Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

The main forum for discussing social justice and the "plus" part of Atheism Plus.

Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:47 pm

Hello! I'm new here and I tossed an idea around on a few blogs on Freethought blogs and in the Thunderdome at Pharyngula and I wanted to see if it has any promise. It has a little interest and at the least no one hated it so I thought I would see if anyone wanted grind against it, skeptically speaking. If has promise it needs a home and a place to organize and this seems like a good fit.

A little background if you are interested,
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-211297
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-576993

I am proposing a place where people who are dedicated to hard-core skepticism, reality, and have the ability to change their own beliefs can gather and strategically support people who are being inundated by harassers and trolls. REAL ones who use terror, pain, numbers, and pack tactics to silence people through attrition. This is to be based on complete honesty (we show up and actually say what we are doing with complete honesty) and we practice what I call Hyper-Criticism. The goal is to make trolls feel harassed while not actually engaging in any true harassment, only criticism. We essentially use the same numbers game and group-Skepticism and critical thinking to drive them off while simultaneously supporting the message of person being suppressed if we can. I say if because I want this to be a morally neutral effort that focuses on bad, deceptive behavior so theoretically you could end up helping someone who believes something you hate. So I'm saying up-front that I have thought about this very carefully and am willing to answer any questions anyone might have.

Here is a copy and paste from a more recent picture of my intentions from the Thunderdome,

***Rhetorical Assassination***
I call what I am planning Rhetorical Assassination because it involves the undermining of individuals who engage in carefully defined behaviors that are suppressive and have been called harassment here at FTB. The behavior defines the target(s), and they get undermined by their own weapon (in-your-face textual engagement) in an organized way. Those who want to claim the rights to free-speech should be able to take hyper-criticism and walk away. Ideally they will respond to criticism with answers to questions and challenges.

I am also calling it Rhetorical Assassination because like it or not the hired killing of people who were bad for communities has been part of human history objectively speaking. This is the targeted killing of ideas and behavior that are bad for the community. The behavior is to be killed through use of human primate psychology to inform our actions (2). Sure we don’t know everything about the brain and the mind, but I try to let what we discover inform how I view human interactions as much as possible.

I am proposing (and planning right now) the creation of a Rhetorical Assassins guild where these ideas, ethics, and techniques can be argued about in an environment that allows free-speech, but no emotional suppression. If an idea can not be killed through an intellectual challenge, no primitive primate poo-flinging equivalents like photoshopped pictures, pathetic persistent pejoratives, pretender twitter pages, or forced penetration will be tolerated. If an idea cannot survive challenge without emotional warfare the idea gets a voice. Period.

Part of the guild will be devoted to discussing (critically eviscerating) ideas like, everything in this post. Part of it will be devoted to listing the blogs, twitter accounts, individual posts, facebook pages, any source where someone is having an idea suppressed by the above kinds of behavior. We wait until they act. We wait until people need support, we push away the immature assholes and actively try to engage the subject of the blog post, or some other way to constructively enable the person to keep their voice. This is also not about just voices that agree with us, or a particular issue like feminism.

The specific Behaviors (feel free to add your own, I meant what I said about this being a group thing)
In the last Thunderdome thread I listed this selection of behaviors that I saw for over a year at a general serious topic discussion board for adult, mostly male fans of the reboot of My Little Pony:
*They avoid answering your questions, no matter how many of theirs you answer
*They take more complicated issues and run off on incorrect tangents and pretend it is your subject to confuse readers
*They load their paragraphs with assertions offered as fact and resist all attempts to link them to reality
*When they do give you a link to reality it is usually more opinion! No actual primary sources!
*When they describe the content of the position of another you discover that what is represented as paraphrase is dishonest hyperbole at best. You are made into an exaggeration.
*They engage in projection over and over and over. What they do, they attempt to place on you while they obfuscate.
*They strike the abused victim stand themselves and try to scream louder than the real victim while offering no evidence that they have been victimized

This list focuses on broad logical bullshit that you can consider a cognitive flaw that results from a desire to defeat your foe, or “win”, instead of figure out who is more correct about reality.

I would like to point out that this community spun-off from people that were mostly from 4chan/b/, and 4chan/co/. I had to learn to deal with not only trolls from 4chan who could not stand to see grown men love colorful ponies, but I had to deal with the same damn groups of people who want license to be as rude as they want from within the Brony community (anti-feminists and libertarians figured most prominently).

So I’m a genetically pattern sensitive individual who has spent more than two years obsessively engaging in serious discussion attempts among the most emotionally immature people you can find. Really, really well meaning people most of the time but still as emotional as you can imagine “nice /b/-tards” being. I have also been a substitute teacher in a southern state for over three years trying to figure out what to do since Tourettes and ADHD have killed my attempt at a science career. I see patterns among emotionally immature people. Sometimes you are not just seeing things.

The techniques
During that year on the discussion board I had the opportunity to try to fling myself at people the way they say they love to in the the Pit. (Someone at Nugent’s blog tried to sell me on the Pit as a concept but I already have my place of free-speech. I can’t abide moral cowardice at criticizing your peers.) Except that this was a place that did not allow adult content and they were definitely willing to ban you for being a complete asshole. You see we like that Hasbro lets the people who make the cartoon play with the community in the cartoon. So at least some of the sites try to have more broad behavior requirements.

I started responding to them with the tools that I got from watching the Creationism/Evolution debates. I stereotyped the “Take-Down” because that is what you do when you have something like I do and you want to argue about serious things with nice people. When I did this I started seeing really predictable responses. I then spent a year finding “best practices” like the ones that teachers talk about when it comes to curriculum. This is what I ended up doing. You have to focus it like a laser beam and I am still trying to refine it.

Essentially you break up their comments into fact claims and you attack each of them individually. One short paragraph, one short take-down after another, for each dishonest, illogical, incorrect, or abusive comment. Its not as hard as it sounds because they are the ones making claims, therefore they are the ones who need to provide evidence. If you don’t want to be so OCD just do their most “strong” fact claims.

Any refusal to do so can be answered with a dismissive “Then no one should believe what you say because all an opinion is, is an unsupported assertion” (or your flavor of rhetoric). You can assassinate rhetoric while using it. The difference is that only one side can be closer to reality, and only one side is using criticism without abuse. (This is why I mention the ethics, I actually try to think carefully about it)

1. Identify the first logical problem, fact claim, or argument in their words. Quote them. This is the part that is an assertion all by itself. Common subjects:
* Your position “restated” (any change in your wording must be defended)
* An objective piece of reality (blog post, video, content of any kind, an event)
* A “summary” of what some other group is like, or what they do
2. Identify the supporting information statement and it’s nature. If it is absent, point out that this is an assertion and can be rejected without evidence. This is essentially the “why” statement that logically connects their opinion to something outside of themselves.
3. After identifying the “why” statement identify the primary source for the point that comes from the connection between 1 and 2 and see if the source supports what they say. If there is no source than this is an asserted argument, but can still be rejected without evidence.

Finally if you get an argument and a source you can do what we should get to do this entire time, assess a proper argument to see if it holds up. If I get the chance I try to point out why one should choose to avoid their tactics, and I point out the deception to the audience and make it crystal clear why no one should be interested in what they say. I even make psychological pragmatic arguments about why they should want to avoid these things if they actually care about argument.

This is not at all based on deception because it is what I do online all the time anyway. The criticism does the work.
http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013/02/ ... arassment/

This does not need to be abusive. I even tell my secrets to my enemies because when they discover that it reduces to becoming really good at figuring out how you compare with reality, they often lose interest in killing their own ideas. Fortunately my friends at the imageboard feel differently. There is room for discussion of what “ethical abuse” might look like, but lets just say that showboating does not work with an impulsive personality very well. I have had to be careful about my emotions.

If there is anything new here, it’s probably just in how I am organizing it, and trying to organize people.
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby SubMor » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:26 pm

If I'm reading you right, what you're pushing for is a kind of organized (amateur?) peer review group of some sort. Could be good. Would take a lot of work to set up, but I could see it being a very helpful exercise for some people. Not sure calling it "assassination" is such a good idea, though.
he pronouns; random PMs are fine
User avatar
SubMor
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:06 am

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby smhll » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:40 pm

Hey, I don't want to be hugely discouraging, but I'm a pessimist and I think you may be headed into a quagmire. (Possibly the Big Muddy, if you know that song.)

Have you read some of what was written about Civility over at Camels with Hammers back around last August [2012]? I wouldn't try to get you to read all of the posts on that topic, which are lengthy and not light reading, but you might want to sample the comment threads. Some great points were made there. Short version - Less privileged people wrestling with more privileged people may feel like they are rolling a boulder uphill. And it hurts. Discussing consequential things with people who find them inconsequential really sucks.

[TW: talking about rape apologism]
Also, if you aren't following the discussion Michael Nugent has been having for the last week or so at his blog, you may find it interesting to check that out. Some good back and forth has been creeping in. (People who used to be on one side of the slur argument seem to be on the other now.) On the topic of sexual assault, I was heartened to see someone on "my side" (the position that I believe to be true) come forward with patience (which I am out of) and evidence to discuss what feminists think about sexual assault prevention and whether feminists have done enough to help male victims on this issue. The one poster in particular provided many valuable pieces of information. I admire this work.

It is daunting and disheartening that they just had to have a conversation devoted to rape prevention tips on Nugent's blog. And now I'm going to yell. (Not at you.) It is fucking insensitive to follow women all around the internet waving one's 'deep thoughts' about rape prevention in their faces. Guys who love debate seem to be happy to refight this fight every three weeks, or even more often. How many times do they suppose that rape survivors and friends of rape survivors really want to open up this topic?!! Especially to discuss it with people whose 'expertise' on the issue is limited to thinking about it idly from time to time. I read most all of the sexual assault prevention discussion on Nugent's blog last week and the guys who were talking about prevention were (nearly) 100% relying on 'common sense' and opinionated guesses. They were completely unfactual and unskeptical. They didn't even have real anecdotes, they were opining about fictional probabilities. This type of converstation is UTTERLY USELESS and painful for some of the participants, especially those with experience or strong empathy. I suggest that it needs to stay off in side conversations behind marked doors to let assault and abuse survivors of any gender (and their loved ones) steer clear of it if that is their preference. [Also, a horrible defense mechanism may be arising on one side where they choose to dismiss and disbelieve anything they find too painful to mesh with their 'just world' ideas. This can lead to distortion and a decrease in understanding, instead of an increase.]

To get back to you. I wish you well in fighting to increase understanding and working to get people to make substantive contributions to the topic.

I'm concerned how you will deal with: misrepresentation, allegations of misrepresentation, victim blaming, and strongly held opinions that aren't backed up with facts.

I encourage you to take one small issue at a time and get as firm definitions of terms as you possibly can. Lots of conversations seem to go around in circles because of different definitions of words or different emotional weight given to words.

I'm way to exhausted to explain stuff like "how slurs work" to people who are willfully obtuse or (charitably) really think differently than I do. (Which I uncharitably think is due to them not thinking very hard...)

[It's a sunny Sunday here and I have things to do. Chores and fun things. I kind of regret spending 25 minutes thinking, writing and editing on an unpleasant topic.]

Um, yeah, posters who read just the blog headline and then barf their comments into the comment section. Do you have a good strategy for that? I encourage you to start with a small group, as well as a small topic, and don't let newcomers in except at the start of a semester. I wish you luck, or energy, or patience. Whatever will help.
User avatar
smhll
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:02 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:50 pm

Hey, I don't want to be hugely discouraging, but I'm a pessimist and I think you may be headed into a quagmire. (Possibly the Big Muddy, if you know that song.)


I'm an optimist and I'm married to a pessimist who I love very much. :D

Have you read some of what was written about Civility over at Camels with Hammers back around last August [2012]? I wouldn't try to get you to read all of the posts on that topic, which are lengthy and not light reading, but you might want to sample the comment threads. Some great points were made there. Short version - Less privileged people wrestling with more privileged people may feel like they are rolling a boulder uphill. And it hurts. Discussing consequential things with people who find them inconsequential really sucks.


I'm willing to look at the Civility thread you are talking about.But I may be able to legitimately disagree with something. Try me. I moderate a discussion form on a website for adult fans of My Little Pony and most of us are guys.

[TW: talking about rape apologism]
Also, if you aren't following the discussion Michael Nugent has been having for the last week or so at his blog, you may find it interesting to check that out. Some good back and forth has been creeping in. (People who used to be on one side of the slur argument seem to be on the other now.) On the topic of sexual assault, I was heartened to see someone on "my side" (the position that I believe to be true) come forward with patience (which I am out of) and evidence to discuss what feminists think about sexual assault prevention and whether feminists have done enough to help male victims on this issue. The one poster in particular provided many valuable pieces of information. I admire this work.


I have dealt with these same issues with people not so very different than the ones that are discussed by people like Greta Christina, Stephanie Zvan, and more. I actually went to Ms. Nasrim's blog and went toe to toe with the invading Bangladeshi abusive posters. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I legitimately enjoyed it and I am saying that only people who can do this, should do this. Not everyone has that kind of ability. That is a completely fair statement and I won't judge anyone who has life experience that for whatever reason can't let them be able to do something like this. I know not everyone is the same and I'm not saying that you are assuming that I did not. I frankly save anything that I consider getting close to abuse in my tactics for people who directly or indirectly make excuses for suffering and death.


It is daunting and disheartening that they just had to have a conversation devoted to rape prevention tips on Nugent's blog. And now I'm going to yell. (Not at you.) It is fucking insensitive to follow women all around the internet waving one's 'deep thoughts' about rape prevention in their faces. Guys who love debate seem to be happy to refight this fight every three weeks, or even more often. How many times do they suppose that rape survivors and friends of rape survivors really want to open up this topic?!! Especially to discuss it with people whose 'expertise' on the issue is limited to thinking about it idly from time to time. I read most all of the sexual assault prevention discussion on Nugent's blog last week and the guys who were talking about prevention were (nearly) 100% relying on 'common sense' and opinionated guesses. They were completely unfactual and unskeptical. They didn't even have real anecdotes, they were opining about fictional probabilities. This type of converstation is UTTERLY USELESS and painful for some of the participants, especially those with experience or strong empathy. I suggest that it needs to stay off in side conversations behind marked doors to let assault and abuse survivors of any gender (and their loved ones) steer clear of it if that is their preference. [Also, a horrible defense mechanism may be arising on one side where they choose to dismiss and disbelieve anything they find too painful to mesh with their 'just world' ideas. This can lead to distortion and a decrease in understanding, instead of an increase.]


I have Tourette Syndrome. I'm also an Impulsive male. I also know both how other people can hurt with language, and how I can accidentally hurt with language. It's a reason why I know how people can do these things and why I have little patience for behavior that amounts to "I want to be able to be rude and hurtful because I can" and I try to act like it whenever I am allowed. Sure something as new as the internet let people break social norms that they can't in public, but everything evolves. Why can't internet rules of conduct evolve in a way that only involves good old fashioned social conflict? People who know martial arts don't go around fighting with people fur fun and without consent in public. Why can people who can, and have the ability to be textually and verbally aggressive ethically engage in some natural selection as a group?

It would only involve people who give us permission through their actions (defined harassers), and as "defensive support" I am allowed to analyze them by what they avoid discussing. Point out their cowardice, like I did on Nugent's blog, and generally bat them about like a skeptical cat as long as I actually have examples of someone arguing in bad faith.
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/03 ... ent-196954

I really enjoy this because providing moral support with my actions makes me feel good.

To get back to you. I wish you well in fighting to increase understanding and working to get people to make substantive contributions to the topic.

Thank you.

I'm concerned how you will deal with: misrepresentation, allegations of misrepresentation, victim blaming, and strongly held opinions that aren't backed up with facts.

What do you think about this situation where I had a little fun with a troll?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-506410

Or a back and forth with Tuvok demonstrating his level honesty and integrity (none).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-505154
I'm not saying that this is a perfected thing but this crap is so repetitive that it's pathetic so while not everyone can, I enjoy it and actually try to make a set of teachable tactics and techniques out of it. What it misses is the rest of the pack for creating pack tactics.

I encourage you to take one small issue at a time and get as firm definitions of terms as you possibly can. Lots of conversations seem to go around in circles because of different definitions of words or different emotional weight given to words.


I'm actually pretty comfortable with using definitions as they exist because I find it fun to learn new ways to point out when the person I am talking to will not give me their definition (99% of the time, since they are defensive at that moment). You just have to get used to figuring out that your real conversation partner is the audience. It works better if you can bring one along.

I'm way to exhausted to explain stuff like "how slurs work" to people who are willfully obtuse or (charitably) really think differently than I do. (Which I uncharitably think is due to them not thinking very hard...)


Thank you for the new toys! I will find some examples of what I like to say when this happens. Maybe I can find a formula...

[It's a sunny Sunday here and I have things to do. Chores and fun things. I kind of regret spending 25 minutes thinking, writing and editing on an unpleasant topic.]


Then don't. I would not judge you for that. But if you ever see anything you like here feel free to steal it without attribution. I honestly don't care.

Um, yeah, posters who read just the blog headline and then barf their comments into the comment section. Do you have a good strategy for that? I encourage you to start with a small group, as well as a small topic, and don't let newcomers in except at the start of a semester. I wish you luck, or energy, or patience. Whatever will help.


I save all my best fights for analysis and I only wish I could cut loose on Facebook. I get to sometimes :greengrin:
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby smhll » Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:57 pm

I really enjoy this because providing moral support with my actions makes me feel good.

And I feel good when I get some support for 'my side' of an argument. You contributed good support on Nugent's blog. I like that.

I'm pretty tired of all of this debate. I think there's disagreement at the bottom about non testable things, or at least things that are quite hard to test. I'm just burning out and am ready to leave the internet for a good long time. (Would if I had any sense. Apparently am addicted.)

I think having the argument about how slurs work would be completely pointless. I'd be banging my head against a very stubborn wall there.

ETA: I followed your link to Stephanie's blog. This stuff you posted is great.
[ Show ]
After a while you see patterns. Patterns that make you realize that the common denominator of logical fallacies is one thing only. Make your opponents point go away at any cost and substitute it with your own.
*They avoid answering your questions, no matter how many of theirs you answer
*They take more complicated issues and run off on incorrect tangents and pretend it is your subject to confuse readers
*They load their paragraphs with assertions offered as fact and resist all attempts to link them to reality
*When they do give you a link to reality it is usually more opinion! No actual primary sources!
*When they describe the content of the position of another you discover that what is represented as paraphrase is dishonest hyperbole at best. You are made into an exaggeration.
*They engage in projection over and over and over. What they do, they attempt to place on you while they obfuscate.
*They strike the abused victim stand themselves and try to scream louder than the real victim while offering no evidence that they have been victimized
User avatar
smhll
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:02 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:13 pm

And I feel good when I get some support for 'my side' of an argument. You contributed good support on Nugent's blog. I like that.

Thank you! But I'm one person with other responsibilities so I'm trying to figure out how to organize, well I'm only partially sure what. I only know that back in the 90's-00's I learned what I do from watching and learning from people arguing with creationists and that was a multi-person effort. I'm thinking that this kind of thing can get organized too.

I'm pretty tired of all of this debate. I think there's disagreement at the bottom about non testable things, or at least things that are quite hard to test. I'm just burning out and am ready to leave the internet for a good long time. (Would if I had any sense. Apparently am addicted.)

It's fair to be tired. To be more fair not everyone inherently likes verbal/textual conflict. Maybe I'm crazy. But if it's a useful crazy I want to make use of it.

I think having the argument about how slurs work would be completely pointless. I'd be banging my head against a very stubborn wall there.

Well I don't really mean an argument. From the point of view I am taking it's more like taking the specific examples of people using slurs and putting them on a dissection board. Look at why they are really doing what they are doing and work on finding "best methods" the way that teachers do when deciding on curriculum. I would find it fun to point to summarized sets of literature showing that using hurtful words actually makes the victim less able to intellectually defend themselves. The research is there and it can be tied to lots of other things. A slur is a slur and coming up with stereotyped sets of responses in a word document might even work in that case.

ETA: I followed your link to Stephanie's blog. This stuff you posted is great.

Thank you! One of the reasons I am doing this is that I am hoping there are lots of other patterns that we can find as a group. I'm not saying that "Primate Chess" is an easy formula, but clearly it has formulaic elements and if nothing else such people do not like looking like robots.
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:25 pm

Now there are three things here.

"...how slurs work..." to

This one is interesting. Historically, slurs were only ever a problem verbally so that has to use systems involved in "Heard Slurs" and "Seen Slurs". So the objective weapon problem number one is demonstrating objective harm associated with hearing, seeing, and pain. Three objective pieces of visual evidence that can be mined for association with a rhetorical analysis.
[ Show ]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=verbal+abuse+brain
Scientific journals, May trigger some people!
[ Show ]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=visual+abuse+brain
Scientific journals, May trigger some people!

Those are Reality Samples. While they are very painful for some people, if you get used to the pain and learn to dismiss it then you need to you can discover that it has powerful effects on your vocabulary. I plan on posting my own example but I would be interested in what people think first. This is also not a challenge to anyone because it is also completely fair that not everyone can read things like this. I actually had to get used to reading things like this to make sense of myself and it can be difficult.

[quote]...people who are willfully obtuse...[/quote]
The most threatening opponents. I understand. I had to deal with some of the most annoying Pony-loving versions. Most of the time they were anti-feminists or libertarians. For some odd reason the most offensive people I had to deal with fell into those groups. That does not mean that they are all like that, but plain simple defensiveness is the most common personality defense there. Have you ever heard of the "Dual-Process hypothesis"? Like all scientific hypotheses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory

I know that the link says theory, but really hypothesis is what this is due to complexity. However all hypotheses are based on real observations that can also be used to weaponize your vocabulary.

or (charitably)...really think differently than I do. (Which I uncharitably think is due to them not thinking very hard...)...

This is very fair of you. In my case I try to prepare a source for how to look things up online. I know that not everyone was lucky to have the background that I did but I kind of like helping people to learn things. And frankly getting to ethically educate "people" is fun. I'm not allowed to do it when I moderate but I get to think strategically for other areas of my life :twisted:.
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/dis/res/68830.html#i68858
The best part is that the pony thing is an advantage. The first person to try to use the fact that I am a Brony against me in an argument will not enjoy the experience.

I have a religious fundamentalist/ military family background. I can weaponize criticism.
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:45 pm

There is science for this. I happen to think that it can be done rationally and carefully. There is a reason why I pay more attention to what people choose not to respond to in a discussion. All their flaws are contained in what they don't respond to. You don't have to get mad about someone who is not really addressing what you are saying, what you do is learn to read them by what they omit. Getting upset just wastes your processing power. Sure you feel good, for a little while. You can become pretty dangerous if you shift that emotion to understanding them.

Emotion Can Shut Down High-Level Mental Processes Without Our Knowledge, in Our Native Language
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173511.htm

Our Brains Often Fail to Notice Key Words That Can Change the Whole Meaning of a Sentence
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091921.htm

I know that modern neuroscience is incomplete. Sure you can point out little flaws here and there. But if you learn to read what is available for free with a mind to assuming the well supported stuff you would be surprised as what you start noticing.


I care about this because we are evolution. Right now. Yes evolution acts on populations, but you are part of a population. We are showing the people around us what works, and they will use what works. They will breed and you will have the future. Your actions will inform what comes.
Cracking the Semantic Code: Half a Word's Meaning Is 3-D Summary of Associated Rewards
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173135.htm

But it's not like there are no guides. You just have to go out and learn to find them.
Language Use Is Simpler Than Previously Thought, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 143555.htm
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:57 pm

SubMor wrote:If I'm reading you right, what you're pushing for is a kind of organized (amateur?) peer review group of some sort. Could be good. Would take a lot of work to set up, but I could see it being a very helpful exercise for some people. Not sure calling it "assassination" is such a good idea, though.


Sorry I missed this one!

You are correct about what I have in mind. I just think that everyone has a different view on what they encounter when they deal with a good rational argument with someone who really wants to hash out an idea and means it, and someone who only wants to make statements to satisfy their emotional impulses. It's become a bit of an obsession and not everyone can search literature and read journals. You actually have to do this in groups. How else do you disprove hypotheses? How else do you make ethics?

I can't be the only one in the world with professional research skills, journal access and curiosity. The world is going to discover this at some point anyway right?
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:49 pm

I waited a while before replying to this thread because I wanted everyone to have the time to look at what I posted. I'm going to do everything in my understanding to avoid any topic that triggers but what I want to do is to talk about improving your Rhetorical versatility. The very fact that you can have different kinds of rhetoric is a reason to want to know what that means. But you can only build these perceptions by learning to deal with the objective descriptions of what you want to talk about.

I want to talk about people who use argument techniques that resemble internet trolls, or behavior similar to the Male gender stereotype like increased aggression. What if you find one and are really, really sure, 100% sure that this person is not arguing honestly? How do you deal with the person who is worthy of abuse, but only in the sight of others because of the lack of empathy? And are there different ways of handling them in different situations?

Low Impact Assholishness.
If you have low tolerance I see no shame in learning the ethical hit an run. If they are a true asshole, and will not talk honestly, you are justified in planting a series of assertion filled comments with inflammatory rhetoric, IF you can satisfy the following.
*You can explain every fact in casual terms upon demand
*You can show a link to reality with every emotionally charged word (links to journals do wonders for rhotoric.)
*You are willing to explain to the Community why you chose the words you did.

Attack can be easier than defense if you can justify your behavior, and carve darts. You don't kill with these darts though, you try to be entertaining to your likely audience while you post. You try to be fair and YOU MEAN IT. If you are closer to reality, others will have seen something that looks interesting in your words. You make damn well sure your inflammatory facts are a thing you can justify though.

You are fair and you MEAN IT because your brain stores one pretend reality for every deception. I personally know that I am not organized enough to store lots of other realities in my head so screw deceptiveness. Be prepared to always be honest and know your words and you will attract people who like what you said. Once they show up (it depends on your skill) your humor makes them likely to receive you better and your facts stand as traps.

You leave when you are satisfied.

High Impact Assholeishness
You focus the dreaded and legendary "Take Down" of anti-creationist lore. I have stereotyped it into a demand for others that is rational, and logical, and tiring for anyone who just wants to be emotional without constraints. It is hard to do fairly sometimes though. You need to learn to be social really quick because lets face it, being an ass is fun and you can get a little overly-focused so if someone starts to get upset for any reason you LEAVE THEM ALONE AND WATCH. You MUST know if you made a mistake and you MUST make up for it. Social memory processes are a very real, and very serious thing.

1. Identify the fact statements.
These are represented as if they are reality and not explained. In reality they are Unsupported Facts and can be fairly challenged in public unless you can somehow cause de-facto, lasting and painful emotional changes. Education is a factor here and I personally believe that empathy is a thing you have to nurture in a person. So you need to learn the limits of people, and your limitations when it comes to behavior. They commonly get called opinions by people using grammar casually, as well as put into quotes a lot. I don't think it's possible to be funny with that fact of my experience.

2. Ask them to defend that fact statement.
They want an opinion in public? They can give you a citation in public and you get to look at it, and think about it on your own and give them an answer later and like it! If you wait until they start engaging in behavior that can cause another emotional distress, that also kills their ability to be logical, you can't lose. This is because the person acting dominant in a public space automatically yields the right to avoid criticism (harassment has a definition). The instinct is likely about aggression, and logical problems with introspection.

3. If they do not defend the fact statement, display the fact that are expecting random people around them to believe any old thing they say. Do it like a Bird trying to get a mate. Loud and precise. Passion, but but you do not let yourself trust what you enjoy because you are a human and like to argue.

Go to one with the next fact.

This is not a formula. This is just me describing what I experience in my life watching politics, family, culture, my job, and especially the internet where we like to be emotionally free like we can't in reality. It's open to theft and criticism. Just remember that culture always changes...
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby ceepolk » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:20 pm

Keep talking. I'm not all the way sold, but I want to keep listening. That's all I've got.
User avatar
ceepolk
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4702
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:35 am

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby emptyell » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Interesting stuff. Don't have time right now but will come back and explore more later. Thanks.
User avatar
emptyell
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:46 am

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:45 pm

ceepolk wrote:Keep talking. I'm not all the way sold, but I want to keep listening. That's all I've got.


It's all fair for criticism and I actually believe that sleep efficiency and other annoying things are all part of how we process memory. People used to say "I need to Sleep on it" for a reason. I check for comments at lots of points and response times really don't influence the efficiency of arguments in a good way from a human stand point. If people are willing to wait a reasonable period before answering something they feel strongly about they have a better chance of being well prepared. It's a little complicated when you try to explain they way you practice rhetoric. It's a thing people should know as well as English or Math. "How well we we explain what we know?" should be in constitutions.
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Some controversial activism. Rhetorical Assassination

Postby Brony » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:48 pm

That was supposed to be "How well we can explain what we know." at the end.
Brony
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:23 pm


Return to Atheism Plus

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest