject under discussion. However, the opponent is not attacked directly, as would be the case with insinuations or insults. Instead, the speaker presents themselves in a more favourable way, thereby implying that the opponent does not deserve this elevated status.
Such self-descriptions often serve as “killer phrases”, particularly when they are used to stifle or derail discussions.
If self-aggrandizing terms, such as those described here, are used excessively within a group, this may be an indication of advanced groupthink, in which entrenched patterns of interpretation are no longer questioned and members are content to reinforce one another’s belief that they are far “wiser” than the rest of the world (circle jerking).
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with using appropriate technical terms in discussions among experts if these terms facilitate clearer and more effective communication. However, such technical terms can also be used to position oneself as a supposed expert in the eyes of third parties (jargon) or to stifle further discussion (derailing).
The terms “free thinker” and “nonconformist” originally referred to people who broke away from established patterns of thought and/or refused to be constrained by social conventions, thereby blazing new trails.
We will not discuss here to what extent people who describe themselves this way today (in 2021) live up to this description – but it should be clear that such a label can only be legitimate if it is bestowed by others. If one describes oneself in this way – especially as part of the discourse – it constitutes precisely the unfair debating tactic described here, which attempts to imply that others are unwilling or unable to think outside the box and that only oneself has the intellectual capacity to do so.
Considering this is a rather offensive insinuation, it should come as no surprise if it is met with disapproval from the rest of the population.
The adjective “woke” (derived from slang variant of a passive form of “to wake”, though used more in the sense of “alert” or “well-informed”) is a term used by certain groups that are passionately committed to combating racism, sexism and similar issues in society.
While the fundamental goals of such movements are undoubtedly worthy of support, the methods they employ, as well as the implied understanding of the self and understanding of society, certainly deserve critical scrutiny. In this context, it is unfortunately striking that discussions are all too often quickly shut down, with the implication that anyone holding a different view is simply not “woke” enough.
Using the term in this way (as a “killer phrase”) serves to elevate oneself above others; it is, therefore, a form of indirect personal attack.
See also