Creating an previously non-existent "we" to make an argument is a way to create a feeling the writer's and reader's interests are aligned.
They may be, but this needs to be carefully questioned when you see it happen.
#rhetorimFyPr2qdcS
They may be, but this needs to be carefully questioned when you see it happen.
#rhetorimFyPr2qdcS
In this case, the writer is suggesting that "we" will be served well by ousting "industry leaders" that spread claims "like these"
There aren't really any "industry leaders" in this space, and any influence people have is due to proven track record. Look them up, and their papers, too. They have held up to scrutiny.
However, the writer does a huge flip-flop here (keeping in mind he's calling for the removal of people with track records in a specialist field).
First, he says "It is one thing that ”crypto-fans” are making these claims", suggesting it's OK because they lack knowledge.
First, he says "It is one thing that ”crypto-fans” are making these claims", suggesting it's OK because they lack knowledge.
But if that's so, the call on "we" makes no sense.
The piece is clearly aimed at a general audience, which doesn't have the background to properly asses the implied "industry leaders".
The piece is clearly aimed at a general audience, which doesn't have the background to properly asses the implied "industry leaders".
"consider if we really want to have these persons as ”industry leaders” and if they really are as knowledgable as they claim to be."
This is not something most of the readers of the piece will be *able* to consider.
This is not something most of the readers of the piece will be *able* to consider.
The rhetorical method employed here is actually quite harmful.
The writer is suggesting an equivalence in opinions between casual readers and people with a track record (the writer also is one with a track record).
The writer is suggesting an equivalence in opinions between casual readers and people with a track record (the writer also is one with a track record).
It's something we also see in health debates and other science debates and it's harmful to the integrity of science fields.
To combine this with a call for an ouster is just reckless.
To combine this with a call for an ouster is just reckless.
"...and if they really are as knowledgable as they claim to be." is a perfect example of a call on the mob which was hidden in that sneaky use of "we".
In this case, there is no "we".
Claims like these should be *openly* discussed by the people with the knowledge to do that.
In this case, there is no "we".
Claims like these should be *openly* discussed by the people with the knowledge to do that.
Sorry to turn this into a tweet storm, but these kinds of rhetorical tricks are extremely insidious and they need to be filletted where they happen.
