Asklemmy

43852 readers

910 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What are your hobbies, and are they real fun to you? If yes, why are they really fun to you? (feddit.de)

submitted 1 year ago by u202307011927@feddit.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Studying rhetoric. It's hella fun sometimes and hella depressing others times.

The paradigm shift that studying rhetoric has caused for me will probably influence me for the rest of my life. I'm now agnostic about the truth and barely interpret rhetoric in terms of truth/lies. Like I feel this paragraph from Post-Truth Rhetoric and Composition:

...post-truth signifies a state in which language lacks any reference to facts, truths, and realities. When language has no reference to facts, truths, or realities, it becomes a purely strategic medium. In a post-truth communication landscape, people (especially politicians) say whatever might work in a given situation, whatever might generate the desired result, without any regard to the truth value or facticity of statements. If a statement works, results in the desired effect, it is good; if it fails, it is bad (or at least not worth trying again).

Everything about political rhetoric makes more sense to me when I think in terms of post-truth.

But also, rhetorical figures are cool af. The Elements of Eloquence: Secrets of the Perfect Turn of Phrase is one of the most interesting books I've ever read about how to turn a phrase. Plus, being able to name why a sentence like "The liberal arts are the arts of liberty necessary to the exercise of citizenship in a free republic" has a particular rhetorical effect is fascinating. And that sentence is a kind of chiasmus, my favorite rhetorical figure.

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

I’m not sure if this is good news or bad but it’s the same damn problem since 380BCE

Then the case is the same in all the other arts for the orator and his rhetoric; there is no need to know the truth of the actual matters, but one merely needs to have discovered some device of persuasion which will make one appear to those who do not know to know better than those who know.

Plato

[–] NarrativeNavigator@lemmy.basedcount.com 7 points 1 year ago

This was interesting, thanks for sharing.

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

More power to you. I feel like I understand this well enough just from following politics over the last 8 years, and I kinda hate how I have to break my brain to understand what politicians are actually saying. I do it as a necessity to remain an engaged citizen, not for fun 😂

[–] sloonark@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The Elements of Eloquence is a fantastic read.