4 ms·

So, scolding is a type of manipulation that doesn't work, let's instead use this one, which does?.. I don't even oppose their goals, but I still find this kind

So, scolding is a type of manipulation that doesn't work, let's instead use this one, which does?.. I don't even oppose their goals, but I still find this kind of anti-Enlightenment realpolitik inherently repulsive. (Cf.: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o....)

talldayo 2y ago
> So, scolding is a type of manipulation that doesn't work, let's instead use this one, which does?.. Sure. If it was a for-profit product they would arrive at the exact same conclusion for the purposes of marketing. Any serious pro-environment protestor that wants Americans to care about their movement has to market it effectively. Your movement has to be a product, something that people are afraid of missing out on lest they be a square. It sounds horrible, yes. But this is the status quo for all environmentally harmful marketing so it also becomes the status quo for protest. I'd love to live in a country where conscious protest is considered normal, but America isn't that. > I still find this kind of anti-Enlightenment realpolitik inherently repulsive. It's post-enlightenment. Individual righteousness means nothing when the most important "cause" the average American can be made to care about is what the new iPhone looks like.
vlz 2y ago
I feel you. Whenever this topic comes up I am somewhat torn. On the one hand just pointing out facts should clearly suffice everyone to behave properly on the other hand it clearly doesn’t. Where I often land is, that the dichotomy between scolding and persuasion might simply be a false one. The Viridians, if I may call them that, also seem to think that we can only do one or the other, that we have to decide. It is however not necessarily inconsistent to both scold and try to persuade people, especially for organizations or movements. In our personal relations we are either angry at someone and might scold them or we are more sympathetic and might try to persuade, both behaviors are mutually exclusive as they are grounded in different emotions. However, a societal movement is not bound by personal emotions like that and can, maybe should employ both strategies and probably more. As an individual it can also be fine to "scold" more in one case and persuade more in another, whatever seems more authentic and fits the situation and the personal background and emotions. There might simply be no need to decide on one strategy.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
"Manipulation" is a pretty broad and loaded term. If I put a lot of effort into making a beautiful product(compared to an ugly product with the same exact feature set), because I know it will increase the sales of it - am I manipulating my potential buyers?
samatman 2y ago
Before dismissing the value of rhetoric, I recommend reading it: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. Here's the first paragraph: > Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. So we know what mistakes of the past to avoid? Before taking Aristotle seriously, remember that Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth than men and that objects fall toward the ground at a constant speed. He's certainly worth understanding due to his influence on western civilization, but that doesn't mean you should believe anything he says. His ideas predate a lot of our modern understanding of logic and therefore don't follow it. If you're interested in history, have at it, but if you're trying to figure out what to believe today, Aristotle can safely be ignored. The fact that modern philosophy teaches Aristotle (and many other philosophers whose ideas are obviously wrong and outdated) as if we should believe what they believe, is why I generally am comfortable dismissing most academia around philosophy as worthless. There's plenty of valuable philosophy out there, but the people with good philosophical ideas are generally practicing experts in other fields. Darwin, MLK, or Mr. Rogers are better philosophers than any of the philosophers typically presented as such. Philosophers present as philosophers because they can't or won't deal with the limitations of coming up with useful ideas that stand up to scrutiny. The bit that you quoted basically takes a long time to say, "People use rhetoric intuitively but you can study, learn, and practice rhetoric to get better at it." At least that's not obviously false, but it's not particularly insightful, and it's certainly not a reason we should value rhetoric. Most people at some point in their lives pick their nose, some better than others, and it's certainly a skill that can be developed, but that's certainly not a defense of nose picking.
kerkeslager 2y ago
It's pretty difficult for me to see this as manipulation, because the alternative is what, making products that society doesn't want? To me, "manipulation" usually implies some sort of dishonesty or omission of relevant facts, and I'm not seeing that here. This is roughly "the customer is always right" as it applies to the design of green products.

talldayo 2y ago

> So, scolding is a type of manipulation that doesn't work, let's instead use this one, which does?.. Sure. If it was a for-profit product they would arrive at the exact same conclusion for the purposes of marketing. Any serious pro-environment protestor that wants Americans to care about their movement has to market it effectively. Your movement has to be a product, something that people are afraid of missing out on lest they be a square. It sounds horrible, yes. But this is the status quo for all environmentally harmful marketing so it also becomes the status quo for protest. I'd love to live in a country where conscious protest is considered normal, but America isn't that. > I still find this kind of anti-Enlightenment realpolitik inherently repulsive. It's post-enlightenment. Individual righteousness means nothing when the most important "cause" the average American can be made to care about is what the new iPhone looks like.

vlz 2y ago

I feel you. Whenever this topic comes up I am somewhat torn. On the one hand just pointing out facts should clearly suffice everyone to behave properly on the other hand it clearly doesn’t. Where I often land is, that the dichotomy between scolding and persuasion might simply be a false one. The Viridians, if I may call them that, also seem to think that we can only do one or the other, that we have to decide. It is however not necessarily inconsistent to both scold and try to persuade people, especially for organizations or movements. In our personal relations we are either angry at someone and might scold them or we are more sympathetic and might try to persuade, both behaviors are mutually exclusive as they are grounded in different emotions. However, a societal movement is not bound by personal emotions like that and can, maybe should employ both strategies and probably more. As an individual it can also be fine to "scold" more in one case and persuade more in another, whatever seems more authentic and fits the situation and the personal background and emotions. There might simply be no need to decide on one strategy.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

"Manipulation" is a pretty broad and loaded term. If I put a lot of effort into making a beautiful product(compared to an ugly product with the same exact feature set), because I know it will increase the sales of it - am I manipulating my potential buyers?

samatman 2y ago

Before dismissing the value of rhetoric, I recommend reading it: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. Here's the first paragraph: > Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. So we know what mistakes of the past to avoid? Before taking Aristotle seriously, remember that Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth than men and that objects fall toward the ground at a constant speed. He's certainly worth understanding due to his influence on western civilization, but that doesn't mean you should believe anything he says. His ideas predate a lot of our modern understanding of logic and therefore don't follow it. If you're interested in history, have at it, but if you're trying to figure out what to believe today, Aristotle can safely be ignored. The fact that modern philosophy teaches Aristotle (and many other philosophers whose ideas are obviously wrong and outdated) as if we should believe what they believe, is why I generally am comfortable dismissing most academia around philosophy as worthless. There's plenty of valuable philosophy out there, but the people with good philosophical ideas are generally practicing experts in other fields. Darwin, MLK, or Mr. Rogers are better philosophers than any of the philosophers typically presented as such. Philosophers present as philosophers because they can't or won't deal with the limitations of coming up with useful ideas that stand up to scrutiny. The bit that you quoted basically takes a long time to say, "People use rhetoric intuitively but you can study, learn, and practice rhetoric to get better at it." At least that's not obviously false, but it's not particularly insightful, and it's certainly not a reason we should value rhetoric. Most people at some point in their lives pick their nose, some better than others, and it's certainly a skill that can be developed, but that's certainly not a defense of nose picking.

kerkeslager 2y ago

It's pretty difficult for me to see this as manipulation, because the alternative is what, making products that society doesn't want? To me, "manipulation" usually implies some sort of dishonesty or omission of relevant facts, and I'm not seeing that here. This is roughly "the customer is always right" as it applies to the design of green products.