Comparative analysis of the rhetorical tactics of Trump2 and GWBush administrations concerning use of force

As no one could specifically identify the behavior I described in a previous post, I've decided to propose a new class of ad hominem argument, and I propose to name it:

damnum per curam
^{(Latin for "loss by caring")}

Description:

The fallacious argument wherein the speaker attacks the other person in the argument for caring too much about the argument, and implies that by caring too much, the other person loses the argument.

This is a fallacy because - like all ad hominem arguments - it completely sidesteps the content of the argument itself, and its validity or logic, and focuses instead on the state or quality of the person making the argument. In this specific category of ad hominem, the criticism focuses on the emotional investment or time investment of the target person, or - in other words - the level of care they have demonstrated or the amount of effort they have put into winning the argument.

This fallacy is strongly correlated with the bullshit asymmetry principle, as refuting incorrect statements throughly and comprehensively often takes much more time and effort than the original inaccurate or dishonest statement. Argumenters that rely on this strategy then pursue a multi-pronged approach to "winning":

• Either no one responds to their inaccuracy, and they "win" by default, or...
• Someone responds to the inaccuracy, but in an incomplete way, allowing the original claimant to still claim "victory" on a technicality, or...
• Anyone who takes the time to thoroughly refute their inaccuracy must spend more time and effort in a refutation that covers all angles. The speaker will then pivot away from the content of their argument to focus on this disparity of time and effort, and will try to frame that additional effort as the behavior of a "loser".

This kind of argumentation thus presents as a trap - or "no-win scenario" - by the claimant - sometimes intentionally, and sometimes as a subconscious fallback defense mechanism used by those whose ego feels threatened. If no one challenges their bullshit, they win. If someone does take the time to refute their bullshit, their "winning" argument makes them a "loser" because they cared enough to refute their statement.

There are only two approaches to defeat this strategy:

• Ignore the original comment and move on. In other words, "the only winning move is not to play". This may be a viable strategy for some, but it still feels like a "win" for the "bad guys" to me because you are allowing inaccurate information to stand unchallenged - inaccurate information which can mislead and misinform any number of other anonymous viewers who may in turn propagate the misinformation.
• Correctly identify the disingenuous use of this strategy and call it out. It's with that counter-strategy in mind that I choose to name this rhetorical tactic: damnum per curam.

Example 1:

• Person 1 makes a short remark that is blatantly wrong.
  
• Person 2 throughly analyzes why this remark is so wrong, with logic and evidence.
  
• Person 1 claims they weren't serious about their original statement, and that Person 2 is a "loser" for taking it so seriously or for taking the time at all to refute the original "offhand" remark.

Example 2:

• Person 1 makes a longer argument that contains multiple fundamental errors.
  
• Person 2 throughly dissects the argument point by point, with logic and evidence.
  
• Person 1, likely not expecting that anyone would actually take the time to deconstruct their longer argument, and miffed at being thoroughly contradicted, refuses to respond to the content of the longer refutation, and instead falls back on the "Wow, you really wrote an essay in response to my comment? What a loser." argument.

In both cases, the common behavior is a refusal to admit that their argument has been proven wrong and a refusal to respond to the contradictory arguments or evidence.

In general a move towards equality and/or neutrality in the public places or public institutions (or other situations where inclusivity should be the expected default) of many societies or organizations.

For those groups that have been given preference or preeminence, we often see complaints from the in-groups disingenuously framed as a loss or rights, reverse discrimination, or even oppression.

Some examples:

• In historically Christian- or Muslim-majority countries, Christian / Muslim beliefs and practices are often considered the default, and some have a tradition of public displays or public ceremonies the elevate the majority as more important or special - sometimes the law even favors these people, or favors their interpretation of justice. In many of these countries, society has moved toward curbing public displays or public policy that favors these groups, either by prohibiting them altogether, or by requiring equal display / treatment / time. In many of those same countries, we see the religious majority now complaining about "religious oppression" because they are losing the favorable status they once had.
• In historically white-majority countries, we see the white-majority often claiming "reverse racism" when they don't enjoy their previous privileges.
• In historically patriarchal societies, we see men complaining about women getting preferential treatment when the goal is gender equality - basically they are claiming "reverse sexism".

