A rhetoric professor explains why internet trolls mindlessly repeat ridiculous right-wing slogans

A rhetoric professor explains why internet trolls mindlessly repeat ridiculous right-wing slogans

In a new interview with Vice, rhetoric professor Elisabetta Matelli at the Catholic University in Milan discussed the decline in standards of dialogue — especially on social media — and how a growing disinterest in wisdom has led to a simple-minded reliance on slogans and stock arguments in political debate.


"The concept of slogans and stock phrases date back to the Ancient Greeks in Sicily," Matelli told reporter Vincenzo Ligresti. "There was a growing push at the time for democracy to replace the prevailing monarchies and dictatorships. "The difference with today, however, was that these slogans were created to spread wisdom—maxims like 'know thyself' or 'he who laughs last, laughs loudest.'"

But while Matelli believes these slogans used to be used to heighten speech and tie together an argument with a persuasive punch, now they're used to amplify the messages of people with dubious claims to public platforms.

She continued:

Critically, our contemporary culture has somehow lowered the level of wisdom, so all we require is for someone popular to say a phrase that's catchy and lots of people will repeat it. The problem we have now is with the people we've given authority to. In the past, we were able to recognize a person's value—we would quote a philosopher or a great poet, knowing that they were close to the truth. Today, we often don't even question whether certain statements are true. We are witnessing a fall in our recognition of societal value. 

One example of this phenomenon she discussed is anti-immigrant activists who ask why people who are favorable to immigration don't themselves host immigrants in their own houses.

"It's a fake premise," she said. "They are asking questions about a context that doesn't exist."

Oftentimes, she said, people aren't really having a discussion when they argue about politics. They're merely trying to use the debate to show that they and their positions are superior.

"An effective piece of rhetorical persuasion usually happens when people are trying to honestly resolve a conflict, otherwise, all you're doing is just fighting—which we see all too easily in our society," Matelli explained.

At this point, in her view, it might make the most sense to simply end the argument — instead of letting it devolve into insults and competing slogans.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close