5 ms·

Aristotle had this one figured out a while ago, methinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle)

Aristotle had this one figured out a while ago, methinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle) His model of rhetoric suggests that the authority of a respected figure (eg. ethos) can override either pathos or logos (emotion and logic respectively), but not both at once. In political terms, this means that candidates have to prove their point emotionally and logically to have the best chance at changing your mind (or at least overriding ethos.) It kinda sucks that we live in a hyper-emotional and hyper-informed election cycle, but this is the logical conclusion of two competitors dueling with rhetoric alone.

lukev 2y ago
[flagged]
- ImJamal 2y ago
  > Harris has detailed policy proposals for most topics No she doesn't. She has three topics on the issues section of her website. Abortion, safety and the economy. How is that most topics? What is her plan for foreign relations? Where is her plan for climate change? Where is her plan for any number of other issues?
  - slater 2y ago
    https://kamalaharris.com/issues/ https://kamalaharris.com/issues/ Last section is about foreign relations. First section has info on tackling the climate crisis.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      Thanaks. I skimmed too fast. Regardless, they are not detailed as claimed. With climate change, for example, it says "she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work, advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, increases resilience to climate disasters, lowers household energy costs, creates millions of new jobs, and continues to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all." But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed. If I was running for president and said I want nobody to die from cancer, I want everybody to get a quality education and want to stop the fentanyl crisis nobody would say that was descriptive. How am I going to do any of those? Hiliarously, it is trying to use Harris' vote on the Inflation Reduction Act to show she will lower energy costs and yet mine are more expensive now.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        > But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed. In a two-party race like this, I'd argue she kinda doesn't have to. People know Donald Trump as "the oil president", simply marketing yourself as the alternative is all she has to do when her opponent's reputation precedes himself. Normally I'd agree, and overall I resent how American policy promotion on both sides of the aisle has turned into virtue signalling. This is a good example of taking advantage in an adversaries blind-spot though - climate change is a real concern, and certain candidates can't even acknowledge that with a straight face.
        ImJamal 2y ago
        I would agree that she doesn't "have to" be detailed, but the person I was responding to claimed she had a "detailed policy proposals for most topics". She doesn't seem to have a detailed plan for anything let alone most topics.
chiefalchemist 2y ago
The act of committing to a candidate makes you at that point subjective. Ppl would rather stick with their (perhaps bad) decision then admit they got it wrong. When so much emphasis is put on Federal elections, this bias contributes to the divisiveness.
- talldayo 2y ago
  I agree, and I think Aristotle would too. But inherently sticking with a bad or mis-guided belief is a human experience that has always existed, not a new political phenomenon. The bias is just how people behave. There is a tried-and-true framework for undermining those biases and even dialectic processes by which one can be proven logically superior to the other. We watch debates, read op-eds and encourage discussions of policy so that these entrenched beliefs are challenged - a free country has no obligation to brainwash it's citizens, even for a good cause.

lukev 2y ago

[flagged]

ImJamal 2y ago
> Harris has detailed policy proposals for most topics No she doesn't. She has three topics on the issues section of her website. Abortion, safety and the economy. How is that most topics? What is her plan for foreign relations? Where is her plan for climate change? Where is her plan for any number of other issues?
- slater 2y ago
  https://kamalaharris.com/issues/ https://kamalaharris.com/issues/ Last section is about foreign relations. First section has info on tackling the climate crisis.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Thanaks. I skimmed too fast. Regardless, they are not detailed as claimed. With climate change, for example, it says "she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work, advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, increases resilience to climate disasters, lowers household energy costs, creates millions of new jobs, and continues to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all." But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed. If I was running for president and said I want nobody to die from cancer, I want everybody to get a quality education and want to stop the fentanyl crisis nobody would say that was descriptive. How am I going to do any of those? Hiliarously, it is trying to use Harris' vote on the Inflation Reduction Act to show she will lower energy costs and yet mine are more expensive now.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > But doesn't explain any of it. This is not detailed. Just listing things you want is not detailed. In a two-party race like this, I'd argue she kinda doesn't have to. People know Donald Trump as "the oil president", simply marketing yourself as the alternative is all she has to do when her opponent's reputation precedes himself. Normally I'd agree, and overall I resent how American policy promotion on both sides of the aisle has turned into virtue signalling. This is a good example of taking advantage in an adversaries blind-spot though - climate change is a real concern, and certain candidates can't even acknowledge that with a straight face.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        I would agree that she doesn't "have to" be detailed, but the person I was responding to claimed she had a "detailed policy proposals for most topics". She doesn't seem to have a detailed plan for anything let alone most topics.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

The act of committing to a candidate makes you at that point subjective. Ppl would rather stick with their (perhaps bad) decision then admit they got it wrong. When so much emphasis is put on Federal elections, this bias contributes to the divisiveness.

talldayo 2y ago
I agree, and I think Aristotle would too. But inherently sticking with a bad or mis-guided belief is a human experience that has always existed, not a new political phenomenon. The bias is just how people behave. There is a tried-and-true framework for undermining those biases and even dialectic processes by which one can be proven logically superior to the other. We watch debates, read op-eds and encourage discussions of policy so that these entrenched beliefs are challenged - a free country has no obligation to brainwash it's citizens, even for a good cause.