ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Mailvox: the best rhetoric

I've been asked a few times by a couple different people how to respond when friends and family bring up the increasingly risible Fake Polls cited by the Fake News. Now, obviously the dialectic approach of citing the Norporth model and pointing to the 2016 polls is an option, but it's not a good one, since the vast majority of people supporting Biden are limited to rhetoric.

So, I suggest simply saying: "You're not trying to convince me, you're trying to convince yourself." 

Leave it at that and watch the wheels start spinning and the smoke start rising. Because the best rhetoric is always rooted in the truth.

Labels: , ,

84 Comments:

Blogger Dicky Willy October 15, 2020 1:08 AM  

Perfect

Blogger God Emperor Memes October 15, 2020 1:18 AM  

The claims made regarding the alleged polls defy the reality of what we can see with our own eyes: Trump rallies are in overflowing stadiums, with tens of thousands of people. Biden "rallies" might have tens of people, if any.

Blogger Brian Dean October 15, 2020 1:33 AM  

VD what would they respond if you told them, "You are the BEST salesman for Christianity. After all, it's YOU (and not the Christians) that are destroying the statues, burning buildings, or looting stores."

Blogger ZaijiaN October 15, 2020 2:08 AM  

Or give it your best Bane impression and say "oh really, do you feel like you're winning?"

Blogger My Dead Gramps October 15, 2020 2:56 AM  

Never been a gambling man myself, but I've been tempted to look up the betting odds on the U.S. election to see how much a God-Emperor win is worth so I can post a screenshot election night saying 'thanks for the new TV, Trump!'

Blogger Doom October 15, 2020 2:59 AM  

Ah, as I have always said... if they are of the left, they are of the feminine. Treat them as you would any woman who has forgotten her place. I think I am finally understanding this thing. Or... your terminology regarding it.

Blogger lynnjynh9315 October 15, 2020 3:08 AM  

It's good. But might I suggest:
'You really want to believe that, don't you?'

Blogger Tetro October 15, 2020 3:17 AM  

Great advice, good reminder. Thanks.

Phone call two nights ago with a familial Biden supporter, New York Times reader, NPR and MSNBC consumer: I had complete peace in just listening and recognizing all the predictable patterns of thought and emotive reasonings.

They live in an alternate universe.

In the past I would have attempted some correction to their frame, their presuppositions, their argument, or even the particulars of their ramblings. Not this time, and never again. Not with those who show themselves incapable or unwilling to follow the dialectic.

Keep your peace, drop some light or incisive rhetoric, smile, kick back and watch them writhe in psychosomatic pain, enjoy it, pray for them, and know it's quite literally the best thing you could do for them.

Quarrelsomeness is a sin. Remember that. If they are only capable of quarrelsomeness and not reason, then it's your responsibility to recognize it and exit the discussion amicably. Keep your Peace.

Blogger SomeOne October 15, 2020 3:37 AM  

Excellent advice.

I can see myself using this in more situations than just the US elections.

Blogger Crunchy Cachalot October 15, 2020 3:52 AM  

How about some rhetorical jujitsu for the latest Biden disaster, when folks say "But Trump's kids are WORSE!!!!!"?

Blogger VFM #7634 October 15, 2020 4:00 AM  

Also, the special House elections earlier this year, voter registration trends, and Democrat early voting being at 2016 levels or even lower rather than dramatically higher. There’s even evidence that VBM unreliability could deprive Democrats of upward of a million votes.

Blogger weka October 15, 2020 5:00 AM  

Polls are an artifact of the sampling frame.
Voters are a self selected subset of the population.
So if you use the population ( or arise a weighted sample of the population) instead of voters -- who vote -- you will get a spurious result.

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 5:01 AM  

How about some rhetorical jujitsu for the latest Biden disaster, when folks say "But Trump's kids are WORSE!!!!!"?

Yes, I remember when Ivanka Trump was caught on film smoking crack while four Chinese men gang-banged her in a pit full of Ukrainian money. That was worse...

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 5:02 AM  

VD what would they respond if you told them, "You are the BEST salesman for Christianity. After all, it's YOU (and not the Christians) that are destroying the statues, burning buildings, or looting stores."

I don't know about them, but I would tell you to stop being a Smart Boy. That's horrible rhetoric and worse dialectic.

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 5:04 AM  

Or give it your best Bane impression and say "oh really, do you feel like you're winning?"

