#rhetorical tricks

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Do you think it is possible for the other trolls to gaslight Eridan into do the murder for the right cause? E.g. not like the murderstuck in the canon but guiding his murderous direction to align with the purpose, using him as a disposable glass cannon and a cannon fodder to take down enemies? but not easily disposable due to seadweller's physical strength and his fighting skills. Not the optimal way to handle him but given that he needs some presence of others how will this scenario go?

no because i believe eridan is the specific type of idiot that you can't actually manipulate because he doesn't listen to people. god bless 🫡

[a-very-tired-jew]

I've seen this particular quote trotted out by antisemites time and time again as a kind of "gotcha" against Zionism. "The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies." This is from Theodor Herzl's diary, which can be found on page 84. However, if you've been around the internet in any context for the past few decades then you would likely realize that a singular quote out of context is not as damning as someone wants you to think. In fact, this is actually a fallacious argument (quoting out of context) that lawyers will get warnings from judges about in their own arguments. You could also categorize it as a lie of omission as well.

Why?

Well let's look at the entire diary entry this particular quote is from.

In context this quote is about using antisemites that are respected in their community to assuage the fears that Jews leaving would not negatively impact the community and country. It pretty much talks about making sure the antisemitic conspiracy that Jews were puppet masters controlling these goyim to liquidate their assets did not also arise.

In short, the entry is about understanding how antisemitism and antisemites act and acting within that frame so as to not cause a negative response and thereby allow the Jews to leave in a peaceful manner.

Why?

Because Jews often enriched a country's economy and people benefited from our presence. There are multiple instances in history of Jews being expelled for antisemitic reasons by a monarch and then being invited back by a subsequent monarch after their economy essentially crashed from kicking us out because the jobs they relegated us too were essential and beneficial. But in every scenario Jews were seen as lesser but beneficial. They wanted us there, but wanted us gone. When we left and returned we were harmed in almost every instance and were accompanied by a host of conspiracies about us. Understanding that behavior and pattern and using it is what Herzl is detailing in this section.

But that's the thing with antisemites. They latch onto a singular sentence out of context and use that to further their narrative about "evil Zionist Jews". All the while they handwave away their own antisemitic rhetoric and bigotry and the actions of the violent antisemites they support in the name of "fighting evil Zionists".

[bestworstcase]

most baffling response to the child soldiers post is definitely “they’re not really child soldiers, though, and it’s like how for physically demanding pastimes like ballet you need to start training young so thirteen is actually pretty old, and the students aren’t actually meant to be fighting in real combat anyway”

the huntsmen academies admit seventeen-year-olds—or younger teens with their guardian’s permission. all of the adults, including ozpin, refer to huntsmen students as “children.” (curiously, salem is the only character who ever gets flak in the fandom for calling the nineteen-year-olds children. i wonder why that is 🤔)

from the mouths of the children themselves:

WEISS: Well, Ruby’s still just a kid. BLAKE: She’s only two years younger. We’re all kids. YANG: Well. Not anymore. I mean, look where we are—in the middle of a war zone and armed to the teeth!

the narrative makes it very emphatically clear that these “warriors” are children. they are consistently referred to as children, and the only one who ever objects to being called a child is yang, on the grounds that children don’t fight in wars.

secondly: “when ozpin's predecessor founded the schools, he built them around the relics to act as a fortress. not only would they be easier to defend, but they would constantly be surrounded by trained warriors.” not only are the huntsmen students expected to face real combat (mountain glenn is explicitly considered a war zone), they are the first line of defense for the relics inside the schools. the point of putting the relics in the academies is so that the students will defend them should salem attack. which is exactly what happens at beacon, because the system works as designed.

thirdly: children die at these schools. gretchen rainart died on a training mission. younger students—the ones attending combat schools, which begin at thirteen if not younger—also sometimes die on training missions involving real grimm:

She had some idea why. The research she had done on her teacher had turned up a story Aurelia would probably much rather forget. A student of hers had died on a training mission at Patch Combat School, lost in a scuffle with Ursa Grimm. The school didn’t hold her responsible—she had managed to protect her fifteen other students, and it was all part of the risk. But there was plenty of blame to go around. The child’s parents vowed to have her pay for the death of the girl, and Aurelia’s official statement was, “I blame myself. She should still be with us. She was always so capable, perhaps I put too much faith in her to take care of herself while I got the others to safety.” The girl had been the same age as Trivia, only fifteen.

the huntsmen academies are more intensive, but new students are expected to show up already capable of mowing through hordes of grimm on day one, because the combat schools also send students into the field with minimal supervision (one teacher, sixteen students 14-15 years old, involved in a “scuffle” with grimm). and that teacher leaving one student behind to cover the retreat of the other fifteen and herself isn’t considered to be negligence—she isn’t held to be at fault for this student’s death—because being killed by grimm is “all part of the risk” of attending a combat school.

which again, enroll students 13-16 years old, if not younger.

so yeah, they’re child soldiers. in the real world we define child soldiers as anyone under the age of eighteen recruited for participation in military activities; in rwby it was a deliberate narrative choice for the huntsmen academies to begin at seventeen, for the characters to consistently refer to the students as “children,” and for one of the major villain’s motivations be that his seventeen-year-old sister enrolled at beacon academy and died on a training mission. the text is very clear about the situation.

[unionizedwizard]

remembering the few times i managed to win an argument/prove my mother wrong as a kid despite her blatant bad faith and constant attacks and rewriting of history etc and she made me write 300 to 500 times "i must not argue and try to be right" in a notebook every time. really funny actually and it did the exact opposite of what she was aiming for because it turned me into a much better lawyer/orator each time. out of spite

[llycaons]

like you could do that with anyone and make their side sound sympathetic and rational if you tweak the wording a little. any villanous character who is clearly and textually in the wrong you could summarize the story from their perspective and at least some people would go 🥺 'oh wow I don't know what I'd do either'...you are all so fucking stupid

[a-day-of-spilled-thoughts]

Completed Comics that I like (not in order)

Like = anything I would rate 3.5+/5

Manhwa:

Aftermath- Bongsoo

The Crown Princess Scandal

Muse on Fame

Sweet and Bloody Couple/Till Debt Do Us 'Part

Daytime Star

Your Eternal Lies

The Reason Why Raeliana Ended up at the Duke's Mansion

After school recipe

Marriage of Convenience

Villain with a Crush

Fast Forward

The Blood of the Butterfly

If AI ruled the World

When Fate Finds us

Kill the Villainess

Your Majesty, please spare me this time

See you in my 19th life

Secret Playlist

God, Please Make me a Demon

Leveling up my husband to the max

Tricked into Becoming the Heroine's Stepmother

The Villainess Flips the Script

The Detective of Muiella

Your Letter

Eaternal Nocturnal

Devilish Romance

A villainess for the tyrant

Salary Studio

Devil No. 4

Ghost Teller

When the Day comes

Our Time

Comics:

Live Forever- Raul Trevino

Blue- Kennsaty

Cape of spirits

Manga:

Usotoki Rhetoric

This list will be periodically updated as I read more. As u can see, I have barely scratched the surface, so more suggestions are welcome ✨

last updated: July 24, 2025

[hood-ex]

Having a Homer Simpson "d'oh!" moment because I missed/forgot some pivotal information on the Zur situation that happened a few issues ago.

Zur created Failsafe and erased the memory of how to stop him. He also created a batcave under Bruce's batcave. (Batman #127 / Batman #136)

Bruce literally mentioned that Zur "poisoned the well" and put doubt in Bruce's head and heart. Bruce questioned, "What else has he done?" (Batman #136)

Bruce locked Zur away in his mind, and they were at odds with each other because Bruce didn't want Zur taking over, and Zur wanted out because he perceived Bruce's insecurities and doubts as his mind being "under attack." He wanted out to fulfill his purpose. (Batman #136)

In a flashback, Zur took over Bruce's body without Bruce even knowing. One minute, Bruce was trying to solve a case, and in the next, Zur was doing his own thing. When he gave up control to Bruce again, Bruce simply carried on with his previous thought as if he hadn't been personality swapped at all. (Batman #136)

Zur tried to tell Bruce what to do. Bruce snapped and yelled at him, reminding Zur that he (Zur) was in a cage. Bruce reassured himself, "He's in a cage. I'm in control." (Batman #137)

Now there was a moment in Batman #136 where Bruce started to panic because he couldn't see the future or whatever, so he didn't know how he could save everyone he loved, and he wondered how far he could go before it all burned away.

And then in Batman #137/Catwoman #57, Bruce realized that he no longer owned the manor, and he kinda started spiraling and talking about how even if he lost the manor/his wealth, he wouldn't lose his soldiers.

"They can't be bought. But they can be saved."

Notice the fact that Bruce used the term "soldiers." Because guess what? In Batman #127, Zur referred to Tim and the other members of the family as soldiers, and Bruce angrily corrected him.

"And Tim isn't my soldier! HE'S MY SON!"

SOOO. Do you see where I'm kinda going with all this? Bruce not knowing when Zur takes over? Zur being able to erase memories? Zur using "soldier" in his own dialogue color, and Bruce using the term "soldier" in his own dialogue color? Bruce saying that Zur "poisoned the well."

AND NOW, in today's issue, Zur forcibly took over to try and kill Joker again. And you know what was said?

Bruce: No! I'm in control! I'm--

Zur: You're not in control, we (Zur) are.

BRUCE CANNOT CONTROL ZUR. HE CANNOT. He thinks he can, and he thought he had it under control, but Bruce doesn't have shit under control!

[shyocean]

While we are thinking about the way that English--language cultures hide, obviate, and redirect blame.

I want you to take all the skills you use when thinking about stories about cops murdering people, and apply them here.

Passive voice, not naming the culprit, downplaying their responsibility.

Neither the headline nor the first paragraph name the Israeli military. If I didn't know the story, I would assume from the title that Hezbollah was the creator of the attack, not the recipient. If the devices had blown up in the US, Europe, or Israel, they would also be referred to Hezbollah explosions, or perhaps as Hezbollah terror attacks.

Please, please be aware that the Israeli government is "conducting targeted strikes" and against "terrorist organizations."

But the Likud right-wing nationalists are also committing unprecedented terror attacks targeting the elected political parties of two other countries, and the civilians, medics, and community organizations associated with them. They murdered dozens, inclduing children and medics, indiscriminately, in order to traumatize everyone living there and reduce them to a state of ongoing panic.

itsthesamepicture.jpg

This is not a neutral article. By linguistically ignoring Israel and burying the lede that

the Israeli state department used several shell companies to manufacture these pagers, by focusing on a Taiwanese manufacturer etc etc

They are rhetorically and emotionally excusing Israel.

The Israeli government broke godknowswhat international and business laws to plant thousands of explosives the the everyday items of purchased by another government and indiscriminately injured 3,000 people.

The fact that this is being reported so gently is not unbiased.

Even this article that is like, well it looks like maybe they did break international law, isn't unbiaesed.

The framing is enormously gentle, because the answer to the question is yes. Israel's terrorist attack broke laws.

These articles will seem moderate against this rhetorical monstrosity.

because it is unvarnished propoganda that entirely reframes the nature of right and wrong based on who is doing the action.

Their mindset will never be the same. They will no longer view a refrigerator, microwave, or light bulb in the same way. Until their last day, they will never feel safe, no matter where they are. They will live in constant fear of what might explode next. Just as Trump changed the rules of political campaigns and Apple revolutionized marketing, Israel has redefined military operations. It is no longer enough to incapacitate the enemy’s capabilities or eliminate personnel. To truly defeat terrorists, one must dismantle their mental defenses and make them feel powerless. This demands immense creativity and flawless execution—qualities possessed by only a few, much like the visionaries behind groundbreaking technologies. The ability to carry out such an operation underscores the difference between a strong, dynamic country with brilliant minds and a terrorist organization.

The author doesn't believe terrorism has to do with actions, but is an identity inherent to the other.

How can you say that a really dirty, traumatizing, textbook example of a terrorist attack shows that you are a strong dynamic country and *not* a terrorist organization masquerading as a government?

The word country is key here.

Another way that the English language hides violence has to do with the idea that certain groups have a right to infinite violence in terms of self defense and protection of well-being, and that they have a monopoly on it.

Other groups have absolutely no right to self defense, and even the most basic self defense is an illegal assault.

Think about how cops are in the US. They can assault you and kill you with immunity for not following their commands quickly enough. Any self defense or defense of others against a cop is grounds for a assault and a prison sentence.

A group the law binds but does not protect, and a group the law protects but does not bind.

The English, who stole Palestine from the Palestinians and gave it to the Israelis, where very fond of deciding that any government, nation, organization, clan, tribe, people group, that they didn't want to deal with was illegitimate, with no right to self determination or power.

They starved several Million Irish to death, after deciding they didn't have a right to their own country, they murdered tens of thousands who resisted their rule. because not a people. And all their responses were illegitimate and morally evil, because the British had a right to power, dominion, gain, and violence, but the Irish did not. have a right to self determination or self defense.

Now, I don't like terrorism, and I don't like governments that enage in it, like Hamas, Hezbollah, the US, The UK, and Israel. I think its bad to do that.

Just objectively. I think the murder of civilians is bad. I think murdering children is bad.

I think trying to take everything that someone else owns and then committing mass civilian murder when they try to resist you is bad, and that is the pattern of the English-derived governments--the UK, the East Indian Company and the British raj, all the British Empire, everything to do with the way the United States of America acquired terrirtory and now defends itself, Australia, Canada not off the hook, and inevitably, Israel was forged by this exact same thing. The Ebglish unpeopled a People, took everything they had, made resistance illegal, and gave it to someone else.

I also do not want people to attack the civilians of these countries. I think terror attacks agains the US and UK and Israel are also bad.

You can be on the side of "murdering civilians is bad" and not pick a country that its ok when they murder civilians and inspire mass terror.

You don't have to be like, this one is the one who gets to do it, and if you criticize them doing it, you hate babies and want to murder me. Right?

I need to find out what this is actually called. In science its the god trick. There has to be a word for the way that perspective makes some mass murders into unfortunate civilian causalities and others into brutal terror attacks.

[cozylittleartblog]

trick or treat!! : D

[shortscircuits]

does anyone know how to deal with the existential dread of working under capitalism

[j-esbian]

certain things i feel like im too old to not understand and yet it still confuse me lol. like how do you pack up and move to a new city to find a job, when places won't rent to you without income verification. cant live somewhere to look for a job unless you already work near that city. (theoretically this is what a credit check is for. but most places i've seen require both)

or how are people going out and drinking at bars when you also need to drive yourself home. are people taking an uber home and then there again in the morning and leaving their car overnight? are you simply getting a ride to and from the bar? it costs an extra $30-50 to go out on a friday night??

[its-so-ouverture]

Trick or treat!

Since I'm giving people songs from my playlist, you get Dear My Friend by HoneyWorks!

[unconventiononthelawofthesea]

like, okay, consent does literally just mean agree. which is what enables this little rhetorical trick. because there's all this cultural emphasis on sexual consent, which is just expressed as consent, a lot of phrases whose intended meanings are "rape is bad" can be taken literally to mean "i should get to agree to everything that happens in my vicinity."

[unsolicited-opinions]

Zohran Mamdani on "Globalize the Intifada"

This is not an evaluation of Mamdani as a human being, as a politician, or as a New York City Mayoral candidate.

It's not a critique of his politics or his character.

I'm limiting the scope of this analysis to less than three minutes of his interview on NBC's Meet the Press on June 29th 2025 in which he's asked three times why he will not condemn "globalize the intifada."

If you haven't seen it and you'd like to watch the three minutes for yourself before reading further, do.

Mamdani was asked three times on NBC News whether he condemns the phrase "globalize the intifada," and he never answered directly.

To many Arabs and Jews, "Intifada" evokes years of violence, including bombings and civilian deaths. So when a mayoral candidate sidesteps the question, people notice.

Let's take apart his three non-answer responses.

Response 1:

"That's not language I use" + pivot to human rights

What he said:

"That is not language I use... my intent [is] grounded in the release of human rights… for Israelis and Palestinians alike."

What he did:

Disassociated himself without denouncing the slogan.

Redirected to a general moral framework.

The problem:

It's a dodge. "Not my words" avoids judgment altogether.

Universal human rights sound nice but don’t address whether the phrase itself is inflammatory or threatening.

Fallacies/tricks:

Red herring. He changes the subject to broader values.

Confidence he's dodging:

High.

Response 2:

Empathy + policy pivot + free speech defense

What he said:

"I've heard those fears... we've pledged to increase anti-hate programming by 800%... I don't believe the role of the mayor is to police speech."

What he did:

Acknowledged Jewish concerns about antisemitism.

Promoted his campaign platform.

Changed the topic from ethics to legality.

The problem:

Personal condemnation of violent rhetoric isn't policing speech. He's being asked for a moral stance, not a legal action.

Again, no engagement with the actual slogan or what it represents.

Fallacies/tricks:

Equivocation: Dishonestly pretends personal condemnation would be government censorship.

Appeal to fear: Dishonestly suggests condemning rhetoric would lead to criminalizing speech.

Confidence he's dodging:

Very high.

Response 3:

Slippery slope argument

What he said:

"My concern is... walking down the line of language... putting people in jail for writing an op-ed."

What he did:

Pretended his personal condemnation of violent rhetoric would lead to authoritarian censorship.

Brought up Donald Trump jailing people for speech-related offenses.

The Problem:

Nobody asked for legal action, just moral clarity.

Comparing condemnation to imprisonment is misleading and inflammatory.

Fallacies/tricks:

Straw man: Distorts the request into something it's not.

False analogy: Moral disapproval ≠ state oppression.

Confidence he's dodging:

Extremely high.

After three questions, Mamdani still wouldn't condemn a phrase many interpret as a call to violence. His responses were all deflection, over-abstract framing, and rhetorical sleight of hand.

Possible explanations for why he won’t condemn the phrase

Maybe he's signaling to his political base

Many activists see the phrase as resistance and he doesn't want to alienate them.

Maybe he's maintaining strategic ambiguity

He wants to appeal to both radicals and moderates. Declining to answer lets him maintain flexibility.

Maybe he values radical rhetoric

Some believe provocative slogans shake the system. He may see them as useful.

Maybe he's performing ideological purity

In activist circles, rejecting establishment pressure is seen as strength.

Maybe he fears backlash from the left

Condemning the slogan could trigger protests or public criticism.

Maybe he personally supports the sentiment

These are all plausible.

When someone is asked to draw a moral line and instead draws a rhetorical circle...it tells us a lot. It's disgusting behavior from any political perspective, but it's particularly worrying from one end of the horseshoe.

Mamdani, in these three minutes, is at the very least a sleazy, dishonest politician.

[humanityinahandbag]

I'd like to tell you all a story about my grandmother.

My grandparents raised their children, four girls (one of them my mother), to be fighters. My aunts marched in Washington for women's rights with babies strapped to their chests and like to joke that all of the grandchildren who came from that line (including myself) were born with picket signs in their hands.

But it started with my grandparents. They fought hard for what they believed in. They marched against Vietnam. They marched for Martin Luther King. They marched for women's rights. They marched for a better future.

But let's talk specifically about my grandmother for a moment.

My grandmother unfortunately passed away in 2016. She had to watch the first Trump election and did so knowing that it would probably be the last election she'd ever see. And there is some argument there that she could have given in to fear and defeatism. She could have decided none of it was worth it, and she could have decided that fascism had won and the world was over.

But she did something else instead.

To give some context, my grandparents had friends who were Republicans. I say were, because they shifted from the normal Republican towards the MAGA Republican we see today. And despite a very clear message from my family about how we felt, they were more than ready to still come to the funeral as if everything was normal. Like their beliefs were normal. Like they were welcome to celebrate someone who had fought so hard for the rights of other people.

These were people who would have absolutely used their rhetoric to scream and shout if they were left out or disinvited.

And so my grandmother, even past her final moments, pulled the most brilliant, petty move I've ever seen.

She'd decided ahead of time that everyone who had known her was more than welcome to attend but that she wanted everyone attending the funeral to donate money. That was the requirement to be invited. And so everyone did just that. There was no talk about what the donations were for, just that they were appreciated. I want to say that the assumption was the money would help pay for funeral expenses and give the family some support while we grieved.

Except that wasn't the case.

Because in those final moments of the funeral, the rabbi stepped forward to thank everyone, and then very cheerfully announced;

"Arlene was so happy to know just how many people were coming to join us here today. She couldn't have been more proud of her family. And I'm sure she would have been elated to see just how much money you all gave today to Planned Parenthood."

When I say that the faces of those people are enshrined in my memory, I mean it. The anger, the devastation, the rage, the betrayal. It was an absolutely gorgeous display of true defeat at the hands of a boss ass old lady who literally fought with her last breath and threw up both middle fingers all the way out the door.

What I'm saying is this.

It is very easy to feel defeated. It is very easy to think that everything is over, and there's nothing left for us to do. It's very easy to say that fascism won, that fear won, that hate won.

But that's only true if you let it be true.

There is always more that we can do. There is a future that is still worth fighting for. And it's more than possible, even when it doesn't seem like it.

And fighting is going to look different every time.

Some days it will look like picket signs in our hands.

Some days it will look like spending time with friends and family and people you love and knowing that you have a community that supports you and your vision of a brighter future.

And some days, it's pulling absolute natural level 20 petty trickster shit even after you've left the world.

Because you can always make an impact and you can always add a little brightness to life, and if that means tricking a group of MAGA idiots into throwing their money behind Planned Parenthood in the middle of your own goddamn funeral then that's what it means.

Keep fighting. People have done it before you. People will continue to do it after you.

And enjoy the little victories.

(Even the petty ones)

[fallingtowers]

dude not to be a bitch but starting my new job and spending every day surrounded by normies is really giving me a good long look at how fucked up the rhetorical landscape surrounding food and fatness is. the other week i overheard a guy confidently saying that the body doesn't actually require sugar and that if it wasn't for our dastardly perfidious taste buds we'd never crave it(???). just now my manager showed me this video of some dude scaremongering about pringles by saying that their ratio of sugar/salt/fat is CALCULATED to TRICK THE BRAIN into WANTING MORE. bitch you mean they made an effort to make their commercially produced snacks taste good? somebody phone the fucking fire department