The INTENSIFY / DOWNPLAY Schema
BENEFIT-PROMISING BEHAVIORS

Expect people to intensify others' "bad."

---

Insults, invectives, and epithets against another person often use vulgarities, or current slang words of general disapproval (creep, turkey, jerk) or of specific traits such as ignorance (stupid, dumb head), ineptitude (clumsy, oaf), or physical features (fatty, four-eyes).

A harangue, tirade, or philippic -- are all terms used to describe extended verbal attacks filled with condemnation, vituperations, vilification, and censorious language against others.

Threats and warnings are often used as aggressive language: such commands, or prohibitions, about future events, are usually phrased in terms of ultimatums: "Don't do this... or else ..." "If ... then." Aggressive language is very common in political rhetoric, but very seldom seen in commercial advertising.

Ads often attack a general problem, stirring up fear and anxiety. Then, the ads will emphasize the specific product as the solution, as the relief (or protection, or prevention ) of the "bad." The degree of a problem being "bad" ranges from minor inconveniences to serious dangers. Problems may be expressed in informal language (such as "Avoid the hassle of waiting in line"). This problem /solution pattern is very common in advertising; in this website, it's called the scare-and-sell tactic.

In advertising, direct attacks against other products are very rare, simply because there are laws and penalties against libel and slander. Generally speaking, any statement which defames others or exposes them to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or injury is libelous. (You insult people at your own risk! Corporations have good lawyers!) Direct attacks against other products or competitors are rare, but some "comparative advertising" of two brands does exist. After the FTC said that they wouldn't penalize comparative ads as long as the facts were accurate, there have been some comparative ad campaigns (e.g. Pepsi vs. Coke, Burger King vs. McDonalds).

However, many people still don't like it when any ad -- even truthful "comparative ads" -- knocks the competition. Furthermore, many advertisers don't like "to rock the boat" with such ads because they feel that the general public is already too suspicious of advertising.

The terms "mud slinging," "smear campaign," and "negative campaigning" are commonly used in politics to describe such verbal aggression. Politicians will intensify the others' bad, will stress that the opposing policy, party, or candidate is either intrinsically "bad," or will be a means to a harmful end, either tangible (specific laws or policies) or intangible (loss of pride, leadership, security, righteousness).

Attacks on others can be direct (explicit, clear statements), but explicit attacks are less common because direct lies and false charges are easier to disprove than vague suggestions.

Attacks are more likely to be indirect (implicit, vague suggestions), using code words, condensation symbols, visuals and nonverbals. For examples of code words, listen to "talk radio" where disapproval (criticism, condemnation) can be conveyed by the sarcastic or mocking tone of voice ("... so-called lib-er-als..."), or the ambiguous references ("those people... you know who I mean ...") which prompt listeners to fill in the blanks, yet allow the speaker's "deniability" ("I didn't say THAT!").

Implicit attacks allow the listener to fill in the gaps, to imagine the worst. Suggestions, ambiguities, and words with multiple meanings allow an evasive strategy, often called "plausible deniability." (For example: "I didn't say that" or "I didn't mean that" or blaming the listener: "You misunderstood me.") One group, for example, may call itself the "people of faith" implying that its opponents are not.

Nonverbal attacks can range from physical violence to the passive aggression of hate stare. On TV, facial expressions (raised eyebrows, pursed lips) and body gestures (head-shaking, thumbs down) are commonly used nonverbals. In addition, sarcastic humor is often used to ridicule, to mock, and to satirize the weakness or failures of the opposition.

In attack propaganda, or negative campaigning, the association technique simply links (1) the person, policy, or product with (2) something already feared or hated by (3) the intended audience.

Thus, if a persuader knows (by polls, surveys, or past experience) what an audience already hates or fears, it's easy to "push their buttons" by associating such things with the opposition.

"Guilt by association" is termed (in formal logic): "the undistributed middle term." In this tactic, the attacker often spends the most time clearly and explicitly "proving" two statements which may be individually "true," but are not logically related to each other. Then, the attacker suggests a conclusion, by prompting the listeners to infer an erroneous link: "Use your own judgment! What do you think!"

Political attacks, including negative ads, are some of the most common complaints people have about elections, but it's important to recognize that, while they may be annoying or disgusting at times, they are also signs of a free society.

In the U.S., the Constitution's 1st Amendment gives great legal protection to political attacks against the opposition, on the basis of that 18th century Enlightenment ideal that "truth" will win in a fair fight.