Having had five years of graduate study in rhetorical theory (hence my moniker, rhetorician), I gravitate more toward discussions on the persuasive usage of language than the grammatical usage of language. My question is simply this: Is the rhetorical perspective out of place in ELU-StackExchange? I will not be too offended if the answer is yes and will continue making my small contributions to the dialectic as it is structured now. Still, the rhetorical, or persuasive, perspective can be valuable and useful even in discussions on the nitty-gritty of grammar.
I think rhetoric is as natural a part of English as are, say, meaning, etymology, grammar, single-phrase-requests, and what have you. The way words work together not only to mean something, but to mean something in a particular way—persuasive, powerful, subtle, misleading, dramatic, deceptive—has to fall under the rubric of usage.
Without such illumination into the way words in English mean what they do, we might as well merge with Linguistics.SE.
One caveat, however: I don't think this gives us license to discuss rhetoric qua rhetoric. Only when questions about English cry out for an explanation involving rhetoric should that be brought to bear.
From my own responses involving rhetorical figures here on EL&U:
And many more. I'm certainly not the only one who has cited rhetoric to answer questions here.