But in the moment it was uttered, it is reasonable to assume it would have been pretty effective as a piece of rhetoric. “I am not a crook” is a special use of ethos (the speaker’s connection with the audience). Logically speaking, it is redundant: if you are accused of X, to say X is untrue is to deny, rather than to disprove, the charge. But by adding the barefaced lie to the mix you raise the stakes. It puts doubt in your audience’s mind. Indignation sounds – even though it is not – like evidence of innocence.
但在尼克松说出那句谎话时,人们可以合理地假定它作为一种辞令是有效的。“我不是骗子”是一种对精神特质(发言者与听众之间的联系)的特殊使用。从逻辑上讲,它是多余的:如果你被指控犯有X罪,表态称X罪不属实,是在否认指控,而不是在证明指控不正确。但加上一句厚颜无耻的谎言,你就加大了赌注。这让听众心里产生不确定性。愤慨听上去像是(即便实际上不是)无辜的证据。
Something in all of us resists believing that people can look into a camera, or into our eyes, and shamelessly fib. Hitler argued that “the big lie” was effective with ordinary people because it “would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. Can anyone think that the fierceness of Lance Armstrong’s repeated doping denials was not part of what kept his lie afloat for so long?
【历史上的尼克松 真的是演说家和骗子?】相关文章:
★ 来自他人的善意
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15