We see it too often online, and more than we’d like to offline too: this idea that “I’m entitled to my opinion” means something more than merely being entitled to express an opinion one holds – that somehow all opinions are equally entitled to respect from other people, or that all opinions are equally entitled to be treated seriously.
Patrick’s post lays out why this frequently whimpered whine is nonsense.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
Language is a weapon used to make ‘others’ of people in poverty.
I may have contributed to a new term for a rhetorical ploy we see more and more. Here’s how it happened – I’m rather proud of this coinage, but wonder whether we may be reinventing the fallacious wheel. Is there an already apt term in rhetorical jargon?
If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. But…
Here’s an example of the word salad involved:
It would be nice to think that there weren’t still ignorant twerps repeating the idea that the lawsuit was unfounded/frivolous/a grave miscarriage against a poor defenceless megacorporation/harrumph/wharrgarbl, but sadly there still are.
…that one can only manage to get one’s views published in the opinion pages of a national broadsheet, one knows that the nation is in a parlous state of enforced conformity indeed.
So it’s said, by nong after dreary nong around the interwebs. It’s just that one string of 140 characters, that’s it!
A ‘blood libel’ is much more than just a ‘false accusation’, and there’s no way that the speech-writer couldn’t have known that.
The problem is not martial language. The problem is the discussion of martial solutions, mentioned as actual policy options. That’s what “eliminationist rhetoric” means, you weaseling fucks.
ADDENDUM: Sarah Palin fans the heated rhetoric flames by playing the victim card and describing criticism as a “blood libel”. Seriously.
Unless one has made some detailed study of the field of rhetoric, and the use and misuse of logical fallacies therein, one is almost certainly not using the phrase “begs/begging the question” correctly. Yes, world – UR DOIN IT RONG.
One thing that leaped out at me during the media blitz on the Battle of Trafalgar flag that fetched a record price at auction is that it brought out one of my least favourite pieces of rhetoric from the anonymous flag collector who won the auction, in a radio interview, about the connection he felt to those who had “fought and died for this flag”.
Sweet FSM, that phrase raises all my hackles.
As no doubt the editors hoped, this cover for Ms. Magazine’s Special Inaugural Issue has generated a lot of controversy. Many feminists feel that Obama’s feminist credentials are not nearly as strong as they could be, while the cover has generated an escalation in panic-mongering and shrill we-told-you-so’s from the religious right plus a great deal more snark about Obamessianic visions and rainbow unicorns from the neocon right.