Donald Trump's Rhetoric
February 26, 2024 7:06 PM Subscribe
The Unique Rhetoric of Donald Trump [20m] Dr. Jennifer Mercieca, professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at Texas A&M University, discusses the unprecedented rhetorical devices Donald Trump has used to build a cult-like following, capture the attention economy, and allowed him to avoid accountability despite major political controversies and legal challenges.
On some level, it's a bit of a "recognize and name and it loses power". Might be useful for conversations across the next several months.
On some level, it's a bit of a "recognize and name and it loses power". Might be useful for conversations across the next several months.
It's literally about rhetoric, as in the way he talks about things.
posted by hippybear at 7:14 PM on February 26
posted by hippybear at 7:14 PM on February 26
Interesting video, now that I've watched it. :-) For those who want to read instead of watch, here's her article, her book, and an interview with extra examples.
Someone who's smarter than me will have to figure out how many of the six rhetorical devices that Trump uses are also used by professional wrestlers.
posted by clawsoon at 7:38 PM on February 26 [15 favorites]
Someone who's smarter than me will have to figure out how many of the six rhetorical devices that Trump uses are also used by professional wrestlers.
posted by clawsoon at 7:38 PM on February 26 [15 favorites]
From the Salon interview, tying back to something we were arguing about the other day:
Lerner teaches us that demagogues like Trump are enabled by inequality and societal dysfunction. If we want to stop unaccountable leaders like Trump, then we have to remake society according to what Lerner calls the "majority principle." In 2016 we were distrustful, polarized and frustrated with our government. Trump didn't cause those conditions, but he did weaponize rhetoric to make them worse. And he's continued to do so as president.posted by clawsoon at 7:51 PM on February 26 [14 favorites]
My hope is that readers of my book will learn how and why Trump's dangerous demagoguery works so that they can defend themselves from it. But that will only do so much. The bigger picture is we need to remake our political and economic culture to prevent demagogues like Trump from ever gaining power in the first place. We need to figure out how to create trust. We need to figure out how to end polarization. We need to figure out how to end frustration. We need an economic and political system that works for the people and not for the elite.
It's literally about rhetoric, as in the way he talks about things.
And "professional" "wrestling" has its own rhetoric. Not that I'm intimately familiar with it but, apparently Trump has played a heel from the sidelines, and I can imagine there is some overlap in styles.
posted by pwnguin at 9:56 PM on February 26 [9 favorites]
And "professional" "wrestling" has its own rhetoric. Not that I'm intimately familiar with it but, apparently Trump has played a heel from the sidelines, and I can imagine there is some overlap in styles.
posted by pwnguin at 9:56 PM on February 26 [9 favorites]
In 2016 we were distrustful, polarized and frustrated with our government.
Oh whatever. The majority of voters were fine with the government.
There was racist backlash against the first African American President, 20 years of cynical propaganda against Clinton, failure on the part of left wing people to realize that the idiot right would actually vote for Trump, Russian propaganda, and exploiting the quirks of the US election system that hands disproportionate power to rural areas.
We need to figure out how to create trust. We need to figure out how to end polarization. We need to figure out how to end frustration. We need an economic and political system that works for the people and not for the elite.
I hate to break it to her, but decades of trying to appease the right wing hasn't really worked out. So maybe it's time to focus on the common people rather than trying to make people who think that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together and are focused on taking away reproductive rights happy.
They're roughly 35% of the population. Get the reasonable people who don't vote out rather than trying to strike bad bargains with the right wing that they reject anyway.
posted by Candleman at 1:53 AM on February 27 [50 favorites]
Oh whatever. The majority of voters were fine with the government.
There was racist backlash against the first African American President, 20 years of cynical propaganda against Clinton, failure on the part of left wing people to realize that the idiot right would actually vote for Trump, Russian propaganda, and exploiting the quirks of the US election system that hands disproportionate power to rural areas.
We need to figure out how to create trust. We need to figure out how to end polarization. We need to figure out how to end frustration. We need an economic and political system that works for the people and not for the elite.
