63
GC Social MediaInteresting post on the concept of "forced teaming" used by TRAs on the LGB community
I think the reason the “they’re coming for you next!!1!” Thing TRAs direct at LGB People grates on me so much is because, like, they already are “coming for” us, they have already been coming for us; and pointing out the fact that republicans hate both gay people and trans people doesn’t actually logically validate transgenderism at all.
Like, Imagine there’s a guy next to me scooping egg salad into his shoes. Then there’s another guy threatening to punch both of us in the head… The fact that egg salad guy and I are both being threatened by the same dude doesn’t change my opinion that the egg salad thing is stupid, nor does it indicate that being gay is equivalent to scooping egg salad into shoes.
Obviously that example is extremely stupid/goofy, I’m just trying to use hyperbole to convey the point here. Does anyone know if there’s a name for that logical fallacy?? I don’t know how to describe it better
Forced teaming is an effective way to establish premature trust because a we’re-in-the-same-boat attitude is hard to rebuff without feeling rude. Sharing a predicament, like being stuck in a stalled elevator or arriving simultaneously at a justclosed store will understandably move people around social boundaries. But forced teaming is not about coincidence; it is intentional and directed, and it is one of the most sophisticated manipulations. The detectable signal of forced teaming is the projection of a shared purpose or experience where none exists: “Both of us;” “we’re some team;” “how are we going to handle this?;” “now we’ve done it,” etc.
David Mamet’s film House of Games is a wonderful exploration of cons and con artists that shows forced teaming at work. A young soldier enters a Western Union office late one evening; he is anxious about whether the money he needs for a bus ticket will arrive there before Western Union closes. Another man is there, apparently in the same predicament. The two commiserate while waiting, and then the man tells the soldier, “Hey, if my money comes in first, I’ll give you whatever amount you need. You can send it to me when you get back to the base.” The soldier is moved by this kindness, but the stranger brushes it off, saying, “You’d do the same for me.” In fact, the stranger is not in the same boat, is not expecting any money to be wired. He is a con artist. Predictably, the soldier’s money is the only to arrive, and when the Western Union office closes, he insists that the stranger accept some of his cash. The best cons make the victim want to participate.
Kelly did not consciously recognize what her intuition clearly knew, so she couldn’t apply the simple defense for forced teaming, which is to make a clear refusal to accept the concept of partnership: “I did not ask for your help and I do not want it.” Like many of the best defenses, this one has the cost of appearing rude. Kelly now knows it is a small cost, comparatively speaking.
(From The Gift of Fear, by Gavin de Becker)
So essentially, yes, what you're describing is forced teaming, a manipulative tactic used by abusers and con artists to establish the impression of a shared predicament where none exists.
The appropriate response is: "We never asked for your help and we do not need it." Reject any attempt from them at trying to frame your situation as shared in any way.