Timeline for Rhetoric: Telling the Harsh Truth
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2016 at 18:12 | history | edited | Pixelchai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2016 at 17:14 | comment | added | Hot Licks | Churchill was "blunt" and "direct" in his speech. You also might say he was "candid". Others: unequivocal, explicit, forthright, frank, unambiguous. (Note that, of these, "blunt" is about the only one someone might apply to Mr Trump.) | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 16:34 | vote | accept | Pixelchai | ||
| Apr 7, 2016 at 16:02 | comment | added | user66965 | Yes, I see what you mean. In fact, this same thing could be said of Trump, whom many believe "tells it like it is" when he calls out losers and says the U.S. "never wins anymore." I'd say his rhetorical technique does not rely on "harsh truth" or "telling it like it is," but rather on "appealing to the emotions" of his supporters. Some things Trump says are actually true, but, IMO, no such word as "plain speaking" or "honesty" applies, because much of what he says is false. Perhaps Churchill was more "honest" than Trump, perhaps not. But both played to the emotions, mostly fear. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 15:49 | comment | added | Graffito | "Language of truth" is quite contradictory with rhetoric that promotes an apparent truth. At a first level of interpretation, you don't use rhetorical effects when speaking the truth. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 15:29 | answer | added | ericgregory | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 15:01 | answer | added | Marv Mills | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:58 | comment | added | Pixelchai | I was using "harsh truth" as a figure of speech. I'm not saying that it is the truth. I'm just trying to find out the technical name of the literary technique in which you do not say that "everything is ok" when it isn't, and use that lack of "flowering the truth" in order to gain credibility for you claims/yourself. I can't really name it because that is what I am trying to find out - that's why I used a figure of speech to refer to it. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:54 | comment | added | user66965 | I'm not sure why you think he necessarily relied on the truth, let alone "harsh truth." No doubt he saw Hitler as a threat; but of course, many in the distant lands that Britain colonized saw Churchill as a threat as well. Also, telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10151126/… | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:38 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | I'm unsure why you think that is the harsh truth. It simply sounds direct to me. Harsh truth carries a connotation of hurting someone's feelings. Are you asking about describing Hitler having "clutching fingers" as a rhetorical device? That would be a metaphor for his actions. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:16 | answer | added | 568ml | timeline score: -1 | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:08 | history | asked | Pixelchai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |