this is a less exciting clarification of the inflammatory statement.
Hi there, welcome to Engineering Our Social Vehicles. I’m your host, Paul Logan. Today is Alliterative Theme Day of the Week. If you’re new to the newsletter, that means that on this day of the week, we have a theme that is alliterative with today’s name! Without further ado, let’s talk about Thematic Topic.
This is a semi-related quote from an famous source.
Maybe
It is
Poetry.
It looks nice at the beginning of the article, and likely won’t be addressed.
— Famous Work, by Famous Person
This is the first sentence of the introductory paragraph, in which the author sets the scene, and maybe asks a question: is inflammatory statement true? Depending on the format, there will now be a statement of thesis:
Less exciting clarification of inflammatory statement is true. First, the author will prove this with body of semi-relevant research cherrypicked from google scholar. Next, the author will discuss implications of said cherrypicked research. Then the author will get around to attacking counterpositions to inflammatory statement with the evidence established for less exciting clarification of inflammatory statement. Finally, the author will suggest a solution so vague as to be pointless, or outside of the realm of potential action for 99.9% of the population.
This is the closing statement of the introduction, in which the author will both establish their personal connection to the issue and assure the reader of their objective treatment of the content due paradoxically to that personal connection.
The body of research surrounding inflammatory statement is much more sound than article that initially upset author would have you believe. In just 30 minutes the author was able to search and read over 15 abstracts that can be vaguely interpreted to support their point. Here is a chart from one of them:
As you can see from the graph, this issue is really either cut and dry or extremely complex, whichever position is the opposite of that of the article the author is responding to.
Just in case you weren’t convinced, here is another article that doesn’t really relate to the research that produced the graph but has some of the same words in the title. The author is really surprised that the broader public can’t see how painfully simple or ludicrously complex the issue is based on these two studies that have a total of 20 citations.
It’s obvious that something needs to be done, or that whatever is being done needs to be stopped. Of course inflammatory statement is true! Immediate motte and bailey back to one small aspect of less exciting clarification of inflammatory statement. How could article that initially upset author get things so wrong?
Maybe if the general public would see things exactly as the author, there would be no issue here. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Author is confused and frustrated that people have differing opinions and refuse to submit to author’s obviously superior logic. Did they not see the two studies? Did they not see the graph?
Author explains that inflammatory statement is divisive not because it is intentionally inflammatory, but because people just don’t understand. It really is that cut and dry or enormously complex. Other pundits don’t see that they are confusing the issue by continuing to exist in opposition to author’s viewpoint. Or, author suggests, other viewpoint has personal gain in continuing to keep inflammatory issue inflammatory.
What everyone needs to understand is that inflammatory statement is really just less exciting clarification of inflammatory statement. Counterpositions to inflammatory statement are wrong because of the graph, and the two studies that can be read to suggest that less exciting clarification of inflammatory statement is true.
Counterpositions aren’t just wrong; they are negligent. Author further appeals to divisive politics and dog whistles larger, more inflammatory positions vaguely attached to inflammatory statement. This is us vs. them, people. Which side are you on?
We all just need to get along and/or undertake massive political or infrastructure change on the turn of a dime. It’s not that hard- all it takes is completely solving control problems in complex systems and group decision making.
Why hasn’t this happened yet? Author again references divisive politics and influence of personal gain. Author restates that inflammatory issue isn’t all that inflammatory because others are failing to view things from author’s oversimplified perspective. There. Are. Graphs.
If everyone else was as smart as author, or better yet, just decided to listen to author, then issue would be solved. Author declares case closed — all we have to do is ignore or magically disappear the divisions that make issue inflammatory in the first place.
Author makes call to action: this starts with you reader. Go into the world and explain to author’s ideological opponents that inflammatory statement is actually less exciting clarification of inflammatory statement. In oversimplified world author has depicted, it really is that easy- and you can too!
ncG1vNJzZmikkaq5sbvGmqVnq6WXwLWtwqRlnKedZL1wwMeiqmaho2Kur3nIp52lmZ2irrW70bJkrKyRqbKusc2t