To rant effectively

I just watched a powerful and effective anti-Trump ad. It was simple, but compelling nonetheless. Adding no disapproving preface and no judgemental epilogue, and pulling no punches, the ad simply cited words and quotes Donald Trump himself had used against women; it referred to his calling them bimbos, dog, fat pig, and other derogatory obscenities. See the ad here.

The content holds true, and, hence, holds Trump accountable, so instead of calling Trump a mysogynist, or at least a person who thinks little of women in general, the ad incriminates him of this characteristic. Better yet, instead of taking aim at his bizarre hairdo cum combover, his facetious smile, or his obnoxious nature, the advertisement zooms in on actual words.

This got me thinking of the state Egyptians are in. Day in and day out we face new incidents, and immediately everyone has an opinion taking the name calling and the rabid stream of insults too far, sometimes farther than the incident itself.

Standard media is the main perpetrator in this, but social media is a culprit, too. Show hosts begin programs by zooming in on the events aka the crises of the day, critiquing each. In the process they open Pandora’s box, fuelling responses on social media and queries amidst the general public.

With every story, or crisis, call it what you wish, we are pitted against one another, and fairness and objectivity get lost. Ballistic is the best way to describe the general reaction to all events. Giulio Regeni’s death begets Mona Seif’s call to Italians to avoid Egypt. Azza El-Hennawy’s outburst leads to her resignation. El Zind’s slip of a tongue causes his resignation, too. Even President El Sisi’s call to donate each morning is met with harsh criticism and disapproval despite the endorsement of Egyptians. And between each action and its counteraction an endless stream of chatter dumbfounds us.

In all these cases the reactions are often libellous, at other times misleading or unexplainable, but most of all the responses call for further validation from the original source or from yet another group altogether. Strangely enough, we are the ones to blame for turning events into crises.

In any case, the truth is what backs one’s view whether one is the original sayer or the reactionary one. And that is why the anti-Trump ad is so effective.

Here is what I suggest we should do to avoid falling into the ineffective ranting trap.

• Avoid name calling: it doesn’t pay. Don’t call someone a racist, a traitor, or a dimwit unless you are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that he indeed is. Better yet, prove he is by referencing his own words or footage he was involved in as in the anti-Trump ad.
• Avoid physical attributes as a means to belittle from your opponent. Considering someone scrawny, obese, bald, soft-spoken, a donkey, or a sheep for that matter, does not construe much or prove your point of view. Besides, for all you know, this sheep can be very shrewd in effecting change.                                                                       Though it still did not dampen Trump’s blazing success, his mocking a reporter with a disability aggravated many decent Americans. The same occurred when Tamer Amin, on El Hayat Channel fat-shamed Azza El-Hennawy. “I advise Essam el-Amir, the head of the Egyptian Radio and Television Union (ERTU) first to place a scale outside Maspiro studios …a 150 kg-presenter cannot appear on the screen."  Such outbursts create more harm than good and are always met with disdain from the public.
• Wait it out before responding, reposting, or retweeting. Much of what is out there is fake, made up, or photoshopped.
• Be wary of photos. Today, many a time, photos lie. Also check locations and dates to make sure that the story reflects the incident it speaks about, and not an earlier one. Anyone can post a photo from a protest from two years back and tell us that it occurred yesterday. Now, footage doesn't lie. This is why it remains a thorn in the side of the person involved and is often referred to to smear that person again and again. 
• Be logical in your attempt to rebuttal; utilize reasoning and rational thinking versus flaring up unsoundly. Ask yourself if you dislike what was said because it goes against your beliefs and way of thinking or for its own demerits.
• Listen—did you get that one? Listen. Your adversary may have some merit in the opinion he flags. Remaining adamant to one’s point of view makes you stagnant and unable to move forward.
• Assume everything you see, watch, or read is unauthentic unless it comes from a very reliable source. Too much garbage inundates our lives, and we are the ones to blame if we consider everything we are exposed to true.

Running off at the mouth is our weakest point. In the bigger picture, it obliterates truths, perpetrates hatred, and severs society ties. 

Comments

[Aleya Rouchdy]

Azza, this is excellent.
Lately in Egypt there has been a large amount of ranting and, unfortunately, it seems to be on the increase.
I wish Egyptians pay more attention on how is Egypt depicted in foreign media.
This morning the Washington Post, as usual, has a negative article about Egypt. So does the New York Times.
This is where we have to turn our attention and respond as you have said it by utilizing "reasoning and rational thinking." And, by considering the context in which the negative statements were made.

[Hedayat Andel Nabi]

I think it should be published in Ahram Weekly