Changes

Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in the thing being mocked. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.  

Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in the thing being mocked. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.  

It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. [[Liberal]]s always do this, so as to distract people from seeing the real [[fact]]s. It's a variant of [[ad hominem]], like saying [[scientist]]s who disagree with the "utterly objective" [[United Nations]] are "in the pay of Big Oil". (Sounds like the faun in the [[C.S. Lewis]] story being in the pay of the [[White Witch]]!)

It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. [[Liberal]]s always do this, so as to distract people from seeing the real [[fact]]s. It's a variant of [[ad hominem]], like saying [[scientist]]s who disagree with the "utterly objective" [[United Nations]] are "in the pay of Big Oil". (Sounds like the faun in the [[C.S. Lewis]] story being in the pay of the White Witch!)

It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're [[stupid]]! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".  

It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're [[stupid]]! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".  

Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on Bushisms published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of [[gaffe]]s and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcripts of the sort of error any [[politician]] makes when replying too quickly to a [[reporter]]'s question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by ''not be'' he meant ''is not'') There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the '''false point''' that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were [[grammar|grammatically]] correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the [[malapropism]]s and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the [[prejudice]] of the author.

Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on Bushisms published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of [[gaffe]]s and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcripts of the sort of error any [[politics|politician]] makes when replying too quickly to a reporter's question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by ''not be'' he meant ''is not'') There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the '''false point''' that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were [[grammar|grammatically]] correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the [[malapropism]]s and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the [[prejudice]] of the author.

==References==

==References==