The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Smell Test
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’ve heard asserted with increasing frequency that “if you live in the United States, you are the global 1%”. Whatever its rhetorical value, it’s wildly untrue, of course.

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Math 
Hide 23 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Actually true. You need to qualify White American male. That’s who they have in mind, right?

  2. Actually 320.000.000 > 1 % of 7.000.000.000.

    Sometimes arguments are so easy to win.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @BlackC
  3. BlackC says:

    “Molon Labe”

    And then follow through.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  4. BlackC says:
    @byrresheim

    You are trying to argue against rhetoric using dialectic. That is a good way to lose the argument. Why? Because you are not refuting the point – you are only quibbling details (numbers). All they have to do is handwave your dialectic, say the gist of the argument stands, and call you stupid or privileged or “shut up white man” or whatever else they want to shut you down.

    Stop. Trying. To. Argue. Using. Dialectic.

  5. SFG says:
    @BlackC

    By and large you are correct, but if you have something pity like “that’s more than 1%” sometimes it works.

    • Replies: @BlackC
  6. Everyone in the USA does not attend Davos, Bilderberg, CFR, Bohemian Grove, Rothschild’s masked balls, etc.

    There is being one percent of a population, then there is being the 0.001 percent that owns 99% of global wealth.

  7. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s a good rhetorical argument for the real global elite, because it shifts attention away from them and onto Murican wypipo, who are the designated scapegoat.

    Whatever its rhetorical value, it’s wildly untrue, of course.

    Lol, so what?

    “Truth” is a social construct.

  8. Screwtape says:

    Isn’t the “1%” rhetoric about wealth concentration, not mere numerical population representation?

    I always thought the 1% argument was about the rich, with implicit whiteness added because white man bad.

    So on that measure, the wealth, at least in terms of per capita income, however you cut it, would place the USA close enough for climate change grenades.

    We’ve got to be somewhere in the top 10. Places like Monaco and Luxembourg at the top and yuge populations at the bottom like Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Congo, Etc..

    Maybe we can’t be the 1% mathematically, but the rhetoric is sound.

    There are billions of people living on a handful of dollars per day.

    So the lefties who yap on about equality and fairness by demonizing the 1% of wealth concentration here, have a problem if that argument is extrapolated globally; a matter of numerator/denominator.

    While 1% is still the wrong number, the implications persist even if that number is 15%.

    Look how quickly our own entitled people go after the “rich”, whatever that means.

    You may not feel like the rich 1%, but in the eyes of the invader running the taco cart or the purple haired landwhale drawing her gov’t check you are; they are gonna round down on you.

    To most of the world we are rich. So we should give them shit. Or they should be able to come here and get some. Either way, turning the 1% argument back on the commies based on the global metrics os valid.

    IOW, to what standard of wealth do we solve in our quest for equality and fairness? Huh Bernie? How does the elimination of racist borders factor into that?

    • Replies: @anon
  9. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Screwtape

    Isn’t the “1%” rhetoric about wealth concentration, not mere numerical population representation?

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

  10. @BlackC

    The problem is, they are.

    • Replies: @BlackC
  11. BlackC says:
    @SFG

    if you have something pity like “that’s more than 1%” sometimes it works.

    No, it doesn’t. Like many dialectic speakers, you are confusing the words for the meaning.

    When the left says “the 1%” they do not mean a specific percentage. The term is used to refer to an “undeservedly privileged” group, and the actual percentage – 0.99%, 1.01%, 5%, etc. – does not matter. The rhetorical inference is exactly the same as Obama’s “You didn’t build that.” What they are saying is that the target group of people are beneficiaries of privilege that they did not earn themselves, and thus must apologize profusely and spread the wealth.

    Again, 1% or 5% doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the target group prostrate themselves and fork over the riches to their new masters. From that viewpoint, can you see why quibbling percentages not only doesn’t matter, but actually makes the quibbler look not only stupid, but tone-deaf? (“You are so steeped in privilege that you can’t even understand how privileged and wrong you are!”)

    Again, Stop. Trying. To. Argue. Using. Dialectic.

