Unsustainable Consumption

[Xugumad]

socrates
To critically examine [...] is one thing as it affects one and all wherever you may be, but to conclude that it is a sweeping remark [...] is plainly misinterpreted.

It's standard human behaviour - rapidly assume a defensive position when any of your beliefs or actions are questioned, and mount a counter-attack through passive-aggressive tactics.

Without actually demonstrating that the individual questioning something has actually committed any of the errors you are accusing him of, mount an argument (or series of) directed either at mocking his core beliefs, supposed generalizations, or unrelated issues he may or may not have. That way, you can distract from the actual focus of his criticism, put him on the defensive, and concentrate the discussion on his supposed shortcomings, rather than his criticism.

Problem solved.

Examples:

Criticism of Israel's policies -> accusations of anti-semitism, organized <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0928-03.htm">campaigns</a> to <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_7_23_02td.html">smear</a>, <a href="http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1039&CategoryId=2">discredit</a>, and <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021006-11854012.htm">ruin</a> those involved

Criticism of African-Americans (individual actions) -> accusations of racism, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1043">branding</a> those involved as racists forever, or if the criticism comes from <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/01/barbershop/">blacks</a>, brand them as traitors.

Criticism of any current US actions and policies -> <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2158&perpage=15&pagenumber=2">accusations</a> of anti-Americanism, career <a href="http://www.collegefreedom.org/report2002.htm">assassination</a>, ruin

Criticism of corporate behaviour -> accusations of anti-capitalism (but oh how this has changed in the face of bankruptcy), <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html">Communist</a> ideology, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26554-2002Sep16.html">sabotage</a> of scientific facts/research and <a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Borowski082902/borowski082902.html">removal</a> of associated works from school curriculums

<a href="http://censored.firehead.org:1984/scientology/www.entheta.net/entheta/go/philosop.html">Remember</a> L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology: Don't ever defend, always attack. Next time you're suddenly subjected to sweeping ad hominem attacks because you're (rightly or falsely) made any criticism of something people feel strongly about, you'll remember.

X.

PS: I know this is highly tangential, but these are some wonderful quotations:
"In the past few weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services has retired two expert committees before their work was complete. One had recommended that the Food and Drug Administration expand its regulation of the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which has so far been free of such oversight. The other committee, which was rethinking federal protections for human research subjects, had drawn the ire of administration supporters on the religious right, according to government sources.

A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich."