Vitriolic rhetoric is a type of speech that uses harsh language to criticize a perceived wrong, without calling for violence. It aims to persuade people to follow or abandon something. The term comes from the corrosive nature of sulfuric acid. It differs from violent rhetoric, which requires violence to be done against the target. The use of harsh language can provoke reactions in sensitive people, leading to accusations of incitement. The line between acceptable and unacceptable speech is a constant debate in most societies.
Vitriolic rhetoric is a type of speech or speech that is scathing and caustic in its criticism of a perceived wrong. Such speeches or writings can be addressed to individuals, groups or phenomena. In this sense it is very similar to violent rhetoric, even if it is not a call for violence. Instead, the harshness of the criticism comes from the words used to describe the problem.
Rhetoric is a form of speech that seeks to persuade others of a point of view or idea. It can be employed in speeches or in writing, but in either form it is a one-way point of view that does not include discussion. That said, a little rhetoric will allow for speeches and counter-speeches. The purpose of such rhetoric is to persuade people to follow something, vote for something, abandon something or even destroy something.
The term “vitriolic rhetoric” comes from “vitriol” due to its corrosive nature. Vitriol is the historical name of sulfuric acid, used since the times of Dioscorides and Pliny the Elder. The application of the term to rhetoric appears to date from the mid-19th century.
Violent rhetoric differs from vitriolic rhetoric in that it requires violence to be done against the target, both figuratively and actually. The caustic nature of vitriolic rhetoric means that the rhetorician is employing a different set of linguistic goals and tools. The main purpose of this type of speech is to destroy the target with words, which makes it closer to satire, but without humor.
The speech can be biting without being vitriolic rhetoric. Biting rhetoric pulls no punches when it comes to criticizing something, such as social inequality or the misbehavior of others. In politics, it is often used to criticize opposition policies and politicians. When done well, criticism overshadows all the faults of the target; when done wrong, it simply appears to be a string of name-calling.
What takes vitriolic rhetoric one step further is the use of harsh language that is beyond pale. This includes poisonous language that truly insults the opponents, people and concepts criticized. It is an active attempt to insult. This means that the rhetorician, while designing his speech, specifically chose words designed to hurt and provoke.
The use of such language has an effect on others, and this is where it often relates to violent rhetoric. While there are no direct calls to action, vitriolic words are designed to inflame reactions in people who are sensitive to such matters or who are already opposed to the idea or person. This means that when something violent is done against that organization or individual, the rhetorician can be accused of inciting it.
Some people wonder why such language is tolerated in the mainstream press, on television, and among people who are supposed to be role models. In many countries, rhetoricians are able to use such provocative language because they are protected by free speech laws and because they do not call for direct action or violence against others. Where the line should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable speech is a constant debate in most societies.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
