The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[henry quirk]

You ought to, periodically, post the expanding list so we don't have keep goin' up thread to see it.

[Iwannaplato]

Here are some rhetorical techniques that are very persuasive, if sometimes only self-persuasive. Do make these the core of your posting here, if you don't already do this. We've all done at least some of these at some point, if only implicitly. But when it is a central part of your rhetorical style, you've joined the pantheon.

1) Always say that you have demonstrated, proven or shown that X is true or Y is false. Even if all you have done is state or assert. Your assertions are proofs.

2) Don't respond to points made; restate in a new paraphrase what you've already asserted. Avoid justification of beliefs. See number 1.

3) Don't respond to points made; demand that the other person prove the opposite of your position.

4) Add links. Don't worry if they do what you claim. Don't bother reading them carefully. Later accuse the other person of having no evidence because they don't use links.

5) If cornered in any way, or just as a preemptive strike, insult your discussion partner. This may lead to an exchange of insults and any weaknesses in your position will be forgotten in the fray.

6) Don't respond to points made; accuse the other person of not having solved a related or unrelated issue.

7) Appeal to authority, and always imply that there is consensus amongst experts. Whatever you link to, the opinion expressed there is universal and objective.

8 Divide every issue into 2 possible positions: yours and the false/evil/irrational one. There are no third possible positions. You're either with us or against us.

9) Mindread. If someone does not respond to a post, say that they are afraid or have given up. If someone ignores you, say that they know they are beaten. If they are critical of a war, say they love the leader of the other side's leader. You get the idea. DO NOT justify these claims.

10) Call failure to disprove, proof of your belief. Oh, and it doesn't matter if they failed. They can even have mounted a solid argument. That has zero consequence.

11) Start new threads that are actually just continuations of current threads. Without saying it, this implies that you have the magic bullet. Treat all your posts as victories and nails in the coffin. This is an implicit trope for number 12's open one.

12) Claim victory. This can be done openly. Self-congratulate.

13) Claim you are the best philosopher - not just here at PN, but in general. Never aim low when making claims that you in particular cannot be convinced are untrue.

14) Claim that your assertions are better than other people's assertions per se: justify this via something that may seem easy to dismiss but is hard to finally contradict such as: you are from the future, you've changed your mind many times, you have no beliefs or you have a lot of files on the topic are some examples already used. Be creative in coming up with the reason your posts per se are better than other people's. The competition here is stiff.

15) Don't respond to points made; restate in a new paraphrase what you already asserted. This should be everyone's baseline rhetorical strategy. Again, this is the core of PN style.

16) Appeal to incredulity. Best done indirectly through mocking, especially with emojis. If you are ever conrnered, use a large number of moving emojis. This shows commitment and since it is not an argument, it is impossible to counter.

17) Treat the hypothetical as factual. You can even say it is hypothetical, then slide into referring to it as factual. Zero loss, much to gain.

18) REPEAT YOUR POSITION AS IF IT IS A RESPONSE: Regardless of what the other person says or points out that you ignore. Only true positions can be repeated. Commitment is truth. Your certainty should be their certainty

19) Remember anyone who dismisses you for any of the above, is showing that they fear the power of your posts. See 9 for some variations.

20) Write complicated non-responses that might somehow metaphorically relate but likely not. Unitelligibleness or inanis ultrices cannot be easily disproven or even argued with.

21) Use idiosyncratic and confusing use of capital letters and citation marks, and ask a lot of questions. Blame others for not understanding your idiosyncracies and ask many more questions. Be disappointed in their responses. Respond to any interpretation of what you said or disagreement with outrage. And ask more questions. Keep the onus on them.

22) Take up too much space with either unnecessary quoting of images, unique formatting or empty space. This creates extra noise in the thread and less signal.

23) Treat any topic as an invitation to one of your pet peeve issues. Do not be a respecter of topics.

24) Post such that it is unclear what you are responding to and even how you are responding to it.

25) Talk about another poster, but not with them.

26) Never simply say 'I disagree,' and then go on to explain why. Always demote the other person, label their thinking or be stunned by their ignorance and express this directly. For ex. 'you are weak thinker', 'Go deeper' or 'Such ingnorance!' Preferably a number of these in a row. Many people will do this on occasion when especially frustrated. An artist regularly reacts this way, especially in long disagreements. If you are missing opportunities, you'll never be a PN stylist.

27) Abuse terms that already exist by meaning something completely new by them. And make up plenty of your own silly terms. For example, instead of saying "Free Will", say "Andy Dufresne Syndrome", because you once saw a movie that sorta reminds you of this idea a little bit.

28) Rephrase what other people have said. Deny you made any significant change. Never consider that you may have done this. You may consciously choose to make a strawman or note, through patterns of discussion partner irritation, that you already have a gift for this. Never admit to strawman behavior. Hold the line. They have the burden of proof to show that you presented a false attribution. It is their job to show it is not right, not your job to justify the changes you made. Must one truly use the quote function. I mean, seriously!!??

29) Do not concern yourself with best arguments and rebuttals: dominate and get responses: Frustrating people - for example by not quite responding to them while quoting them - irritating them - see many of the above numbers - and putting all the burden on them, does several things: 1) you'll notice they do a lot of explaining while you don't; 2) you'll notice that they get upset, which means you are winning 3) some will stop communicating with you - this allows you to a) claim victory and b) take the high ground of never ignoring anyone - I mean, why ignore why you can frustrate, irritate and shift the burden to them? 29 is the strategy of the true geniuses.

(I will keep updating the list with my and your suggestions)

[Iwannaplato]

You ought to, periodically, post the expanding list so we don't have keep goin' up thread to see it.

Done above once. I also started referring to the list in response to Peter K., here...
viewtopic.php?p=638322#p638322

But actually I think a better use of the list would be simply to quote and list a number + link.
A sort of shorthand. Though it depends on the post. But if the post is written in true genius rhetorical stylings, then simply praising each type of flourish by giving it's number would be elegant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Should everyone pay attention to this thread? Including the utterly perfect?

[Iwannaplato]

Should everyone pay attention to this thread? Including the utterly perfect?

No, this thread is for we humble amateurs.
What could the utterly perfect gain from our inspired-by-them groping?

[iambiguous]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

So how about you do it on your own instead of writing it for everyone else? I don't need you to click in order to have a conversation. If you need it, click for yourself, no need to share it.

No, seriously.

[iambiguous]

Remember: let's not focus on any one stylist, however, advanced. We are composing a general list so we can all build up our skill sets.

And again, in response to any critique, simply repeating your position is the most basic, but also one of the most powerful tools for the budding rhetorician.

We'll still need a context. Or will this too never come down out of the clouds?

[iambiguous]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

Gee, I never thought of that.

[iambiguous]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

I like that you focused on the content, which could even hijack the thread. But I think it's lovely that 'click' is like 'snap'. The latter being less confusing and easier to explain.

I think being confusing, ambivalent is another tool. Like the use of the D word in an idiosyncratic way leading to thousands of explanatory posts are people talking past each other.
But much harder to offer a simple heuristic about how to confuse.

Again...

We'll need an actual context, of course.

A discussion and a debate about something in which people often have conflicting points of view. And, no, not just about abortion.

That way as the exchange unfolds, Iwannaplato can note specific instances of all the transgressions he mentions above.

I'm willing to have a go at it. If someone else here is as well, let's do it. Either on this thread or another.

We all have our own beefs regarding others here.

Let's commence a new exchange revolving around conflicted points of view. That way as the exchange progresses, we'll all have the chance to point out what irks us in particular here regarding others.

[iambiguous]

Note to others following this "exchange":

Can you believe these guys? Who here doubts that these "transgressions" are not aimed primarily at me?

So, I keep at them to start a new thread in which we explore the extent to which the "rhetoric of philosophy" is being practiced here.

Well, whatever that means.

It's a golden opportunity for them to nail me with specific examples of all they accuse me [or others] of. And they can choose both the issue and the context.



So, put up or shut up?

[Flannel Jesus]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

So how about you do it on your own instead of writing it for everyone else? I don't need you to click in order to have a conversation. If you need it, click for yourself, no need to share it.

No, seriously.

No, seriously.

[Iwannaplato]

Can you believe these guys? Who here doubts that these "transgressions" are not aimed primarily at me?

Dear Iambiguous. You certainly inspired a number of the flourishes I described. But it's actually funny that you think the list is primarily aimed at you.

It isn't until number 12 that I actually thought of you. Though let's be very clear. You were not the rhetorician I was thinking of when I made number 12. And there are a few others who use that flourish also. But yes, I believe your name came up in my mind. It's possible that earlier numbers than 12 ones may apply, but I was thinking of other expert rhetoricians when writing them. Do you really think that 1-11 fit your posts? IOW you see yourself doing those things? You see yourself as doing most of the 29 or whatever number we are up to now of flourishes?

And then after 12...13 doesn't fit you, unless I missed something. 14 was culled from three people here, none of them you. And so on. Many posts have to do with things MANY people do, including people who are not master rhetoricians. I include myself in that category. Do you know how many people simply repeat their positions in a new paraphrase without actually responding to the post they are quoting? It's many people. Towards the end of the list I do praise a number of your flourishes. Many of those after 14 were definitely not inspired by you. I could of course cite specific posters, but I think this gets focused to much on ego and has a competitive air. My goal is to understand, describe and share the list of skills.

But the thread was NOT inspired by you. I'm not sure you're the most cited rhetorician. And actually I also was inspired by 'things I've often encountered' not just people here now.

I just googled 'people who think everything is about them'. Narcissists and people who are very lonely both came up as the most common options. Obviously narcissism is out of the question, but please don't take the main credit for what is actually a diverse group of experts, whatever your motivation.

I understand your pride in your rhetorical skills and you certainly are skilled.

But my aim is not to single out people for praise in this thread. My aim is to list the skills, so that 1) we recognize them and can praise them as they come up in discussions. 2) my hope is that amateurs can learn from the skilled.

Imagine if everyone was able to recognize and understand each of these rhetorical skills. Instead of being confused about what is happening when they come up, instead of getting irritated or frustrated, instead of chasing rhetoricians in the circles possible when doing this, people were able to understand EXACTLY what is going on.

This would, I hope, lead to a more pleasant and deeper learning experience. Of course, I have no idea if this will happen. Probably not. I do know that just the act of compiling the list has helped me recognize these moments of rhetorical skill and to feel calmer in the face of them. To admire them and their wielders.

If it helps anyone else, or if anyone finds the list entertaining, well that's an unlikely, but happy bonus.

Again, I understand your pride in your skills, but you are seeing yourself where others also deserve praise. We have a good number of expert rhetoricians here. Perhaps locally, wherever you live, you are, well, the big fish in a small pond. But here, in a more international setting, there are a number of strong rhetoricians. Let's not forget them in the name of well-deserved pride.

[Agent Smith]

The man approached the counter ... it wasn't the racks on which the books and magazine were arranged that should've been photographed and framed and hung on the wall, it wasn't the yellow rubber duck with the missing eye that should've been gift-wrapped, it wasn't the deer that then crashed through the door and ran, panic-stricken, around the office, it was the radio, the radio was on.

[Iwannaplato]

The man approached the counter ... it wasn't the racks on which the books and magazine were arranged that should've been photographed and framed and hung on the wall, it wasn't the yellow rubber duck with the missing eye that should've been gift-wrapped, it wasn't the deer that then crashed through the door and ran, panic-stricken, around the office, it was the radio, the radio was on.

Yes, yes. There's no need to rub it in via praxis. Some rhetoricians have skills that go way beyond my ability to analyze.

[Wizard22]

No, seriously.

To be honest, throughout my philosophy endeavors, I find that attacking one's "seriousness", clowning, "you're confused" as some of the most effective rhetorical torts. Because they are not only very subtle Ad Hom attacks, but they entirely debase the conversation toward the Accuser. Somebody is not taking the topic, or a point, 'seriously'. Essentially it renders dialogue pointless to continue, because it admits that "good faith" is no longer in play. It's a different attack then directly questioning Motive. It questions physical and mental maturity.

To me, it reveals most about the Accuser than the thread creator, but it still remains as the most pernicious and underhanded forms of rhetoric, subversive.