Stratagem 12

If the discussion concerns a general concept with no name of its own, which must therefore be designated figuratively through a comparison, choose the comparison at once so that it favors your assertion. Thus in Spain, the names of the two political parties, serviles and liberales, were certainly chosen by the latter. The names Protestants and Evangelicals were chosen by those who bear them, while the name heretics was chosen by the Catholics.

This also applies to the names of things where these are more literal. For example, if the opponent has proposed a change, call it an “innovation,” for that word is hostile; the reverse if you are the proposer. In the first case, call its opposite “the established order”; in the second, “dead convention.” What someone wholly disinterested and impartial might call “religious worship” or “public religious doctrine,” its advocate calls “piety” or “godliness,” its opponent “bigotry” or “superstition.” Fundamentally this is a subtle begging of the question: what one first wants to establish is put beforehand into the word, the name, from which it then emerges through a merely analytic judgment. What one person calls “securing a person” or “taking into custody,” his opponent calls “locking up.” A speaker often betrays his intention in advance through the names he gives things. One says “the clergy,” the other “the parsons.” Of all stratagems, this is the most frequently used, instinctively. Religious zeal ≅ fanaticism. A lapse or gallantry ≅ adultery. Double entendres ≅ obscenities. Disordered finances ≅ bankruptcy. “Through influence and connections” ≅ “through bribery and nepotism.” “Sincere gratitude” ≅ “good payment.”

If a general concept has no name of its own and needs a figurative comparison to describe it, choose one that helps your claim from the start. For example, the names serviles and liberales for Spain's two political parties were surely chosen by the latter party.

Protestants chose that name for themselves, as well as Evangelicals. Catholics chose the name heretics for them.

This also applies to names used more literally. If the opponent suggests a change, call it a “newfangled idea,” because that expression is hostile. Reverse this if you are the person proposing it. In the first case, call the opposite “the established order.” In the second, call it “outdated custom.” A completely neutral, impartial person might say “religious worship” or “public religious teaching.” A supporter says “piety” or “godliness,” while an opponent says “bigotry” or “superstition.” This subtly begs the question. You put what you want to prove into the word or name in advance. It then follows merely by analyzing that word. What one person calls “securing someone” or “taking them into custody,” the opponent calls “locking them up.” Speakers often reveal their intentions in advance through the names they use. One says “the clergy,” the other “those priests.” People use this trick more often than any other, instinctively. Religious enthusiasm ≅ fanaticism. A slip or a romantic adventure ≅ adultery. Double meanings ≅ dirty jokes. Having money trouble ≅ bankruptcy. “Through influence and connections” ≅ “through bribery and favoritism toward relatives.” “Genuine gratitude” ≅ “good pay.”