5 ms·

I know our age is a bit poor in rhetoric, so go listen to a speech by: Churchill, FDR, JFK, MLK etc. It's really sad to hear some people need to resort to swear

by zeteo 15y ago

I know our age is a bit poor in rhetoric, so go listen to a speech by: Churchill, FDR, JFK, MLK etc. It's really sad to hear some people need to resort to swearing in order to emotionally connect with their audience... If your speech/presentation would be utterly boring unless punctuated with strong words, then it was probably badly structured to begin with.

bgarbiak 15y ago
Agree with your point, although I wouldn't say our age is that poor in rhetoric. Obama had some really great speeches in his campaign and Jobs' product presentations were top notch too.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Churchill & FDR rallying their countrymen in a time of global crisis; JFK leading Americans through one of the most tense periods of the nuclear age; MLK bringing discipline, wisdom and guidance to a country deep in the throes of social upheaval; Obama addressing a country embroiled in two wars and entering a deep economic crisis to offer hope; Steve Jobs announcing the iPad. One of these things is not like the other.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    There's absolutely a divide between Winston Churchill and Steve Jobs. And if you're talking at a technical conference about how awesome Github is, you're definitely on one side of that divide, and it isn't Winston Churchill. That's not a bad thing. Steve Jobs still changed history by taking the stage and talking millions of people into buying touchscreen phones, but it's best not to get an overinflated self-image about what we do.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Clinton also had a rather dazzling and effective way of connecting with an audience, but it was much more noticeable in person. People talk about having the uncanny sense that he was speaking to them personally.
shadowfiend 15y ago
Effective rhetoric takes into account its audience. Because of their positions and the gravity of their speeches, none of those leaders could really have hoped to cuss in them. But it wouldn't be surprising in the least if they did when discussing certain matters with others, for example (obviously it depends on the person). Presenters who cuss and are actually good presenters have made a decision that their audience will deal with cussing, and therefore it is a stylistic flourish they can use. Now, they may be wrong—but a few blog posts don't prove that. People no longer being interested in their presentations prove that.
dorian-graph 15y ago
Exactly! If someone can not take the time and effort to learn to speak well and convey their ideas and rely on dumb edginess then they're basically saying "Look, don't listen to me" though if someone makes a great effort then I desire to listen. I say effort instead of result because I know people who are not eloquent at all and struggle with it. The difference between them and others is that they make an effort (The world tends to focus on results and not on getting there), their sincerity, and what they have to say can stand on it's own even despite the lack of great elocution in how they speak their ideas and works would stand on their own.

by zeteo 15y ago

bgarbiak 15y ago

Agree with your point, although I wouldn't say our age is that poor in rhetoric. Obama had some really great speeches in his campaign and Jobs' product presentations were top notch too.

mattdeboard 15y ago
Churchill & FDR rallying their countrymen in a time of global crisis; JFK leading Americans through one of the most tense periods of the nuclear age; MLK bringing discipline, wisdom and guidance to a country deep in the throes of social upheaval; Obama addressing a country embroiled in two wars and entering a deep economic crisis to offer hope; Steve Jobs announcing the iPad. One of these things is not like the other.
- philwelch 15y ago
  There's absolutely a divide between Winston Churchill and Steve Jobs. And if you're talking at a technical conference about how awesome Github is, you're definitely on one side of that divide, and it isn't Winston Churchill. That's not a bad thing. Steve Jobs still changed history by taking the stage and talking millions of people into buying touchscreen phones, but it's best not to get an overinflated self-image about what we do.
philwelch 15y ago
Clinton also had a rather dazzling and effective way of connecting with an audience, but it was much more noticeable in person. People talk about having the uncanny sense that he was speaking to them personally.

shadowfiend 15y ago

Effective rhetoric takes into account its audience. Because of their positions and the gravity of their speeches, none of those leaders could really have hoped to cuss in them. But it wouldn't be surprising in the least if they did when discussing certain matters with others, for example (obviously it depends on the person). Presenters who cuss and are actually good presenters have made a decision that their audience will deal with cussing, and therefore it is a stylistic flourish they can use. Now, they may be wrong—but a few blog posts don't prove that. People no longer being interested in their presentations prove that.

dorian-graph 15y ago

Exactly! If someone can not take the time and effort to learn to speak well and convey their ideas and rely on dumb edginess then they're basically saying "Look, don't listen to me" though if someone makes a great effort then I desire to listen. I say effort instead of result because I know people who are not eloquent at all and struggle with it. The difference between them and others is that they make an effort (The world tends to focus on results and not on getting there), their sincerity, and what they have to say can stand on it's own even despite the lack of great elocution in how they speak their ideas and works would stand on their own.