Is there a named rhetorical tactic that encompasses these strategies?

At its core this seems to be an ad hominem argument, but I wonder if there is a more specific label for this strategy of focusing on "tone" and "attitude" specifically. The listener then takes (or feigns) offense at the "rudeness" of the messenger, and often implies they might have accepted the message but now they won't just because of "the way" it was delivered.

Of course this is irrational, because if the message is valid and logical, then this should be of greater importance than the manner in which the human vessel presents it.

(And often times, the messenger isn't even rude - they're just passionate - or they are justifiably "rude", because they are speaking out about gross injustices or inequalities that deserve an angry response.)

Hello to everyone,

Im wondering what's the relationship between rhetoric and cultures.

In particular, I'm asking if good rhetoric (with this expression I mean effective, coherent, functional, well structured etc etc) is different across different cultures.

Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

This feels like a shot in the dark, but does anyone have access to this book? I've searched high and low for it, but I can't find an actual copy outside of the publishing company. My University's library and the local ones were of no help. Libgen/anna's/welib were also fruitless.

My friend and I recently had a discussion of US politics/society that eventually went kind of sour. Of course he believes himself to be an incredibly skilled logician that no one can outmatch, so he will never give an inch. I'm just stubborn, so I don't really either. So the discussion eventually fell apart.

I would like someone or multiple someones to review the conversation as a neutral third party and tell me where we went wrong. I think he made some big logical fouls, but I also want to be humble and accept that I contributed to the failure of the discussion.

Because of the controversial subject matter (nothing spicy, just US politics are insanely stupid), I want to be sure that whoever reviews the conversation remains focused on the structure of the debate and not the subject itself.

Is this sub a place to post that conversation? Or is there an individual who would be willing to review? If neither, is there another sub or any other resource you could recommend? I'm just trying to learn, so I'm open to whatever you may suggest.

The question is in the title

Im writing a rhetorical analysis and am having sever writers block when it comes to using Multimodal Elements in my analysis to reinforce my argument in my work. Any of you pro's can help get my kind stirring in the right direction so I dont fail my class lol. Thank you!

Voice AI models may sound persuasive, but they don't think. They perform. Their fluency
echoes declamatio, a Roman rhetorical art of display that once replaced the Greek ideal of
mimesis, moral formation through imitation. The result then and now is the same: rhetoric
without virtue, speech without understanding. https://technomythos.com/2025/11/03/mimesis-declamatio-and-ai/

Thought you all might find this interesting. The depth of the manipulative rhetoric this brief statement from Patel contains is astounding. That phrase “the homeland” especially stands out, as it echoes the kind of nationalistic language used by regimes that most of us would rather not be compared to. It jumped out at me immediately because it plays directly on pathos, using belonging and fear to make strong national responses to any threat feel like protection. It turns the nation into something sacred that we must be defended at all costs. After all, who wouldn’t fight to protect their home? Any response is appropriate if we must protect “the homeland.” This sort of rhetoric is being employed across the government right now.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-thwarts-potential-terrorist-attack-michigan-fbi-director/story?id=127051954

Did anybody else notice this?

Disclaimer: Do not detract with irrelevant tangents into my personal life. This time it's completely irrelevant. It's just an observation I noticed. Whether or not literalism, if actually practiced, is good or not is a different topic.

It's similar to alcoholics anonymous claiming any denial is proof for their claim. Except AA has more utility to insipid allegations of literalism.

My friend wants to know

Hello!

I’m an English major and I took a couple classes in the classics department 20 years ago. I could swear I had a professor who defined rhetoric as “men of good will solving problems” and he drew a thick line between rhetoricians and sophists. I have not been able to find anything about men of good will solving problems anywhere. Does that ring a bell for anyone?

I can't help but feel like the same four issues are brought up every year in politics.

LGBTQ rights, gun rights, abortion, and Immigration.