Then you could follow it up with a totally hilarious Monty Python quote, right?

Avoid movie quotes if you want to manipulate emotions.

Blogger Bartolo October 15, 2020 6:05 AM  

the best rhetoric is always rooted in the truth. >> this is also why right wing memes are funnyband left wing memes are sad

Blogger Jack Morrow October 15, 2020 6:20 AM  

Those attending Joltin' Joe Dementio's rallies are at least able to observe social distancing protocols with no problems whatever; there's plenty of room for everyone.

Blogger Balkan Yankee October 15, 2020 6:30 AM  

@6: Yes. Leftists are out of control emotionally. At a deep psychological level, they expect daddy will make them behave. Eventually.

Blogger ZhukovG October 15, 2020 6:40 AM  

Very nice. A parry followed by a riposte. I'm not much good at Rhetoric, but is that construction the normal way it's done?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 15, 2020 6:49 AM  

The "leave it at that" is the nail. Keep quarreling and they circle around to convincing themselves of their being correct, let them stew in mental and emotional distress.

Blogger hideous October 15, 2020 6:49 AM  

I wanna try for a Smart Boy award.
So Vox teaches to hit straight at the feels, preferably at the enemy's particularly weakest point (study and learn it first), and then back it with dialectic if possible for maximum effect. Keep it simple with minimal wordage.

"Why do you think the polls are better than 2016, which had Hillary at 90% odds?"

I can't imagine any answer to that which shouldn't just be laughed at.
Best done in person to see the pain and fear hit in their eyes.


Wait a minute, that sounds like a much rhetorically weaker version of "You're not trying to convince me, you're trying to convince #yourself#."
In fact, my SB version now seems like 100% pure dialectic with no rhetoric at all.

In Vox's, the dialectical point is still there as the underlying framework, but much stronger because the person spells it out for himself in the internal thought process ("Why would I need to convince myself?") instead of me spelling it out for them.
And the rhetorical shiv goes straight to the heart of the person's weakness and fear. Surgical.

Dammit.

Well done Vox...

Blogger Shane Bradman October 15, 2020 6:50 AM  

Brian, why would an atheist or a Satanist care about your opinion on Christianity?

Blogger rikjames.313 October 15, 2020 6:58 AM  

If Trump is really losing, why the insane levels of media lying and censorship

Blogger Tom d October 15, 2020 6:58 AM  

Other more relatable metrics that could be used to combat the 'polls' rhetoric might include:
-Rally size (the media refuses to show Biden's crowds)
-Social media disparity, Trump out numbers Biden followers/subscribers on FB, YT, IG, and Twitter between 5:1 and 10:1 - and virus concerns can't be used to dismiss the data
-Campaign yards signs, hats, or other merch sales- the MAGA hat only on Amazon has 10,000s of reviews from verified purchases
-spike in gun sales, especially in blue states
-migration and real estate trends from blue to red areas
-ratings and viewership decline in leftist agenda movies/award shows/and major sports
-Tucker's record breaking ratings for cable news

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 15, 2020 7:05 AM  

I just argue against democracy and remind people how fun it's going to be getting rid of it and everybody who thinks they have a right to hide in a voting booth and Rob their neighbors.

Blogger Brian Dean October 15, 2020 7:44 AM  

@22 "Brian, why would an atheist or a Satanist care about your opinion on Christianity?"

I remember an atheist saying that one reason society began to accept gays and lesbians is because they made the Christians look mean and intolerant. So if they want to look mean and intolerant themselves I say go for it.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 15, 2020 7:55 AM  

I've been tempted to look up the betting odds on the U.S. election

You can still get odds, but not nearly as good as in 2016. The books aren't stupid.

They live in an alternate universe.

They really do. It's like trying to talk fishing with someone and you gradually realize that he thinks the fish have an underwater kingdom where they're building a fish-army with walking armed fishbowls and they're going to come out of the water and attack soon if we don't stop throwing hooks in. Your choices are rhetoric, or backing away slowly.

Blogger Bezzle October 15, 2020 8:08 AM  

@22. Shane Bradman October 15, 2020 6:50 AM
Brian, why would an atheist or a Satanist care about your opinion on Christianity?

The more data on you, the mark, that they have, the better. It's why they seek to become priests and hear your confessions.

