Page 3 of 3 <123
Topic Options
#16507 - 12/19/08 04:37 AM Re: Manners and Authenticity [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline

Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3406
If you stop wondering about what the crowd needs and how they feel, you can begin thinking about what the argument needs. That's when you might get somewhere.

When talking to a large crowd you actually are testing one of your capabilities of being a 'leader'. Language on itself is a very powerfull tool. But if used correctly its power increases.
If I'm not mistaking, didn't the "art of war" dedicate a whole chapter on it? Or didn't it mention it somewhere?

Now when talking to a large crowd you at first must know the general ideas that circulate within most peoples minds about a certain subject and act to it. If you are a very good speaker you can actually put your ideas within their minds even tough they are contradicting zith their opinions. It only depends on how you choose your words. Things as bluntness and being rude can be used in a subtle way to put more raw power behind your ideas. But when you speak to a person personnaly it isn't adviced for using it. You achieve more by acting friendly in the face and being rude afterwards of being rude in a subtle way.

Edited by Dimitri (12/19/08 04:38 AM)
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

#16509 - 12/19/08 04:58 AM Re: Manners and Authenticity [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline

Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course when you speak to a large crowd you use a technique conform to your intention. The argument in this case will be subject to will. You can be nice, hard, blunt, bend truth or just instill an 'us vs them' which is mostly the best trick to get them on your side. Nice examples are speeches of leaders of today or even of the past, like Hitler or Goebbels. Large crowds require some notion of propaganda.

Individually you can use whatever technique you see fit. I don't think you need to be nice and subtle to get a point across. Most people aren't that different from children and submit to authority or rely heavily on what others think of them. You overpower them and they will borrow your arguments. Of course, they'll change ideas again when being confronted by the next authority. To some that might matter but if you classify people in a 'worthy' and 'unworthy' manner, who cares?

On a forum it is purely about the argument. Therefor I find the best approach to use whatever the argument needs. Even totally crushing to get rid of the shit is valid. Like I said, it's memetic warfare and as long as an argument is solid or strong enough, it is valuable. The moment it fails, one can look at why it fails and improve.


Page 3 of 3 <123

Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.014 seconds were spent on 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.