TACT WITHOUT POISE

When you are negotiating with an opponent which does not consider you their equal, and you use tact to adhere to their own sensibilities while at times sacrificing your own, you wil lose the argument.

I was speaking with a friend yesterday afternoon. He was talking to me about something we are working on together, and ultimately he divulged that he, and another person I know, had an argument. The argument ultimately ended with the other party saying that the original party was lacking in “tact.” What is tact?

Tact could be simply defined as: the way one conducts themselves when dealing with another party. For the remaining duration of the evening I began to ponder the meaning of tact. A phrase which is often deployed when using this word is, “Tact and Poise.” Poise is defined as “a condition in which opposing parties are equal to one another. The longer I had these concepts in my head swirling around in the halls-of-ponder, the more I came to realize that “tact” when deployed in a scenario without “poise” is equivalent to crippling ones self in an argument. What do I mean by this? It’s quite simple really…

When you are negotiating with an opponent which does not consider you their equal, and you use tact to adhere to their own sensibilities while at times sacrificing your own, you are simply losing the argument from the onset. Where does this sound familiar? Well…

There are countless examples every second on twitter with some “conservative” being afraid to use common language within their own demographic to try and “debate” (barter) with progressive individuals. Persons afraid of being branding a bad name by their opponent, who does not respect them in the slightest, believe they are employing “tact” to remain civil in the discussion. The tact they employ includes usage of the opponents language and terminology. This tact also will have people tip-toeing around hot-button issues wherein someone who is steadfast in their convictions would charge right into the center of the enemy’s lines knowing that their opponent has a weak position.

Tact is what people on “our side” use to avoid confrontation. Tact is used to avoid a feeling of anxiety which is derived in the, “oh no are they going to call me a bad name and dox me,” center of the empathetic quadrant of your brain. Tact, when not coupled with poise, which is essentially “respect” is nothing more than cowardice.

Tact can still be important. Tact among allies and cohorts keeps relationships strong. I would argue that among supposed friends, when one refers to another as, “having no tact,” that in itself is a lack of tact. It is disrespect to parties which should be working together towards a common goal. Instead it divides because one party refuses to use poise. Tact for one’s opponent can be honorable, but if the opponent refuses to use poise, the tact has now been weaponized against the party demonstrating it.

It is a time to disrespect the enemy. This does not mean to think your opponents are fools. This does mean that whether they are fools or not, anything they say will be laughable.

The tact you have demonstrated over the decades to enemies that seek your utter destruction was not kind; it was not honorable. It was pathetic. Now you can not utilize the school system, or the banking system, or be in a government job, or join the military, or get healthy food at the store, or listen to music, or watch movies, or play on sports teams, or get a fair promotion, or get a college education, or so on…

It is time to refuse tact to our opponents.

It is time for maximum disrespect.

If someone on our side is telling another that they lack tact, they are not on “our side” at all: they are hoping that you give respect to our opponents while refusing you the same respect. They are against you.

If you can not recognize the enemies among you, you are going to be destroyed. I hope for you today that you begin to see things for what they are.

- ARCADE