==
21. hideous October 15, 2020 6:49 AM
I wanna try for a Smart Boy award. So Vox teaches to hit straight at the feels, preferably at the enemy's particularly weakest point (study and learn it first), and then back it with dialectic if possible for maximum effect. Keep it simple with minimal wordage. ...Best done in person to see the pain and fear hit in their eyes.

Appropriate tactics for sniping disingenuous hecklers, sealions, and deceitful soon-to-be-ex-co-workers do not serve to win over crowds as a public figure.

Watch Trump in action when asked about Qanon. His answer to the second question is simply masterful: Instead of driving a Panzer tank over the reporter's amydala, he off-the-cuffs "Is that supposed to be a bad thing?"

As a probable Biden-voter, the reporter is in the enemy camp, but she's not an important enemy.

What Trump does to the real enemy is the thing that hurts them the worst of all: convert their troops into his troops with disarming charm while asking counter-questions with only one viable answer.

You must be likeable to pull this off, and faggoty gamma smartboy bipolar narcopathic personality disorder is the very antithesis of charisma.

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 8:30 AM  

Other more relatable metrics that could be used to combat the 'polls' rhetoric might include

Why on Earth do you idiots still insist on bringing dialectic to a rhetorical fight? Aristotle explained this 2500 years ago. I further explained it 5 years ago.

FFS, are you simply incapable of learning yourselves?

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 8:32 AM  

In fact, my SB version now seems like 100% pure dialectic with no rhetoric at all.

Exactly. It's really not that difficult. Are you focused on reciting facts that are true? Then congratulations, you have completely missed the point.

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 8:34 AM  

If Trump is really losing, why the insane levels of media lying and censorship

Are you retarded? An appeal to logic is NOT rhetoric. By definition.

Rhetoric is about EMOTION. Not logic. Not truth. Not facts.

Why do some of you have such a hard time understanding this?

Blogger Balkan Yankee October 15, 2020 8:36 AM  

Here's a variant for use on the resident leftist narrative control agent at work - the type of person who compulsively blurts out the latest iteration whatever it is: "Repeat that often enough and maybe even you will start to believe it."

Deadpan delivery with a hint of derisiveness works best.

Blogger Off The Wall October 15, 2020 8:41 AM  

Shane Bradman wrote:Brian, why would an atheist or a Satanist care about your opinion on Christianity?

Shane, have you not noticed that Satanists and atheists are always trying to discourage believers, just the opposite of what evangelical Christians do?

They don't want to be left alone in the dark.
Really shouldn't use the word "evangelize" in this context. What's a better one that inverts the meaning?

Blogger Haus frau October 15, 2020 9:07 AM  

I've seen Biden supporters on a pew poll comment thread outright deny that the polls predicted a huge Hillary win in 2016. They were vehement about it too, calling people who pounted out Hillarys 2016 poll disaster liars and fake news etc. They were gloating about the obvious biden landslide predicted by the pew poll. The Trumpslide will be sweet.

Blogger Apoliteia October 15, 2020 9:22 AM  

Why do some of you have such a hard time understanding this?

I speak only for myself and at the peril of above being a rhetorical question.

I find it difficult to apply rhetoric when trying to convince just about anyone. It's not because of not knowing what could be said, but that it sounds so stupid and immaterial to myself*. I mainly give purely rhetoric points while in heat of argument and they are usually just ad hominems giving no credit to my cause. All it ever does is people calling me 'fanatic' or something like that.

Recognizing this flaw of mine I have reverted to avoiding debating and just stating my position when asked (and even that only sometimes) as concisely as possible and declining futher debate, only answering additional questions if I deem them sincere. Most rhetoric I ever use I have adopted from here and other places where there are people capable of making surgical use of words. Thank You, Vox, for that.

*Not trying to be Smart Boy, it's just how I feel.

Blogger Scott October 15, 2020 9:35 AM  

Good one. Any time someone starts yelling contentiously over pretty much anything, that is exactly what goes through my mind...who are you trying to convince by yelling louder...me or yourself? Sometimes I vocalize the thought. Sometimes I don't. Maybe I need to pray for bigger cojones? Love and peace to everyone on this board.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( irregularly and inconsistently appended Sarc tag ) October 15, 2020 9:37 AM  

The Young Turks think Pence won the VP debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UsgioRbTpA

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 15, 2020 9:45 AM  

I've seen Biden supporters on a pew poll comment thread outright deny that the polls predicted a huge Hillary win in 2016.

Yeah, they now insist that the polls were actually right within the margin of error, if you look at them the right way and ignore the "99% chance of winning" predictions that were based on them. They're easily proven wrong if you saved any clips from the time, but there's no point, facts are irrelevant.

Blogger Nick October 15, 2020 9:48 AM  

I don't necessarily trust the polls. I'd be cautious though in assuming 2020 is a simple repeat of 2016. According to this analysis the most talked about prediction models are flawed. Alan Lichtman's "13 keys" got both 2000 ( though one could argue that election was stolen by the Supremes) and 2016 wrong (yes he predicted a Trump win, but Hillary won the popular vote). Helmut Norpoth's "primary model" is similarly flawed, now predicting a 91% chance of a Trump landslide with 362 electoral votes. The only realiable model, the author concludes, is The Economists, "The Economist model is based on sound theory, specifies the variables used, shows the source code used to make the calculations, and updates the predictions daily. It currently gives Biden a 99% chance of winning the popular vote and a 91% chance of winning the electoral vote." https://mindmatters.ai/2020/07/election-models-predicting-the-past-is-easy-and-useless/

Blogger Apoliteia October 15, 2020 9:48 AM  

@33 Since 'evangelical' comes from Greek euan gelion, "good message", it would be prudent to change the first part to "evil". There are a couple of such words, kakia and sapros, last of which has a twist towards "corrupt, rotten".

So perhaps "saprogelical"? It would be worthless rhetoric of course, since it must be explained to everyone, but if it's desacration you're afraid of, then there you go.

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 9:56 AM  

Not trying to be Smart Boy, it's just how I feel

That's fine. But what does how YOU feel have to do with how you communicate with others. Would you expect a Chinese-speaker to understand you because you feel that communicating in anything other than English sounds stupid and immaterial?

The dialectic-only attitude is astonishingly solipsistic.

Blogger Nick October 15, 2020 10:01 AM  

The MSM laughed at any suggestion Trump could get 270 electoral votes. Their arrogance and Hillary's was the Democrats undoing. Yes, the polls were wrong in many ways lasttime. I would urge caution, though. Trump is now the incumbent, and polling methods over time are historically pretty accurate. It will depend on turnout. Trump needs a massive white vote majority to win.

Blogger Nick October 15, 2020 10:03 AM  

Are Trump's odds of winning better than 50/50? This election has me on edge.

Blogger The Lab Manager October 15, 2020 10:06 AM  

Yeah, it's funny how that Biden is doing so well that they have to force feed these BS poll numbers first thing in the morning news. I imagine some states will be close, though one should never under estimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Blogger Azimus October 15, 2020 10:11 AM  

31. VDOctober 15, 2020 8:34 AM
Why do some of you have such a hard time understanding this?


Because you appeal to, and have built, a dialectic-minded audience, and naturally rhetoric sounds like moo-ing to us. How can someone demonstrate they are correct by moo-ing?

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants October 15, 2020 10:14 AM  

You know what I think it is? Men are very good when it comes to dialetic, women with the rhetoric.
We live in a fake media gynocracy, in order to win, you must learn the language of the enemy.
Like most women, I'm a terrible debater and too emotional for long dialetical back and forth. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. I think about what would make the person I'm speaking with feel the most embarrassed or self doubt, and that's what I go with. Be passive-aggressive. Be condescending and dismissive. But, do it without anger or rage. Nothing is more destructive to them, as when you mockingly laugh at them, for most people.
You folks need to learn to play dirty.
Like a woman.

Blogger Didas Kalos October 15, 2020 10:20 AM  

@Crunchy You're not trying to convince me, you're trying to convince yourself! :)

Blogger Desdichado October 15, 2020 10:21 AM  

VD wrote:Why on Earth do you idiots still insist on bringing dialectic to a rhetorical fight? Aristotle explained this 2500 years ago. I further explained it 5 years ago.
Ironically, the people who insist that they must use some dialectic are the ones who need to be told in rhetoric why they're wrong, or they can't understand it.

Blogger Beloved October 15, 2020 10:26 AM  

If you believe those polls I've got a bridge to sell you.

Blogger Apoliteia October 15, 2020 10:34 AM  

Would you expect a Chinese-speaker to understand you because you feel that communicating in anything other than English sounds stupid and immaterial?

