One of the most commonly utilized methods of argumentation in the world is the concept of making the opposing position seem “stupid” or, in kinder terms, obviously wrong. This is a tactic that is permanently ingrained in the minds of humans, as it is very easy to understand and has very profound persuasive effects. I call this type of argumentation “duh rhetoric”, as the point is to quickly convince people to think, “Oh, duh, that’s obviously wrong.” This argument is very easy to formulate and employ, as it doesn’t dive very deeply into contemplative consideration and rather furthers an idea by supposedly eliminating all other possibilities in one foul swoop. People are very quick to succumb to the arguments of duh rhetoric, as they are unconsciously prompted to conform to a subjective position disguised as a universal truth. Though it can appear very compelling and evidenced, duh rhetoric is typically very shallow and not thoroughly logical, disguising a brief emotional appeal to “not want to be dumb” as poweful logic. However, duh rhetoric can sometimes devise arguments that are both effective and of merit, reaching a logically-backed and powerful point in an efficient manner. An example of duh rhetoric that falls into this elusive category is the political bumper sticker embedded below. This bumper sticker reads the following: “Dear conservative, just think of gays, women, blacks, immigrants, and the poor as embryos that grew big and developed central nervous systems.” This highly controversial argument utilizes a satirical thread of irony and absurdism along with the implication of recent political commonplaces to quickly dismantle the logic of common conservative viewpoints and effectively oppose these attitudes.

In an analysis of the denotation of this bumper sticker, a rather simple interpretation is made that does not appear to have a deep or controversial meaning at all. The argument is simply calling for conservatives to view several specific groups of people, namely minorities, as anatomical human beings in a scientific sense that are inherently the same as each other and everyone else. Interpreting this single sentence in the context of its face value meaning could yield the interpretation that all people are the same scientifically speaking, and thus everyone should be treated equally regardless of social status or wealth. However, when the context of known commonplaces surrounding the views of conservatives and liberals is added into the mix, an entirely different argument is illuminated, and one that is much more controversial and far-reaching. If the idea that conservatives are vehemently against abortion and liberals are fervently in support of women’s choice is considered, an entirely new conversation comes into play. The placement of another puzzle piece, the commonplace that the minority groups mentioned (gays, women, blacks, immigrants, and the poor) are often discriminated against by conservative citizens and politicians, completes the picture to convey a compact and yet multifaceted argument. This argument is a satirical reveal of logical and moral flaws in the positions and practices of conservatives, and it is quite effective. The main idea the argument alludes to is the assertion that the conservatively supported position of “pro-life” is immoral, and its warrant is further diminished when coupled with another contradictory and equally reprehensible conservative practice in the discrimination against several minority groups.

The bumper sticker employs an absurd and satirical situation to formulate a duh rhetoric argument in which the logic and morality of conservative views and practices are severely discredited. When considering the broader contexts and commonplaces alluded to by the sentence, a new message is conjured: Perhaps conservatives should amend their critical views of abortion and adopt the practice as a means to get rid of minority groups which they so despise. This argument clearly cannot be taken for its face value, and rather serves as a comedic take to draw the reader’s attention. This argument is clearly an absurd idea that would obviously never be put into practice, as it calls for a severely immoral and illogical adoption of a viewpoint. However, it does establish a thread of sensible logic that the reader is expected to assemble themselves, and this tactic is twofold. One, it illuminates the idea that conservatives and the candidates they support have been irrefutably known to discriminate against the aforementioned minority groups. Conservatives have called for refusals to acknowledge non-traditional gender identities and sexual orientations in both the public sphere and the workplace, the banning of those of certain ethnicities and religious backgrounds from travelling to the United States, the cutting of healthcare programs that people in need depend on, and, last but not least, the seizing of the basic right of women to choose what happens to their own body, the last point tying into the argument’s next idea. The second purpose of the argument’s ploy is to reveal the immorality of refusing women their right to choose. The satirical interpretation of the bumper sticker illuminates just how stupid the conservative views alluded to are. The proposal that conservatives adopt abortion as a wicked solution to their policies of discrimination is a wildly illogical and unethical proposal, and it is made to mirror the senselesness and immorality of both pro-life limitations and calculated conservative discrimnination. The reader is meant to construct the absurd scenario, laugh at it, and immediately rule it out, thinking, “How dumb is this?” This is where the effective duh rhetoric comes in; though the dissociation we feel is for the satirical argument rather than the rational argument itself, we are made to feel the same disdain for the conservative views hinted at by the satire. The argument convinces its reader to side with it by ruling out the other side in a strong, efficient, and logical manner.

The bumper sticker referenced below, though only extending one sentence, provides a strong and effective argument that utilizes implications and satire to convey its ideas. On its surface, the argument calls for an adoption of a view of equality towards all people regardless of minority status. However, when the context of major liberal and conservative viewpoints come into play, entirely new ideas take center stage, formulating through the employment of an absurd and satirical approach. The satirical proposal for conservatives to adopt a stupid and vastly immoral tactic to further their visions is reflective of just how out of place some of their views in reality are, and thus these views are discredited, and viewers are inclined to completely rule them out as positions of substance. The attack of character and satirical mockery this argument utilizes, though effective and reasonable, is indicative of a troubling trend that is coming to fruition in today’s world of politics. This trend is a growing pattern of the passing off of shallow personal attacks and unconsidered disagreement as effective argumentation. This trend has been particularly evident throughout the Trump administration, as immature condemnation and stubbornness has done wonders for the President time and time again. This shows that while short arguments of denunciation can be of substance, it is essential that we beware of their power and consider the implications of the arguments beneath the surfaces we are presented.

 

https://www.zazzle.com/funny_liberal_political_bumper_sticker-128027087005728034?rf=238772772155923633&tc=ed693936bc8c17f173156487b941fa0d&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=us_shopping&utm_term=&ca_chid=2001810&ca_ace={aceid}&ca_nw=o&ca_dev=c&ca_pl={placement}&ca_pos={adposition}&ca_cid={creative}&ca_agid=1196269073820950&ca_caid=352493967&ca_adid={creative}&ca_kwt=&ca_mt=e&ca_fid=&ca_tid=pla-4578366443348350:aud-807804812&ca_lp=&ca_li=&ca_devm={devicemodel}&ca_plt={target}&msclkid=ed693936bc8c17f173156487b941fa0d