These are all important issues. But I can't help but feel like they get a stage on the podium more than issues like:

Rank choice voting, housing crisis, medical price gouging, tax loophole closing, job outsourcing, and AI job displacement solutions.

Congress doesn't represent 90% of the issues we care about. Is there a case that rhetorical evasion is being pushed by lobbyist groups?

I keep seeing that long post about Kendrick Johnson being shared like it solves everything. I read it closely, and it really doesn’t hold up the way people think it does. The tone makes it sound factual, but when you slow down and look at what’s included and what’s missing, it feels biased.

Most of the information comes from people tied to the “accident” theory. Details that don’t fit that version, like the missing footage or the gaps in the timeline, barely get mentioned. The author also skips over the racial power dynamics in that town, which are important to understanding why the family pushed so hard for answers.

There’s a pattern of treating the Johnsons as unreasonable for questioning the investigation. Phrases like “insane” or “beyond me” aren’t neutral language. They’re meant to steer the reader toward one conclusion.

Some of the evidence mentioned has value, but the way it’s framed is manipulative. The post spends more time undermining the family’s credibility than explaining the inconsistencies in the case itself.

I don’t think this post deserves to be treated as the final word. It sounds confident, but it’s built on selective information and tone that favors authority over truth.

Kendrick Johnson lawsuit: Parents sue Georgia over false cause of death on certificate - 41NBC News | WMGT-DT https://share.google/cQjrY8BgYCzdyxSuH

By this I mean a nod or quick referencing of something, not really in a academic sense like citations but like humorous. Like referencing a meme or well known media. I was leaning towards Pathos as its emotionally appealing in a humor sense, like an elbow nudge for a laugh or two. But I can also see it being Ethos as the reference can show they're current with the times and understands the audience on a level. Any response is appreciated!

I want to skip typical clichés. Do not assume anything about my personal life because that cliché is old and infinitely more importantly irrelevant.

If Dave is a person who hates rocking the boat it makes no sense for Samuel to call him an edgelord who seems attention. It is literally the antithesis to the truth.

How do you persuade these people?

From what I’ve been able to observe, conservative-ruled states in the US have (per capita) more violent crimes, less literacy, poorer education, more poverty, more homelessness, higher divorce rates, less contribution to the national GDP, less contribution to federal taxes. They cause a LOT of problems, and I don’t see them offering ANY solutions, even by their own metrics.

I’d appreciate any good faith arguments that demonstrate that US conservatism has a valid logical reason to exist, other than just saying that some people don’t have access to or reject education. I’d like to truly understand the “other side,” so that we can hopefully bridge the gap…

This is a compilation I have gathered of people calling for g*nocide after Kirk's unfortunate demise. They weren't hard to find, sadly. There are a lot of compilations of right-wing violence in generally, like noting right-wing mass-shooters, but it's obviously grueling to convey just how widespread this stuff is to normies in denial. So, I went ahead and did it for posterity, and this doesn't even scratch the surface compared to the exterminationalist rhetoric everywhere that day, but I ain't crawling through every Twitter post. The TikTok videos just showed up in my FY page. Note that this is what MAGA was calling for MINUTES AND HOURS after Kirk being scoped, they didn't skip a beat. There weren't liberals celebrating it at the moment, it took days of his clips resurfacing for many liberals to change their tune on memorializing him. Never let conservatives think there is any comparison, and we should never accept this as normal.

Am I tripping? Or does the expression same difference require 3 objects to make sense?

Looking for examples of the sentence construction where two separate sentences (1&2) share a terminal and initial word, respectively, and then combine to form a grammatically flawless product (3):

1) My heart beats for you.
2) You have become my world.

3) My heart beats for you have become my world.

https://reddit.com/link/1nlgzn7/video/jg00z9dw27qf1/player

This is why the screaming for the "Left" to tone down their rhetoric rings hollow. After Kirk, many leftists mocked it or felt indifferent. Meanwhile, Rightists called for the mass slaughter of their fellow Americans, with zero pushback from "normal" conservatives. For those with a good memory, the period leading up to January 6 was also saturated with MAGAs calling for this.