«
»

Do I Hate Bad Rhetoric? Yes.

Friday, October 17th, 2003

I hope I’m not the only one who’se sick unto death of the modern practice of arguing by asking yourself softball questions.

You know what I mean. It’s when, for example, somebody argues as follows:

“Was our intelligence about WMDs not entirely accurate? Yes. Might there still be some anyway? We don’t know. Is it a good thing the Iraqi people are no longer suffering under Saddam’s tyranny? Yes.”

And on, and on. This practice seems to have become much, much more common over the last ten years, and particularly over the last three or four. As with most bad rhetorical devices, it is most commonly used by government officials (the example that set me off today was by Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo, quoted in this Antiwar.com editorial). But I’ve seen it creep into editorials and even (gasp!) the occasional blog.

This tactic is pure evil, folks. It’s evil because its central purpose is the creation of a false impression of candor. It allows the arguer to set up his strawmen all in a row, knock them down at leisure, and think himself a toppler of giants. It is dangerous to an open society, for it lets politicians interview themselves instead of actually being interviewed. It is a direct threat to one of the main purposes of journalistic investigation, namely getting people to answer questions they don’t want to answer.

Eschew this beast. Shun it. Call foul on it when you see it. Oppose it for the health of the English language, for the memory of George Orwell, for the sake of true candor everywhere.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

This entry was posted on Friday, October 17th, 2003 at 9:24 am by Mystery Man and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Do I Hate Bad Rhetoric? Yes.”

  1. #1 |  Joshua Claybourn's Domain |  October 17th, 2003 at 9:38 am

    Home schooling

    The Agitator has a couple good posts up today. First, Radley Balko rightly blasts CBS for its hatchet job “report”

  2. #2 |  Kieffer |  October 17th, 2003 at 9:50 am

    This has been a pet peeve of mine for years.

    Even worse, the questions are always closed ended. I wouldn’t mind so much if the person would assume that I know better than to ask yes/no questions. Of course, I guess that would run counter to the point of the tactic.

    I haven’t had my coffee yet.

  3. #3 |  claude tessier |  October 17th, 2003 at 9:59 am

    I agree completely. But what burns me even more is the “But who could have predicted that …” that Condi Rice and Rumsfeld use so regularly.

    I could have, and many other people as well, dammit!

  4. #4 |  Tricky |  October 17th, 2003 at 10:18 am

    here here

  5. #5 |  Mark Byron |  October 17th, 2003 at 10:23 am

    If done correctly, it can either give proper credit to the downside of your case or to answer the typical questions of your critics ahead of time. You can often strenghten your case by tackling the objections up-front, assuming you lists the objections fairly.

    However, if you spin those questions in a way that puts you at an advantage or your foes at a disadvantage (the classic “straw man”) they you are heading into rhetorical Hades as Nick suggests.

  6. #6 |  Razor |  October 17th, 2003 at 11:04 am

    Was that a good point? Yes. Did it make me smile and cringe at the same time? Also, yes. Is there a similar device used by politicians which goes like this: “In a perfect world, would we have done things differently?”? Yes, again. Does it answer the criticism any more fully? No. Am I about through? Looks like it.

  7. #7 |  Julian Sanchez |  October 17th, 2003 at 11:27 am

    Y’know, I’m sure I’ve used that format once or twice myself… but it’s lately driven me batty most of the times I’ve seen it deployed as well.

  8. #8 |  Charlie Mott |  October 17th, 2003 at 11:48 am

    Like all rhetorical devices, I am sure that it has some valid uses and (when used honestly and sparingly) can be effective.

    But when you get it constantly, it loses all effect.

    It kinda seems like any rhetorical devices that politicians use over and over lose all effect. I guess it could be because most of them are so full of baloney.

  9. #9 |  Enobarbus |  October 17th, 2003 at 12:38 pm

    I see that bastard Razor got to the joke before me. I hate him. Weevils should gorge upon his eyeballs.

  10. #10 |  Razor |  October 17th, 2003 at 2:39 pm

    Enobarbus is always a day late and a dollar short. Sometimes he is a few cards short of a full deck. Oftentimes, he has a screw loose. Once, I swore the lights were on but nobody was home.

    Oh wait, this post wasn’t about cliches. Do I feel stupid? Sure do.

  11. #11 |  paul |  October 18th, 2003 at 9:46 am

    I agree.

    this is evil.

    these are people who are terified to tell the truth.

    they are dark in spirit.
    they are liers.
    they are decietful.

    but shame on the reporters who let them do it.
    shame on the media who is not interested in the truth but to give airtime to a voice from an empty shell. a robot who Bush winds up and puts in front of the TV.

    this is typical of conservatives.

  12. #12 |  Fresh Bilge |  October 19th, 2003 at 1:16 am

    Ask Not

    The author of this post at The Agitator thinks this…

  13. #13 |  Fresh Bilge |  October 11th, 2004 at 4:28 pm

    Ask Not

    The author of this post at The Agitator thinks the…