Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jumpmanzero t1_iuy4sgv wrote

As an alternative, here's a much more effective version of this article, more suited to our current rhetorical climate:

  1. Understand that you're not trying to change anyone's mind. People who don't already agree with you are the enemy. They're lost. The only possible goal is to "energize your base", and convert "people who already agree with you" to "people who will get out and vote, donate, or buy your merchandise"
  2. The best defense is a good offense. Again, you need to focus on people who already agree with you, so your core audience is pre-disposed to believe anything about your shared enemies. Especially if it's entertaining and allows them to feel superior and justified in their current beliefs.
  3. Be vague about yourself and your beliefs, and specific about the adversary. Your supporters might be de-energized if they find out they don't agree with you on every little thing. Much safer to focus on the enemy and the clear-cut ways they can be made to look disagreeable.
  4. Nobody will pay attention to more than one sentence - and they'll only read one sentence if it's entertaining. Get in, cause an emotional reaction in your supporters, get out.
  5. Always consider your brand before speaking, and only say things that support your brand identity. Do not speak or engage debate on any subject that is not part of your brand.
76

EffectiveWar t1_iuyj4jg wrote

Reads like art of war marketing edition. Sun tzu if he worked remote and drank mocca lattes

59

Dense_Surround3071 t1_iuz79d8 wrote

I've read Sun Tzu.... I do marketing...... You are spot on! 😎

9

riodin t1_iuzbsf1 wrote

Do ellipses count as separate sentences? I fell like I was tricked into reading more than 1 sentence

2

fghqwepoi t1_iuzwaee wrote

I think turning an interlocutor into an enemy by default (point 1) does yourself and the other an injustice. Much better to see them as someone who needs help finding their way. The empathy will help you go further than the demonizing.

Point 2 and point 5 sound more like sound marketing advice than sound philosophy. I think the ancient philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle say quite a bit about the pursuit of truth rather than honor in philosophizing. I’m not in an argument to win, I’m in it to find better understanding and if I’m lucky learn something new.

Point 5 might as well concede the pursuit of existential authenticity to cultivating someone else’s very limited perception of you rather than truly going after self expression. Whether you pursue truth, or existential authenticity or the demise of the subject in philosophy, couching one’s self in a “brand” seems to be about as opposite from that kind of pursuit as you can get.

6

Blieven t1_iv0brpr wrote

I think the comment is a sarcastic take on modern politics.

14

Sulfamide t1_iv0x24h wrote

More sadly realistic than sarcastic really.

4

fghqwepoi t1_iv19vll wrote

I didn’t intend it that way (to be about politics), but it does fit the bill as problematic, and honestly saddens me greatly. I was also thinking about business culture in general and the way that we are treating each other in the age of social media.

There is no sarcasm at all, I legit feel this way and can provide references for the Aristotle and Socrates attributions. The reference to authenticity is a passing reference to Heidegger, and the reference to the demise of the subject is a reference to folks like Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jean Luc Nancy.

2

Blieven t1_iv1d3sa wrote

I was explaining the comment you replied to and not just giving a random commentary on your comment lol. It would be really weird phrasing if I was talking like that about your comment instead of the one before you, don't you think?

3