Interesting that calling the Kindle a “Swindle” is vilified, yet an entire generation of techies called the TRS-80 the “Trash-80.”
My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally. But if you already disagree with someone, you’ll be even more annoyed by arguments that aren’t really arguments at all.
My guess is that his nicknames won’t pay well to this audience, and also that they do better in some places than others. For example, blog post titles are usually so bad that people have very low expectations.
“The Great Kindle Swindle” would probably fly as a post title, while calling the device an Amazon Swindle repeatedly might not.
> an entire generation of techies called the TRS-80 the “Trash-80.”
There's no double standard in my view. Calling it that in a persuasive essay about why you should avoid the TRS-80 is similarly childish and imprudent.
> My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally.
Almost certainly so. But this is clearly framed as a persuasive essay.
My conjecture is that if you are inclined to agree with someone’s negative point of view, rhetorical tricks like insulting nicknames will be well-received and will help frame the idea emotionally. But if you already disagree with someone, you’ll be even more annoyed by arguments that aren’t really arguments at all.
My guess is that his nicknames won’t pay well to this audience, and also that they do better in some places than others. For example, blog post titles are usually so bad that people have very low expectations.
“The Great Kindle Swindle” would probably fly as a post title, while calling the device an Amazon Swindle repeatedly might not.