I’m sure you’ve seen it awash across social media today.
People and their lukewarm takes on Trump and his most controversial statement.
Rhetoric in action and even though he’s an absolute psychopath. You have to admire his ability to wind people up with emotionally charged language.
Personally I just hope and pray that all of this war bullshit and posturing comes to an end.
What happens in American and as a consequence of America, bleeds right into every other country and those shockwaves are felt everywhere.
Anyways. I’m just here to give a fairly neutral approach to this madness and break it down from a writers point of view.
It’s rhetoric vs dialectic (and why most people can’t tell the difference)
That Trump post is a masterclass in rhetoric and yes. People are going to try and analyse it, but their emotions are going to take over and well, we know what happens when are emotions get thrown into the mix.
Rhetoric is about persuasion.
It’s about moving people emotionally, rallying them to action, getting them to feel something so strongly that they stop thinking critically about what’s actually being said. It uses loaded language, emotional appeals, and dramatic framing to create a desired response and again, if you spent at least 10 mins on any of the social media platforms today. EVERYONE had an opinion on it.
Dialectic is about truth seeking. It’s about examining ideas logically, weighing evidence, asking hard questions, and following reasoning wherever it leads, even if you don’t like the conclusion. It’s the difference between trying to win an argument and trying to understand reality and well, reality is looking pretty fucking grim right now.
Look at that post again through this lens…
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Pure rhetoric. Apocalyptic language designed to create urgency and fear, not describe actual geopolitical reality. No civilisation is dying tonight. This is emotional manipulation, not analysis.
“Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail.” More rhetoric. “Complete and Total” is dramatic amplification. “Smarter and less radicalized” assumes the current leadership is stupid and radical without providing evidence. This is just framing and reasoning doesn’t come into play.
“47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end.” Classic rhetorical move. Painting the opposition in the starkest possible terms while positioning your side as the salvation. No nuance, no complexity, just good vs. evil storytelling.
A dialectical approach to the same situation would sound completely different. It would acknowledge complexity, examine multiple perspectives, weigh costs and benefits, consider unintended consequences, and admit uncertainty about outcomes.
It might say something like this “This represents a significant shift in regional power dynamics with both potential benefits and serious risks. The previous government had legitimate grievances against it, but change of this magnitude often creates instability that can harm civilian populations. The long term effects are difficult to predict and will depend heavily on implementation.”
See the difference? One is designed to make you feel something. The other is designed to help you think clearly.
The problem is that rhetoric works better for building audiences, winning elections, and getting engagement on social media. It’s more emotionally satisfying, easier to understand, and gives people the certainty they crave in an uncertain world.
Dialectic is harder, slower, less exciting. It requires intellectual humility, comfort with ambiguity, and the discipline to separate what you want to be true from what actually appears to be true based on available evidence.
Most people consuming information can’t distinguish between the two. They mistake passionate rhetoric for deep insight, confuse emotional intensity with intellectual rigor, and assume that whoever speaks with the most confidence must know what they’re talking about.
This is why demagogues succeed and why nuanced thinkers often get ignored. Rhetoric scales better than dialectic. It’s easier to go viral with dramatic oversimplifications than careful analysis.
If you want to actually understand what’s happening in the world, you need to develop your dialectical immune system. You need to learn to recognise when someone is trying to make you feel something rather than helping you think clearly.
(Get off if Tiktok/Instagram/Facebook reels if you find that content cause you’ll get sucked in and won’t even realise how bad it gets…)
Ask yourself this.
Is this person acknowledging complexity or painting everything in black and white? Are they admitting uncertainty or claiming to know exactly how everything will unfold? Are they considering multiple perspectives or demonising anyone who disagrees?
Rhetoric has its place. It can inspire action, build movements, and communicate values. But it’s a terrible tool for understanding reality.
Don’t mistake passion for insight. Don’t confuse certainty with accuracy. And don’t let anyone’s rhetorical skill convince you that complex situations have simple explanations.
The world is complicated. Anyone telling you otherwise is probably trying to sell you something.
Anywhore.
I think tomorrows email will be about why I like butts, cause all of this political fuckery has given me a massive brain aneurysm.
Stephen Walker.