I found this old post by koan, same old clap trap but it has several layers worth analyzing, rhetorical, psychological and persuasive.
| To: abuelita who wrote (119937) | 6/7/2016 2:56:25 PM | | From: koan | Read Replies (2) of 217258 | | | People are not upset with me because my ideas make no sense. I think they are upset with me because they do make sense because all I post for the most part is science, facts and history. And I do my very best to be accurate when I post anything. I would welcome a response from anybody who thinks I have my science, facts or history wrong, but I seldom get a reasoned rebuttal. I usually get an impassioned rebuke.
The reason I use my son-in-law is a pure and honest reason. I know him and I know his honesty and his academic hard work and capability. It is rare for any of us to have the opportunity to speak to the horses mouth, so to speak. He knows what goes on at the highest levels among the top atmospheric chemists. What they think they know. He knows what they believe because he interacts with them daily and has for 20 years. That is why I use him and for no other reason whatsoever.
I also understand why people get upset with my posts. And it has been a dilemma for me my entire life. As mentioned, people seldom challenge the science that I post, they attack me personally for posting it, not because it is wrong, but because they don't want to hear it. I work so hard to try and post the science without causing angst among other readers, but it is a near impossible task in many instances.
There are two examples that are in my mind that show the difficulty of trying to do the right thing. Any white person who lived in the South in the 1920s or 30s or 40s, and openly stood up against the segregation and racism would have been an outcast in their society. It would've been very hard for them, but looking back we know that the right thing to do at the time was to stand up to the racists. By not standing up to them millions of African-Americans suffered terribly until segregation was ended. Not one single state in the South even up to the middle 1960s voluntarily ended segregation. It had to be forced on them by the government. Today we look at that and think how horrible that was
In the African-American community, which I know very well, they were always disappointed in their white friends who would not stand with them when the rubber met the road. But there were always a few who had the courage of their convictions and were willing to be shunned or worse because segregation was not acceptable. But they paid the price when they did.
The other example is religion. It upsets people to talk about the torture that accompanied heresy in the Middle Ages, or the paedophilia that follows the Catholic Church or so much other religious behaviour that is just terrible. It is fact, but one posts it at their peril. Even talking about the terrible reality of female circumcision that still takes place in 22 countries around the world can offend people. Over 80% of the people in Egypt alone believe that a woman should receive the death penalty by stoning, for either adultery or apostasy. But that is not a subject one can discuss very easily, although it should be very easy. They are horrible cultural ideas, just as the sexism that exists in virtually every religion is something that should be stopped and virtually every religion is guilty of it. But we seldom talk about it even as it regards western religions..
There are five huge dangers facing the human species that I can think of that we have to confront head-on and it is pretty late in the game for all five. Nuclear proliferation, worldwide pollution, anthropogenic global warming, plutocratic hegemony and overpopulation.
We cannot solve most of the problems the human species faces unless we face reality. But many people find that hard to do. But we either do it, or we perish as a species, I believe that. |
| |
1. Tone and Framing The writer adopts a martyr’s tone: positioning themselves as a truth-teller unfairly attacked by emotional or ignorant opponents. This “persecuted intellectual” framing is common in debates over controversial topics (climate change, religion, etc.) because it both elevates the speaker (“I alone have the courage to speak truth”) and inoculates them against criticism (“if you disagree, you’re just emotionally triggered”).
It’s an effective rhetorical shield, but it also closes the door to genuine dialogue because any disagreement is preemptively cast as irrational.
2. Appeal to Authority The author leans heavily on their son-in-law’s credentials as a scientist in atmospheric chemistry. While this gives a veneer of credibility, it’s still an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy if not accompanied by verifiable data or peer-reviewed sources.
Saying “he knows what they think” is anecdotal, not empirical. Without specific studies, published work, or data, it remains a secondhand claim, no matter how sincere.
3. Victimhood and Moral Equivalence The author likens their situation, being criticized online, to civil rights activists standing against Jim Crow segregation. This is a massive rhetorical overreach.
Invoking historical oppression to describe online disagreement dilutes the moral weight of those actual struggles. It’s emotionally manipulative: the reader is nudged to view the author as a moral hero standing against ignorance and bigotry.
This comparison plays on moral inflation: equating criticism or unpopularity with persecution.
4. Selective Rationalism The writer repeatedly claims to rely only on “science, facts, and history,” yet never shows any. The argument is declarative rather than evidentiary, “I am factual because I say I am.”
In academic or scientific communication, “show, don’t tell” applies: you present evidence, cite sources, and let the reader judge your reasoning. Here, the post substitutes conviction for documentation.
5. “Forbidden Truth” Psychology The subtext is that the author holds unpopular but necessary truths, a form of contrarian identity signaling. This often appeals to audiences who feel alienated by mainstream narratives, as it offers a flattering sense of being part of an enlightened minority (“we see what others won’t”).
This posture can strengthen in-group loyalty but weakens intellectual honesty because it makes falsifiability feel like betrayal rather than discovery.
6. The Final “Five Dangers” The closing list (nuclear proliferation, pollution, AGW, plutocracy, overpopulation) is the most coherent part. These are legitimate global issues, but their inclusion feels disconnected, as if tacked on to claim moral universality after a defensive monologue.
It’s a rhetorical pivot from personal grievance to planetary gravitas, reinforcing the “I’m only trying to save humanity” motif.
7. Summary Assessment This post mixes genuine concern with defensive ego. The writer likely believes they are sincere and fact-based, but the structure betrays emotional investment and social resentment, more about being right than pursuing truth.
Strengths: - Earnest tone; appeals to conscience.
- Touches real, global concerns.
- Attempts moral grounding through history.
Weaknesses: - Self-justifying and self-aggrandizing.
- Logical gaps (appeal to authority, false equivalence, no citations).
- Emotional framing undermines claims of pure rationalism.
- Ends with moral urgency but without clear action or evidence.
|
