The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[Eodnhoj7]

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.


30) Respond with a negative evaluation of the other person or their posts. Do not justify this. Some example: 'Seriously' 'LOL' 'Really' 'Go deeper' 'You are confused'. It is similar to 16, appeal to incredulity. Instead of wasting time dealing with any points the other person made, you go directly to the heart of the issue. No need to explain or demonstrate. These are great opening lines, but the great rhetoricians often use these as stand alone responses. This shifts all the work, where it belongs, to the less skilled. 26 is similar, but 26 is usually used before a longer posting, where one repeats one's position without responding to specific points made. 30 is more stand alone or as part of playing to the gallery.

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

Interesting from what I have read.

[phyllo]

Nuff said.

[iambiguous]

First, of course, " no, seriously " reflects only my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective reaction to a particular post.

Then the part where I react to it given the gap that I perceive between the point I am making and their point. If the gap is deemed laughable by me then this:

But since I am hoping instead for posts that I perceive to be intelligent [even challenging], I feel the need to include this: No Seriously.

As though to say to others, "no really, don't you find it laughable too?"

Since the "no seriously" is aimed at the audience, I would hazard a guess that most of the audience is more likely to be laughing at you than at the person you're trying to humiliate with that tripe, at least most of the time.

Yeah, we went back and forth regarding this over at ILP. And, sure, if the laughter is aimed at me, so be it. After all, I have no illusions that my own "personal opinions" here are anything more than just that, subjective conjectures rooted existentially in dasein. And even then in a world where -- click -- we have free will.

But I'm still rather comfortable believing I have been successful in making a fool out of you considerably more than you have been in making a fool out of me. Others of course can decide for themselves.

And as I noted elsewhere...

"I" believe that those like phyllo and Flannel Jesus and the iwannaplatos react to the "clicks" and the "notes to others" and the "no, seriouslys" as they do not because in and of itself it annoys them, but because they just really don't like me. Period. Why? Because, in my view, they are perturbed by my "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy. What if, over time, they begin to think and to feel the same way about their own precious objectivist Self?

And what if they begin to see their own existence as essentially meaningless and purposeless? Or come to believe that death = oblivion.

Again, I certainly remember when objectivism [God and No God] began to crumble all around "me".

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous: why won't anybody talk to me?

Also iambiguous: I don't care that what I'm doing adds nothing to the discussion and annoys others, I'm gonna keep doing it anyway

I've never wanted to believe this of you but now, well, what choice do I have...?

It's a "condition" isn't it? Not as pronounced as, say, Age's perhaps, but...but that's always a slippery slope.

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting from what I have read.

Any additions?

[Flannel Jesus]

Iambiguous: why won't anybody talk to me?

Also iambiguous: I don't care that what I'm doing adds nothing to the discussion and annoys others, I'm gonna keep doing it anyway

I've never wanted to believe this of you but now, well, what choice do I have...?

It's a "condition" isn't it? Not as pronounced as, say, Age's perhaps, but...but that's always a slippery slope.

Yes, those habits of yours are a condition, like age's. That's what I'm getting at.

[Eodnhoj7]

Interesting from what I have read.

Any additions?

Not yet...hmm maybe...

x) All philosophical arguments rely upon contradictions as there is a viewpoint and the opposing viewpoint; from this it may be derived that philosophy requires absurdity and from it anything goes.

[Flannel Jesus]

But I'm still rather comfortable believing I have been successful in making a fool out of you considerably more than you have been in making a fool out of me. Others of course can decide for themselves.

Part of your problem, and the reason you so consistently make a fool of yourself, is because you try so hard to make a fool of others. You instigate the majority of negative relationships you have with people. I see it everywhere you go. You're constantly trying so hard to make someone else look stupid, but the actual consequence ends up ironically... not in your favour.

You're desperate to make a fool of other people, I have seen many conversations where someone is asking you something in good faith, and instead of just answering them you quote them and say some inane shit like "note to nature: are you going to tell her?" I don't NEED to try to make a fool of you, you do a good enough job on your own with all that crap.

[FlashDangerpants]

38) Never read the other guy's post before you hit reply-with-quote. Every sentence it contains should be handled as a discrete unit, if you ask a question about the current sentence you are arguing with and then the next answers that exact question, you shouldn't give a fuck, just power through and pretend the two sentences were entirely unrelated.

94) If you have no answer, never let on. Of course you know the perfect answer, but first there is some vital other question that must be addressed before you could possibly address that other thing. This new question is of course impossible to answer to your satisfaction.

52) Tell lies, and then when somebody calls you a liar, loudly announce that this is ad hominem. Never learn what ad hominem means, that would be bad for business. Suddenly, but ever so briefly, know what ad hominem means whenever you are accused of it.

48) If in doubt, blame THE LEFT. It doesn't matter what for.

[Iwannaplato]

38) Never read the other guy's post before you hit reply-with-quote. Every sentence it contains should be handled as a discrete unit, if you ask a question about the current sentence you are arguing with and then the next answers that exact question, you shouldn't give a fuck, just power through and pretend the two sentences were entirely unrelated.

I didn't get the whole idea. Sentence 1, yes. The parts of sentence 2, after the first comma, I am not sure what they mean. It seems something like when you ask direct questions and get direct answers, if you don't like what happens you just forget it. But that's a guess.

94) If you have no answer, never let on. Of course you know the perfect answer, but first there is some vital other question that must be addressed before you could possibly address that other thing. This new question is of course impossible to answer to your satisfaction.

This I recognize and have added to the list.

52) Tell lies, and then when somebody calls you a liar, loudly announce that this is ad hominem. Never learn what ad hominem means, that would be bad for business. Suddenly, but ever so briefly, know what ad hominem means whenever you are accused of it.

I changed this slightly to reflect the artistry of a true rhetorician...
Fabricate non-truths, and then when somebody calls you a liar, loudly announce that this is ad hominem. Never learn what ad hominem means, that would be bad for business. Suddenly, but ever so briefly, know what ad hominem means whenever you are accused of it.

48) If in doubt, blame THE LEFT. It doesn't matter what for.

I think this is included in some of the earlier steps. Though without the specificity. We have, for example, one poster who uses this flourish with great style in relation to conservatives.

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting from what I have read.

Any additions?

Not yet...hmm maybe...

x) All philosophical arguments rely upon contradictions as there is a viewpoint and the opposing viewpoint; from this it may be derived that philosophy requires absurdity and from it anything goes.

This sounds like a comment on all philosophical dialogue and not a specific kind of rhetorical tool, or?

[phyllo]

Any additions?

Not yet...hmm maybe...

x) All philosophical arguments rely upon contradictions as there is a viewpoint and the opposing viewpoint; from this it may be derived that philosophy requires absurdity and from it anything goes.

This sounds like a comment on all philosophical dialogue and not a specific kind of rhetorical tool, or?

The tool is the claim that philosophy is pointless, meaningless, absurd and that "anything goes? Thus both invalidating any opponent's argument and validating your own?

[Iwannaplato]

The tool is the claim that philosophy is pointless, meaningless, absurd and that "anything goes? Thus both invalidating any opponent's argument and validating your own?

Ah, so you see it as an example of the rhetorical device rather than a defniition. I don't know if that's his idea there, but I like the idea. Something that dismisses philosophy in general. Nice. I'll add it to the list. Number 32.

[Flannel Jesus]

Never admit to any stable beliefs that another person might be able to discuss with you and potentially undermine. If you say something that implies a belief, and that belief is criticized at all, you can always say "I never said I believe that".

Closely related, change your beliefs at will (but without acknowledging a change in your beliefs) so that the context of the conversation is never stable enough to progress further.

[Iwannaplato]

Never admit to any stable beliefs that another person might be able to discuss with you and potentially undermine. If you say something that implies a belief, and that belief is criticized at all, you can always say "I never said I believe that".

Closely related, change your beliefs at will (but without acknowledging a change in your beliefs) so that the context of the conversation is never stable enough to progress further.

I had this, to some degree, in a list of three types of 'how one's posts should be seen as superior pe se'. But I think it's worth a repeat and fleshing...

so, it'll be 34)