For some time now, but especially with international geopolitical events, the same scene has been repeated on television sets in many countries. People are invited to debate. But very quickly, the debate disappears. One interrupts, raises her voice, refuses to let the other person finish and turns each objection into a personal attack. The goal no longer seems to be to explain, let alone convince. It is about occupying the space, imposing one’s own rhythm and giving the audience the impression that the one who speaks loudest is also right.

This method is not entirely new; politics has always been characterized by invective, provocation and confrontation. But what seems new is their systematization. Aggression is no longer just an overflow; it is becoming a technique. Interruption is no longer an accident. It becomes a strategy. The debate is no longer conceived as a confrontation of ideas, but as a show of strength.

We could call this “conversational domination”. The one who uses it does not necessarily seek to respond to his opponent. He seeks to prevent him from building a reasoning. He cuts sentences, imposes new topics, multiplies accusations, and forces the other to defend himself constantly. Speaking time is monopolized, not to provide more arguments, but to prevent any contradiction from arising.

This tactic works particularly well on TV. Complex reasoning takes time. A spectacular accusation can be made in a few seconds. A cautious analysis requires distinguishing between facts, interpretations, and scenarios. An aggressive formula, it can circulate immediately on social networks. The debate is therefore no longer just for viewers in front of their screens. It is also........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)