Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- tactics:stonewalling [2024/09/20 04:42] – [How to Stonewall] Humphrey Boa-Gart
+++ tactics:stonewalling [2024/09/20 14:31] (current) – [Advanced Stonewalling] Humphrey Boa-Gart
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Stonewalling ======
-**Stonewalling** is a defensive tactic, wherein one refuses to communicate or cooperate with an inquisitive party. It is a form of deflection that can take many forms, such as giving vague responses, responding to questions with additional questions, or even refusing to talk at all.
+**Stonewalling** is a defensive tactic, wherein one refuses to communicate or cooperate during an interaction. It is a form of deflection that can take many forms, such as giving vague responses, responding to questions with additional questions, or even refusing to talk at all.
+Stonewalling is oftentimes enough to make many basic threats give up and go away. However, it can be used to stall confrontations with more persistent enemies as well. During [[:op|field operations]], you will likely encounter stonewall tactics - especially from [[hazards:astroturf|gatekeepers]], [[hazards:agent-provocateurs|agent provocateurs]], [[hazards:shills]] and [[hazards:cults|cults]].
-Stonewalling is oftentimes enough to make many basic threats give up and go away. However, it can be used to stall confrontation with more persistent enemies as well.
 ===== How to Stonewall =====
@@ Line 9: / Line 10: @@
 [{{ :tactics:kohler.png?300|If stonewalling had a metaphorical face, it would look like this.}}]
-The art of stonewalling is akin to the art of [[tactics:lying]], in that you are putting up a duplicitous cover to divert, confuse or frustrate your enemy. Start off by playing dumb. You have no idea what they're talking about. This will generally provoke them into asking more questions, which in turn will start revealing any hidden intentions on their part. The more you can discern about what is driving them to ask you these questions in the first place, you can tailor the stone wall to the inquisitor.
+The art of stonewalling is akin to the art of [[tactics:lying]] //(though lying is not required)//, in that you are putting up a cover to divert, confuse or frustrate your enemy. Start off by playing dumb. You have no idea what they're talking about. This will generally provoke them into asking more questions, which in turn will start revealing any hidden intentions on their part. The more you can discern about what is driving them to ask you these questions in the first place //(as well as who else the inquisitor works with - very important)//, the more you can tailor the stone wall to the inquisitor and their allies.
-Once you know their intentions //(and it is essential you do not jump to conclusions about their intentions, or your stone wall may be riddled with weak spots)// you can deploy other simple stonewalling tactics. Give them vague explanations. Present your answers in the form of questions of your own. Maybe even send them off on a [[hazards:red-herring|wild goose chase]] to get them to leave you alone for awhile and waste their time. Worst case scenario, you can even just stop responding //(which is especially effective in chat applications if you have read receipts disabled)//.
+Once you know their intentions //(and it is essential you do not jump to conclusions about their intentions, or your stone wall may be riddled with weak spots)// you can deploy other simple stonewalling tactics. Give them vague explanations. Present your answers in the form of questions of your own. Change the subject to something tangentially related, or even outright irrelevant. Maybe even send them off on a [[hazards:red-herring|wild goose chase]] to get them to leave you alone for awhile and waste their time.
+Time wasters are a crucial foundation for any stone wall. The longer you can drag things out, the harder it will be for them to continue the interaction as other things in their life will eventually take priority. If the conversation is in-person, mumble a lot so to make them ask you to repeat yourself over and over. If it is online, use a lot of typos to make yourself harder to read. Worst case scenario, you can even just stop responding //(which is especially effective in chat applications if you have read receipts disabled)//.
+Many simple-minded enemies you can make go away with those tricks. However, more determined foes //(such as investigative journalists and [[hazards:law-enforcement|law enforcement]])// will eventually realize you are stonewalling them. In those cases, you can just outright [[tactics:dont-say-anything|refuse to comment]], or tell them to go fuck themselves.
-Many simple-minded enemies you can make go away by playing dumb. However, with more determined foes //(such as investigative journalists and [[hazards:law-enforcement|law enforcement]])// they will eventually realize you are just stonewalling them. In those cases, you can just outright [[tactics:dont-say-anything|refuse to comment]], or tell them to go fuck themselves.
 ===== Advanced Stonewalling =====
+[{{ :tactics:hadrians-wall.jpg |A stone wall is even more effective when multiple people work together to build it.}}]
+Stone walls are incredibly versatile structures that can be used for more than simply evading questions or avoiding direct confrontation. For example, it can take the form of **filibustering** to stall the passage of bills in congressional or parliamentary settings. It can also be used in corporate meetings or town halls to waste the minutes away, in order to shut down dissenting opinions.
+In legal settings, a group of witnesses or defendants may agree in advance to stonewall prosecutors or detectives, in order to protect themselves or their friends from legal retaliation. Politicians may engage in stonewalling during television interviews or debates, which is extremely effective due to limited airtime and the notoriously short attention spans of the average person.
+Stonewalling may also be used as a form of **social rejection**, in which a dominant party works together to keep a weaker party ostracized or excommunicated. This is a common [[tactics:demoralization|demoralization]] tactic used by [[hazards:gatekeepers]], since it breeds feelings of inadequacy in the ostracized //(it also serves, again, as a stalling tactic, since simply telling the ostracized they are not allowed to participate will immediately prompt dedicated intruders to finding alternative modes of entry)//. By stonewalling perceived //"undesirables"//, gatekeepers can effectively neutralize threats and postpone any direct confrontations to the status quo.
 ===== Piercing the Stone Wall =====
+[{{ :tactics:lebowskihomework.jpg?300|Have you ever heard of Vietnam?}}]
+Overcoming a stone wall is a two-step process, and it is not always straightforward. However, it can be done:
+  - **Step One: Recognize** - First, you have to recognize that the party you are interacting with is stonewalling you. In some cases, it will be very easy to tell. In other cases, they may be convincingly clueless. If you are unsure, test their alibi in a non-combative manner, with further questions. If you are dealing with a group, question people individually in private and look for inconsistencies in their stories. You can also test alibis by offering positive incentives. **//For example://** Are you dealing with a potential stone wall from a short-staffed activist group? Offer them a free //activist training platform// that can help solve their labor shortfalls. If they still keep you at the doors, then it is likely you are dealing with gatekeepers for an astroturf group, instead of authentic activists.
+  - **Step Two: Push Through** - Once you have confirmed you are being stonewalled, you can look for weaknesses around //(or through)// the stone wall. If you know for a fact someone is lying to you, you can safely discard anything they say, so to save yourself boatloads of time and shore up your [[security:opsec]]. To get around a group of witnesses who are stonewalling detectives, prosecutors may begin to offer incentives such as immunity to the one who talks first. Or, in the aforementioned //activist training platform// example, offer the training platform to the gatekeeper's biggest rivals so to crush the astroturf threat.
 ===== Stonewalling in Relationships =====
-Stonewalling as a tactic is not to be confused with stonewalling in abusive/unhealthy relationships, though the two forms are very similar. In a toxic relationship, stonewalling generally occurs **after** the conflict has already started, when one (or both) of the parties withdraws from the interaction by going nonverbal, or employing the tactics described above. Not only can the abuser employ stonewalling as a form of control, but the victim may also start stonewalling as a voluntary or involuntary defense mechanism.
+Stonewalling as a field tactic is not to be confused with stonewalling in abusive/unhealthy relationships //(though the two forms are very similar)//. In a toxic relationship, stonewalling generally occurs **after** the conflict has already started, when one //(or both)// of the parties withdraws from the interaction by going nonverbal, or by employing any of the tactics described above. Not only can the abuser employ stonewalling as a form of control, but the victim may also start stonewalling as a type of involuntary [[wp>Fight-or-flight response]], or deliberately employing it as voluntary defense.
 If the relationship has entered the phase where stonewalling becomes a repeat event, that is generally a sign to seek therapy, or break the relationship off entirely.

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences