Most rhetoric consists of the search for excuses with which to justify your reproductive strategy while maintaining the rhetorical pretence of moral objectivity – largely by way of asserting we are all equal in ability and value to one another and possessed of equal incentives. Yet this technique is dependent upon the twin biases of empathy with others to inspire agreement, fear of shaming to disincentivize disagreement.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 13:01:00 UTC
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
https://www.facebook.com/wpjennajohnson/
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:52:00 UTC
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:51:00 UTC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-victory-donald-trump-cant-stop-airing-his-grievances/2016/05/29/a5f7a566-2526-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_naTHE POST’S ONGOING VERY STRANGE POSITIONING
I realize that the Post is part of the status quo establishment, but it’s pretty clear to those of us who are of empirical rather than ideological bias, that the editorial team’s FAILED to grasp the demographic and political shift away from consensus on ideology (a class competition) and toward higher tribalism (a clan competition).
1) All people vote their reproductive interests, and all reproductive interests are better satisfied within tribe than without.
2) Given that all ‘tribes’ are constructed out of people with different distributions of talents – some lower, genetically, socially, familially, and economically, and some higher genetically, socially, familially, and economically – and that these distributions of talents are determined by the differing rates of reproduction of their classes – societies MUST organize to compete militarily, economically, and politically, with the people that they consist of. Ergo, in an homogenous upward-redistributive society that has practiced eugenics for thousands of years (Northern Europe) you will get equalitarianism – because people are relatively equal in ability. If you look to south america, or india, where the underclasses breed rapidly, you will get a caste system. If you look to Arabia, where there is no upper or middle class you will get authoritarianism.
Ergo, if you attempt to build a heterogeneous democracy you will eventually end up with either a caste system (which we now have approximately by race).
So why should you expect to create a series of racial competitions and not produce authoritarians in every caste? (Jackson etc on the black, and conservatives on the white, and the emerging hispanic consensus, and the existing jewish consensus.)
All empirical governments grow. All ideological governments stagnate. The Neocon-Neoliberal era is done. Welcome back to the world of tribalism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:01:00 UTC
Rule by lie is still rule by lie regardless of whether you like the lie. The common discovered law is the only truth we need.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 13:00:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736542698367258624
Reply addressees: @AssOfBalaam
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736538705318412288
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736538705318412288
Every man a sheriff. Protect commons from the marxist techniques of rallying, shaming, loading, framing, suggestion.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 08:54:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736480793292312576
Reply addressees: @ColonelFeraud @DJTWMAR
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736480141803675648
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736480141803675648
One cannot make argumentative wrongs, one can only make errors and deceits. Right/Wrong are moral. Logic true/false.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 08:51:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736479882574696448
Reply addressees: @ColonelFeraud @DJTWMAR
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477206537482240
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477206537482240
And it’s somewhat hard to judge one’s philosophy by a set of tweets. Although we CAN judge one’s shaming vs reason.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 08:47:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736478875832705024
Reply addressees: @ColonelFeraud @DJTWMAR
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477405343326208
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477405343326208
ergo why I don’t exactly take your shaming as an expression of anything other than ignorance.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 08:45:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736478566158872576
Reply addressees: @ColonelFeraud @DJTWMAR
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477405343326208
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477405343326208
If you were capable of criticizing my use of philosophy you would do so. Since you can’t, you shame. It’s simple.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 08:45:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736478413557501952
Reply addressees: @ColonelFeraud @DJTWMAR
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477405343326208
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/736477405343326208