Praising by Faint Damn
A chat about an eugenicist in California made me think about rhetorical tricks. My gentle readers are familiar with objective allies, where the centrist journalist cries “that candidate is horrible and awful and I am going to put his words on the front page and in the prime-time news every day” and watches the ad revenue roll in, while the candidate launches a line of propaganda on the theme “look how much those elitists hate me and how powerful I am” and hires a new accountant to track his donations. Ever since smartphones came out, vlogs and podcasts are funded by people declaring another influencer the enemy, launching a five-part series to attack them, and sending their viewers to the ‘enemy’ channel until the ‘enemy’ returns the favour by launching a counter-video or anti-episode. This pays much better than useful factual videos on knitting or woodworking. There is a related concept whose name I am trying to find.
The eugenicist explained that after he discovered the online far right, he decided to share their ideas by posting about them a lot and rebutting some of their peripherial points but not the ones he agreed with. He hoped that people would follow his links, read the original posts, and decide they agreed with some of them. He is not the only person to use this gambit.
In his 1764 treatise against execution and judicial torture, Cesare Beccaria included a brief chapter on the crime of heresy:
rational men will see that the place where I live, the present age, and the matter at hand do not permit me to examine the nature of such a crime. It would take me too long and too far from my subject to prove how a perfect uniformity of thought is necessary in a state, the example of many nations to the contrary not withstanding; how opinions that differ only in a few subtle and obscure points altogether beyond human comprehension can nonetheless disturb public order if one of them is not authorized to the exclusion of the others… It would take me too long to prove that, however odious the triumph of force over human minds may seem, since the only fruits of its conquest are dissembling and, consequently, degradation; however contrary it may seem to the spirit of gentleness and brotherly love enjoined by reason and the authority we most revere; it is still necessary and indispensable
This was enough to pass the Neapolitan censor, but in 260 years I do not know anyone who has read that chapter and believed that Beccaria thought heresy should be a crime. He just refused to say that heresy should be legal.
Under Communism, writers learned to summarize the best arguments for a position, then denounce it with a cookie-cutter party-line teaching.
This is similar to but not the same as irony, sarcasm, or litotes. A summary of a book or thinker and a weak criticism can be superficially sincere, even if the author has a hidden agenda.
This is related to crit-hype, where a critic accepts the premise that a new technology will be almost godlike rather than asking whether that is true and whether the real dangers are in the present. Since 2019, American chatbot companies have been telling reporters that their next product might be too dangerous to release. Then they release it anyways and look for a new reporter who they can tell the next version is even more powerful.
Edit: This is connected to all publicity is good publicity, but is deliberate. The average person responding on corporate social media and thereby promoting the thing they hate in the algorithm does not know what he does, but this tactic is a deliberate attempt to spread an idea or a thinker without endorsing it.
Lastly, this is related to the attention economy, another concept which I do not understand (I would expect an attention economy to reward dense, high-quality information, but many people just want to hang out online with someone articulate and energetic). We would all think it odd if Kat Connor accepted a challenge to a MMA bout from a spotty fifteen-year-old, and there is something just as odd if a professor of computer science at UWaterloo agrees to debate an anonymous account which says obviously P = NP but has never even released a preprint.
I come from Internet culture. The way social media works makes my skin crawl. In our culture, if an idea is bad you make an exhaustive book or website explaining all the ways it is bad, but in social media culture, it is a red flag that your career is funded by posting angry attacks on other social media figures that send your viewers to their content. One reason why I am at a loss this decade is that I have not found a way to respond to this new environment and still be me or someone I would like to be.
You damn someone with faint praise by saying mildly positive things about them. What should we call the reverse, where you share an idea or thinker then make a half-hearted criticism? I am off to do something outside with other people but maybe the Internet can help.
(scheduled 13 June 2026)
#bonusPost #crossPost #InternetCulture #modern #rhetoric #sophistry #stateOfTheWeb
WIST Quotations
kottke.org
Art of FACELESS
Sean
Kyiv Independent Daily Headlines
Simone
DecaturNature
Aldi80s 🇯🇵 アルディ
Aldi80s
Gokul Das