One of the most effective forms of linguistic manipulation is called presuppositions. Things that are not stated directly but have to be true in order for you to understand the sentence. A classic, blatantly obvious example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Less obvious ones abound, like "The Assad regime has again delivered a chemical attack." (Some of the more juicy presuppositions: 1. The Syrian government is a one-man regime. 2. It has committed previous chemical attacks.) Or even: "The defense industry has started manufacturing blah-blah-blah." There is no such thing as a "defense industry". There are only specific companies making war machines.
It's really eye opening to look for the presuppositions in media and other forms of propaganda. Have fun.
I think what you're talking about is also called "framing". It's a well-known tool of rhetoric. If you can set the terms of a debate (or, really, any discussion whatever) you can probably "win" it. Socrates (and many others) would seemingly ask a series of disconnected question, while guiding his interlocutor to the conclusion he wished to reach.
One of the most effective forms of linguistic manipulation is called presuppositions. Things that are not stated directly but have to be true in order for you to understand the sentence. A classic, blatantly obvious example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Less obvious ones abound, like "The Assad regime has again delivered a chemical attack." (Some of the more juicy presuppositions: 1. The Syrian government is a one-man regime. 2. It has committed previous chemical attacks.) Or even: "The defense industry has started manufacturing blah-blah-blah." There is no such thing as a "defense industry". There are only specific companies making war machines.
It's really eye opening to look for the presuppositions in media and other forms of propaganda. Have fun.
I think what you're talking about is also called "framing". It's a well-known tool of rhetoric. If you can set the terms of a debate (or, really, any discussion whatever) you can probably "win" it. Socrates (and many others) would seemingly ask a series of disconnected question, while guiding his interlocutor to the conclusion he wished to reach.
Exactly this. Always go one or two levels upstream of what they need you to believe.