Rants & Raves: The Rhetoric of Craigslist

Although most of us probably know Craigslist as a sort of online classifieds page--a place to buy and sell cars, computers, and scrap lumber--there is also a thriving interpersonal part of Craigslist, one that has little to do with commerce of any kind. In addition to the discussion forums (which usually consist of one line tit-for-tat), the Best of Craigslist (which is often crass, but sometimes screamingly funny), and the personal ads (which I do not recommend to the weak of stomach), there is also the Rants & Raves section, which functions as a forum for screeds, polemics, and jeremiads. Consider this one: It uses some evidence (though the source is uncertain, and it appeals to vague authority) to show the characteristics of mass killers, and links them (implicitly, with the title) to military people. There is also an ad hominem attack at the end ("Right wing pre-mass killers"), a pathetic appeal ("while innocent children die"), and an ethical appeal ("if you cannot feel shame"). The rhetoric is, however, poorly conceived. The relationship between the title and the main content seems to function as a sort of enthymeme, but the conclusion is puzzling: are we to think that all right-wingers are defenders of this great nation? Is it satirical? Are all military people pre-mass killers? It is rebutted (kind of) by this one: The writer correctly notes that his opponent has used his/her first amendment rights to "deprive" him/or of his/her second amendment rights, and calls it "lame" (no reason is given). There is a puzzling question about whether limiting rounds to ten will shut his/her opponent up. It appears to be a rhetorical question, though, so the author mocks his/her opponent while cleaning an AR-15, and claiming that "your people" (us vs. them fallacy) will never deprive "my people" of our weapons. Then, there is some kind of quip about 1990's submachine guns. This is all very high-context; for all I know, these people know each other and have been debating each other for years. The rhetoric, while technically deficient, is apparently heartfelt, and even somewhat entertaining. It also seems to be typical to include visuals in these arguments: political cartoons, charts, unflattering photographs of the President.