Thread by @owenbroadcast

one of my favorite word maneuvers that people are programmed to deploy is this one: saying something should or shouldnt happen (whether u agree or not) is an opinion. obviously thats what it is. but people use this flip of asserting that something is not what it is, strategically

https://twitter.com/markskrikorian/status/1399176673891917829

i think this is an intuitive response coupled with mimicking what they see other people doing. it serves a perfect function so, in a sense its like an evolutionary behavior that is advantageous and thus is spontaneously adopted, presumably often without realizing it.

it allows the person to stay put in terms of ideology or conversation while clearly contradicting themselves. if you notice it people use it all the time. i suppose the other obvious example would be free speech, “this isnt free speech, its XYZ”. strategic semantic faux ontology.

in real life for rhetorical study purposes i have often asked people about this, saying “well, that is an opinion. right. i mean what else would you call it. its his opinion” and i noticed what almost everyone does then is this pivot to: its not JUST an opinion. interesting.

its interesting that this is the intuitive response because it contradicts the original assertion. the general programming is to always double down even into absurdity. but with this maneuver, because its based in denying something obvious, they cant double down, its impossible.

so they pivot to: “yes, it is an opinion, but its not JUST an opinion, it has this other stuff tacked on to it”. usually too much work to explicate this IRL in a conversation but this is also just a mess of threads that arent tied together. “so, now it is an opinion, but...”. ok.

btw after thinking about rhetoric + these rhetorical maneuvers for so long (really its ‘how words can masquerade as logical thought’) thats the exact point where in a casual conversation you can feel the road fork based on how you want to play it. its tangible, i can feel it irl

because when you get to a node like that, you either have to pin the other person down and say “okay well, now youre contradiction yourself” and point it out, this comes with kind of a gloves off feeling, which i really enjoy if the other person is the one who “started it”. [...]

or, you have to “climb up” into “but how is this consistent with your larger worldview”, which makes sense and is logical but feels like a reach for a lot of people. i think punching up into the meta level makes it seem like ur losing the argument even if ur right sometimes, irl.

its different if you were just talking about worldviews or something, but most random people arent going to see the connection and it feels kind of like pulling a rabbit out of a hat and saying “well what about this?” to random people who dont obsess over stuff like this, usually

for that reason instead of trying to “rope in” worldviews i find its better to just stay “on the field” with whats already there + “keep building”. “okay, so u think its okay to try and control peoples lives based on their opinions, sometimes. i guess i [..etc]” is a better move

idk why i love obsessing over stuff like this. theres something about acting in this invisible sphere of words and ideas that is really electrifying to me, honestly. it feels good. i have always been this way. as a kid before i roped it in i was really annoying. good morning btw