Of course not. What it does do (to go with the analogy) is make one's own Mandarin sound so bad and off-the-point in your head that it's not worthwhile to utter at all. The result being not practicing one's Chinese -> non-communication with the Chinese.

Blogger My Shield Is Disgust October 15, 2020 10:44 AM  

“The only pole that matters here is the one you’re sitting on”

How’s that for rhetoric?

Blogger Avalanche October 15, 2020 11:02 AM  

@31 "why the insane levels of media lying and censorship"

VD: "Rhetoric is about EMOTION. Why do some of you have such a hard time understanding this?"

Because those three words: insane, lying, and censorship are emotional triggers to us: WE would be shamed and horrified to be called such, and so we struggle to 'empathize' with someone who would not.

Blogger Paulito October 15, 2020 11:04 AM  

"Why on Earth do you idiots still insist on bringing dialectic to a rhetorical fight?"

Speaking only for this idiot, I was essentially trying to "win" an imaginary formal debate. Yes, I now realize how retarded that was. When you're focusing off to the side of where you should be, you can miss what's right in front of you.

Blogger hideous October 15, 2020 11:12 AM  

I believe most (not all) of Vox's readers tend to be left-brained, including myself.
So it IS hard to shift away from the belief that the facts and logic that we imagine works so well on ourselves should work on everyone else to.
And even when you understand intellectually that you MUST use rhetoric on right-brained (and it actually is also more persuasive even to the left-brained), it is HARD to switch over to start framing arguments to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Might have to overcome a lifetime of habit of what has always seemed to work best.

In fact, as a longtime reader I think Vox... (Nope, here I deftly avoid the error of "supposing" and reframe as a question):

Vox, didn't you use to argue much more dialectically until, you addressed the problem, studied it and did a major adjustment to master rhetoric?

Whether a deliberate shift or always there, this highlights the uptake problem for most of us compared to Vox.
1) College entry exam put my personal IQ in the top 10% of the nation at that time. And I have some objective measures in my professional career as a EE that back it up.
But another standard deviation? She ROLLS AWAY HARD.
And, 2) The Will and the Discipline to really internalize a lesson or principle into yourself is completely different from merely understand it.
It's one thing to understand. It's another to actually live it. Vox certainly has this ability too, at least for some things.

I'll go full nut-huggery here and give another example because I benefit from other's comments in here observing important details I miss.
I listen to the DarkStream on Unauthorized while working. One interesting thing I get from it that I don't pick up from the written blog is this.
Many of us have read Marcus Aurelius and other Stoics and have intellectually grasped the principle to not be moved by either fear or favor with others. And so we congratulate ourselves because we "got it".
Sometimes in a DarkStream, Vox comments on his accomplishments and/or failures. The accomplishments may sound like bragging. And that is strangely incongruous with the straightforward account of failures.
What some may not see is that Vox is LIVING the principle. We like false modesty because it makes for a polite society and protects our own egos. But false modesty is just as much a lie and is EXACTLY AS MUCH to be avoided as lying about failures. Part of the Cult of Nice.
Whether it is due to Aurelius or due to just committing to plain truth for its own merits or because of Jesus Christ (THE Truth), Vox has internalized it and actually carries it out instead of just holding it as a good intellectual concept. And in video, I believe you can actually see (or hear) Vox switch into 100% cold logical assessment mode when discussing accomplishments/failures. Shuts down ego and emotion completely, basically goes full Spock. And I don't think he even has to consciously try to do it anymore, it's now second-nature.

These Rhetoric & Dialectic and Ruthless-Truth-Speaking lessons are not small things. And most of us can get the concepts.
But the Will and Discipline to deeply internalize it takes some real effort...

Blogger VD October 15, 2020 11:35 AM  

How can someone demonstrate they are correct by moo-ing?

By understanding that they're communicating with cows and that doing anything but mooing will fail to get the point across.

Ironically, the people who insist that they must use some dialectic are the ones who need to be told in rhetoric why they're wrong, or they can't understand it.

(nods)

Vox, didn't you use to argue much more dialectically until, you addressed the problem, studied it and did a major adjustment to master rhetoric?

In the op/ed context, yes. I've always been conceptually bilingual though, in debate and socio-sexual contexts. I instinctively understood the need to use what I then thought of as "the low-high approach" before I was able to understand what I was doing.

If you can go lower than the low and higher than the high, you'll reliably win. In other words, if someone uses a dismissive tone of voice, drop a socially discomforting f-bomb on them. If someone makes a generic appeal to Marx, quote the chapter-and-verse, then drop Mises on them. In other words, better rhetoric + better dialectic.

Blogger IAMSpartacus0000 October 15, 2020 11:47 AM  

Only poll you need be concerned with is the number of people showing up to a Biden rally vs Trump rally.

Blogger Asun October 15, 2020 11:53 AM  

Just get them to put their money where their mouth (poll) is.
Offer them a generous 5:1 odds of Trump winning bet if the poll is giving 90% Biden wins.
People can be deceptive, even to themselves, but when it comes to money, that'll shut them up real quick.

Blogger Baron Womb October 15, 2020 12:00 PM  

I work at an extremely liberal company and the great majority of my colleagues believe in a Harris/Biden victory. I have stopped debating them as they can’t articulate how or why this is good for America - it is all pure emotion for them and they are casting their votes because “they are not Trump.” They quote the polls saying their victory is inevitable and when I point out that the polls for Hillary were so wrong in 2016 they reply with a version of “ yeah but this time it’s different.” But the truly scariest response I am getting is that they have 100% bought into the idea that a true winner won’t be decided until January. The media brainwashing is working and they are preparing themselves for a fixed election where their team can continue to challenge the results so that their champion gets put in place in 2021. The fact that this is an even greater threat to our “democracy” than whichever party candidate wins is completely lost on them. It’s mind boggling

Blogger Valar Addemmis October 15, 2020 12:04 PM  

VD wrote:

Then you could follow it up with a totally hilarious Monty Python quote, right?

Avoid movie quotes if you want to manipulate emotions.


Depends on which emotion you're trying to manipulate. You're of course right in terms of emotional persuasion. But if you just want to piss off a progressive, quoting things they love like The Princess Bride or Harry Potter to make a point they're not comfortable with triggers them like almost nothing else. "That's our word!" etc etc

Blogger ZaijiaN October 15, 2020 12:20 PM  

Damelon Brinn wrote:I've been tempted to look up the betting odds on the U.S. election

You can still get odds, but not nearly as good as in 2016. The books aren't stupid.


I tried but just missed out on getting in on the action with predictit in 2016 when a Trump win was paying out 12:1. This time around he's consistently been around 2.5:1, but with every negative breaking news story that comes out and he dips a couple %s, I buy the dip. I'll have a nice little bonus for the Christmas season.

Blogger CM October 15, 2020 12:23 PM  

If someone makes a generic appeal to Marx, quote the chapter-and-verse, then drop Mises on them. In other words, better rhetoric + better dialectic.

And if you can't do that, your not ready for this one, take the loss, and prep to do better next time?

Blogger CM October 15, 2020 12:27 PM  

Political rhetoric is a fun time and everything, but I really want to figure out evangelism rhetoric.

Evangelism is done with pseudo and actual dialectic and never seemed all that effective, especially in America with their hardened and calcified hearts.

Apologetics is the dialectic, but how do you do the other?

And I get the need, and I'm trying to figure out the right shiv to bypass the armor, but my weaponry craftsmanship is clumsy, dull, and pathetic.

Blogger Chip Hazard October 15, 2020 12:43 PM  

Regarding "mean" and "intolerant", welp...tough shit. Life is cruel, facts are cruel, and it is what it is.

My father is a pretty by-the-book Catholic right out of Summa Theologica. My sister would cry and moan about my Dad condemning her actions that were clearly sinful.

He could not be shaken. He was a rock. It was either 'fix it, or bye'; you're my daughter but you're also subject to these laws. It's beyond my power. You can either do it, or not. YOU have to accept the consequences.

You can't negotiate your way out of right and wrong, you can't barter with what is truth and what is not, you can't use reason to excuse unreasonable behavior.

In Protestant Christianity, your choices boil down to two: 1) Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or 2) fry in Hell forever.

Blogger Chip Hazard October 15, 2020 12:51 PM  

"How can someone demonstrate they are correct by moo-ing?"

I used to do a variation of this to people when I was at University, but substitute mooing for hooting like a monkey/orangutan.

Not only was it confusing as all hell to them, but seeing the wild-eyed, startled, confused reaction cross their face was a platinum plus.

