Thought-terminating cliche

[SaltwareS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language used to quell cognitive dissonance.[1][2][3][4][5] Depending on context in which a phrase (or cliché) is used, it may actually be valid and not qualify as thought-terminating; it does qualify as such when its application intends to dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic.[6] Its only function is to stop an argument from proceeding further, in other words "end the debate with a cliché... not a point."[2] The term was popularized by Robert Jay Lifton in his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, who called the use of the cliché, along with "loading the language", as "the language of non-thought".[1]

[square]

Good stuff. This is a known tool of cults, which is basically another form of PD relationship.

[Cat of the Canals]

Ohhh, thanks for posting this! We were discussing this phenomenon in a different thread, and I ended up using the term my husband and I use (platitudes) but this is more specific and more accurate. PDmil uses the exact examples given very frequently.

I realize PDmom does this too, but in her own special way. She's extremely hyperbolic, so anything she likes is instantly christened "the best." She doesn't describe the thing or what's so great about it. We are simply expected to accept that the queen has decided this thing is "GOOD" and it is so. No argument allowed.

[Hilltop]

Examples given:
"It is what it is." – Adds no value to any debate; it intends to disengage.
"Let's agree to disagree." – Used to cease discussion, often when it may become too emotive.
"That's just your opinion." – Implying all opinions are of equal value, suggesting that you shouldn't try to push your "opinion" on other people

I am a little confused.  I thought with a PD where we aren't suppose to justify or defend ourselves that these examples given are good to use as it disengages and ceases a discussion before it becomes emotive.

I get we should be open and accepting to different ideas and be able to discuss that normally.  However with PD's I thought self protection was using techniques to disengage.  Am I missing the point of the wiki?

[Cat of the Canals]

I am a little confused.  I thought with a PD where we aren't suppose to justify or defend ourselves that these examples given are good to use as it disengages and ceases a discussion before it becomes emotive.

I get we should be open and accepting to different ideas and be able to discuss that normally.  However with PD's I thought self protection was using techniques to disengage.  Am I missing the point of the wiki?

The wiki isn't PD specific. Nor is it necessarily labelling them as "bad." I think the key is when and how they are used.

They are frustrating when used "against you" if you are trying to have a frank discussion about a complicated topic, which happens a lot with PDs. "That's just your opinion" is a response I've seen a lot on this board when a PDparent demands to know why their adult child is going LC or NC or even just setting boundaries. The second they hear an answer they don't like, they shut it down with the thought-terminating cliche.

On the flipside, when a PD comes at you, sparring for a fight or otherwise trying to elicit some kind of response, the thought-terminating cliche can be a wonderful "medium chill" tool. (Indeed, some of the examples are word-for-word MC phrases.) They work precisely because they don't leave anywhere to go. How do you argue with "it is what it is?"

So yes, they are quite effective at getting you out of sticky conversations. Which can be "good" if want out of the conversation. But it can also feel "bad" if you are attempting to have any sort of genuine or profound conversation with someone.

[Hilltop]

Thanks Cat of the Canals, I understand.  I first read it as they were simply PD phrases and I was like 'oh no' but I get what you are saying.  Thanks for clarifying for me.