ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Fighting rhetoric with rhetoric

An author who appears to be in transition one way or the other (it's hard to tell) provides a salutory lesson in how NOT to do it:
As Movement Conservatives consolidated their power in the Republican Party their appeal became more and more emotional and less and less rational. By the time of the George W. Bush administration, it no longer reflected, as one of Bush’s advisers put it, the “reality based community.” But, like any other myth, its lack of reality made it more emotionally powerful than ever. The good guys are pure and virtuous, and they are under attack: Christianity is under siege in a country that is 70 percent Christian, for example, and those who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are fighting to kill the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides — and one of the occupiers an outright loan. And the bad guys are really bad. Donald Trump has famously asserted that Mexican immigrants are rapists, and his attacks on black Americans are so inflammatory that the Ku Klux Klan uses them as a recruiting tool. Indeed, all Democrats are demons: Republican presidential candidates Carly Fiorina has asserted—all evidence to the contrary—that Democrats support Planned Parenthood because they want to kill babies and sell their body parts. The emotional punch of these allegations stays with supporters despite the fact they are false.

The national triumph of this Movement Conservative narrative explains the present political moment. Republican leaders who were previously focused on consolidating voting blocs now face two very real voter insurgencies. On one hand, those like Ted Cruz argue that rank-and-file voters feel betrayed because Republicans have not actually shrunk the government. Cruz promises to see that destruction through. On the other, Trump voters have absorbed the racism and sexism in his candidacy and are following it in pure rage. Cruz and Trump have a clear narrative. Republican Party leaders do not.

But, like Republican insiders, establishment Democrats have also suffered for lack of a narrative. The Movement Conservative story has made America a hostile place for minorities, women and those falling behind economically. Democratic voters are angry at leaders who have stayed largely quiet as the government has befriended Wall Street, gutted the middle class, slashed social programs, and endangered their health. While Clinton still works to line up narrow voting blocs, Sanders offers an alternative: a narrative of America that gives Democrats a national vision to counter that of Movement Conservatives.

Voters on both sides are angry, and neither cares much what the political establishment says, especially an establishment that on both sides is notably white, elitist and male—aside from Clinton’s refreshing candidacy– and clearly has no idea what life looks like for those outside its bubble. If establishment figures want to regain leadership, they should try articulating a narrative for their vision of America, a narrative that lets voters choose a direction for their country.

Until then, they are preaching to a choir that has lost its audience.
 The Rhetorical Test:
  1. Is this rhetoric, dialectic, or pseudo-dialectic?
  2. What is the most effective way to refute it? 
  3. Why is this likely to be ineffective?

Labels: ,

129 Comments:

Anonymous Wyrd February 12, 2016 2:11 AM  

1) Trick question. Cuckservatism is its own category.

2) Call him a cuckservative and enjoy wailing and gnashing of teeth.

3) MPAI.

Anonymous Hooc Ott February 12, 2016 2:13 AM  

pseudo-dialectic

dialectic

dialectic can't work to convince those moved only by rhetoric

Blogger Pseudotsuga February 12, 2016 2:16 AM  

@2: I concur with Hooc Ott. Did we score 100% on the test?

Anonymous Nodigo February 12, 2016 2:17 AM  

1. Pseudo-dialectic (he is pretending at making a rational observation of the situation but the message is still Trump=bad)
2. Ridicule David Brooks for this and previous inane babble (Ridicule shows that you are not angry and at the same time undermines his message)
3. His message is bland. Nothing new or even reframed information has been thrown at Trump. Calling Trump sexist or racist has lost its emotional sting as it has been overused.

Blogger Krul February 12, 2016 2:28 AM  

Heather Cox Richardson is the author, not David Brooks. Judging by a glimpse of her other articles, she's a pretentious nonentity who's made a career out of dressing trite liberal whinges about the GOP in pseudo-intellectual garb.

1) Pseudo-dialectic

2) Call the author "Heather Cox-sucker Richardson"

3) If by "this" you mean Heather Cox-sucker's article, because it's too dumb to convince the dialectic thinkers and too *blah* to inspire any feeling in the rhetoric thinkers.

Anonymous greendarner February 12, 2016 2:33 AM  

tl;dr
Cucks gonna cuck

Blogger SciVo February 12, 2016 2:38 AM  

1. Pseudo-dialectic. Heather (as Krul pointed out) pretended to base it in facts and gave the illusion of an argument.

2. A big rhetorical bomb with a short dialectical fuse.

3. Krul's answer is better than what I was going to say.

Blogger Krul February 12, 2016 2:43 AM  

Bow chicka wow woooooooooow...

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 12, 2016 2:46 AM  

I got lost at "Clinton's refreshing candidacy."

Anonymous Sensei February 12, 2016 2:52 AM  

1. (A pathetic example of) Pseudo-Dialectic
2. A dialectical rabbit punch to the nose, just enough to lay the falsehoods bare for the midwits, followed by rhetorical KO, though dismissive rather than combative seems to be the way to go; too much rhetorical effort would raise it to the level of a serious analysis of the situation, when it's really the clucks of a disapproving hen
3. It's so obviously out of touch with reality that it fails dialectically on its face, and rhetorically it sounds like a lecture from a disapproving woman who thinks she's intelligent, which is pretty much bound to accomplish the opposite of its intent with any non-gamma audience.

She (you won't convince me a woman didn't write this) also makes the newbie mistake of reiterating the rhetorical stances of her opponents, which by contrast sound better and more substantial than the vague point she's mostly failed to communicate.

Blogger Shimshon February 12, 2016 2:57 AM  

"...that the Ku Klux Klan uses them as a recruiting tool."

Hilarious.

It's pseudo dialectic because it either introduces irrelevant facts to its argument or passes off outright assertions like the above as fact. Obviously there are rhetorical histrionics too, but I think the former is its essence.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 12, 2016 3:00 AM  

1) rhetoric. No pseudo-argument is attempted. It's simply a stream of polite-sounding abuse.

2) Mock, mercilessly
"David Brooks, that Canadian Socialist in Conservative drag, believes that so-called conservatism is just a cover for racism, idiocy, and economic voodoo."

3) No. Only people who already agree with Books and Clinton would even begin to believe it, because it's merely a restatement of their prejudices. Nobody who's considering Trump would likely even finish reading it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera February 12, 2016 3:07 AM  

Hooc Ott wrote:pseudo-dialectic

dialectic

dialectic can't work to convince those moved only by rhetoric


Ditto, noting additionally that the latter refers to the likely audience.

Blogger Aeoli Pera February 12, 2016 3:12 AM  

I honestly can't tell which side of the aisle this jagoff is supposed to be on. If I were interested, I'd have to look it up.

Anonymous drnick February 12, 2016 3:22 AM  

1) Pseudo-dialectic. A stream of jabber masquerading as history, with holes big enough to drive a truck through.

2) Pffft, focus on "more emotional" and tell the average white man how 94 million unemployed is a figure of their imagination. Drive nationalists (the majority of white Americans) towards raw hatred and more fervent support for Trump, and everyone else to a clueless misdiagnosis of what makes the nationalists so angry.

3) Effective at what? It's meant to keep the barely sentient in a Two Minutes Hate at the entire Republican party, and at that it excels. Keep showing Republicans that they're already "racist" for even supporting Reagan, and they'll decide they might as well be hanged for a sheep.

Or get to hanging them.

Blogger Booch Paradise February 12, 2016 3:23 AM  

1. Rhetoric.
2. Rhetoric: paint the future picture American's are rejecting using specifically issues that unite the people against the elites, such as immigration and war spending. Specifically attacking the liberal talking points is unnecessary and will bog down the message.
3. It's unlikely to work as she reminded everyone, on both sides, why they are rejecting the establishment.

Blogger buwaya puti February 12, 2016 3:35 AM  

Not Brooks, this is a Salon lefist. Brooks does write better than this. The political analysis in the beginning of the article (not the excerpted part) as in the roots of "slice and dice" politics, is standard academic boilerplate. This could have just as well have come out of the "Nation" anytime in the last three decades.
Since its Salon its not meant to convince anyone but Salon readers.

Blogger buwaya puti February 12, 2016 3:36 AM  

Not Brooks, this is a Salon lefist. Brooks does write better than this. The political analysis in the beginning of the article (not the excerpted part) as in the roots of "slice and dice" politics, is standard academic boilerplate. This could have just as well have come out of the "Nation" anytime in the last three decades.
Since its Salon its not meant to convince anyone but Salon readers.

Blogger Archella February 12, 2016 3:38 AM  

1. dialectic
2. dialectic
3. because, even as the author alludes to, the nation is mired in a rhetorical, emotional swamp. dialectic won't have much traction.

Blogger #6277 Hammer February 12, 2016 3:40 AM  

1 pseudo dialectic
2 strip away false statements of "truth" in his rant
3 destroy him with rhetoric
How fresh can Hillary's vagina be?

Blogger Christinalorence February 12, 2016 3:40 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Aeoli Pera February 12, 2016 3:47 AM  

Archella wrote:1. dialectic

2. dialectic

3. because, even as the author alludes to, the nation is mired in a rhetorical, emotional swamp. dialectic won't have much traction.


If only the government could create an educational program by which we could all overcome such ignorance!

Blogger Ezekiel February 12, 2016 4:24 AM  

I zoned out somewhere around the third use of the word "narrative".

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. Burnin' UpGold, Coolin in snow February 12, 2016 4:28 AM  

Born 1961, interesting. Misprint perhaps 1941 but I'm kidding. Punditry these days is so boomerized.

1. Rhetoric, pseudo-dialectic, detached from a strong understanding of banking and econ.

2 and 3. Maybe David and Vox and interview about Cuckservatie or SJWAL and the matter above?

Overall the question remains, what else is going on as politicians with nothing to lose, true there is a disturbance in the force field but the GOP and DEMS stressing out is always good.

Blogger Eric February 12, 2016 4:41 AM  

Bow chicka wow woooooooooow...

Another fucking guy in a dress. What happened to my country?

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. Burnin' UpGold, Coolin in snow February 12, 2016 4:44 AM  

20 Vagina steaming exists.

Everyone mentioned in the Brooks piece really doesn't want anyone to have anything for free or at a cost so high so wonderfullyprofitable.

I strongly encourage the storm of darkness, chaos and more drama for dems and gop - they are trash and its what they deserve.

3. There is little chance of a future here, everything is so dysclusterfricked.

Anonymous kfg February 12, 2016 4:47 AM  

"I got lost at "Clinton's refreshing candidacy.""

I at least got hung up there for a bit, thinking:

Wait. How is a white, elite female who has been riding political coattails for decades, but has been an absolute failure at every actual task she's been assigned, including presidential candidate, "refreshing."

Blogger beerme February 12, 2016 5:06 AM  

1. Pseudo-dialectic. Overwrought emotional drivel that imitates a serious dialectic argument. Salon writers specialize in this.
2. A rhetorical tactical nuke is the best response. If the bystanders laugh, you always win.
3. Salon readers live in their own version of reality where this is a hard hitting version of the truth. They are too stupid to be swayed by any argument. Therefore, the only "winning" condition is for your rhetorical nuke to trigger them to the point that everyone laughs at them.

Blogger kh123 February 12, 2016 5:06 AM  

@18 "...is standard academic boilerplate. This could have just as well have come out of the "Nation" anytime in the last three decades."

Bingo. They can't get over the fact that - while still parasitic - they are both establishment and legacy.

-Pseudo.

-Not ideal, but rhetorical response pointing out their played-out sociopolitical retreads would put the f*cking Stones to shame. And their coming off the tired old cultural chickenhawks they've always been.

Rhetorical response: Short form.

-And likely, without a picture of them to work the magic of memes, it won't work, given (and I'm assuming here) that their target audience would either be the kind that finds Hillary as springtime fresh as an appointment with Massengill, or be too young and hence immune to any historical reference. Call it the Abrams Paradox, where everything old is now magically tripping-balls new, pacing and consistency be damned.

Anonymous Eric the Red February 12, 2016 5:43 AM  

Logical fallacies galore: Nebulous polls do not confer Christianity on a people. The KKK has been effectively a dead strawman for decades. Ranchers do not want the government controlling land, granting rights, or conferring any subsidies on anybody. Trump's primary agenda is not the sweeping generalization that all hispanics are rapists. Evidence or the lack thereof with respect to killing "foetuses" is predicated on confirmation bias. Destruction (of traditions) is the stated motivation of the leftist Democrat party.

The left cares nothing about the middle class. To those who only think in terms of more money, there is never enough. Minority power-trips are by definition not the majority. There can never be enough medical care, so either the market rations or the state rations, and uber-regulated insurance is not the market.

And everybody except elitists hates TBTF financial institutions.

1) pseudo-dialectic
2) Dialectic with rhetorical flourishes would be the best way to counteract it.
3) (Don't understand this question in light of (2)) Depends on the audience... with Salon or HuffPo it will not even begin to be effective.

May I do something for extra credit?

Blogger Noah B February 12, 2016 5:44 AM  

1) Mostly pseudo-dialectic tinged with rhetoric (FYI, leftists/Salon writers can be cucks but are not cuckservatives)
2) Respond with a combination of dialectic and rhetoric. Open with a rhetorical hook, dialectically demolish two to three key points, rhetorical close.
3) Her approach, being neither firmly dialectical or rhetorical, fails to elicit either a significant emotional response and fails to rationally persuade. Reader interest in this article is therefore likely to be low, reaching mainly those who blindly accept her statements for ideological reasons but are unwilling to consider that many of her claims may be false, even when provided with firm evidence that this is the case. Therefore the possible audience for even a highly effective response is small.