There was no reasoning to it; was simply mockery for the sake of it, to twist their melon. They would go through the whole gamut of emotions trying to figure out what it meant, the allegory, etc.

You can't convince moronic people & simpletons to see less understand reason, so I don't bother.

Blogger Chip Hazard October 15, 2020 12:55 PM  

@43 Nick:

Of course they are. The 'polls' are not only wrong, but dead wrong as they are manipulated to the degree that it's utterly and pathetically transparent to anyone with working synapses.

What part of 2016 did you miss? And what part of 2020 did you miss?

Blogger Homesteader October 15, 2020 1:00 PM  

Rhetoric, until proven capable of dialectic.

Assume everyone you meet is your teen-age daughter, mentally. Then, go from there.

And- we argue to sway bystanders, not our opponents. No bystanders- I've got firewood to get in.

Never waste your breath on solitary zealots.



Blogger Valar Addemmis October 15, 2020 1:02 PM  

CM wrote:If someone makes a generic appeal to Marx, quote the chapter-and-verse, then drop Mises on them. In other words, better rhetoric + better dialectic.

And if you can't do that, your not ready for this one, take the loss, and prep to do better next time?


Not being able to take the optimal shot doesn't mean not being able to take a shot. But sure, there are always situations where you have to take a pass or lose, and use it as an opportunity to prep better.

Also note that Vox is treating the "generic appeal to Marx" as dialectic, but more people refer to Marx from a rhetorical perspective than dialectic. You could point out that he was a non-productive freeloader (if you're dealing with someone who is not, anyway). Or heck, a dreaded white male (why should Kangs listen to a colonizer?). You're not likely to ever witness a Pauline conversion on politics, but chipping away at the rhetorical nonsense with your own cutting rhetoric makes an impression. It's one reason why colleges are so toxic to conventional religious upbringings -- they're isolated and constantly chipped away, bit by bit, to where many don't even notice the shift in values. The ones that go whole 180 "I hate my dad/religion" get the attention, but there are many more that just think they organically "grow up" when they're instead slowly whittled into something radically different.

Blogger Valar Addemmis October 15, 2020 1:19 PM  

@43 Nick:

There's a bit of a meme going around a bit in the "conservative" media. Looking out at the country, what would lead you to think that Trump was behind 10% aside from the polling?

So what are you going to believe, the polls or your lying eyes?

I saw more posters for Tulsi and Bernie during the primaries than I'm seeing for Biden now, and I live in a leans blue but not absurdly so area. And I see a lot more flags flying (without political signs on the lawn) than usual.

Blogger Matthew October 15, 2020 1:35 PM  

Do you think this line of telling them they are trying to convince themselves is effective rhetoric against other usual sjw talking points?

Blogger Dont Worry About Me October 15, 2020 2:12 PM  

Since they are liars, yes.

SJW pokes at their hapless physiques. Rhetoric focusing on truth telling pokes at their ideology.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 15, 2020 2:40 PM  

Valar Addemmis wrote:You could point out that he was a non-productive freeloader (if you're dealing with someone who is not, anyway). Or heck, a dreaded white male (why should Kangs listen to a colonizer?). You're not likely to ever witness a Pauline conversion on politics, but chipping away at the rhetorical nonsense with your own cutting rhetoric makes an impression.
Marx and Engles both treated women as sex objects. In his Manifesto, Marx called for them to be shared among the men.
Those will reliably get the lesbian marxists spun up.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 15, 2020 2:43 PM  

Chip Hazard wrote:In Protestant Christianity, your choices boil down to two: 1) Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or 2) fry in Hell forever.
Pretty sure the Roman and the Orthodox churches present the same two choices.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 15, 2020 2:47 PM  

CM wrote:Political rhetoric is a fun time and everything, but I really want to figure out evangelism rhetoric.
...
Apologetics is the dialectic, but how do you do the other?

I really don't know, but in general, rhetoric amounts to looking for buttons and pushing them. Try saying stuff, and watch the reaction.

Remember that we can give them the message, but it's the job of the Spirit to convict them. No rhetoric is going to accomplish salvation without that divine intervention.

Blogger PJW Gent October 15, 2020 2:52 PM  

Jesus Christ used rhetoric in a supremely effective way to make his points and challenge both his disciples and the Pharisees. Parables are essentially rhetoric since they primarily appeal to the emotions even though they carry significant truth. Think about the prodigal son, the wole story is driven by shifting emotions with truth embedded throughout carried into the heart by the emotional events.

Blogger Tom d October 15, 2020 3:00 PM  

VD wrote:If you can go lower than the low and higher than the high, you'll reliably win.
I thought it would be to always responding a little higher, if this is the strategy, given the OP example of ~"Man, Biden is so far ahead in the polls, it's practically a lock..." - wouldn't a more appropriate response be something like "Sorry comrade - the American public isn't going to go for a kid diddler, in the same way 'Cutties' wasn't seen as art."

MPAI, and I'm no exception - while Voxiversity 010 was a useful introduction and explanation into this topic, I find it at times challenging to differentiate between the two forms of communication, let alone formulating the appropriate response.

Blogger One Deplorable DT October 15, 2020 3:18 PM  

@4 - Or give it your best Bane impression and say "oh really, do you feel like you're winning?"

I'm going to say it, even if Vox blasts me for it...

I think "do you feel like you're winning?" is a great return if it is made without any reference to, or impersonation of, Bane. I've got one cousin with TDS and if I sent her a Trump rally picture along with that line she would explode. Vox would hear the REEEEE in Italy.

But if you're a Batman nerd and anyone within earshot would even suspect you were saying it because of the movie, it's dead on delivery. Just don't do it.

Blogger Valar Addemmis October 15, 2020 4:32 PM  

Tom d wrote:VD wrote:If you can go lower than the low and higher than the high, you'll reliably win.

I thought it would be to always responding a little higher, if this is the strategy, given the OP example of ~"Man, Biden is so far ahead in the polls, it's practically a lock..." - wouldn't a more appropriate response be something like "Sorry comrade - the American public isn't going to go for a kid diddler, in the same way 'Cutties' wasn't seen as art."

MPAI, and I'm no exception - while Voxiversity 010 was a useful introduction and explanation into this topic, I find it at times challenging to differentiate between the two forms of communication, let alone formulating the appropriate response.


On the first part I read "lower than the low and higher than the high" to just mean beat them at the game that they're playing, since that's the game they're receptive to. So the question on them bringing up polls is whether they're actually using dialectic ("this proves Biden will win") or rhetoric ("I'm really trying to convince myself that Biden will win, or to deject the right into not voting my convincing them it's futile"). I tend to think your rhetorical retort is decent, because whether he's being rhetorical or dialectic you're undercutting the frame he's using (polls as reliable indication of the zeitgeist).

When I try in my head to intuitively understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric (I mean, we can all rattle off dictionary definitions) I think of it in terms of "am I trying to be 'correct', or am I trying to get somebody to do something?" I find it a decent shorthand.

Blogger TroubleSpeak October 15, 2020 5:24 PM  

The polls? I bet you still believe Russia-Russia-Russia too.

Blogger Chip Hazard October 15, 2020 6:38 PM  

@72 Sure they do. Catholicism is a bit more convoluted, however, esp in the modern era. Read Hans Kung's "Does God Exist?" and find out why the RCC tolerated him for so long.

Protestantism is way more simple, which is why it was converged more easily in the last 50 or so years. The RCC also underwent convergence but in a different fashion.

Blogger RedJack October 15, 2020 7:23 PM  

I just say that while I would drink beer with Trump Jr, I won't do coke with Biden jr

Blogger RedJack October 15, 2020 7:32 PM  

I have pulled up the 2016 polls and have called a liar. Facts don't matter, emotional response does.

Kind of like asking an inner city charity about how many people they have helped support themselves. The response will always be how it is a horrible thing for you to ask

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 15, 2020 7:34 PM  

Chip Hazard wrote:Protestantism is way more simple, which is why it was converged more easily in the last 50 or so years. The RCC also underwent convergence but in a different fashion.
Different strengths, different weaknesses.

Blogger Chip Hazard October 15, 2020 10:50 PM  

@82

Truth. To quote Bob Duvall in 'The Apostle': "You do it your way, I do it my way, but we all git it done, don't we?"

Blogger Johnny October 16, 2020 4:28 AM  

@25
All societies have some form of wealth redistribution. Either you control that redistribution and direct it to benefit your people and harm your enemies or your enemies will do control it and rule over you. That's one of the reasons why Libertarianism doesn't work.

https://imgur.com/a/FShlxMV

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts