Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Rudolph Giuliani (largely) makes up "assault" charges

A good case study to show that people differ, and some are (far more) comfortable with lies:

In brief:

Giuliani says he was assaulted, that "felt a shot on his back", he almost fell over (didn't fall because "he's in good shape', notice the narcissism red flag), and felt "tremendous pain" in his back.
Then the video shows little more than a pat on the back.

I'd truly be curious to understand what motivated Giuliani to do that.

I'd say that he either:

  • Destroy someone he disliked, based on what was told in that exchange (would be so curious to hear it)
  • Get publicity
  • Help his son become governor (get publicity, make it feel like the world is more dangerous and needs "law and order")

Or a mixture of all.

I personally consider people like Giuliani largely devoid of moral or ethics, so I'm not too surprised.

But it's a powerful reminder that with some people you can't trust a single thing they say or do.

The "assaulter" was originally charged with a crime, detained 24h, risking prison and a large stain on his whole future life.
That also says how vindictive Giuliani is.

Apparently the "assaulter" told him "you're nothing but a scumbag".
I guess that sometimes what hurts the most is hearing the truth :).
And Giuliani sprang to action to prove him right.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.
John FreemanKavalier
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Thank you for sharing this Lucio.

Playing the hypotheticals power move?

I see a power move in the statement that he is a healthy 78 year old, and if he wasn’t in good shape he would have fallen down and suffered heavy damage.

This statement seems to subcommunicate “I’m an old and fragile person” in the abstract (which also seems to be subcommunicated by his tone of voice) while simultaneously denying the same subcommunication in the specific (by mentioning he is in excellent shape).

The statement implies the pat in the back he received was sufficient in abstract to do harm, considering his particular age condition, while implying that if he wasn’t harmed in particular it is only due to his out of the ordinary fitness.

The second part of the statement also subcommunicates “what could have happened”: it plays the hypotheticals by implying the action was, in itself, sufficient to harm another person of his age, if not him.

The statement thus tries to paint the other guy’s behavior as socially dangerous, even if nothing serious happened in the specific case.

Situations with similar moves that come to mind:

- sending a letter to a counterpart, and his or her lawyer answering that his client is an old person who had recently had a heart attack (implying not considering his age was nasty and uncaring, and could have caused him another heart attack due to his age);

- trying to discuss an issue with a person, and that person starting crying and saying he or she is old and doesn’t have much time left and just wants to live in peace, or that he or she doesn’t want to hear about problems since he or she is old and fragile (implying that trying to communicate openly was to be avoided, as it could have harmed him or her).

A way to counter this

This sequence comes to mind:

- empathizing superficially if the other person has pointed out something bad previously happening to him, that is not due to our behavior;

- but no empathizing if it instead would entail validating the assumption that we have or could have hurt the other (eg in the case above in your post, no empathizing);

- avoiding defending on the hypotheticals like the plague;

- stating the hypotheticals have nothing to do with the specifics;

- and redirecting to the specifics and/or to the other person’s behavior:

(I’m very sorry for your client/ for you, but) I don’t see what all this has to do with our specific situation, which was that

- your client has clearly tried to paint an injury which did not exist in the slightest;

- your client built a wall on my client’s property without permission;

- something happened / something is going on in our relationship that needs to be addressed openly.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoJohn FreemanKavalier

Playing the victim (but I'm strong). So in machiavellian terms it's good. He paints himself as a victim but takes the opportunity to self-frame himself as strong.

Let there be no misunderstanding: the actions are shit, the framing in the media is good.

Also we can see signs of people with personality disorders: exaggeration ("a shot in the back" like a shotgun shot, come on).

Lucio Buffalmano and MMC have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMMC