OK. Well I don’t know what you mean. But I have now made two predictions. How are you not satisfied now?
Gloating?? There’s no gloating.
I think I’m gonna follow freighterman’s lead like he does with heiwa or whatever that guy’s name is. Everytime you post something I’m just going to respond with the definition of rhetoric. Just empty bullshit.
How would that differ from what you’ve been doing? How can I tell the difference?
DICTIONARY (from Oxford)
Search for a word
rhet·o·ric
/ˈredərik/
- language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
“all we have from the Opposition is empty rhetoric”
Geeze Guys!!! Get over yourselves…You all missed the most obvious that proves this bill is a sham! There is absolutely no mention of “SHOVEL READY” in any of the thousands of pages!!
Lots of interesting stuff comes up googling trump and rhetoric:
Trump invokes these promises in each of his speeches, including those studied in this
analysis. The speeches are surprisingly devoid of sophisticated policy detail, but this is not
uncommon. In order to make their policy plans more accessible to audiences that may not
understand the intricacies of government functions, presidents have “dumbed-down” their public
language over time, according to Caroline Jones in the Brown Political Review. Additionally,
perhaps to give his speeches a semblance of coherence, Trump punctuates his strings of simple
and often empty language (e.g., references to unsubstantiated numbers, numerous spontaneous
subject shifts, shallow dives into these subjects) with powerful statements on virtually every hot
topic being discussed within the public sphere. He uses networks of these powerful statements to
associate with them different meanings that lean more in his favor, and consequently uses them
to invoke this same meaning when he repeats phrases associated with the issues. Examples
include several phrases and words that are often picked up by Trump’s rally audiences and
chanted, such as “lock her up,” “build the wall,” and “U.S.A.” These chants symbolize different
things to different members of the audience; however, under the same name, the audience
believes they are of the same mind and beliefs and that these beliefs are factual and valid. In
reality, these phrases are merely words that often bear no weight in lawmaking and make empty
promises to people that yearn for quick and tangible change.
3 Likes
It’s an incredible thing. And all delivered by a “mythical creature” not based in reality. (Not a great businessman, not a self-made man, probably not an actual billionaire, not capable of speaking much truth and not a very smart person.)
1 Like
Interesting stuff indeed.
First, in reading the abstract (in your link), I see the term “rhetorician” which is to say, a person who is an expert in bullshitting. Although I have within the last few days experienced such an animal first hand, I didn’t realize it was an actual profession.
Second, with this newfound awareness of the field of “rhetorician-ism”, I read the quoted passage and the abstract with a keen eye for all the actual words used on the lookout for “persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques”. For example:
by inserting the word ‘surprisingly’, it puts into the reader’s mind that the lack of policy detail is somehow abnormal, improper, lacking, (insert further negative bias synonyms here) but in fact, the very next lines state:
So…if it’s not uncommon, then why is it surprising? Does anyone expect Trump, Pelosi, McConnell or any other leader to get up there with the 900+ page bill (which is where the sophisticated policy detail is contained) and read it during a press conference? But that common sense (the natural predator of many of the “rhetorician’s” techniques) matters not as the seed of negative bias has already been planted in the reader’s mind.
This is just one example of how the writer chose inflammatory language to make her points when it just isn’t necessary to present the results of her research.
To me, when I read the things like what you linked and also in dealing with our own resident “rhetorician”, I am reminded of the guy in the bar in Goodwill Hunting…the one trying to impress everyone with how smart he was and who Matt Damon subsequently destroyed. Just a monument to pompous arrogance who, in the end, has nothing of substance to offer (the other definition of rhetoric per Oxford by the way). To those who offer such infinite wisdom as:
To them, I can only say “Trump won the election…how you like them apples?”
For those unfamiliar with the movie:
Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” and since mastery of the art was necessary for victory in a case at law; or for passage of proposals in the assembly; or for fame as a speaker in civic ceremonies; he calls it “a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics”.[6]
2 Likes
Thanks for that. In practice, “using the available means of persuasion” boils down to trying to bullshit someone in many cases.
Of all the talents bestowed upon men , none is so precious as the gift of oratory. He who enjoys it wields a power more durable than that of a great king - - Winston Churchill “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric”
1 Like
Listen up Grasshopper, the term, rhetoric, as used in this context, is not likely to be found as the first entry in a dictionary. It refers generally to the “Art of Rhetoric” by Aristotle. Specifically, the area of LOGIC. That’s the part of which I happen to be familiar with.
Now, I really shouldn’t do this but I admire your passion, so here’s a free lesson. See:
You seem to have some understanding of ad hominem, but please review for nuance. Also, please pay close attention to the STRAW MAN fallacy. Try to see how it fits in with your life. See if you can apply some of these rules going forward (or backward if you want to impress).
I have little little faith anything will come of this, but that’s ok too. In that case, there’s a decent chance you’ll flush out a white whale – the Holy Grail of fallacy hunters. Those are a LOT of fun.
+the name of the web site is a happy coincidence . An unintended pun.
1 Like
Your reply to me is noted. However, due to your previous history of intentionally engaging in circular conversations (chasing your tail as you called it-I’m sure you read about that somewhere too) and then bragging about having engaged in such time wasting behavior, I will no longer waste any time on you.
“Trump won the election…how you like them apples”
Bullshiting? Well, it could be that but it doesn’t have to be. As I intend it, think more in terms of a karate match. Fighting with strict adherence to a set of rules.
Re: tail chasing. It looks like you missed a thing or two. Please review.
Re: Circular Argument is covered in the material as well. Please review.
1 Like
Case study:
Perhaps the phrase “listen up grasshopper” is an example of persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques in an attempt to convince the recipient that the definition of a given word as given by the Oxford Dictionary is, in fact, incorrect. Seems to more closely align with the term ‘gaslighting’ but it is to no avail. In the final analysis, it actually is a good example of rhetoric as it is in fact language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content (that’s the SECOND definition BTW).
Logic was one of my favorite subjects. Sadly it’s not taught in high school much anymore and the only ones who take it in college seem to be pre-law types. Were logic taught more, understood and adhered to many “news” programs would be exposed as opinions and not journalism.
3 Likes
No advanced courses are necessary to come to this conclusion.
Ahhh…I see the now the source of misunderstanding. Up until now, there really has been no attempt at persuassion. At least not here. The other day was the simple dispatching of a fallacy. Nothing more.
“Grasshopper” was straight up pedantic and condescension. I did that because I believed your conduct to be unreasonable and particularly vicious under the circumstances.
Here’s another tip. I’m not a liberal. I’m a charter member of the Never Trump Club clearly on a crusdade. A right-of-center, independent moderate.
1 Like
Your reply to me is noted. However, due to your previous history of intentionally engaging in circular conversations (chasing your tail as you called it-I’m sure you read about that somewhere too) and then bragging about having engaged in such time wasting behavior, I will no longer waste any time on you.
“Trump won the election…how you like them apples”
It certainly helps with reading for comprehension. I’m not afraid of being exposed to a “liberal” or a “conservative” viewpoint. I’m confident in my ability to separate out facts from opinion.