4 ms·

This really is about rhetoric: The article is an excellent example of a popular rhetorical trend, especially on the right[1]: Say something outrageous, provoca

This really is about rhetoric: The article is an excellent example of a popular rhetorical trend, especially on the right[1]: Say something outrageous, provocative, and aggressive to take the initiative, to force the other side onto defense. (EDIT: And to frame the discussion; that is, to define the debate in terms of issues in your favor and omit issues that don't suit you; people will sheepishly follow whatever terms are set.) Think of the things that GOP presidential candidates and other politicians say, day after day, that meet those criteria. Putting someone on the defensive and forcing them to articulate and make explicit something that is intuitively obvious, but which they haven't had to put in words before - it's a fun game but ultimately is a waste of time. It's much cheaper to make spurious attacks than to defend against them, and as a defender you can spend your whole life jumping through those hoops and never get anywhere - which is one of the attacker's goals. ----- [1] I'm not taking a political position, but it would be untrue if I said that in 2015 it was done nearly as much on the left as on the right.

sbuttgereit 11y ago
And the left simply waits for a crisis to develop and then co-opts it to advance their pre-existing agenda regardless if they actually have a plausible or rational response to that crisis. I assure you, I'm not taking a political position, but it would be untrue if I said that in 2015 it was done nearly as much on the right as on the left.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Absolutely I agree that different political groups have their tendancies; I don't think that changes what I wrote and seemed too obvious to mention. However, my comment was about the article, not politics. Not everyone is ideological or engaging in an ideological fight. I was just making an observation with a current example.
  - sbuttgereit 11y ago
    I take you at your word that you weren't trying to make a political point, per se, nor do I mean to accuse you of that. However, my point (somewhat sarcastically made) is that your "too obvious to mention" point is necessarily a political position and statement. That outrageous rhetoric that's coming from the right is by-and-large not seen as outrageous by them; and of course their statements are completely and obviously outrageous to those that oppose them. Whether your intent is to make a political point or not, you invariably do so once you make a judgmental statement about one side or the other; even if your circle of friends finds such a fact as nothing more than a casual observation useful for demonstrating a point. There... now we've both made non-political points by making use of inherently political statements.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > That outrageous rhetoric that's coming from the right is by-and-large not seen as outrageous by them ... I can't characterize the thoughts of a large number of people, but generally I disagree regarding the public figures involved. These people are politicians, experts with long careers in public communication; they are not people who just express their thoughts; they know exactly what they are doing.
      - Jgrubb 11y ago
        Careful of falling for the trap you outlined in your original comment.
pdkl95 11y ago
It's a lot more dangerous than mere rhetoric. The "outrageous, provocative, and aggressive" comments are exploiting political faith, and are said by people with the hubris to believe they can shape reality with their will. The 2004 New York Times essay "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush"[1] has a very enlightening description of these ideologies. In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a...
- dTal 11y ago
  Holy shit that's terrifying. It almost seems too outrageous to be true - I wish we lived in a world where that was the case.
- dankohn1 11y ago
  The quote was later attributed to Karl Rove: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
Jgrubb 11y ago
Did you happen to read Karl Rove's "Tactics for Effective Conservative Blogging"? https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_reactionary_political_debate_playbook_karl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...
rayiner 11y ago
Provocative maybe, but I don't see what's outrageous about it. You have to look no further than the Arab Spring to see that rebellion destroys order and disorder is worse for ordinary people than a politically repressive government. It's the history of the world: the overthrow of the French monarchy by radicals ushered in untold chaos and violence before the establishment of democracy. The article poses the legitimate question of whether it's acceptable to sacrifice a planet to preserve galactic order. Let's reframe that: was it acceptable to burn Atlanta to the ground to preserve the union? Is that such an outrageous idea?
- hackuser 11y ago
  That just seems like a continuation of the game. It's not worth my time to jump through the hoops. I should have added above, another reason to use the tactic is to frame the debate, often disingenuously. For example, they've framed it as if dictatorship is legitimate and order is the only issue.
- Retric 11y ago
  Which is why the U.S. should have stuck with the British empire like good little drones.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 11y ago
    If we'd stayed with the British maybe we'd have universal healthcare already.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      We also would have ended slavery earlier. That could have been worth it.
- iSnow 11y ago
  Well, more people flee Syria because of Assad than because of Da'esh.

sbuttgereit 11y ago

And the left simply waits for a crisis to develop and then co-opts it to advance their pre-existing agenda regardless if they actually have a plausible or rational response to that crisis. I assure you, I'm not taking a political position, but it would be untrue if I said that in 2015 it was done nearly as much on the right as on the left.

hackuser 11y ago
Absolutely I agree that different political groups have their tendancies; I don't think that changes what I wrote and seemed too obvious to mention. However, my comment was about the article, not politics. Not everyone is ideological or engaging in an ideological fight. I was just making an observation with a current example.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  I take you at your word that you weren't trying to make a political point, per se, nor do I mean to accuse you of that. However, my point (somewhat sarcastically made) is that your "too obvious to mention" point is necessarily a political position and statement. That outrageous rhetoric that's coming from the right is by-and-large not seen as outrageous by them; and of course their statements are completely and obviously outrageous to those that oppose them. Whether your intent is to make a political point or not, you invariably do so once you make a judgmental statement about one side or the other; even if your circle of friends finds such a fact as nothing more than a casual observation useful for demonstrating a point. There... now we've both made non-political points by making use of inherently political statements.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > That outrageous rhetoric that's coming from the right is by-and-large not seen as outrageous by them ... I can't characterize the thoughts of a large number of people, but generally I disagree regarding the public figures involved. These people are politicians, experts with long careers in public communication; they are not people who just express their thoughts; they know exactly what they are doing.
    - Jgrubb 11y ago
      Careful of falling for the trap you outlined in your original comment.

pdkl95 11y ago

It's a lot more dangerous than mere rhetoric. The "outrageous, provocative, and aggressive" comments are exploiting political faith, and are said by people with the hubris to believe they can shape reality with their will. The 2004 New York Times essay "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush"[1] has a very enlightening description of these ideologies. In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a...

dTal 11y ago
Holy shit that's terrifying. It almost seems too outrageous to be true - I wish we lived in a world where that was the case.
dankohn1 11y ago
The quote was later attributed to Karl Rove: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Jgrubb 11y ago

Did you happen to read Karl Rove's "Tactics for Effective Conservative Blogging"? https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_reactionary_political_debate_playbook_karl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...

rayiner 11y ago

Provocative maybe, but I don't see what's outrageous about it. You have to look no further than the Arab Spring to see that rebellion destroys order and disorder is worse for ordinary people than a politically repressive government. It's the history of the world: the overthrow of the French monarchy by radicals ushered in untold chaos and violence before the establishment of democracy. The article poses the legitimate question of whether it's acceptable to sacrifice a planet to preserve galactic order. Let's reframe that: was it acceptable to burn Atlanta to the ground to preserve the union? Is that such an outrageous idea?

hackuser 11y ago
That just seems like a continuation of the game. It's not worth my time to jump through the hoops. I should have added above, another reason to use the tactic is to frame the debate, often disingenuously. For example, they've framed it as if dictatorship is legitimate and order is the only issue.
Retric 11y ago
Which is why the U.S. should have stuck with the British empire like good little drones.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 11y ago
  If we'd stayed with the British maybe we'd have universal healthcare already.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    We also would have ended slavery earlier. That could have been worth it.
iSnow 11y ago
Well, more people flee Syria because of Assad than because of Da'esh.