The Essence of Rhetoric

As I have repeatedly pointed out to those who speak dialectic, there is no actual information content in rhetoric. Or, if you prefer, whatever perceived information content happens to appear in rhetoric is irrelevant. Consider the following example:

I’m in a weird situation. A new colleague joined and he refuses to use my pronouns or even my name. Instead, he refers to me as “my esteemed colleague”. I confronted him politely and just said something like “you are my colleague and I hold you in esteem hence my esteemed colleague”.

It’s bs, I can tell he’s just a transphobic pos he calls others by their names. I’m the only trans woman in the office and it’s really making me uncomfortable.

I even spoke to HR about this but they said they can’t do anything because “my esteemed colleague” is apparently not discriminatory.

It’s genuinely uncomfortable working with him because of this. It really gives me the creeps and makes me feel dehumanised.

Notice the way in which even a polite and positive form of address is effectively triggering of the target’s emotions when utilized in a manner that distinguishes itself from an ordinary form of address. So, there is absolutely no need for dialectical sperging over what the rhetoric actually means, much less how the use of the term makes the deliverer feel, because those two elements are unrelated to the intended objective of emotionally manipulating the target.