Super common comment type on reddit, Just caught a good case study of it on a post.

​

comment one :

Always ? What if some people argue vaccines are fine , some argue vaccines cause autism. Does the truth lie in 'sometimes vaccines cause autism '?

​

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1w76dv/til_tropicana_oj_is_owned_by_pepsico_and_simply/cezg2qq?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

comment two (reply)

Thiomersal is a mercury compound that was used in vaccines as a preservative. It's pretty much 100% safe, and under normal circumstances your body will just clear it out on its own. But it's still organomercury and not something you really want to fuck around with if you can avoid it. There have been a lot of advances in science, we've got better ways to keep bacteria and fungus out of our vaccines than the "let's kill them with deadly heavy metal poisoning" idea that we came up 80 years ago.

Now, the links between thiomersal and autism were complete bullshit, but you could argue that without the people worried about vaccines, we'd still be using it today, instead of safer alternatives.

So yes, there is a middle ground between "Vaccines are fine, shut up" and "Vaccines cause autism, no more vaccines!". It's "Vaccines are safe, but it doesn't hurt to keep the pressure on pharmaceutical companies to keep making them safer."

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1w76dv/til_tropicana_oj_is_owned_by_pepsico_and_simply/cezhrc5?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

comment three (comment on reply)

Not sure if you missed my point. It had nothing to do with vaccines just that the answer may not always lie in the middle.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1w76dv/til_tropicana_oj_is_owned_by_pepsico_and_simply/cezx3wk?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

This is particularly annoying when the reply is both informative and well researched, like in the example above. The complete lack of respect for the comment is what pisses me off. I can only assume that they dislike information, or that it hurts their ego. It may also be explianed by the atitude I found in this video (my head will explode if I fill it with information). safe link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYxk43E67JYfeature=youtube

shameless self promotion/ clarification on this attitude here https://www.reddit.com/r/badrhetoric/

basically there are people out there that are afraid of knowledge, and believe that you can become stupid by overfill your brain with information.

Wanted to get your thoughts on the new format. Things are interesting, allot less formal, and move allot faster. your thoughts

I really hate when advice is given without an explanation as to why it should be used. It's impossible to tell whether you are being manipulated for personal gain or being given actual, helpful advice if there is no explanation.

That's why I made this subreddit, to explore rhetoric and try to get closer to the truth.

I value honesty because it makes things easier to understand. I try to be honest about what I'm actually thinking, but sometimes honesty is not respected. People who believe that honesty == naivety will look at someone who is honest and think they are stupid. It's also possible to hate honest people by seeing them as somehow privileged - if you grew up in an environment where you felt forced to lie to get what you want, seeing other people be honest can be similar to a poor person viewing a rich person.

I thought for a long time that honesty was a universally liked trait, but it turns out that anything can be hated. No matter what you believe, someone somewhere is going to not like it.

I believed that people were largely robotic, and that their liking or disliking of something revealed some property of truth about the thing they judged. I still believe that, but the layers of psychological rules are deeper than I once thought.

At this point of my life I'm often scared to make any kind of statement about what I believe, because I'm concerned someone will find me naive. On the other hand, what if making these claims is a faster way of overcoming said stupidity? Shutting my mouth forever and being silent isn't going to help me engage with the world. Being afraid of failure to the point of action paralysis... no I don't think I want to be that person.

I'm going to try and fail. I'm going to fail harder and faster and longer if that's what it takes. And I'm going to document everything and try to explain it so that the next person doesn't have to go through this bullshit.

The flow of events goes like this:

1 - I see a link with very little votes or comments on it
2 - I post a low-effort comment, something really fucking obvious
3 - People come by to complain about said low-effort comment
4 - The total number of comments rises
5 - Increase in comment number generates greater interest (more people click the link and vote on it)
6 - more people begin talking about the actual topic at hand and the relevant comment eventually gets upvoted to the top (usually starts with "I can't believe I had to scroll this far down to see this...")
7 - I flee into the night

It's an interesting mechanism whereupon one uses the complaints of redditors to altruistically drive traffic to links that deserve it, although it breaks 'the system'.

You know when you're trying to get a point across, only for the other person to nitpick your argument and try to derail the entire conversation so they can feel emotionally superior?

Today I realized that you can respond by giving an ultimatum - do you agree or not? The person was in agreement with me, but was trying to extend the conversation in order to feel rhetorically superior. Focusing on the declaration of whether they agree with the main point is an effective method of truncating the bullshit. At that point, you can just stop responding because the objective of the convo has been completed.

Edit: Here's the convo where I thought of this action. From my perspective, his reply was a total win for me.

Parrying explanation:

The concept of purposefully pretending to be confused by someone elses explanation as a way of saving face/making the other person look stupid.

Example:

1- Hey, X implies Y.

2- What? I don't get it.

1- [long explanation ensues, written in such a way as to make 2 look like an idiot]

2- [doesnt want to be seen as an idiot] That still doesn't make sense to me, [focus on some red herring aspect of the explanation]

1- WTF NO THATS NOT THE POINT GRRAAAAWARGARBLE

2- hey man, calm down

You can imagine it as a fencing contest, with one person parrying the other persons attempts at explaining the idea at hand. No, sir, you will not make me understand this, no matter how hard you try!

Original post here

The title describes "all but one are disqualified", out of a 3 person race. Then, the remaining swimmer "thrashes" his countries record by .3 seconds.

Alternate title:

Two swimmers are disqualified from a race, and the remaining swimmer beats his country's record.

Doesn't have the same hook though

Original text here

For instance, it is pretty much held as economic truth that raising the minimum wage will decrease employment a little bit.

Italics are used for emphasis. In this sentence, seeing italics prompts the reader to think "this guy REALLY MEANS what he's saying". Right after that, the phrase 'pretty much' is used, which is a phrase one uses to absolve yourself of the responsibility of being wrong should a counterexample be brought up.

Together, they combine to create a feeling of false emphasis. I think the author does not realize the specific impacts of their word/font choices and instead are lumping together what they have seen in the past as persuasive tactics in order to persuade the reader. It's like a shotgun strategy, throw everything out there and maybe something will hit.

You'll see a lot of these kinds of threads where reddit is generalized into a single entity. Calling out Reddit for its fickle behavior is naive. A few thousand upvotes is enough to get a post to the front page, and therefore to the face of reddit, on a website viewed by millions.

When I was younger I also used to play the "reddit is fickle" card. Now I believe merely mentioning reddit as a single entity places you into one of two specific categories of thought - either you are dumb, or you are maliciously lying about the nature of reddit.

To counter the perception that reddit is a hivemind, I typically try to bring up the trope of "Reddit is only two people". It's a joke drawn from the idea that you don't really know how many alt accounts are on reddit.

Related concepts: Sockpuppets, karmawhoring, paid shills, circlejerks

Also, I discovered the subjective perspective and now I realize how deep lies can go. Does anyone else here know what I'm talking about?

It's the assumption that you will die eventually (highly probable) and that you can believe whatever you want in your life and it won't matter. Then, you are 'free' to confidently say and do almost anything. The confidence confuses those who value the truth because its like having the ability to paint shit gold.

I spoke to a few people from earlier in my life, turns out they were major liars and I had dodged some huge bullets.

People are gullible. You probably nodded along with "people are gullible", didn't you! It's those cracks, the spaces between statements, where the lies occur. It's in the responses like "yeah, yeah, yeah" and nodding when someone really doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's in the blaming and rage that subjective people express in order to feed and flame the insecurities of those who doubt themselves.

Suddenly compulsive liars are understandable. It becomes habit after a while - someone asks you something, make up a story that makes you look good. What did you do yesterday? Oh I drove out to the peak and had a picnic! They won't ask you to prove it.

So now I'm working on how to crack dishonesty. It goes really deep. I'm hoping some of you can help. I'll be posting more in the coming days.

And remember to feel alive!

There are 2 brains inside your cranial region. Your head. Your neuron case. THE SKULL. The left brain follows some really basic fucking logic. The right brain does not give a fuck. Lets go over some motherfucking basics:

1. The left brain is great at concentrating on a specific task, but fails to see the bigger picture. It is incapable of contemplating its own death.

2. The right brain is better. At everything.

3. The right brain uses logic that the left brain cannot comprehend.

4. The right brain will rig the deck, buy the umpire, and throw the kitchen sink.

5. Refrigerator.

Time to go back to the land of the left brain. Basically, there are two levels of logic (that I have seen so far). Lets say the left brain and right brain are playing a game of poker. The left brain learns all the odds, knows all the various hand combinations, and calculates the perfect betting amount given the % chance to win. The right brain knows that the chips aren't real. This is the difference between the two hemispheres.

In order to sell useless crap to left brains, you have to understand that the left brain is often starved for happiness. It is constantly, unwittingly unhappy and because of this it always falls for low-level tricks that the right brain pulls. Simply show personal desire for an object, and the left brain will try to buy it from you. It's that simple. You have to convey happiness, that this happiness stems from the object you are selling (even when we both know it's actually a product of your perception), and then wait as the left brain calculates how much happiness it will get from buying it. The object is sold, you walk away with the green paper to buy food, and the left brain contemplates how everything it buys turns to ash in its mouth.

There are people who are dominated by the left brain, and people who are dominated by the right brain. Good salespeople are right-brained, they know how to present happiness and convince left-brainers to spend money. Bad salespeople are left brains that try to copy right brains. They know what it looks like, but can't replicate it. You can spot bad salespeople immediately. They do random things, speak loudly, and act happy but it's all directed inward toward themselves. They can't escape their self obsession and because of that they are only able to convince other equally naive left brains to buy what they are selling.

Genuinely curious

I wrote a story to this prompt : Obama reveals why all the American Spying is really going on the 17th. It's not to protect us from terrorism, its to protect us from much something worse.

I wrote the speech with a view that cryptography has failed and there is now a need for a panopticon, an all seeing eye for all transactions.

http://np.reddit.com/r/KeepWriting/comments/1v7c8s/crit_presidential_address_remarks_on_the_nsa/

I'd appreciate feedback on the rhetoric of the piece. Does it fit his style? Could I use better figures in parts. Are there any other rhetorical devices that would be more popular?

I tried to use the first half of the speech as an appeal to his authority on the issue. Then a plausible sounding but slightly vague metaphor, a single paragraph long anecdote as he's fond of breaking up his speeches with anecdotes but he's unlikely to use many in a formal speech and an ethical and emotional appeal at the end.

Devastating dossier on 'abuse' by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court. Senior UK military and political figures could end up in the dock as 400 victims denounce 'systemic' use of torture and cruelty.

Removing the first scary adjective:

Dossier on 'abuse' by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court. Senior UK military and political figures could end up in the dock as 400 victims denounce 'systemic' use of torture and cruelty.

Removing the scare quotes:

Dossier on abuse by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court. Senior UK military and political figures could end up in the dock as 400 victims denounce systemic use of torture and cruelty.

Removing localization (UK) and other detail oriented adjectives:

Dossier on abuse by forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court. Military and political figures could end up in the dock as victims denounce use of torture and cruelty.

Original post being discussed here

My attempt of explaining why the comment might have come off as condescending.

Did I communicate my point clearly, or could I have done better? Also, assuming you feel I did communicate my point, do you agree with it?

"It Is Immoral to Cage Humans for Smoking Marijuana"

This is the top voted headline from /r/politics right now. Personally, I've found /r/politics to be a great example of applied rhetoric on reddit. Titles are important, the wording is key for gaining attention in default subreddits where low-effort voters outweigh high-effort voters. So as an exercise in analyzing rhetoric, I'll see if I can break down what this headline says. I believe that the actual point of the headline is:

"It is wrong to imprison people for smoking marijuana"

It is wrong
Premise 1: Morality exists
Premise 2: X contradicts morality
Conclusion: X is immoral
Premise 3: Morality determines right/wrong
Insinuation: X is wrong

to imprison people
The wording "to cage humans" is just a different way of saying "to imprison people"

for smoking marijuana
This part is straightforward

Let me know by your votes whether this has been interesting

Getting people to just think about your problems is a feat in itself. When someone posts a comment that conflicts with your opinion, do you downvote it or upvote it?

I think the optimal decision changes based on the situation. If you are in a situation where the audience can easily stop thinking about your issue, upvoting a contradicting opinion and then responding with a clear and superior answer is the best option. It means the audience is spending more time thinking about your problem and less time thinking about, say, cats or socks. In an environment where you know the audience is captured (they are going to think about the issue regardless) then you can downvote contradicting opinions without losing value.

Does anyone have any further thoughts on this?

ISTP comment explaining a random thought:

I explain something I know or just learned to an invisible person sitting beside me. The weird part is I imagine a specific person from my life sitting there so I adjust my vocabulary and level of knowledge to what I think is appropriate for said individual.

ENTP comment responding to religious question:

In my opinion being an ENTP and religous works perfectly. If you are truly seeking for knowledge or hidden pearls of wisdom, scriptures and other doctrinal books are filled with them. Although, if you fail to live your religion then you will begin to question its importance in your life. If you're not reading the scriptures than you think of it as just some book. If you're not praying you don't see the blessings that come from it and your faith dwindles. Another great aspect of being an ENTP is that we generally see all sides of the argument, or in this context, all the good that comes from differing religions. As an ENTP you see the big picture and religion puts life in perspective. I feel as though it would be more difficult for INTJs to accept religion but I know plenty of them that are actively engaged in their faith as well.