Today is going to be another fact-filled post, and I want to encourage you to take notes! :)
This post will have a lot of information that will be incredibly helpful as you sift through information about current events, and will also be helpful after the 2020 shit show ends.
For all sorts of decision making opportunities, sifting through the gathered information by identifying misused language (see yesterday's post), and the intentional use of rhetorical devices or fallacies will help you make better, more informed decisions!
Here we go!
First, some definitions. Rhetorical devices are linguistic strategies used to strengthen an argument. You may have a good argument on its own merits, but adding a rhetorical device may add some extra punch to get your listener's attention. You may also have a weak argument and mask it with the use of a rhetorical device. In yesterday's post, I mentioned some rhetorical devices: euphemisms and emotional pleas for instance.
Rhetorical devices I will talk about today include dyphemisms, weaselers, downplayers, stereotypes, innuendos, loaded questions, ridicule, hyperbole, rhetorical analogies, misleading comparisons, proof surrogates, repetition, and demagoguery (otherizing, demonizing, fostering xenophobia, and hate or fear mongering).
That is a huge list, and I will explain each one in a bit.
Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning, or arguments that do not support or prove the point they are supposed to support or prove. Types of fallacies I will cover include relevance, argumentum ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, misplacing the burden of proof, appeal to ignorance, begging the question, appeals to emotion, and arriving at an irrelevant conclusion. I will explain each of these today, but first, let's go back to the list of rhetorical devices and dig into them!
Rhetorical devices explained:
Again, rhetorical devices are tools used with language in order to persuade or manipulate you to change your attitude, belief, or behavior. To buy something, do something, say something, or not buy something, not do something, not say something. Vote this way, or that way. Wear the mask, don't wear the mask. Buy this car, buy that car. Eat this hamburger. Color your hair with this product. Look younger with this cream. Vacation here. Take this pill.
Here are the most commonly used rhetorical devices, and their explanation:
1. Dyphemisms: This is essentially the opposite of euphemisms, which I wrote about yesterday. Dyphemisms are words used to suggest a negative tone instead of a positive one. Examples: obscenely rich instead of wealthy, or shrink instead of psychiatrist.
2. Weaselers: This is used to protect your argument or claim from criticism by diluting the message or watering down the claim.
Examples: Lose up to 40 pounds! Make as much as $1,000 per week! So-and-so allegedly said such and such.
3. Downplayers: This is used to make someone (your opposition) look less important. Examples: Don't listen to my opponent, they are just a politician (or fill in any number of adjectives that would be perceived as bad). Don't believe that company, they are just in it for the money.
4. Stereotypes: Unreliable characteristics about a group of people, a place, thing, or event.
Examples: Oh, you know she is a classic politician. Sure he is nice, but he is a lawyer/is from *fill in your least favorite location*.
5. Innuendos: Saying something that appears to be polite, but is devised to cast doubt on a person/place/thing/event.
Examples: I wish I were as confident as you to wear something so fitted. Any statement followed by: "If you know what I mean..." is typically a backhanded way of something something not so polite or positive.
6. Loaded questions: A trick question. It contains at least one implied assumption, without saying it, that you are likely to disagree with.
Examples: You actually believe that criminal (assumes you believe, and also assumes person is a criminal)? Are you still giving money to that awful politician (assumes you have or are giving money, assumes you think the politician is awful)? The problem: If you say yes, you are saying you believe the person and think they are a criminal, or you are saying you are giving money to that politician and you agree they are awful. If you say no, you are saying you don't believe the person, but are still saying you agree they are a criminal, or you are saying you are not (but maybe did) give money to that politician, but you are still implying they are awful. You see... you are supporting something that is implied, unless you take the time to carefully dissect the loaded question and respond to ALL of it.
7. Ridicule: To make a person/place/thing/event seem objectionable. May include sarcasm.
Example: Sure, golf is a sport, but real sports require much more athletic prowess, and contact.
8. Hyperbole: To exaggerate or over emphasize. Can be used to boast about yourself or to berate someone/something else.
Examples: No one has ever in the history of the world been better at this job than me. If you support candidate X, the world will end. If you buy a foreign car, people in our country will lose their jobs.
9. Rhetorical analogies: Comparing one thing (or person/place/event) to another in order to convey a particular tone or feeling (positive or negative).
Examples: Jonathan's sense of humor is as dry as the Sahara Desert. She is as sweet as honey. He is as sly as a fox. Finding an honest politician in D.C. is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
10. Proof Surrogates: When no evidence exists to support a claim, imply it.
Examples: "People say..." "I heard..." "It is obvious that..." or..."Everyone knows that..." When you hear these...beware!
11. Repetition: Repetition breeds familiarity, and familiarity breeds acceptance. Hear something untrue or unacceptable enough times, it begins to seem true or acceptable.
12. Demagoguery: This form of rhetoric is extremely toxic. Otherizing, demonizing, fostering xenophobia, and hate or fear mongering are all types of demagoguery (the use of emotion, passion, or prejudice to gain popularity or support, typically by divisiveness).
Otherizing is to pit people against others, using an 'us vs. them' language. It is used to divide people, to objectify, dehumanize or mischaracterize a group of people in a negative way in order to elicit disliking. It is the opposite of building or cultivating harmony, inclusion or community. It is apparent with phrases like "those people" "they will take your..jobs/money/opportunity/safety/freedom".
Demonizing is to use words to characterize a person/persons/place/thing/event as evil or terrible. When this tactic is used, it typically includes hate speech, and often dehumanizes people based on a trait, such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation. In today's world, it is also used to describe people from an opposing political affiliation. None of these are appropriate or ethical. I won't even provide examples, as it is a disgusting tactic. You know it when you see it.
Fostering xenophobia is what is sounds like. It is cultivating a fear of things or people that are unknown or different. This tactic can include demonizing or othering, and often activates negative stereotypes, racism, and anti-human of any sort that is different from you. In recent days in American media, examples include referring to people as 'antifa' in a way that suggests being antifa is bad, or using broad terms like 'socialists' or 'communists' as a means of inciting fear. Referring to human beings wishing to move to another country as 'those immigrants' is othering, demonizing, and fosters xenophobia when used with a negative tone of voice, with 'those' in front of the word immigrant, and when referring to true or untrue acts of violence perpetrated by a person who may be a part of that immigrant group. This fosters xenophobia. The list goes on, because there are far too many examples of demagoguery, otherizing, demonizing, and fostering xenophobia currently. This category rightfully includes hate and fear mongering, which you can plainly see in the examples provided in the demagoguery category.
There you have it. A long list of ways words can be used to mislead you. Be careful of these, because they are typically used to distract you from the truth.
When you hear these, stop.
Think.
Question if you can.
Remember.
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Now, on to fallacies. There are several of these, too! Keep your notebook handy!
Fallacies explained:
Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning, or arguments that do not support or prove the point they are supposed to support or prove.
They are errors in reasoning, either intentionally or unintentionally.
If the listener is paying attention and does not get tricked by the fallacy, it will undermine the communicator's argument and their credibility.
Using fallacies typically suggests or implies that the communicator does not have a good reason or argument to support their stance.
Types of fallacies include relevance, argumentum ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, misplacing/shifting the burden of proof, begging the question, appeals to emotion, arriving at irrelevant conclusions, and red herring (some would say I am saving the best for least here).
Let's get into each type:
Relevance: This fallacy appeals to evidence that is not related to the argument. This is typically used as a last resort, when the communicator has no evidence to support their argument.
Examples include: Well, I know texting and driving are dangerous, but I see you do it all the time!
2. Argumentum Ad Hominem: There are several types of argumentum ad hominem fallacies: abusive, circumstantial, inconsistent, poisoning the well, and guilt by association). All of these are designed to dismiss an opponent's claim by dismissing the person. This is used when you cannot find a way to dismiss the claim.
Abusive ad hominem: Attacking the person. Example: "What my opponent says is a joke! He will say anything to get attention/get your vote/get your business!
Circumstantial ad hominem: Suggesting their are circumstances that bring the other person's credibility into question. Example: Of course she thinks Fords are the best vehicles! She works for the company and makes money every time someone buys a Ford!
Inconsistent ad hominem: Suggesting the the opposing person/argument is inconsistent in their stand. Example: Sure she says Fords are better, but she used to work for Chevrolet, and then she said Chevy's were the best cars! Or.. Of course is says he supports X but don't forget he voted against X 4 years ago!
Poisoning the well ad hominem: Trying to get listeners to ignore the opposing side's argument they are going to hear by questioning the person's character, consistency, or circumstances. This primes the listener to believe what they are going to hear is not coming from a credible source. Examples:
Guilt by association ad hominem: When the source of an argument is discredited because of their association with something the arguer sees as negative (and hopes the listener does, too). Example: Tom's friend robbed a bank, so Tom is a bad person.
3. Straw Man Fallacy: Distorting or misrepresenting someone's argument in order to make it easier to defeat. Again, like with all these fallacies, this is a distraction technique. If I cannot find a good argument to find fault with my opponent's stance, I can just misrepresent it to make it easier to attack. Example: Opponent says they want to change the elementary school policy to increase recess times based on research that says physical activity improves attention. Your straw man: Oh, so you don't care about how much science or math kids learn, as long as they aren't obese?
4. False Dilemma: Also known as the black/white, false choice, either/or fallacy. A limited number of options are presented as 'the only options' when other options do exist. Examples: You are either with us or against us. Love it or leave it. If you don't buy this car now, you won't be able to get this car/model any more. This pushes you to believe you only have these 2 options, feeling a sense of urgency to adopt one of them. The options left out are likely to include the best options! There are typically two types of false dilemmas: Perfectionist and line drawing. In the perfectionist version, you are led to believe if you can't do the job perfectly you shouldn't do it at all. Example: We can never eradicate terrorism/homelessness/COVID-19/unemployment, so we should stop wasting money on it. Line-drawing suggests that we can either clearly delineate (draw a line) between the 2 sides, or there is no difference between them. Sounds similar to a slippery slope argument. Example: We shouldn't regulate violence in movies. After all, who decides what is violent and what is not? You cannot draw a line.
5. Misplacing/shifting the burden of proof: Shifting blame from your own need to prove your point to the other person/side to disprove it. Example: If you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, then they must exist. If you accuse your partner of infidelity and shift the burden on them to prove they did not cheat. This suggests you do not have enough evidence to support your argument, so you distract by shifting the burden to the other person.
6. Begging the question: Circular reasoning. Where the communicator includes the premise (question) in the conclusion (answer). It is similar to including a word in its own definition ("Red is a color that is red.") In this strategy, the communicator assumes the argument is true simply by stating the argument. A catchy way to remember this one is "assumes truth without proof". Example: Women should not be soldiers because only men should be soldiers. Paranormal activity exists because I have experienced things that can only be described as paranormal activity.
7. Appeal to emotion: What it sounds like. Trying to evoke an emotional response instead of using a valid argument. There are several types of appeals to emotion, including: argument from outrage, scare tactics (peer pressure), appeal to pity, apple polishing, guilt tripping, appeal to envy, and appeal to envy.
Outrage: When communicator attempts to convince you by making you angry rather than giving you a valid argument. This can be done by using otherizing or demonizing, or other ad hominem strategies.
Scare tactics: When the communicator attempts to scare people into accepting an irrelevant conclusion. Example: Don't risk your family's safety by voting for X/buying a different car/supporting this referendum.
Threats: Part of a scare tactic. Example: Vote for X or you will lose your job.
Appeal to pity: Trying to convince you of something by arousing pity. Example: If you don't give Alicia this job, she will be out of work and her kids will be hungry.
Apple polishing: Playing on pride. Example: Someone as intelligent as you can see that I am the right person for the job.
Guilt tripping: Making statements to make people feel guilty, in the hope that they will accept your argument. Example: How could you NOT support taking care of animals? You must!
Appeal to envy: Trying to make people feel envious rather than producing a real argument. Example: They have everything you want to have and don't. Don't support them.
Appeal to jealousy: Trying to gain support by making people feel jealous instead of producing a real argument. Example: I know how much you love Sarah, but Jack has been flirting with her lately, and I thought you should know. Keep that in mind when considering Jack for the position at your company.
8. Arriving at an irrelevant conclusion: There are several types of irrelevant conclusions: two wrongs make a right, wishful thinking, and denial. Let's look at all three.
Two wrongs make a right: The wrongfulness of one deed is negated by the wrongfulness of another. Example: Why should I tell them they gave me too much change back at the restaurant? Do you think they would tell me if they overcharged me?
Wishful thinking: When we incorrectly think that just because we wish for something to be true/to happen, that it is true/will happen. Example: I know there will be a cure for that disease very soon! I just know you will vote for me!
Denial: Forgetting that just because you want something to be false doesn't make it false. Example: I know I put my keys in my purse when I got home, I don't know why they aren't there now! I didn't say that, I don't know why you would say I did (roll tape...)!
Ducking irrelevancies: Irrelevancies are sometimes introduced when someone attacks a counterargument than than offering a valid argument for their own position. Example: Americans dislike *fill in your favorite country*. If polls or news outlets don't show that, it is because people are lying. Hu?
9. Red herring: Attempting to mislead or distract from the argument by bringing up a completely different topic. Example: In order to really look at the problem of global warming, we really need to talk about how homeless people suffer when it is cold.
Phew. That is a lot of information, right? I hope this is helpful for you. I tried to use examples that were varied. Some were political in nature, because politics are where we see some of the masters of the use of fallacies and rhetorical devices, so there a lot of examples there. I tried not to be partisan in my choices. Hopefully I succeeded.
As you gather information for any decision, whether it is some of the major decisions facing many of us right now, like voting, COVID-19, or civil unrest, or other decisions like relationships, money, jobs, a move, a car, a vacation (oh, wow, that would be nice), be aware of the many places you will find these strategies that are used to persuade. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. Their presence does not necessarily mean the person or context is untruthful, especially with rhetorical devices, but it does mean you should stop and think about the information, and do your best to filter out the method(s) used to transmit the information.
As I have said before:
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
You will be glad you did.
Be well, stay safe, and take care. Until tomorrow!
Commenti