I hate to break it to her, but decades of trying to appease the right wing hasn't really worked out. So maybe it's time to focus on the common people rather than trying to make people who think that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together and are focused on taking away reproductive rights happy.
They're roughly 35% of the population. Get the reasonable people who don't vote out rather than trying to strike bad bargains with the right wing that they reject anyway.
posted by Candleman at 1:53 AM on February 27 [50 favorites]
This is pretty interesting, a tight summary of his tricks (and also how other politicians use them, differently).
I never thought I would hear myself say this, but it would actually be interesting to cut Prof. Mercieca's explication with illustrative clips of Trump on the stump and in the act of committing rhetoric.
posted by chavenet at 2:31 AM on February 27 [6 favorites]
I never thought I would hear myself say this, but it would actually be interesting to cut Prof. Mercieca's explication with illustrative clips of Trump on the stump and in the act of committing rhetoric.
posted by chavenet at 2:31 AM on February 27 [6 favorites]
Though I agree with Candleman, I also think the retorical analysis is interesting.
When people talk about polarization in my physical presence, I interrupt them and stop them, because it is rubbish. But it is the same when people tell me that Trump is demented or that what he says doesn't make sense. It doesn't make rational sense, but it does make a lot of emotional sense.
Thanks for posting, hippybear!
posted by mumimor at 2:50 AM on February 27 [11 favorites]
When people talk about polarization in my physical presence, I interrupt them and stop them, because it is rubbish. But it is the same when people tell me that Trump is demented or that what he says doesn't make sense. It doesn't make rational sense, but it does make a lot of emotional sense.
Thanks for posting, hippybear!
posted by mumimor at 2:50 AM on February 27 [11 favorites]
Trump's rhetorical devices may or may not be unprecedented, but these days every single thing he says and does is entirely predictable.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 3:25 AM on February 27 [3 favorites]
posted by Cardinal Fang at 3:25 AM on February 27 [3 favorites]
I especially like finding out that "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" is prolipsis. I wonder if the Greek list of rhetorical devices is complete.
Also, Morcieca underlines Trump's use of flattery. I wonder if she gets into how vague his flattery is.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:53 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
Also, Morcieca underlines Trump's use of flattery. I wonder if she gets into how vague his flattery is.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:53 AM on February 27 [1 favorite]
I wonder if she gets into how vague his flattery is.
It doesn’t matter. If your orange god says something nice about you, no matter how vague, it’s a blessing from on-high. Better than him saying anything vaguely negative, which everyone in the cult knows could result in being banished or ostracized.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:56 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
It doesn’t matter. If your orange god says something nice about you, no matter how vague, it’s a blessing from on-high. Better than him saying anything vaguely negative, which everyone in the cult knows could result in being banished or ostracized.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:56 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
A paired text for Mercieca's work: Rhetorician Kenneth Burke's (1939) "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'"—Wikipedia article & full-text PDF:
Let us watch it carefully; and let us watch it, not merely to discover some grounds for prophesying what political move is to follow Munich, and what move to follow that move, etc.; let us try also to discover what kind of "medicine" this medicine-man has concocted, that we may know, with greater accuracy, exactly what to guard against, if we are to forestall the concocting of similar medicine in America.posted by audi alteram partem at 5:39 AM on February 27 [10 favorites]
Thorzdad, it's worth looking at how he got to be an orange god-king.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:02 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:02 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
And "professional" "wrestling" has its own rhetoric. Not that I'm intimately familiar with it but, apparently Trump has played a heel from the sidelines, and I can imagine there is some overlap in styles.
There's a lot of commonality, actually. I think a sentence in mumimor's comment above captures it well: "It doesn't make rational sense, but it does make a lot of emotional sense." This is equally true of Trump's speeches and pro wrestling.
People connect with it emotionally, even if they are themselves aware that rationality is completely out the window. Letting things be both true (from the emotional valence) and untrue (rationally) is a strength of right wing populist speech generally, not just with Trump. Like, it's not literally true that "the immigrants are stealing your jobs," but it correctly responds to feelings of decline and precarity, say. And it benefits the politician equally if people are foolish enough to believe it literally, or if they do so knowing that they are in on a joke and are aware of the multiple levels of meaning.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:18 AM on February 27 [6 favorites]
There's a lot of commonality, actually. I think a sentence in mumimor's comment above captures it well: "It doesn't make rational sense, but it does make a lot of emotional sense." This is equally true of Trump's speeches and pro wrestling.
People connect with it emotionally, even if they are themselves aware that rationality is completely out the window. Letting things be both true (from the emotional valence) and untrue (rationally) is a strength of right wing populist speech generally, not just with Trump. Like, it's not literally true that "the immigrants are stealing your jobs," but it correctly responds to feelings of decline and precarity, say. And it benefits the politician equally if people are foolish enough to believe it literally, or if they do so knowing that they are in on a joke and are aware of the multiple levels of meaning.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:18 AM on February 27 [6 favorites]
I think the author misses out on Trump’s use of humor to connect with his audience. It is based on the jokes of the patriarchy — transgressive in its down punching, racist and sexist themes. He isn’t a genius, he’s just shameless. He’s used that to grab a share of the proudly politically incorrect fragile white people; but it’s made him incredibly unpopular with everyone else.
posted by interogative mood at 6:51 AM on February 27 [15 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 6:51 AM on February 27 [15 favorites]
i learned from watching my father loyally following bonkers radio preachers over many years, that there are consumers of this sort of thing who don't listen to words as words. there's a lot of them. what they do is identify with a voice. it gives form to inarticulate grievances in a satisfying way. if you only pay attention to the words, you're missing most of what is happening here. and if you try to argue with them in words, it's like water off a duck's back. they have found a source when they feel rejected by everything around them, & unless they're welcomed by a source that is closer & more personal, they're not letting go of that voice. for them it's a lifeline.
posted by graywyvern at 8:16 AM on February 27 [31 favorites]
posted by graywyvern at 8:16 AM on February 27 [31 favorites]
True - long ago it was Paul Harvey, then it was Rush Limbaugh, and now it's Trump.
posted by Rash at 8:31 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
posted by Rash at 8:31 AM on February 27 [2 favorites]
Sometimes, The Onion plays Cassandra.
The inarticulate grievance has been escalating for decades: people who used to enjoy unquestioned privilege in this country because of their color, their gender, their religion, their political beliefs, their numbers, their population concentration in specific areas, their guns, their preachers thundering from the pulpit, their influence over the media and the entertainment industry and their children are losing that privileged state, one chunk at a time.
And it SHOULD BE disappearing. Because that privilege, a dominant privilege all through the vast majority of American history, is based upon precedent and force. Force of numbers, force of societal pressure, force of law, force of arms when necessary.
It's like when Obergefell was being debated, and conservatives came out of the woodwork to decry the very notion that ANY sort of same-sex union should be tolerated, much less given legal backing. And their arguments as to why not always came down to two principles:
1) "Because it's always been that way." Precedent is important in civil law, but so is identifying when precedents were made incorrectly, or were based on cultural influences rather than on basic fairness or Constitutional principles.
2) "Because Jesus says so." Which is not just a misrepresentation of Jesus, but not even remotely a basis for civil law.
And Trump is merely bullhorning that not only is that privileged state appropriate, but that the use of force -- in all of the forms mentioned above, including literal brutality -- is justified in Taking Back America from The Other.
posted by delfin at 8:36 AM on February 27 [10 favorites]
The inarticulate grievance has been escalating for decades: people who used to enjoy unquestioned privilege in this country because of their color, their gender, their religion, their political beliefs, their numbers, their population concentration in specific areas, their guns, their preachers thundering from the pulpit, their influence over the media and the entertainment industry and their children are losing that privileged state, one chunk at a time.
And it SHOULD BE disappearing. Because that privilege, a dominant privilege all through the vast majority of American history, is based upon precedent and force. Force of numbers, force of societal pressure, force of law, force of arms when necessary.
It's like when Obergefell was being debated, and conservatives came out of the woodwork to decry the very notion that ANY sort of same-sex union should be tolerated, much less given legal backing. And their arguments as to why not always came down to two principles:
1) "Because it's always been that way." Precedent is important in civil law, but so is identifying when precedents were made incorrectly, or were based on cultural influences rather than on basic fairness or Constitutional principles.
2) "Because Jesus says so." Which is not just a misrepresentation of Jesus, but not even remotely a basis for civil law.
And Trump is merely bullhorning that not only is that privileged state appropriate, but that the use of force -- in all of the forms mentioned above, including literal brutality -- is justified in Taking Back America from The Other.
posted by delfin at 8:36 AM on February 27 [10 favorites]
"A feature of fascism is its incoherence and internal inconsistency."
The whole hierarchical structure of totalitarian movements, from native fellow-travellers to party members, elite formations, the intimate circle around the Leader, and the Leader himself, could be described in terms of a curiously varying mixture of gullibility and cynicism with which each member, depending upon his rank and standing in the movement, is expected to react to the changing lying statements of the leaders and the central unchanging ideological fiction of the movement.... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for the superior tactical wisdom. -Hannah Arendt
posted by Brian B. at 8:37 AM on February 27 [17 favorites]
The whole hierarchical structure of totalitarian movements, from native fellow-travellers to party members, elite formations, the intimate circle around the Leader, and the Leader himself, could be described in terms of a curiously varying mixture of gullibility and cynicism with which each member, depending upon his rank and standing in the movement, is expected to react to the changing lying statements of the leaders and the central unchanging ideological fiction of the movement.... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for the superior tactical wisdom. -Hannah Arendt
posted by Brian B. at 8:37 AM on February 27 [17 favorites]
Thorzdad, it's worth looking at how he got to be an orange god-king.
Not really. There's nothing radically unique about Trump's ascendance, at least not in terms of his messaging and cynical appeals to "the common man." Twas ever thus. Being an utter narcissist and con man doesn't hurt, either. The biggest and most important difference, though, between him and dictators of yore is that of time and place. Trump enjoys unparalleled immediacy of reach and amplification thanks to the technological wonderland, and the deep commercialization thereof, we find ourselves in today.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:07 AM on February 27 [3 favorites]
Not really. There's nothing radically unique about Trump's ascendance, at least not in terms of his messaging and cynical appeals to "the common man." Twas ever thus. Being an utter narcissist and con man doesn't hurt, either. The biggest and most important difference, though, between him and dictators of yore is that of time and place. Trump enjoys unparalleled immediacy of reach and amplification thanks to the technological wonderland, and the deep commercialization thereof, we find ourselves in today.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:07 AM on February 27 [3 favorites]
Her book was published in 2020. I wonder if she has anything to add? [sad face emoji]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:09 AM on February 27
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:09 AM on February 27
In 2016 we were distrustful, polarized and frustrated with our government.
Oh whatever. The majority of voters were fine with the government.
Where in the name of equality and justice do you even get "Oh whatever." The distrust and frustration has been so obviously worsening since 2000. We're sick of being screwed out of our wages and infuriated at the lack of health care; tired of politicians controlling people's bodies; sick of homelessness and the housing situation, furious at the gutting of our retirements; appalled at the cost of food, and we've had it at the subsidizing big ag and the corporate food industry, subsidizing oil companies while they destroy the environment and bailing out banks.
How can there be trust in government when politicians get fat and keep voting in higher wages, retirement health care for themselves while having the moral fiber of a cucumber? Look at the list of politician's maleficence and the out of control graphs. And these are the ones we know haven't worked the good ol' boys network or bought off law enforcement. On and on. This is our f'ng government now--it sucks. Call it an oligarchy or a corpocracy, it certainly isn't a democracy.
Why should there be any trust in government? Who's on offer? The orange nazi and the naziette wannabe or the ineffectual old man and Mr. Wasshizname, that guy, Phillips?
The death knell began tolling when corporations were declared to have14th amendment rights of personhood. Democracy slipped through our hands with the oil, steel, tobacco and sugar monopolies and the development of the railroads and financial interests.
Trump didn't just mutate, he's the product of where this country's been heading for a long time. Unfortunately, it's not going to change. Those in power know just how to keep people prosperous enough not rise up against them in violence, and just under their thumb and complacent enough that they don't have any will or energy to change things peacefully. We have the superbowl, pro wrestling, Hollywood stars and mega-musicians. We have Trump and televangelists. We don't need bread and circuses.
posted by BlueHorse at 11:32 AM on February 27 [3 favorites]
Oh whatever. The majority of voters were fine with the government.
Where in the name of equality and justice do you even get "Oh whatever." The distrust and frustration has been so obviously worsening since 2000. We're sick of being screwed out of our wages and infuriated at the lack of health care; tired of politicians controlling people's bodies; sick of homelessness and the housing situation, furious at the gutting of our retirements; appalled at the cost of food, and we've had it at the subsidizing big ag and the corporate food industry, subsidizing oil companies while they destroy the environment and bailing out banks.
How can there be trust in government when politicians get fat and keep voting in higher wages, retirement health care for themselves while having the moral fiber of a cucumber? Look at the list of politician's maleficence and the out of control graphs. And these are the ones we know haven't worked the good ol' boys network or bought off law enforcement. On and on. This is our f'ng government now--it sucks. Call it an oligarchy or a corpocracy, it certainly isn't a democracy.
Why should there be any trust in government? Who's on offer? The orange nazi and the naziette wannabe or the ineffectual old man and Mr. Wasshizname, that guy, Phillips?
The death knell began tolling when corporations were declared to have14th amendment rights of personhood. Democracy slipped through our hands with the oil, steel, tobacco and sugar monopolies and the development of the railroads and financial interests.
Trump didn't just mutate, he's the product of where this country's been heading for a long time. Unfortunately, it's not going to change. Those in power know just how to keep people prosperous enough not rise up against them in violence, and just under their thumb and complacent enough that they don't have any will or energy to change things peacefully. We have the superbowl, pro wrestling, Hollywood stars and mega-musicians. We have Trump and televangelists. We don't need bread and circuses.
posted by BlueHorse at 11:32 AM on February 27 [3 favorites]
Pew Research Center: Public Trust in Government, by year. No matter who's in charge, Americans have next to no faith in their government, and have not for quite some time.
Pew: Trends in Wealth and Income Inequality, through 2016. Note the line graphs in particular, signifying long-term suctioning of wealth and income away from the middle class and towards the upper. This was THE issue that Bernie Sanders ran on.
Climate.gov: Global average surface temperature, by year. People who were screaming for someone, anyone, with any kind of power to DO SOMETHING are, well, still kind of waiting.
Republicans had control of both the House and Senate in the 114th Congress (2015-2017), ensuring that Mitch's Legislative Graveyard would be in full effect for anything productive, and enabling McConnell & Co. to steal a SCOTUS seat through procedural mischief.
Things were far, far better under Obama than under his successor by many metrics; no one sane will deny THAT. But let's not pretend that 2016 America was roses and sunshine, either.
posted by delfin at 12:10 PM on February 27 [4 favorites]
Pew: Trends in Wealth and Income Inequality, through 2016. Note the line graphs in particular, signifying long-term suctioning of wealth and income away from the middle class and towards the upper. This was THE issue that Bernie Sanders ran on.
Climate.gov: Global average surface temperature, by year. People who were screaming for someone, anyone, with any kind of power to DO SOMETHING are, well, still kind of waiting.
Republicans had control of both the House and Senate in the 114th Congress (2015-2017), ensuring that Mitch's Legislative Graveyard would be in full effect for anything productive, and enabling McConnell & Co. to steal a SCOTUS seat through procedural mischief.
Things were far, far better under Obama than under his successor by many metrics; no one sane will deny THAT. But let's not pretend that 2016 America was roses and sunshine, either.
posted by delfin at 12:10 PM on February 27 [4 favorites]
<tangent type="irrelevant">
i have this irrational wish that i could have a conversation with some hardcore trumpist who knows nothing about my politics, because i have what i think is the absolute perfect response to a trumpist going off on a tear about trump and trumpism and how great both are. what i'd do is let them get a few spoken paragraphs in, and then at the first convenient pause, you know, the point where they're expecting me to either agree or disagree with them, i'd say:
"politics is dumb."
</tangent>
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:58 PM on February 27
i have this irrational wish that i could have a conversation with some hardcore trumpist who knows nothing about my politics, because i have what i think is the absolute perfect response to a trumpist going off on a tear about trump and trumpism and how great both are. what i'd do is let them get a few spoken paragraphs in, and then at the first convenient pause, you know, the point where they're expecting me to either agree or disagree with them, i'd say:
"politics is dumb."
</tangent>
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:58 PM on February 27
How can there be trust in government when politicians get fat and keep voting in higher wages, retirement health care for themselves while having the moral fiber of a cucumber?
Could we please not tie a person's weight to their moral character? It's not o.k.
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:53 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
Could we please not tie a person's weight to their moral character? It's not o.k.
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:53 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
what i'd do is let them get a few spoken paragraphs in, and then at the first convenient pause, you know, the point where they're expecting me to either agree or disagree with them, i'd say:
"politics is dumb."
That's an exceedingly Trumpian thing to say, sounds like you'd get along well.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:48 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
"politics is dumb."
That's an exceedingly Trumpian thing to say, sounds like you'd get along well.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:48 PM on February 27 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments removed. Please avoid name calling, per the Content Policy!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:12 AM on February 28
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:12 AM on February 28
Why Trump keeps humiliating Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham
I know a major media outlet can't say it's because homophobia plays well, so Ben-Ghiat wouldn't be able to make that part of Scott and Graham's abjection explicit, but I was a little surprised that regionalism isn't a part of the explanation--the canny, clever New Yorker humiliating the bumbling Southerners. I mean, Trump doesn't need them to be southern, he can get anyone he wants to squirm for him on-stage, but it feels like that's part of the toolkit?
posted by mittens at 8:12 AM on February 28
I know a major media outlet can't say it's because homophobia plays well, so Ben-Ghiat wouldn't be able to make that part of Scott and Graham's abjection explicit, but I was a little surprised that regionalism isn't a part of the explanation--the canny, clever New Yorker humiliating the bumbling Southerners. I mean, Trump doesn't need them to be southern, he can get anyone he wants to squirm for him on-stage, but it feels like that's part of the toolkit?
posted by mittens at 8:12 AM on February 28
I feel like maybe less focus on the rhetoric and words, and more focus on the media empire(s) that made Trump's ascension not only possible but actively helped bring it about.
Anyone can spout insane ideas and rhetoric, but without that hate speech getting pushed to people* on a global level, he'd just be another angry old man with a tinfoil hat and who knows how much money. "Stupidity! Not just for the stupid anymore!" seems to be their current trademark.
*People who have had critical thinking skills blunted by either poor education, too much television, religion or even just poor nutrition.
posted by Sphinx at 10:28 AM on February 28
Anyone can spout insane ideas and rhetoric, but without that hate speech getting pushed to people* on a global level, he'd just be another angry old man with a tinfoil hat and who knows how much money. "Stupidity! Not just for the stupid anymore!" seems to be their current trademark.
*People who have had critical thinking skills blunted by either poor education, too much television, religion or even just poor nutrition.
posted by Sphinx at 10:28 AM on February 28
Gygesringtone, I had to read my own words twice to understand your reference to actual physical weight. My intent was to use fat as a metaphor for bloated (full of evil) and corrupt, weighing themselves down with the good things, or being suggestive of a fat wallet, but I guess that puts a lot on three letters. A literal interpretation deserves apology.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:29 PM on February 28 [1 favorite]
posted by BlueHorse at 6:29 PM on February 28 [1 favorite]
I mean my problem wasn't that I thought you were saying "This person is evil because they're fat", I understand metaphors. It's just that a metaphor that says being full of evil and corrupt is similar to being fat is not better, just more literary.
Can we please not tie someone's moral worth to weight? It's not o.k., no matter how how abstract it's made.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:31 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
Can we please not tie someone's moral worth to weight? It's not o.k., no matter how how abstract it's made.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:31 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
I wonder what metaphor could be used that would be better? Like, having metaphors is useful. For example, and this will be unappealing to some reading this, but in Dune, Baron Harkonnen's physical corpulence, which needed to be supported by small antigravity engines strapped to his body, was a very specific image that was meant to incorporate very specific things about his self that some reading this thread would not take as being okay, but is pretty specific to the description of them in fairly classic literature.
I agree that this is not always appropriate and should probably be questioned when it is encountered, but it's not an uncommon image? Jabba and Leia also come to mind?
posted by hippybear at 8:02 PM on February 28
I agree that this is not always appropriate and should probably be questioned when it is encountered, but it's not an uncommon image? Jabba and Leia also come to mind?
posted by hippybear at 8:02 PM on February 28
No fat person needs it explained to them that the literary use of fatness in that sort of metaphor is common, or what it implies. We know. We would like people to stop it. If there’s no readily available metaphor that doesn’t rely on fatness it’s always an option to skip the metaphor and just call someone corrupt, greedy, evil, etc.
posted by Stacey at 4:10 AM on February 29 [4 favorites]
posted by Stacey at 4:10 AM on February 29 [4 favorites]
I wonder what metaphor could be used that would be better?
Ticks, mosquitos and leeches make good figures for the idea of parasitic consumption. For a sense of something bloating from decay, there're always corpses handy. Things that enlarge and spread uncontrollably? Cancer, mold, mildew. Greed generally, Scrooge (and his McDuck counterpart) and Uncle Pennybags have served us well. Greedy consumption with a violent tinge, dogs fighting over a food bowl; greedy consumption without the violence, the dog that wolfs down stolen ice cream.
It's kind of nice that at least some of our language is coming around to the idea that "hey, mammals tend to store excess calories as subcutaneous adipose tissue" is not actually a moral issue, illustrative of some larger point.
posted by mittens at 5:24 AM on February 29 [1 favorite]
Ticks, mosquitos and leeches make good figures for the idea of parasitic consumption. For a sense of something bloating from decay, there're always corpses handy. Things that enlarge and spread uncontrollably? Cancer, mold, mildew. Greed generally, Scrooge (and his McDuck counterpart) and Uncle Pennybags have served us well. Greedy consumption with a violent tinge, dogs fighting over a food bowl; greedy consumption without the violence, the dog that wolfs down stolen ice cream.
It's kind of nice that at least some of our language is coming around to the idea that "hey, mammals tend to store excess calories as subcutaneous adipose tissue" is not actually a moral issue, illustrative of some larger point.
posted by mittens at 5:24 AM on February 29 [1 favorite]
No fat person needs it explained to them that the literary use of fatness in that sort of metaphor is common, or what it implies. We know. We would like people to stop it. If there’s no readily available metaphor that doesn’t rely on fatness it’s always an option to skip the metaphor and just call someone corrupt, greedy, evil, etc.
I'm not fat, but I'd also like to see this metaphor fade away, just like using stereotypical Jewish features as a metaphor has mostly (but unfortunately not entirely) faded out of common usage.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:50 AM on February 29
I'm not fat, but I'd also like to see this metaphor fade away, just like using stereotypical Jewish features as a metaphor has mostly (but unfortunately not entirely) faded out of common usage.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:50 AM on February 29
« Older Pilot program using ancient cultural burning... | Not every prediction came true Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clawsoon at 7:11 PM on February 26 [12 favorites]