# 27. Rhetorical manipulation ## 27.1. Definition The objective of rhetorical manipulation is to persuade victims to believe in various assertions without necessarily delivering proof of their validity. The assertions may concern an idea, a person, a group or a political case. Elegant, eloquent, artificial or ostentatious expressions are often employed, and various aggressive tactics and manipulative tricks may attempt to block the victim's ability to access the arguments rationally. There are 4 basic types of rhetorical manipulation: - Cognitive appeal - Emotional appeal - Attacking approach - Content manipulation ## 27.2. Persistence Low to High, depending on technique and type of victim. ## 27.3. Accessibility High, almost all of us can use rhetorical manipulation, at times without even being aware of it. ## 27.4. Conditions/Opportunity/Effectiveness Rhetorical manipulation works because most people accept certain premises. These assumptions are used by a manipulator to appeal to the emotions of a victim and take advantage of certain cognitive biases (weaknesses of rationalisation), to which most of us are prone to some extent. The general method has a potential similar to the irrational power of flattery. The manipulator knows in advance how his victims will react to various assertions. Once he is familiar with his victims, he is then in a position to play upon their prejudices to gain their acceptance of the various hidden presuppositions. Rhetorical tricks are traditionally thought to be the exclusive domain of politicians, but they are far more commonly used than that. They are applied almost constantly by most of us to achieve even the most trivial of our daily goals. ## 27.5. Methodology/Refinements/Sub-species Rhetoric which is manipulative, seeks to make a set of assertions and a course of action acceptable to a victim by means of deliberately contrived language and the clever ordering of statements, so that a victim reaches a preordained "personal" conclusion, apparently without pressure from the manipulator. This manipulated conclusion would not normally be considered either acceptable or logical when communicated explicitly and considered rationally by the victim. For rhetorical manipulation to be successful, the victim must not be aware that they are being manipulated. The most important aspect of rhetorical manipulation is, that the assertions being made are less important than the manipulated presuppositions from which they derive. They are constructed by making a number of suppositions which are reasonably acceptable or distracting to a victim. These assertions endorse the acceptance by the victim of the payload presupposition which the manipulator really wishes to deliver. For instance, when a pressure group shouts "Freedom Now", the general reaction is "OK. These people have a right to be free", but underlying this reaction we have already ratified the presupposition that "these people are oppressed". In recent British politics we have a continuous dialogue about "Job training schemes". The average listener reflects to himself, "Training for employment is good". The underlying presupposition which one has accepted here, is that "there are jobs available for the trained but unemployed people", but this is not necessary true, as millions of unemployed and underemployed citizens may well testify. **Methods of delivery and free will:** Rhetorical manipulation may be written or spoken in its delivery. It is, and has been used to pacify, excite, or shock an audience, but more often it is used to whip its victims into actions which they would ordinarily not consider, and which may be contrary to their putative will. *See Child Pages:* - [[Cognitive Appeal]] - [[Appeal to Probability]] - [[Appeal to Anonymous Authority]] - [[Appeal to Ignorance]] - [[Appeal to Money]] - [[Appeal to Popularity]] - [[Appeal to Tradition]] - [[Appeal to Authority]] - [[Appeal to Common Practice]] - [[Appeal to Incredulity]] - [[Appeal to Novelty Value]] - [[Emotional Appeal]] - [[Control/Control via Language Manipulation/Rhetorical Manipulation/Emotional Appeal/Wishful Thinking|Wishful Thinking]] - [[Appeal to Pity]] - [[Appeal to Spite]] - [[Appeal to Ridicule]] - [[Demonisation]] - [[Appeals to Emotion]] - [[Appeal to Nature]] - [[Appeal to Flattery]] - [[Appeal to Fear]] - [[Attacking Approaches]] - [[Guilt by Association]] - [[Straw Man]] - [[Burden of Proof]] - [[Ad Hominem Argument]] - [[Circumstance ad hominem]] - [[Genetic Fallacy]] - [[Trolling]] - [[Insinuation]] - [[Poisoning the Well]] - [[Downplay]] - [[Flaming]] - [[Content Manipulation]] - [[Ad hoc Rescue]] - [[Repetition]] - [[Control/Control via Language Manipulation/Rhetorical Manipulation/Content Manipulation/Begging the Question|Begging the Question]] - [[Deceit]] - [[False Dilemma]] - [[Slippery Slope]] - [[Misleading Vividness]] - [[Biased Generalisation]] - [[Red Herrings]] - [[Suppressed Evidence]] - [[Unfalsifiability]] - [[Hidden Co-option]] - [[Shadow Boxing]] - [[Mainstreaming]] - [[Pragmatic Fallacy]] - [[Hidden Implication]] - [[Framing]] - [[Anecdotal Evidence]] - [[Cherry Picking]] ## 27.6. Avoidance and Counteraction The manipulative rhetorician is most threatened by a strong-willed, clear-thinking dogmatic adversary. A victim, who rises above the emotional considerations and demands clear, documented, authenticated, logical links between premises and conclusions, is very dangerous to a manipulator. A listener, who wishes to explore all the implications of these premises in total detail, is unbeatable. If the demands for more information are perceived as reasonable, the victim will be unassailable. Co-option or exclusion of such individual victims may be possible for the manipulator. However, there are no precautions a manipulator can take against a victim that keeps asking: What? Why? Who? How? At some point the rhetorical manipulator will run out of answers and the game is over.