It is becoming nearly impossible to question any policy of the present administration. When you do so, there is an all-purpose response: what about Trump?
IMO major factors in Trump’s rise to power have been disgust with the political establishment and civil bureaucracy. Why are people surprised that Trump’s legal woes have not discouraged his supporters much? Why should they? His legal woes are his 2024 campaign.
“IMO major factors in Trump’s rise to power have been disgust with the political establishment and civil bureaucracy.”
Of course. He’s an ass. Ethically sketchy. But those I hear cite that I find intellectually light. Name me the Mother Teresa who has served as President in my lifetime? Jimmy Carter? Maybe.
But the job is policy setting. Joe Biden is not only dumb, dishonest and wildly corrupt, but his economic, immigration, energy and foreign policies are, variously, harmful to cruel and immoral, especially the border. Put Joe Biden together with Mitch McConnell/Nancy Pelosi/Chuck Schumer and you have everything that is wrong with Washington politics.
Outside of fantasyland Biden is doing an average job. Feel free to criticize. As to Trump, it’s a cult. Why would legal woes change that? Just more proof that fearless leader is being persecuted.
(I have to remember this. Criminals are just ethically sketchy. Ranks up there with alternative facts.)
Steve
Please define “fantasy” and “average”.
Mostly for my own sport, I’ve been cataloguing ways of avoiding productive argument.
Whataboutism is right up there! Category number one out of four.
https://twitter.com/MJPiercello/status/1696214363177202019
If inflation is the only thing you care about then Biden sucks. Seems an odd way to rate presidents.
Steve
Piercello:
Note that all of your examples have formal names and definitions.
To your list I would add:
the non sequitur
the ad hominem (a specific form of non sequitur
Not much new under the sun, is there?
Suppose we had a rhetorical tool that allowed us to step outside the infinite dodges, encapsulating them, so as to make argument productive once more?
Along the lines of Markham, perhaps:
“He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him In!â€
I think the issue is nearly the opposite of that. The “echo chambers” are enormously pervasive and effective. Practically every argument has been made and either accepted or discarded. It’s sort of like the old joke about the prisoners and the jokebook:
I think agreement of a trivial sort can always be had for the asking.
For example: “We agree that ‘echo chambers’ are enormously pervasive and effective. Practically every argument has been made and either accepted or discarded.” Now what?
(Given that we agree that these strategic conditions apply, what should we do next? Can that agreement be put to good use?)
I took a swing at diagnosing the evident online weakness of argument v debate, which I regard as the core Problem-To-Be-Solved. You might find it darkly entertaining:
https://twitter.com/MJPiercello/status/1693794641483591873