We have all had times when we have needed to take a breather, to relax, to "calm down". Sometimes people are threatening to become violent or are becoming so upset that they are making other people around them feel uncomfortable. In such situations, saying the words "calm down" can seem very natural and correct to help diffuse the situation. However, what I am addressing in this short essay is what happens when some people use the phrase "calm down" in other situations to do the exact opposite - which is to push another person's "buttons". The result of such a choice is a disrespectful manipulation tactic and I thought it would be a good idea to discuss that type of occurance here.
If a person is not genuinely threatening to get violent and the words "calm down" are used in the context of a disagreement where the person to whom they are addressed has not acted overly emotional, then those words can be very disrespectful because they imply that the person to whom they are addressed is becoming irrational. In fact, they can imply the same thing as saying "stop feeling passionately about your point", which is a very sharp attack.
Because of it's potentially disrespectful use, some people use the phrase "calm down" as a strategic, argumentative move because the disrespect it shows has the typical effect of angering the person to whom it was said. If a person was passionately advocating a point that is very important to them in the context of debate or genuine disagreement, and the other person states that they need to "calm down", then the implication of irrationality and the message to stop feeling so passionately about their point will most likely only fan the flame of their feelings while potentially introducing an anger that may not have actually been there before. At this point, one must be careful to not allow that anger to show or else the attacking person who made the "calm down" comment will then have an excuse to move off of the current point and change the subject to the "apparent irrationality" of their passionate opponent.
This tactic is essentially an attempt to provoke one's opponent into doing something that will serves as an excuse to get off of the current subject because the passionate person may actually be winning the argument at this point. (Note that by "argument", I am implying more of a debate rather than a mere screaming match.) An effective advocate for a position will not resort to such low attempts at winning a debate by denying their opponent the right to feel passionately. In fact, feeling threatened by someone's passion who is arguing an opposite point may indicate a lack of conviction within one's self about the point one is trying to defend.
Back to My Observations.