    • Replies: @Oldtradesman
  12. BlackC says:
    @The Alarmist

    The problem is, they are.

    Yes, exactly, which is why the West is gradually being lost.

    When someone comes to take your stuff, there are only two outcomes: They take it, or they don’t.

    Giving a little to buy peace and warm and fuzzy feelings doesn’t work, because they just keep demanding more and more. That’s the problem with paying the Danegeld – the Dane refuses to stay bought.

  13. Rhetoric, dialectic, it’s all so tiresome.

    OK, how about this instead:

    The (((two percent))) are fifty percent of the one percent.

    • Replies: @BlackC
  14. BlackC says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    The (((two percent))) are fifty percent of the one percent.

    Too clever by half. It lacks any emotional punch.

    Remember, facts don’t change minds – not even inconvenient facts. Discomfort in the form of cognitive dissonance and emotional pain is what ultimately forces the vast majority of people to abandon arguments and/or change their minds.

    For example:
    When someone starts ranting about the 1% or accusing you of being part of the 1%, look straight at them with a totally serious “are-you-really-saying-that!?” look on your face and ask:

    “Why do you hate Jews?”

    And then don’t back down. Refuse to entertain any other point. Just keep dragging them back, hammering them with specific (((examples*))) and asking “Why do you hate Jews?”

    Can you see the the emotional jujutsu (rhetoric) against both sides?

    Not only does this shift the left’s target to (((the 1%))), forcing them to either deny and drop the argument or actually start targeting (((them))), but at the same time it also reminds every conservative/cuckservative listening who really rules over them.

    (*: Zuckerberg, etc. -Have a ready list)

  15. @BlackC

    You are trying to argue against rhetoric using dialectic. That is a good way to lose the argument. Why? Because you are not refuting the point – you are only quibbling details (numbers). All they have to do is handwave your dialectic, say the gist of the argument stands, and call you stupid or privileged or “shut up white man” or whatever else they want to shut you down.

    Stop. Trying. To. Argue. Using. Dialectic.

    I’ve sensed this for decades, but never gave it thought. Your reasoning is expressed so well and fits nicely with my own Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) approach. Thank you very much!

  16. @BlackC

    The rhetorical inference is exactly the same as Obama’s “You didn’t build that.”

    So, depending on circumstances, the proper response is to:

    1. Beat them to the punch and say, “We built it.”
    2. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then ask, “So what?”
    3. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then draw them into specifics.
    4. Hang them from the nearest lamp post.

    But nevah, evah, defensively deny their rhetorical “point.”

    Amirite? Or can you offer advice here, too?

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @BlackC
    , @James Forrrestal
  17. @BlackC

    The dialectic approaches truth, while rhetoric appeals to emotion. Each has its place.

    Keep. Using. Dialectic. The Unz Review facilitates it better than any other publication this layman can find.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @BlackC
  18. @Buzz Mohawk

    Indeed. Dialectic has limited utility in the wider world, but it has a lot of appeal here. Different problems require different tools.

  19. BlackC says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The dialectic approaches truth, while rhetoric appeals to emotion. Each has its place.

    This is not exactly true.
    1) It is possible to build a logically solid (dialectical) but false argument. See: lawyers
    2) The best rhetoric is both a) emotionally powerful and b) points towards the truth.

    Each does have it’s place, but dialectic is only useful with another honest dialectic speaker, and then only as long as they keep speaking dialectic.

    Keep. Using. Dialectic. The Unz Review facilitates it better than any other publication this layman can find.

    And yet how often do articles here weave some rhetoric into their dialectic arguments?
    How often do the comments devolve into rhetoric?
    I’ve seen a lot of both.

    In the end, rhetoric that points towards a truth is the most powerful and universally useful.

  20. BlackC says:
    @Oldtradesman

    Amirite?

    Definitely on the right track.

    1. Beat them to the punch and say, “We built it.”

    Yes! The substitution of “you (individual)” to “we” is exactly right, and the emotional argument can be carried further in any number of ways:
    – We / My people / My ancestors / My culture built it!
    – They / Their people didn’t build it! They have no right/rightful claim to it!
    – They have no right to take/destroy our nation / history / birthright / cultural equity!

    Establish yourself as rightful owner and them as attempted invaders and thieves.

    Likewise, when someone demands reparations for whatever injustice, reject the claim and demand royalties (including retroactive) for the use of western civilization and its benefits. And demand that they stop appropriating your (western) culture.

    2. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then ask, “So what?

    Agree and amplify requires that you hold frame no matter what, which can be difficult depending on the person and situation. I would just say “So what?” “I don’t care” etc. However, be prepared for potential shouting and/or a knockdown fight.

    3. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then draw them into specifics.

    This takes both oratory skill and quick thinking, because going into specific arguments is essentially playing into their game. Drawing a person into specifics is a way to get them to compromise or make some small admission that cedes ground, even if only a tiny, tiny bit. A 1% compromise repeated 100 times loses you everything. (Hi, conserve-nothing cuckservatives!) Best to stand firm from the start.

    4. Hang them from the nearest lamp post.

    We are not there yet, and hopefully won’t get there, but if the other side decides to take things hot, well, those are the new rules of the game, and he who plays the new game by the old rules will lose. Nuff said.

    But nevah, evah, defensively deny their rhetorical “point.”

    Yes, playing defense and trying to justify your position frames them as the accusing authority and you as the appeaser. Attack back. Attack, attack, attack. The left are used to attacking and mob tactics, but are almost never put on the defense themselves, so they are a mile wide and an inch deep. Attack back with the most emotionally painful rhetoric available to drive them from the battlefield.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. @Oldtradesman

    But nevah, evah, defensively deny their rhetorical “point.”

    See also “No, I’m not a [so-called] ‘racist’ “

  22. Anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @BlackC

    A 1% compromise repeated 100 times loses you everything

    Nah, a 1% compromise repeated 100 times only loses you slightly less than 2/3 of everything. (Dialectic, since we’re among friends here)

    • Replies: @BlackC
  23. BlackC says:
    @Anonymous

    Nah, a 1% compromise repeated 100 times only loses you slightly less than 2/3 of everything. (Dialectic, since we’re among friends here)

    Exactly, but thank you anyway for stepping intentionally into the trap laid to illustrate the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and their relative effectiveness. Again, the purpose of all this is to help dialectic speakers understand what rhetoric is and how it can be effectively used (and is effectively used against them).

    First, from an earlier comment:
    “2) The best rhetoric is both a) emotionally powerful and b) points towards the truth.”

    The truth here is that “small compromises repeated often enough add up to major losses.”

    But what packs the more emotional punch?

    You will lose “slightly less than 2/3 of everything!”
    – or –
    You will end up losing everything!

    Obviously the latter, and that emotion, once created, carries over to latter argument.

    Again, first create the emotion (you will lose everything!) that points toward a general truth (you will lose a lot!), and then let the specific, factual truth (you may not lose as much as initially claimed, but you will still lose a lot!) confirm the emotion.

    Here is another example of a rhetorical claim where disproving the claim simply reinforced the rhetorical effect:

    Remember when Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he was worth $10 billion? Critics on both the left and right quickly pounced on that* and pointed out that Trump was actually only worth about $3-6 billion, crowing long and loudly that this proved Trump was a lying liar who lied and could not be trusted about anything.

    But what was the actual effect?

    Normal people who heard the $10 billion claim knew that Trump was not claiming that he was actually worth exactly $10 billion. They understood he was simply saying that he was rich and successful, and thus could help make America rich and successful. (MAGA!) Was he exaggerating greatly? Of course! It’s Trump, after all.

    So when the critics pointed out that Trump was actually worth about $3-6 billion, all they did was reinforce the image that Trump is rich and successful, and made themselves look stupid in the process.

    “Oh, you mean he’s only worth $3-6 billion? Well then, he’s obviously a loser!”

    (*: Critics on both the left and right quickly pounced on that… like bait! Trump is a master of this. He will make a rhetorical claim that looks like an easy opening for critics to disprove, but is actually a swamp that pulls them in and helps prove his point while making them look stupid.)

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS