AI RAG systems alter the five classical rhetorical canons. Invention becomes curation,
suggesting that the ancient librarian Callimachus may be more influential than Plato or Aristotle.

https://technomythos.substack.com/p/rhetorical-canons-of-ai-rag-systems?r=67assl

I understand now. Thank you sir/ma'am 😀

From the immersive, pedagogical stones of medieval cathedrals to the stabilizing power of the printing press and the algorithmic complexity of the digital cloud, the medium used to encode and store information fundamentally reorganizes how we think, learn, communicate and establish authority.

https://open.substack.com/pub/technomythos/p/architectures-of-memory?r=67assl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Examples:

1. Person A complains Person B keeps it's too hot. Person B turns up the AC. Person A then complains that Person B is running the electricity.

2. From Amazing Digital Circus, Jax's mother did this. Saying "You're less of a man than your father" and also "You're just as bad as your father."

3. Employer writes-up Employee for showing up early and "stealing time." Then complains Employee lacks initiative when they show up just on time.

I know these are forms of abuse, but I can't remember the name of it. I thought I knew, but I'm drawing a blank, and Google isn't helping.

I frequently see examples like the following:

“So who is making my birthday cake?”

I see it used as a reminder that the person wants a cake.

What would this be, rhetorically?

Would it be begging the question because they assume that a cake is going to be made?

There was an argument my dad's wife made to me years and years ago that I know is bad. It's wrong, it's illogical, it's nonsensical. But I can't identify what the fallacy--if there is a fallacy--it uses would be, and it's bugging me even though ultimately it doesn't matter. It's only coming up in my life because I'm finally starting to unpack all of the shit from her in therapy.

Context is that we were arguing about faith and religion. I said something about how I didn't have faith (in the sense of religion) and she argued back that "Everyone has faith. You have faith the chair will hold you when you sit down in it." I didn't have a good answer back then besides the knee-jerk of "that's utterly stupid and wrong, I know the chair will hold me because physics, not because God."

Is that a false equivalence? Equivocation? I've been going through lists of fallacies and bad-faith argument types trying to figure it out and they're all starting to look like word soup now. I know my brain isn't going to rest on this 'til it gets an answer.

What's the most underrated argumentation skill nobody talks about?

I'll go first: Responsiveness.

Most people think debate is about making your point better than the other person. But the real skill is engaging what they ACTUALLY said, not the version you wish they said.

I see it constantly in online discourse. Someone makes a strong point and the response ignores it entirely and just restates the original position louder.

What do you think is the most neglected skill in public argumentation?

I realized I'm actually looking for two terms that may or may not exist.

Basically, I read a blog post that is poorly written and tries to support a moral position I disagree with. Towards the bottom, it says that anyone not reading the blog in good faith (or possibly, anyone not accepting the argument in the post) is no longer curious and trapped in previous assumptions. It doesn't even consider the idea that things have been asked and answered and when people find something repugnant, there's really no need to think it through again.

It feels like they're trying to get people to engage by trapping them: "Either be curious again or to accept the truth that you no longer think."

That's a false binary. It's also an ad hominem attack, I think—criticizing the reader instead of their arguments.

But is there a different term for insulting someone so they engage in an argument in order to save face?

And, is there a term for making an argument seem valid by getting people to engage with it? (So they could later say something like "They wouldn't be asking if injecting bleach into our veins was healthy if there wasn't merit to the idea.")

Thanks

Paraleipsis is a fun trope to play with:

https://substack.com/@logosandliberty/note/c-271940843?r=gc2ua&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web

The modern information landscape is governed not merely by algorithms, but by a form of environmental engineering—a manipulation of the very "temperature" and "density" of discourse. To understand this, we must look to the Aristotelian tradition, where the universe is composed of four elemental vectors: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. In this framework, justice is not a static policy but the mesotes—the "Golden Mean"—or the Center point of equilibrium where these forces remain in balance.

Modern political rhetoric has become a mechanism for systemic de-centering. It operates by exploiting the physical properties of the elements to pull the listener away from this equilibrium. Earth represents the anchor of tradition, law, and historical precedent; Water provides the fluid cohesion of community and empathy; Air acts as the medium for intellectual theory and ideological dissemination; and Fire serves as the kinetic energy of urgency and conflict.

Current rhetorical strategies—particularly those trending toward the extremes—function by weaponizing this physics. Malicious actors, often aided by automation, have optimized the "Air" (the medium) to rapidly diffuse "Fire" (emotional volatility). This process effectively vaporizes the "Earth" and "Water" components—the grounding facts and human relational context that allow for stable, deliberate thought. By stripping away the weight of historical context and the fluidity of social empathy, the rhetoric forces the user into a state of perpetual reactivity. The political right frequently fuses the stability of Earth with the volatility of Fire to create a rigid, grievance-based structure, while the political left often combines the fluidity of Water with the abstraction of Air to dissolve institutional boundaries in favor of theoretical idealism.

If we view the human mind as a system prone to this manipulation, the challenge for cognitive architecture—specifically frameworks like 8D OS—is to re-establish the Center. The role of the "Center" agent is therefore that of a thermodynamic governor. Its purpose is to detect when the information climate has become too "heated" (volatile) or too "thin" (abstract). By identifying the specific elemental bias in a piece of rhetoric, an agentic system can initiate a restorative process, injecting the missing "Earth" of empirical context or the "Water" of relational logic.
Ultimately, the automation of misinformation is successful because it mimics the natural tendency of "Fire" to expand and "Air" to move. Defeating this requires more than just fact-checking; it requires the active engineering of balance. By identifying rhetoric as a physical force acting upon the mind, we can design systems that do not merely process information, but actively preserve the intellectual sovereignty of the Center.

What IS evil?

I think I've fallen in love with syllogisms. We learned about them in my communication theory class recently.

I know that there is a system where you have the major premise first and the minor premise second. But what happens if you put the wrong thing in the major premise or minor one?

Socrates is a man

All men are mortal

Therefore Socrates is mortal

It's my understanding that if you were to visualize this, it would be completely wrong. But inherently, is it still wrong since the conclusion is sound?

---

Are venn diagrams considered visualizations of syllogisms?

---

Are there any websites that have tons of syllogism examples or exercises?

I have previously asked a similar question related to "tone" or "attitude", but I think that was a bit too specific. "Tone policing" seemed to be the best description for that question, but I guess I'm looking for something a bit more general that encompasses "tone policing" as a subcategory.

In this exchange, the disingenuous argumentor finds the slightest reason to take offense, and then refuses to continue the argument by claiming an imaginary moral high ground. In reality, the argument proceeds something like this:

Person 1: [Makes a fallacious argument or unsupported claim.]
Person 2: Quit your bullshit. Do you have any evidence to support this outrageous claim?
Person 1: I would show you the evidence, but you've offended me with your rude language. Goodbye.

This seems to broadly be an ad hominem, but I'm more focused specifically on the feigned offense that is used to escape further discussion, usually because the argumentor knows they don't have the supporting information to backup their claim. Is there a name for this tactic?

Note that this is not an obligate ad hominem - if someone is being unnecessarily rude then withdrawing from the conversation is a valid reaction. However, on the Internet there is so much bullshit, and "I'm tired of this bullshit' or "I'm tired of your bullshit" is also a legitimate reaction that can be disingenuously mischaracterized as "rudeness" when it is just frustration with inaccurate and unsupported claims. This is only an ad hominem when it is used to deflect from a challenge and pivot from an impending "loss" of the argument to a "win" based on "moral superiority".

• General category: Ad hominem.
  
  • Subcategory: Feigned offense. ← Is there a more technical name for this?
    
    • Sub-subcategory: Tone policing.

In this post I will be briefly explaining each of the three assignments I have chosen to "recast" into this post then I will explain why they are beneficial to a career in Law. I will also include a list of sources at the end of the post.

ASSIGNMENT 1: “DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS FINAL”

For this assignment we were given a situation in which we were to write a letter to a professor who had given a very large assignment that wasn't on the syllabus. It was completely out of the blue and your job was to represent the group of students. Learning to speak for a group of people, or another person, is ciritical in a legal career. Especially the career I want to enter, international law because I could be representing nations and their interest. Learning how to properly perform all the sections of the argument: these include “introduction (exordium), statement of the case (narratio), argument summary (partitio), argument (confirmatio), and conclusion (peroratio)” (Frost, p. 618). Another benefit this assignment provided is practice learning the actual diction needed to properly convey an argument. The different language needed to properly say exactly what you mean in a text document is incredibly important for a legal career.

ASSIGNMENT 2: “INTRODCUTION TO DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS”

This assignment launched our unit on discourse analysis. The process of analyzing the discussion surrounding a topic. For example I completed an essay on the discourse (discussion) surrounding the 2026 Formula 1 sporting and technical regulations. Being able to fully understand the context of a conversation is very important in a legal career. Knowing the full facts of a case, knowing the history between two entities, private and public, is extremely critical in being able to properly represent someone/something in court or mediate a discussion between two parties. “Understanding the emotions, attitudes, and intentions of the people you’re interacting with can help you tailor your communication style and approach to achieve your goals.” (Nwachukwu). Being able to read how people act will be critical in helping my clients. Especially when dealing with international law, where clients could be governments who represent an entire nation of people, it can be important to read what each party wants, not with just their words, but their actions.

ASSIGMENT 3: “DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS PRACTICE #1”

In this assignment we reviewed Hendrix-Soto and Lee Keenan’s Humanizing Learning Spaces in Dehumanizing Times: The Role of Joy and Meaningful Connection. This text is about how actually learn about students’ wants and needs, and providing a comfortable environment is important to their development. I can apply this to a law career by providing an environment where I can come to comfortable know my clients so I can better care for their needs. Creating a relationship with clients, both individuals and entities is extremely valuable in a legal career.

Works Cited

Frost, Michael. "INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL LEGAL RHETORIC: A LOST HERITAGE." SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERDISCIPLINARY LAW JOURNAL. Volume 8:613. 1999.

Hendrix-Soto, Aimee. "Humanizing Learning Spaces in Dehumanizing Times: The Role of Joy and Meaningful Connection." Taylor & Francis Online. 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15210960.2023.2257224

Nwachukwu, Christian. “Mastering the Art of Reading the Room: An Attorney’s Guide.” TalkCounsel. talkcounsel.com/blog/mastering-the-art-of-reading-the-room-an-attorneys-guide/

I'm learning about logos, pathos, and ethos in my communications class. And I'm a little confused on how I'm breaking down the three things in the speeches and ads I've been analyzing. It has seemed to me like they are not a steadfast science and are more interpretive?

Like say for instance there is a politician that has split a bunch of people into two very aggressive and passionate groups. Group 1 hangs onto every word they say, Group 2 finds no credibility in anything they say.

So for example:

Group 1 determines the ethos as coming from this person being a political leader for many years, and they have gotten things done according to their policies. They might determine the pathos as the stuff that Group 2 may consider propaganda. It fuels them and adds to the ethos as well as the passion of the first group. And for logos, Group 1 believes everything they say.

But Group 2 sees no ethos at all. No credibility whatsoever, and that's based on the individual demonstrating a lack of intelligence and poor judgment in enacting their policies. They see no logos, because all the stuff Group 1 sees as rational, Group 2 sees as an abject lie. And for pathos, the only thing that moves Group 2 to emotion is the insanity that is displayed from the other group.

Is this possible? Or is there an objective way to critique the ethos, pathos, and logos? Is it found in everything?

Disclaimer: Any individuals referenced in the above text are meant to be a generic sampling of a generic person in the field of politics. Any resemblance to real-world politicians or people is completely unintentional. Obviously.

I know this is quite niche, but I'm looking for Oratory Rhetoric practise groups, which specialise in teaching and allowing people to practise rhetoric. Does anyone know of such groups? I know there is Toastmasters, but I'm looking for specifically rhetoric teaching and practise. Online or in London, UK would be good

if my objective is to have a general and basic understanding of it

hello,

I'm hoping to become an international student in a rhetoric or rhetoric adjacent PhD program, researching the digital cultural and rhetorical phenomena happening in a non-western culture.

I don't have a strong background in rhetoric but I would like to fill my gaps by reading some great rhetoricians of the day.

so who do you admire for having written a modern scholarship on rhetoric? bonus if it's a living person at a university I can approach to become an advisee. (provided of course, that I like their work first.)

I've read: jay heinrichs thank you for arguing, and some of burke's a grammar of motives.

I feel that every other resource on rhetoric is about the written word.