Richard Y Chappell (@rychappell): "Is there a standard name for this rhetorical move, where a random hostile implicitly assumes an absurd and unmeetable standard (persuading everyone) in order to implicitly dismiss any effort as a pointless failure? Seems like a toxic form of “contribution” to public discourse."

Make money doing the work you believe in

Is there a standard name for this rhetorical move, where a random hostile implicitly assumes an absurd and unmeetable standard (persuading everyone) in order to implicitly dismiss any effort as a pointless failure? Seems like a toxic form of “contribution” to public discourse.

Richard Y Chappell

Mar 4

As with larger arguments, an illuminating reframing can be a positive contribution to the epistemic commons without needing to persuade literally everyone.

(A good thing, too, or there would be no point in ever saying anything!)

Mar 4

8:15 PM

Make money doing the work you believe in

Log in or sign up