Blogger Wayne February 12, 2016 5:45 AM  

Are all "refreshing" candidacies under investigation for security violations by, at last count, 4 different agencies including the FBI?

Blogger Noah B February 12, 2016 5:57 AM  

Another good way to respond would be to simply reply with a Willy Horton meme:

So long my nigga Dukakis and thanks for all the white bitches!

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. Burnin' UpGold, Coolin in snow February 12, 2016 6:04 AM  

29 Speaking of such an image! Let me grab my stuffed animal and ask, "how do you feeeel about Brooks?" Nevermind, too absurd for this topic.

3. The emo pseudo aggravates voters. I know the smarter men here have better ways of conversing on the dialectic side minus the feels.

However, for the death cult of post aermica no amount of dialectical behavior therapy will help a nation. A land where half the voters didn't want Gore Lieberman but 16 years later opt for Sanders. Wow, what interesting times.

Anonymous old man in a villa February 12, 2016 6:11 AM  

"Voters on both sides are angry, and neither cares much what the political establishment says,...and clearly has no idea what life looks like for those outside its bubble. If establishment figures want to regain leadership, they should try articulating a narrative for their vision of America, a narrative that lets voters choose a direction for their country.

Until then, they are preaching to a choir that has lost its audience."

I found that passage, absent the comment about the refreshing Clinton campaign, accurate. Like a criminal who confesses by saying something like- "if I did do it, it probably would have happened like this..."

It's a confession without actually being conscious of it's import.

I think that although comfortable in their bubble, they certainly apprehend the disquiet building around them and the possibilities that would entail. This sounds like whistling past the graveyard.

OpenID crash February 12, 2016 6:14 AM  

1. None of the above options. It the written equivalent of squid ink. Reading it removes knowledge from the reader

2. Statistics combined with Rhetoric. I.E. Personal sob stories combined with the large numbers. Rape story + Numbers and Percentage. Kid shot by gang banger + raw numbers.

3. Define ineffective ? It will give the left leaning talking points to spew. It may move people who don't have much in the way of facts to lean left.

Anonymous Steve February 12, 2016 6:36 AM  

Heather Cocks Richardson

Blogger Moon Man February 12, 2016 6:50 AM  

That's a man, baby!

Blogger Escoffier February 12, 2016 6:53 AM  

It really doesn't matter. As the great general said "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 12, 2016 7:02 AM  

Pseudo-dialectical. Pretends to make an argument, ie - Christianity can't be under siege, Christians are the majority.

Don't know if you need to refute it. Its not going to convince anyone that isn't already in the bag for the Hillary.

Its long, and very, very poorly written.

Blogger Stilicho February 12, 2016 7:20 AM  

2. "Hillary's refreshing candidacy"??? For those not-so-fresh moments, I mean...uh...voters!

2. Democrats don't support Planned Parenthood because they kill babies and sell the parts...they support Planned Parenthood because they can't afford condoms!

Blogger Patrikbc February 12, 2016 7:44 AM  

1) Pseudo dilalectic
2) expose the glaring untruths and illogical premises, eg. The bundys were trying to "kill the big government that gives "subsidies" to lazy black people....said no one ever
3) it is ineffective to waste time trying to convince a sophist, who knows they are a liar, that they are lieing. The people who gobble this shit up, have no regard for truth when it conflicts with what they want to hear as wel, and reasonable people should already be able to see right through him.

OpenID simplytimothy February 12, 2016 7:45 AM  

The Rhetorical Test:

1. Is this rhetoric, dialectic, or pseudo-dialectic?
Pseudo-dialectic. The author begins with premises that support his narrative of Marxist/PC "class struggle".

2. What is the most effective way to refute it?
I don't know. Raises hand, squacks "pick me! pick me!" and says, "I reject your premises, the American Nationalist-demographic stability vs Globalist-multi-culturalist divide better explains the phenomena"
This reframes the discussion and puts whoever the fsck wrote that crap on the defensive.

Forcing the reframe requires strong rhetoric.


3. Why is this likely to be ineffective?
The rhetorical punch of the nationalists (Trump/Teaparty) dwarfs the bleating of these guys.
Evidence? Look how easily Trump changed the conversation and put these fscks on their heels.


Blogger dienw February 12, 2016 8:05 AM  

The response cannot be dialectic: there are simply too many lies to counter;you'll be there all day countering each one.
Experience tells me you aren't going to make a dent in the person's religious/fundamentalist ideology - socialism. You have to destroy his ability to maintain an audience by identifying and ridiculing him: he is a poo throwing, fundamentalist monkey hoping you'll think his shit is real.

Blogger Nick S February 12, 2016 8:11 AM  

Squishy raised to the power of wishy-washy.

Blogger Gaiseric February 12, 2016 8:12 AM  

So. Much Fail. In the comments section of this post. Guys, seriously. How hard is it to figure out, immediately, that the author is not a cuckservative but an open Leftist/Marxist, and a woman to boot?

I mean, geez. It's depressing to read the comments here, and see how badly so many folks are lost. It's almost enough to make the pseudo-dialectic claim in the article that Movement Conservatives have parted from the "reality based community" seem credible.

1. Pseudo-dialectic, of course. It's a bunch of lies and dishonest assertions couched in the language of reasonableness and logic.

2. Just enough dialectic to puncture a couple of the claims that she makes, coupled with a heavy dose of mocking dismissiveness; i.e. contentless rhetoric that out-groups, demeans, and insults the author. If someone else links to this article in an attempt to make a point, add in mocking dismissiveness of the one who linked the article too.

3. Why is what likely to be ineffective? The article itself, or the counter? The article isn't likely to be effective, because anyone who doesn't already believe this tripe already knows that it's full of it. The counter will have mixed effectiveness; it will effectively convince many undecideds. It can cause any with whom you're directly interacting that bring this kind of pseudo-dialectic to retreat. It won't convince them, of course.

Anonymous tdm February 12, 2016 8:17 AM  

1. Not dialectic

2. Rhetoric

3. Ignore it. I tried to read the article at Salon. The script was jiggled so much by commercials I didn't have the patience to finish it.

Blogger Lovekraft February 12, 2016 8:22 AM  

His comment that "Trump thinks mexicans are rapists" is pure rhetoric. And sloppy at that. Anyone with an IQ over 50 knows there is more behind this story and would invite a clarification/elaboration.

And his desire for a clear goal is funny considering OBAMA voters are the ones who failed miserably at peering underneath his gloss and realize what he is.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 12, 2016 8:36 AM  

1. Pseudo

2. "Yeah, I totally agree, we need some Hope and Change here immediately. Did you hear that People of Color aren't even allowed to protest anymore??!!!"

3. He's writing for Salon of all places. I think the phrase is "something something, abandon all hope, something something"

Blogger Nick S February 12, 2016 8:39 AM  

Gaiseric wrote:So. Much Fail. In the comments section of this post.

Vox wrote:The Rhetorical Test:

Not The Rhetoric Test. Think about it. It makes the responses funnier.

Blogger FP February 12, 2016 8:40 AM  


1. Flim flammery
2. Who bitch this is?
3. Its Salon.com

Blogger alexamenos February 12, 2016 8:45 AM  

I felt somewhat relieved to see that the author is a woman.

Blogger Gaiseric February 12, 2016 8:48 AM  

Nick S wrote:Not The Rhetoric Test. Think about it. It makes the responses funnier.
Oh, I know. It just makes me more depressed, though, rather than amused.

See, this is why I'm not much of a joiner. It's too hard to find good allies.

Blogger Nick S February 12, 2016 8:58 AM  

Water off a duck's back, Gaiseric. Hang with us. Bickering aside, we're on the right side of the advancing clusterfuck.

Blogger Elocutioner February 12, 2016 9:08 AM  

I'm thinking a Ramz-style agree & amplify would be most effective rebuttal. Gently "correct" any seemingly pivotal fallacies that the pseudo-dialectic was built upon then hijack and amplify the message.

Play for any intelligent person in the audience that accidentally wandered into the stupid section of the Internet to end up at Salon and unwisely scrolled to the comments.

Blogger Student in Blue February 12, 2016 9:08 AM  

@46. Gaiseric
Guys, seriously. How hard is it to figure out, immediately, that the author is not a cuckservative but an open Leftist/Marxist, and a woman to boot?

If anything, is that not an indictment of how laughable cuckservatives are when they claim to be conservative, that they are hardcore Leftists are easily misidentified as them?

Tongue in cheek, of course. The cuckservative at least pretends he's not.

Anonymous IndecisiveEvidence February 12, 2016 9:10 AM  

1. Neither. It's gay.
2. Call the article gay. And the author too.
3. Author will receive message during or shortly after homosexual sex with another freak and assume gay relates to that act wrongly.

Blogger Gaiseric February 12, 2016 9:16 AM  

Nick S wrote:Water off a duck's back, Gaiseric. Hang with us. Bickering aside, we're on the right side of the advancing clusterfuck.
Good allies can bicker about minor details without it being a big deal. I'll give a weary toast to that.

Blogger Blaster February 12, 2016 9:22 AM  


1. The Salon Piece is rhetoric and pseudo-dialectic. In a dialectic argument, the logical conclusions are the point. In the Salon article, any valid syllogisms are either presented to trick the reader into accepting the premise a priori, or they're used in service of a point other than the one the logic actually concludes. Evidence presented is not chosen for its relevance to the logic, rather for its suitability as a distracting segue into another subject that the author wants to cram in.

I would say the piece is more or less intended to be rhetoric, but it's technically pseudo-dialectic due to the presence of logical forms.

2. I would say dismissive rhetoric. "Check out this Salon Author's fanciful tale of the last 80 years of US politics." Try to draw attention to the false premises without nitpicking. Ideally, reframe and make any argument you want. The whole point of her rhetoric is to make any point she wants, so just respond in kind.

3. It won't be effective because Salon and this author are effectively a machine. She's specifically selected for her ability to generate paragraph after paragraph of smart-sounding garbage and has no interest at all in debate. You will never keep up and stay sane.

Blogger Doseux February 12, 2016 9:28 AM  

Dialectic works on the principles of honesty and logic, whereas the pure rhetorician uses linguistic flare and emotional appeals to convince her audience.

Now, if this was dialectic, I'd look at her conclusion first:

If establishment figures want to regain leadership, they should try articulating a narrative for their vision of America, a narrative that lets voters choose a direction for their country.

I'd remove the snippet about narrative and say it straight: "They should let voters choose a direction for their country." That would be pure populism.

But what she wants instead is for the establishment to continue to pretend to care what the American people want, serving instead their own self-interest.

The reason that this isn't dialectic is simple: the previous points do not support the conclusion, rather they are there for the emotions they can invoke in the reader.

- Conservatives are emotional and irrational, detached from reality
- Conservatives are holier-than-thou
- Christians are crybullies
- the Oregon militia were hypocrites/idiots
- Donald Trump thinks all Mexicans are rapists
- Donald Trump supports the KKK
- and they dare to accuse us of treating children inhumanely?

I could keep going on, but basically every paragraph has these kinds of implications.

they are preaching to a choir that has lost its audience

It's called a "congregation".

Anonymous Roundtine February 12, 2016 9:31 AM  

1. Pseudo dialectic
2. Agree and amplify
3. Forget it Jake, it's Salon.com

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction February 12, 2016 9:33 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous DeepThought February 12, 2016 9:34 AM  

This guy is a moron. Once again telling true conservatives how to "tone" down their rhetoric while watching their nation destroyed.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 12, 2016 9:34 AM  

As others have stated, you don't counter this sort of thing with a detailed refutation of every charge. Fisking has its place, but its primarily for the amusement of those that already agree with you.

A rhetorical come back on one, just one, of her statements would be sufficient because it would call the entirety of her screed into question.

Since, as she noted, 70% of the US is Christian, and a lot of them feel under attack, I think good rhetorical attack would be along the lines of, "So, South African blacks weren't oppressed?"

It exposes the fallacy of her argument, has an emotional resonance, and as an added bonus, might just cause some leftists to have a stroke from the sudden rise of blood pressure.

Blogger Gaiseric February 12, 2016 9:36 AM  

Nick S wrote:Water off a duck's back, Gaiseric. Hang with us. Bickering aside, we're on the right side of the advancing clusterfuck.
Good allies can bicker about minor details without it being a big deal. I'll give a weary toast to that.

Anonymous Sperg123456789 February 12, 2016 9:38 AM  

1. Dialectic.
2. Refute every assertion point by point. I will now proceed to do so in 23 separate tweets.
3. Logic is always convincing.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 12, 2016 9:38 AM  

But in the end, the piece is in Salon. You know how SJWs always project, and they are always talking about a right-wing echo chamber?

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction February 12, 2016 9:38 AM  

. Psuedo-dialetic, others have covered the reasons before.

2. Use Clinton as a counter foil. Ask what is so refreshing about a candidate that stuck by her pig of a husband her slept around with multiple woman while in various offices.
Say that Hillary was entirely culpable because there is no way they were together this long and have her not know what was going on. Possibly even imply that she might have been culpable in the many cover ups. The last part may not be true but the author was willing to make spurious unsupportable claims so there is nothing wrong with doing so in kind. Go into how Clintons support of her husband is essentially victim shaming or something along those lines and that she is less a progressive an icon than an unfortunate relic of a time when wives of politicians were merely adornments. After that shot across the bow move onto whatever angle or attack you want.

It's unlikely to be effective because it contains neither the dialectic nor rhetorical arguments will be enough to sway those who don't already believe the narrative.

Blogger Blaster February 12, 2016 9:45 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:I honestly can't tell which side of the aisle this jagoff is supposed to be on. If I were interested, I'd have to look it up.

My guess is: pro-immigration, anti-white, anti-male, and anti-christian. This is based solely on the article Vox linked and a cursory glance at her other articles on Salon.

She plays the role of detached academic and writes all about "political narratives" while studiously avoiding the fact that her so-called "Movement Conservatives" do have an actual issue and policy they care about: immigration.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 12, 2016 10:01 AM  

1. Pseudo-dialectic.
2. Call her a liar.
3. Lying is difficult to prove.

Anonymous TheRedSkull February 12, 2016 10:02 AM  

Put her on you right wing death squad hit list. Rate her by leftness multiplied by influence. Sort descending, randomize pick. Repeat a couple thousand times and bask in the silence of the rabbits.

More efficient than a decamillion democide, and sporting. Like a reverse greased pig contest.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 12, 2016 10:05 AM  

Great seminar look forward to Vox's interpretation

Her weak spot is her obsession with race, white this, white that

Blogger Gaiseric February 12, 2016 10:18 AM  

Theproductofafineeduction wrote:Use Clinton as a counter foil. Ask what is so refreshing about a candidate that stuck by her pig of a husband her slept around with multiple woman while in various offices.
https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/698122551382269952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Blogger SouthRon February 12, 2016 10:19 AM  

If he's serious about it, "Heather" needs to remove the Cox from name and body.

Blogger Leandro Novaes February 12, 2016 10:20 AM  

1) I am inclined to say it's rhetoric. It could be pseudo dialect but I fail to see any point being made. Unless you count "if you don't agree with me you are angry hateful racist losers" to be a point, but it sounds to me as nothing more than a diatribe.

2) If it was in person, I'd simply reply "So?" and gesture for the person to go on. This is enough to disarm most people. But we are not in person. I think writing a reply dismissing his points is a mistake as it still plays within his frame. What I would do is write an article claiming to be a reply to his article, ignore his article completely and write another rhetorical narrative of my own in my article.

3) because we no longer live in an age of discussion. We live in an age of 140 characters memes and people who have strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about. They do not seek truth but rather agreement to assuage their egos that they are right.

Blogger Robert Coble February 12, 2016 10:30 AM  

"Democratic voters are angry at leaders who have stayed largely quiet as the government has befriended Wall Street, gutted the middle class, slashed social programs, and endangered their health. While Clinton still works to line up narrow voting blocs, Sanders offers an alternative: a narrative of America that gives Democrats a national vision to counter that of Movement Conservatives.

Voters on both sides are angry, and neither cares much what the political establishment says, especially an establishment that on both sides is notably white, elitist and male—aside from Clinton’s refreshing candidacy– and clearly has no idea what life looks like for those outside its bubble. If establishment figures want to regain leadership, they should try articulating a narrative for their vision of America, a narrative that lets voters choose a direction for their country.
"

"Leaders who have stayed largely quiet as the government has befriended Wall Street"

Would someone please point this woman to the "speaking fees" demanded by Hillary Clinton to address Wall Street? Never mind; here's a link to a "Clinton friendly" Web site:

Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees

"An establishment that on both sides is notably white, elitist and male—aside from Clinton’s refreshing candidacy"

What the hell?!? Hillary Clinton wins big on two out of three criteria ("notably white and elitist") and an argument could be made possibly on the third (being a male; only Huma Abedin could tell for sure). Is it a "refreshing candidacy" merely because of the "refreshing" possibility of a "Vagina the First" Presidency, or did someone fumigate the Hillary "lock box" with some Summers Eve Ultra?

"Clearly has no idea what life looks like for those outside its bubble"

Would that be the Secret Service gun-free (only on the inside) bubble that we the taxpayers provide, chauffuerring Miss Hillary around so that she doesn't have to do mundane things like actually drive a car?!? Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who was "dead broke" while stealing the furniture from the White House, and then "recovering" to the tune of $9,680,000 for her speaking engagements (14 of 41 "talks" at $225,000 [or more] a pop went to Wall Street firms) in 2013? Is it the same Hillary Clinton who made (in combination with hubby Slick Willie) a cool "refreshing" $139 million from 2007 to 2014? The same Hillary Clinton whose son-in-law is a hedge fund partner?

I'm beginning to understand why the Democrats are "feeling the Bern."

We be trippin', even fo' a bubbleheaded Salon female writer, fo shizzle my dizzle!

Blogger The Other Robot February 12, 2016 10:32 AM  

Christianity is under siege in a country that is 70 percent Christian, for example, and those who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are fighting to kill the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides.

While that fragment contains rhetorical phrases like "Christianity is under seige" xhe is using them in a dialectical manner.

Thus, it is hidden dialectic.

Blogger The Other Robot February 12, 2016 10:42 AM  

I think it will be ineffective because it contains so many obvious falsehoods as others have pointed out.

By now it is pretty clear to something like 70% of Americans (if the polls are to be believed), it seems, that the Government is corrupt and only interested in helping the well connected.

However, it is possible that because of my white-heterosexual-heteronormative-white-male bubble that I don't know what I am talking about.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 12, 2016 10:44 AM  

those who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are fighting to kill the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides.

That would seem to self-sacrificing.

They are willing to give up their own subsidies in order to achieve a greater good, a smaller government.

This is a standard lefty trope. If you are against something that you benefited from then you are a hypocrite.

And no matter what the issue, if you are a white male, you are a racist.

Blogger JWM February 12, 2016 10:51 AM  

The Salon piece is all insults backed up with opinion and insinuation. I'd start refuting by pointing out that the author is a wretchedly ugly tranny who doesn't even have grip on his own biological reality. Fisk a point or two and then insult mercilessly.

JWM

Blogger Robert Coble February 12, 2016 11:02 AM  

"the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides"

Notice the overt "racism": the WRITER (not the protesters) spews that "big government" gives "lazy black people" subsidies.

First, the WRITER is a WHITE ELITIST (fe)male - it's so hard to distinguish gender from a photo when there are so many choices beyond male and female available.

WHITE PRIVILEGE! WHITE PRIVILEGE!

Second, the WRITER is actually saying that big government subsidizes the behavior of "lazy black people."

RACISS! RACISS!

Third, the WRITER is trying to show a false moral equivalence between subsidizing ranchers vice subsidizing "lazy black people" (who [presumably] do not work, or, who are employed by the Federal government, er, NEVER MIND: same-o same-o). Obviously, this precious little snowflake has never worked on a farm or ranch, and whose only knowledge of ranching comes from TV or movies.

HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH!

DISQUALIFY! DISQUALIFY! She's violating my safe space!

Blogger Jack Ward February 12, 2016 11:07 AM  

This posting; the test. It's good we be tested regularly. Helps keep our intellect sharp for the in-close mental wet work come that day.

Blogger Rusty Fife February 12, 2016 11:10 AM  

1. Pseudo dialectic
2. Combination: dialectic first to disarm; then rhetoric to slay. Looks like her 'narrative' line of attack is reality vs emotion.
Drop some fast numbers in one sentence; reality is xx numbers unemployed Americans, xx billion dollar short fall in SS, and xx trillions American debt. Then finish with: tell me again how those xx million illegal alien welfare recipients are going to pay for the Boomer's Social Security checks? Who's narrative (throwing her attack back at her) is reality based now you white elitist (her projection, repurposed)?
3. Her article was too long and meandering. KISS.
I don't expect it will change her mind; you are after the audience. Boomers are extremely solipsistic and will be triggered hard by the attack on SS.

Blogger Thucydides February 12, 2016 11:16 AM  

Clinton’s refreshing candidacy?

This is just plain propaganda dressed up as an article for the gullible.

Anonymous Remix2 February 12, 2016 11:22 AM  

The rhetorical test questions are less relevant than much of the analysts in the article.

Take the question of the martyr complex that is described by Christians in America being told and believing their faith is under attack. This claim and belief exemplifies the standard way by which the Right communicates: Rhetoric Divorced From Fact.

This cowardly form of communication defines the Right in America.

Blogger Robert Coble February 12, 2016 11:26 AM  

"the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides"

Notice the overt "racism": the WRITER (not the protesters) spews that "big government" gives "lazy black people" subsidies.

First, the WRITER is a WHITE ELITIST (fe)male - it's so hard to distinguish gender from a photo when there are so many choices beyond male and female available.

WHITE PRIVILEGE! WHITE PRIVILEGE!

Second, the WRITER is actually saying that big government subsidizes the behavior of "lazy black people."

RACISS! RACISS!

Third, the WRITER is trying to show a false moral equivalence between subsidizing ranchers vice subsidizing "lazy black people" (who [presumably] do not work, or, who are employed by the Federal government, er, NEVER MIND: same-o same-o). Obviously, this precious little snowflake has never worked on a farm or ranch, and whose only knowledge of ranching comes from TV or movies.

HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH!

DISQUALIFY! DISQUALIFY! She's violating my safe space!

Anonymous Cheddarman February 12, 2016 11:42 AM  

4. Totally gay

OpenID sigsawyer February 12, 2016 11:49 AM  

1. Pseudo-dialectic
2. Flip the script. "You want a reality-based narrative? Immigrants commit crime at a rate Xx the rate of white americans, Muslims are 50x more likely to commit terrorist acts, manufacturing has fallen X% since the passage of NAFTA by DEMOCRATS, and Christians are publically forced by the government to defile their own sacraments, but somehow we're the ones not based in reality? America is a hostile place for minorities? Please, tell me about all the hate crimes against women and minorities happening in this country right now. I'm sure you have plenty of examples or even statistics."

Now she's the one peddling a narrative not based in reality while you're sitting behind the pseudo-dialectic.

Anonymous BGKB February 12, 2016 11:59 AM  

script. "You want a reality-based narrative? Immigrants commit crime at a rate Xx the rate of white americans

We stopped tracking data like that when Bath House Barry came in. The last data we have shows that illegal alien drunk drivers kill more Americans in 2 weeks than rifles do in a year. However
"DHS Ordered Agent to DELETE RECORDS of HUNDREDS of MUSLIMS WITH TERROR TIES - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/02/dhs-scrubs-records-muslim-terrorists.html/#sthash.gMeGQxxE.dpuf

and for the San Bernadino hospital Christmas party attack also: Obama Administration nixed probe into Southern California jihadists - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/12/obama-administration-nixed-probe-into-southern-california-jihadists.html/#sthash.nBjN91x5.dpuf

So you have to use out of date and probably not as bad as now stats.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 12, 2016 12:03 PM  

@85

So the government isn't trying to force "The Little Sisters of the Poor" to pay for abortion and New York state didn't force the Catholic Church out of adoptions?

Yes, I know, that isn't an assault on Christianity. Just fighting the prejudice.

The left gets its way by defining issues into non-existence.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 12, 2016 12:11 PM  

I pretty much agree with Gaiseric. It's pseudo-dialectic, and the best counter is a couple of quick dialectic jabs to show her facts are bullshit, then go full rhetoric accusing her of losing it because Trump and Cruz are winning.

Alternately, make no response, since her entire argument is something of an own goal. People who already believe the crap she does aren't changing positions, and neither are people who already support Trump. But she just reminded people in the middle of the Planned Parenthood baby-part scandal, black welfare queens, the obnoxious number of government subsidies (whether to said welfare queens or to farmers and ranchers), and she associated immigrants with rape. Not only that, she went on to describe how bankrupt both party's establishments are.

Hell, maybe the best response is to just send her an Unwitting Minion's Brigade badge.

Anonymous #8601 Jean Valjean February 12, 2016 12:37 PM  

The rise of a new kind of political science in the 1960s has been driving a wedge between political insiders and voters ever since.

No, it was the 1960's immigration reform.



Anonymous MMX2010 February 12, 2016 12:42 PM  

It's rhetoric. The structure is that Movement Conservatives are angry (and implied misguided) because they get certain facts wrong, like whether Planned Parenthood was actually selling body parts. This anger clouds their judgment against women and minorities who will suffer if Trump is elected. Sadly, Trump is the only party offering a solution; the rest are counter-arguing his solution.

Counter-argument, "Do you really the treatment of women, minorities, and Planned Parenthood are the apex issues in 2016? If not, please identify those apex issues and explain why Trump is a failure; then explain why any other candidate is better on those issues."

Blogger John Wright February 12, 2016 12:51 PM  

It is pure rhetoric. To be dialectic, one thought must lead to the next thought in a chain of logic, so than an assertion which is believable (the masts of ships on the horizon are seen before the hulls, for example) leads by a set of steps to a conclusion that is unbelievable (despite what the eye says, the world is round).

Here, the paragraphs were merely a series of assertions that this person or group is secretly motivated by some undesirable motivation (Trump supporters are all racists and sexists).

The tone is scathing and self-righteous, with that driving, grinding tone so often adopted by Marxists speaking of capitalists, or by Hellfire preachers speaking of the damned.

The whole editorial is written as if we were in the sentencing phase, and nothing need be said to convince skeptics of the guilt of the condemned.

The proper counterstratagy depends on the target audience. For rational men, merely pointing out the illogic of the column would suffice. For emotion driven men, a counter-narrative stroking the same emotional reactions, pushing the same sort of buttons, would be needed.

Anonymous VFM #7916 February 12, 2016 12:55 PM  

"aside from Clinton’s refreshing candidacy–"

Nothing else need be read.

The appropriate response is to repeat this with a mocking sneer.

Anonymous tublecane February 12, 2016 1:01 PM  

@11-What does it mean that they use Trump ti recruit? They probably use Obama, too, though in a purely negative way. I can't see them as outright fans of Trump, the rich kid, city boy, Yankee who hobnobs and marries outside his race. They have common cause with him on immigration, but that's it.

Better question, who gives a crap about the KKK?

Blogger John Wright February 12, 2016 1:02 PM  

"Take the question of the martyr complex that is described by Christians in America being told and believing their faith is under attack. This claim and belief exemplifies the standard way by which the Right communicates: Rhetoric Divorced From Fact."

Another example of pure rhetoric, adopting all the same signs as the first: self-righteous condescension, assertion without fact, and attributing a bad motive (or a bad thought process) to the target group.

Notice what is missing: no explanation of why sodomy marriage does not defile a Christian sacrament, no explanation of why the Little Sisters of the Poor should lawfully be forced to pay for the abortifacent drugs of their employees, no explanation of why prayer in schools is outlawed. All the actual issue are merely assumed to be beyond debate.

As above: it is as if we are discussing the sentencing phase rather than the trial.

The point is to lie so boldly about matters so obvious that the faithful, members of the deathcult of the Left, will know your fidelity to Leftism is greater than you fidelity to truth, honor, or honesty, and so that the infidels, those of us who worship Christ rather than worship Obama, will know you are so far beyond the pale of reason as never to trouble themselves to argue back.

You can argue with someone about the Big Bang theory versus the Steady State, since that is a controversy with arguments on both sides. You cannot argue with a Flatearther. So any Leftist that opens his argument with a scathing denunciation of the evil Round World people who lie about the shape of the world, knows with some confidence that no one is going to take the time to contradict him.

Blogger Sheila4g February 12, 2016 1:02 PM  

1. Pseudo-dialectic. Lots of false assertions, incorrect numbers, and lots of emotional flamethrowers mixed in.

2. Rhetoric: mock, belittle, and dismiss

3. IF you want to waste your time, you could rebut a few of the assertions, but this audience would disqualify every hatefact.

Anonymous Athor Pel February 12, 2016 1:04 PM  

What's a Movement Conservative?

Blogger Robert Coble February 12, 2016 1:17 PM  

I guess we can add "magic vaginas" to "magic dirt" as the panacea we have all been waiting for from the elites.

I wonder: Was Carly Fiorina's candidacy as "refreshing" as Hillary's? Unfortunately, we will never know; Fiorina bowed out of the competition. Too many "white elitist males" in the pool, I guess, although we at least have a couple of Hispanics and a black man in the running on the Republican side, at least for the time being.

What the hell has happened to the Democrats?!? Don't they know the cardinal "rule": once a particular seat (office or country) has been taken by a token representative, it remains in possession of the token group FOREVER. Sheesh! You would think that such elite social science thinkers would have figured this out by now.

Blogger Robert Coble February 12, 2016 1:23 PM  

@99: "What's a Movement Conservative?"

[Sarcasm]
That's a conservative who's so full of shit that an endless series of bowel movements won't rid them of their stupidity. Think cuckservative.
[/Sarcasm]

Anonymous DT February 12, 2016 1:55 PM  

1) Clearly a trick question Vox as you did not include a "steaming pile of dog crap" category.

2) Slapping the author across the face while screaming "you ignorant slut."

3) It's likely to be ineffective because it does not involve gathering all such media types together in the Nevada desert for an above ground test of a nuclear weapon.

Blogger Sevron February 12, 2016 1:59 PM  

I believe SJWAL says to respond to pseudo-dialect with a small dialectical jab and a rhetorical slap/punch/nuke as appropriate so as to encourage the other to return to dialectic. As this is a Salon writer, there is no hope that will happen. As such I would propose moving directly to rhetorical nuke, a la:

"At least now we know how crazy trannies see it. Seriously bro, you're middle name is 'Cox'? Can you at least pretend to try?"

I think it's good rhetoric. It's short, dismissive, and probably very triggering, what with the "bro" and all.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:04 PM  

1) Is this rhetoric, dialectic, or pseudo-dialectic?

Pseudo-dialectic - They are using things like:

"Christianity is under siege in a country that is 70 percent Christian, "

"Donald Trump has famously asserted that Mexican immigrants are rapists, and his attacks on black Americans are so inflammatory that the Ku Klux Klan uses them as a recruiting tool. "

2) What is the most effective way to refute it?
I remember from one of Vox posts that you would first hit them with dialectic, and then hammer with rhetoric immediately after.

3) Why is this likely to be ineffective?

Because the author can't understand dialectic, and we would be arguing for the audience?

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:07 PM  

You guys calling the author a Cuckservative didn't read the whole thing. There is talk of the "refreshing" candidate Hitlery Clinton :P That's more lefty than a Cuckster, from my observations.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:08 PM  

@8 Krul
Bow chicka wow woooooooooow...
---

WTF is that? An Ozzy Ozbourne/Les Nesman love child?

Anonymous BGKB February 12, 2016 2:10 PM  

kill the big government that gives “subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides — and one of the occupiers an outright loan

I hate when shitlibs talk about earned military educational benefits in the tone that should be reserved for Latrina's 21 crack babies' care. Before 911 every recruiting ad touted the edu benefits. Not only do loans have to be paid back but the area was fixed up by white settlers that caused the birds to visit. After the govt bought but a bunch of the land they purposely flooded many of the remaining families out, then used the cargo cult excuse that there are more birds (who had adapted to what white farmers did) on the privately owned land than public lands to try forcing more out.

How fresh can Hillary's vagina be? Even Bill Clinton wouldn't hit it.

His comment that "Trump thinks mexicans are rapists" is pure rhetoric.

Obviously the women are not rapists, unless they are public school teachers who sue students for recording sex.

70% of the US is Christian, and a lot of them feel under attack, I think good rhetorical attack would be along the lines of, "So, South African blacks weren't oppressed?"

That is a keeper.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:13 PM  

@20 #6277 Hammer
How fresh can Hillary's vagina be?
---

I guess everything is relative. Perhaps your question should be, is the author an undead? Because that's about the only creature I could imagine considers a Clinton "refreshing" :P

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:21 PM  

@37 Steve
Heather Cocks Richardson
--

In the immortal words Cheech once spoke to Chong (who was in the front seat) "Hey Man! This Chicks got Balls!"

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:22 PM  

Observation: It's hard to be refreshing when you're wearing depends.

Blogger BunE22 February 12, 2016 2:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 12, 2016 2:47 PM  

Athor Pel wrote:What's a Movement Conservative?


We call them cuckservatives around here. Erick Erikson at readstate is the prototype.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 12, 2016 2:50 PM  

Erick Erickson - the Cuckster Supreme who revoked an invite to Trump to a meeting because his wife and daughter might have been offended.

OpenID simplytimothy February 12, 2016 3:31 PM  

@104 Because the author can't understand dialectic, and we would be arguing for the audience?

Ah! I had forgotten that. thx.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 12, 2016 3:34 PM  

@113

I stopped reading RedState during the "Derbyshire is a horrible racist for stating things that everyone knows is true but aren't supposed to say in public" row.

Erikson was absolutely sprinting to get ahead of the crowd to denounce the Derb and was gleeful in his desire to ban anyone from posting that so much as hinted that perhaps Derbyshire's statements were not the most bigoted thing since ever.

Blogger tz February 12, 2016 4:29 PM  

1. None of the above. "Ravings of a lunatic" was not one of the choices.
2. 911-5150
3. 72 hours plus whatever decline time, they'll be off their meds again.

Blogger Anthony February 12, 2016 4:38 PM  

It's rhetoric aimed at leftists. It's unclear what the writer is trying to persuade people of, or if she's just whinging for pay. If she's trying to persuade, it's not clear who she's trying to persuade if what. Is she trying to persuade Hillary to Be Like Bernie, or to convince democrats Bernie is our only Hope? Either way, to counter it among its actual target audience will require rhetoric, as they're incapable of comprehending dialectic.

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. Burnin' UpGold, Coolin in snow February 12, 2016 5:08 PM  

46 It is not necessarily the label but the exploration of or following the logic through to reveal the cuck, left, right, marxy for lies or rehashes of past problems.

EDIT: Perhaps Brooks and Vox would debate/interview regarding recent books from CH and current events.

Meanwhile a dialectic response might not be great and all but could fall upon tin ears with no future nationwide.

116 3 exactly my point there is almost no reaching them outside f almost like baby logic and baby dialetic minus the feelfeels for any attempt of rewriting the bad programming.

Anonymous BGKB February 12, 2016 6:12 PM  

“subsidies” to lazy black people despite the fact that they themselves have received subsides — and one of the occupiers an outright loan

I am willing to give up free govt handed out condoms and free daily Travada handouts (30day supply over $1k) so that latrina's 21 crackbabies have no claim on my earnings.
http://www.projectq.us/atlanta/fulton_fights_hiv_by_opening_no_cost_prep_clinic

Blogger Sheila4g February 12, 2016 6:18 PM  

@115 Ron Winkleheimer: I was banned at Redstate years ago ('07/'08). Banned at American Conservative and Ace of Spades too. I'm pushing to see how far I can go at Breitbart.

Anonymous BGKB February 12, 2016 6:42 PM  

RE: 119 the problem with Truvada is that people are using it to replace condoms and then those getting it via insurance complain about co-pays, when the insurance plan picks up the vast bulk of it. Any drug that requires kidney and liver tests before you take it is a bad idea to use if not needed. The people going to that Atlanta clinic will be costing taxpayers more than an equal number of Sandra Fluks.

Blogger The Other Robot February 12, 2016 8:17 PM  

I am willing to give up free govt handed out condoms and free daily Travada handouts (30day supply over $1k) so that latrina's 21 crackbabies have no claim on my earnings.

I don't believe that Latrina had 21 crack babies.

The most I could believe is nine.

Anonymous BGKB February 12, 2016 9:07 PM  

I don't believe that Latrina had 21 crack babies. The most I could believe is nine
Did you seriously never see this video?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/somebody-need-to-pay-for-my-15-kids/

Blogger Desiderius February 12, 2016 11:18 PM  

"the best counter is a couple of quick dialectic jabs to show her facts are bullshit"

You've already lost then.

Responding to rhetoric with (any) dialectic is first-degree shit test failure.

Anonymous tublecane February 12, 2016 11:27 PM  

@35-"if I did do it..."

Didn't OJ Simpson write a book, or have a book written for him, called "If I Did It?" I remember that the "if" was rather small on the cover, and if you didn't look close enough the title appeared to be "I Did It."

Blogger Doc Rampage February 13, 2016 12:07 AM  

At first, I would have said it is pure rhetoric because it doesn't even contain a gesture at an argument, but I think that's giving it too much credit because there is no persuasion of any kind there. I think it's more like a statement of faith: "here's what you must believe to be a part of my religion".

As to how to counter it, my first reflex is to point out the lies, or at least say that it is full of lies, but that's not effective against a statement of faith. After all, it's a statement of *faith*. A more effective response might be to attack the things they hold most holy. Religions gain adherence by the appearance of power and inevitability. By mocking and blaspheming the religion you can make it seem weak, and therefore less desirable--but only if they fail to punish you for your blasphemy.

Will the original statement be effective? I doubt it. It's really only aimed at believers and the gullible.

Blogger SciVo February 13, 2016 2:47 AM  

Desiderius wrote:You've already lost then.

Responding to rhetoric with (any) dialectic is first-degree shit test failure.


When responding to pseudo-dialectic, we have been taught that the best is to flash out a bright signal to the dialecticians in the bleachers that you know what you're doing, and then proceed to destroy them rhetorically. I'll give it a shot.

"Fact: some Mexicans are rapists. Fact: Planned Parenthood makes some money off of baby body parts. Your community-based reality is disintegrating in daylight, and what pronouns should I use for you? I can't tell if you're M2F or F2M."

Blogger Desiderius February 13, 2016 4:29 AM  

"When responding to pseudo-dialectic"

As John Wright pointed out, this isn't dialectic, pseudo- or otherwise.

The purpose of this sort of rhetoric is to demonstrate that you're too naive to recognize rhetoric (if you respond with dialectic) or too powerless to do anything about it.

Blogger Desiderius February 13, 2016 4:35 AM  

"the best is to flash out a bright signal to the dialecticians in the bleachers that you know what you're doing"

Any dialecticians in the bleachers will already know that she's full of bullshit. You insult their intelligence by intimating that they need you to point out the obvious flaws in her (non-)argument.

They're looking to see whether you possess the baseline social skills necessary to recognize blatant bad faith and the courage/capacity to respond in kind, or better with worse as a deterrent.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts