Links to rhetorical tools:

Here are links to the rhetorical tools used in this class:

Schemes & Tropes -- Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca -- Fallacies -- Burke -- Rhetorical Toolbox -- Conspiracy Rhetorics

Friday, February 12, 2016

Snooks, Thomas - Political Candidate: Joy Waymire



Appeal to Ignorance
“about 100 years ago”







“Founder, CEO of NPO”
Done to prevent the target audience feeling dumb if they can’t remember specific dates, or simply poor research. Possibly completely ignoring that Reparations after the War Between the States was a thing.

Reliance on general acceptance of qualification, without giving attackable specifics. As a minor candidate, no-one will care enough to research and attack her.
Emotional Appeal
“Well-rounded work history”
“I have no valid training, but look! I’m just like you!”
Reverse Bandwagon
“Many think that . . . But in reality”
Allows reader to agree with her, thereby making them smarter than the people who are wrong.
Appeal to Misleading Authority/Ignorance
“General Discharge under Honorable Conditions”
This means she was kicked out, but didn’t commit a crime. She FAILED at the Army. Stating this as a ‘fact to note’ in her qualifications is her relying on the voters either not reading past “Veteran of the Army” (incidentally, not how that is phrased by most military vets either) or seeing “Honorable” and assuming she finished her term as she was contractually obligated to do, which she did not.
Poisoning the Well
“Spent only what it brought in”
Creates a moral value of thrift, then immediately attacks the failing of the government to meet said moral value.
Slippery Slope
“children paying . . . their grandchildren . . . enslaved to the Government”
Used an unfounded, hyperbolic scare tactic to elicit immediate protective parental responses, intentionally limiting the readers capability to think logically about following arguments.



2 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good analysis. I think her fallacies are making her other claims very weak. This should be really interesting when compared to her Perelman arguments.

    ReplyDelete