How Character Attacks Hide The Truth

Lets take this hypothetical example.

Say someone, who we’ll call Frank, did some very bad things.  However, in order to do these bad things, he would have to hide it so that other people, like you, have no idea what is happening. Now lets say that you happened to stumble onto some evidence and information that proves that Frank has been doing some very bad things. Normally you do not want to raise your voice because you do not want Frank to be angry with you for telling people, but this time you found out that Frank was actually doing some very bad things to you.  So you do the only thing you can.

You raise your voice.

This is when the character attack begins.

The Reason For a Character Attack

You see, when Frank realizes that he could get caught, he only has one option and that is to discredit the proof and evidence because if other people believe the evidence and information that you provide, Frank is caught.  Frank knows this, so the only thing he can do is attack your character so you do not believe the evidence that you provide.

How Can Someone Attack Your Character?

How does Frank attack your character?  He does so by convincing other people that you are to blame\ unpatriotic\ psycho\ crazy or a host of other things that would convince other people not to believe the evidence and information that you are presenting.  To do so, Frank relies on one common trait of the human race.

Trust.

Frank is a pretty trustworthy person, so if Frank says something, other people will believe it.  So if Frank begins to attack your character, he will do so by telling other people who trust him about how crazy you are, who will then tell other people until everyone believes the misinformation that Frank spread.  To help validate his point, he will misinterpret certain actions and behaviours and then tell everyone that these actions are proof that you are crazy.  If Frank does a good job of misinforming people, then this information will spread like a virus and everyone will believe the misinformation that Frank started. Once this happens, the conversation stops being about the evidence and information that you revealed about Frank and instead it becomes about your sanity.

It is a clever move by Frank, but there is one flaw.

Time.

Time Provides Evidence Against A Character Attack

You see, if you continue to live your life like you always did, people will see that you weren’t crazy.  In fact, over time people will begin to see that everything that Frank stated was actually incorrect and over time people will begin to believe you instead of Frank.  Time is always on the side of good people because that is where the truth lies.

Character Attacks Work Because of Blind Trust

However, now that you know how all of this works, doesn’t it seem wrong?  How is it that Frank can get away with attacking your character and making you look worse then him?  The answer is that people trust blindly.  People are told that you have to trust your parents, your siblings, your friends, your coworkers, your government, and your whatever.  You are told to believe in trust, but where did trust even come from in the first place?  How do you know that you HAVE to trust those people?

Trust Comes From Physical Evidence

The answer is evidence and information.  You see the physical evidence proves what people say and if the evidence agrees with what they say, you can trust them.  The more people present physical evidence that proves what they say, the more they can be trusted.  Understand that one piece of evidence does not mean you can trust them, but instead trust comes from continuous evidence.

If you choose to ignore evidence and information, the world will then work in a way that will just be your word against theirs. So is that really trust? Of course not because it is no longer about trust but it is about who you are told to trust. If I can manipulate who you can trust and who you cannot trust, then I can control you.  I simply have to tell you who to trust and then tell that person to say whatever I want.

For instance, lets say that everyone believes Frank, as others consider him a trustworthy person. Then if you found out Frank stole something from you but he told everyone that you just threw it in the garbage, how can you prove anything?  It is clearly your word against Frank’s word and since people believe Frank more, they will just blindly agree with Frank, even though you know that you did not throw it in the garbage.

More Evidence is How To Counter a Character Attack

Considering this is Frank’s strategy, the way you counter this strategy is by providing more evidence and information so that other people can figure it out and begin to trust you.  For instance, if you were able to show other people that you have witnesses that prove you could not have thrown the garbage out, then this added information will counter the character attack, but only if those people STOP believing blindly. The more evidence and information you provide, the less a character attack will hold merit.

In fact, you can even use the character attacks as proof that Frank is doing something wrong because why would you attack someone’s character right after they presented evidence and information that Frank was guilty of doing some bad things?  The only reason is to protect himself by making you focus on something else. So the timing of the character attack is also proof.  A character attack is not wrong if the character in question is wrong, but the merits of the character attack should be in question if the character attack happens around the time evidence and information about another person is being revealed.  Therefore, timing of a character attack is additional evidence and information against Frank.

An Example of a Character Attack

My proof for all of this would be Michael Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11.  Michael Moore presented evidence and information that clearly raises questions about 9/11 and the media suddenly focuses their efforts on Michael’s character instead of the evidence that he clearly provides on his website.  Why question his character first?  Why not question the evidence instead?

You can only do so if you have no choice but to question his character because you cannot question the evidence.

Funny how that works eh…