Final Essay

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christopher Werry

May 13, 2015

Incivility is Only Abuse

With such a growing population and the growing demand for technology there is bound to arise issues, such as online incivility. Online incivility is an abusive way to attack others without having to be face to face with them. Many of the younger generations may have used or heard of the word “troll”, a common term for a person trying to invoke a negative response out of a person or community. A “troll” can commonly be found on social Medias, online article, or blogs. It is the easiest way to bully someone and not feel guilty.”trolling is one of the commonly seen forms of incivilities today, because of the high demand for social networks and media. “Chloe Madeley, the Daughter of television presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, … was trolled after she defended her mother’s remarks about the convicted rapist Ched Evans.” (Watt 1) It can be seen that even when defending someone of importance, “trolls” will attack an open victim and spread their venom of insecurities and threats. In this essay I will be explaining the growing issue of the incivility “trolling” and what may be a possible solution to stop the outrageous acts of harm it causes.

According to a study conducted by the US Cyberbullying Research Center, as mentioned by Alexandra Gheorghe “52% [of] US students and 33% [of] teens admitted to have been cyberbullied…” (Gheorghe 1), this shows the high amount of “trolling” incidents that become bullying. With such high numbers you would think that the government would want to prevent this from happening. Schools try to prevent it on campus, but can do little to prevent it on social media. Having been victim to bullying, I would want someone to step in and prevent these situations because it is hard to confront the attacker or even higher authority to stop such cruel behavior. Gheorghe, author of “What’s ‘Internet Trolling’ And How Can It Affect You?” then states that there are ways of preventing these situations. Gheorghe says to report the attacker, change passwords frequently, deactivate or delete social media, ignore comments, or in the worst cases contact authorities. Why would contacting authorities not be the first on this list? All cases of cyberbullying are situations where incivility has created a growing issue. Anyone can be provoked online at any moment, and Cyberbullying should not be tolerated, by passing laws to prevent such situations.

In an article by Nicholas Watt, “Internet trolls face four times longer in jail, chris grayling pledges” , Watt discusses the justice secretary’s plan to imprison online abusers for six months to two years. The six month plan would be extended to two years sentence for online abuse. Grayling says

These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the six-month sentence.(Watt 1)

Having agreed with Grayling’s statement, the best possible answer for a crime that damages many youths into their adulthood should be a jail sentence. Some may argue that the trolling is a sign of “freedom of speech”, however in America it isn’t legal to threaten the life of the President, so why should we make it legal for anyones life to be threatened. Do we not all have equal rights? Are we not all governed by the same laws? There is no room for a threat towards anyone and the problem should be dealt with immediately to protect everyone. The use of governed law to provoke fear into the civility offenders, may cause a wave of positive feedback and a safer environment for everyone using social media.

    In Clive Thompson’s article “Smarter Than You Think”, Thompson points out a frequent blogger named Ta-Nahesi Coates who found a solution to a safe environment on his articles and blog posts. Thompson says “The instant he saw something abusive, he’d delete it, banning repeat offenders.”(Thompson 3) This shows that it is possible to prevent the online incivilities of trolls with careful observation. Thompson goes on to explain how an “up vote” system was created on The Atlantic to help promote the quality responses of others. People have created safe environments to create discussion and negate the nastiness. Communities have been formed over facebook and various websites to help control the comments seen and posted to many threads. With a well maintained security created by communities the internet no longer has to be filled with the incivilities created by cruel people. Places such as Youtube, Reddit, and Facebook have only a small amount or none of the security features that some community based websites have. The use of racial slurs or sexual terms are commonly found on unprotected websites that are open to public commenting, especially when anonymity is present. To force people into showing their real identities could possibly stop many of the online incivilities seen today. It would cause these “trolls” and bullies to have to take blame for what they say. Overall, this would create a much safer environment for not just teenagers and children, but people of all genders, races, sizes, and ages.

    Having personally been affected by the form of bullying known as “trolling”, it is apparent to me that authors such as Gheorghe and Thompson present great ways to help prevent this cruel act. Grayling, however, speaks to me the most. Graying believed that punishment by jail sentence is appropriate for these abusers. When a large amount of threats, negativity, and racism is seen on just a single thread, the entire thread may be flagged, however should the threads be banned or just the people who create such nasty comments? The feeling one receives from the comments can cause the thoughts of suicide or physical harm. To invoke a human being to the point of risking their own life at the sake of relieving comments should be illegal and taken in a very serious manner. I have learned that “trolling” is one of the ugliest forms of online incivilities and affects more than 50 percent of US students. The creation of safe online communities is a great example how to prevent and stop the online incivilities of today. Higher security should be implemented on social media and public threads.

    In conclusion, the incivility of “trolling” online is a growing issue that demands for an immediate solution. Having personally experienced some of these situations I can agree with many of the authors mention. Thier opinions and ideas to solve the constantly growing issue may be some of the best. The idea of creating a community to protect others against harmful attacks is a great place to start when trying to solve this issue. It is important to know that when a situation arises that causes damage to others that it is taken care of immediately without hesitation. Sentencing these “trolls” to jail is an extremely effective tactic that should be used more. I believe that all the authors had strong views and opinions on the matter. If I were to improve anything about what should be done to prevent the further spread of incivility online, it would be to continue the creation and spread of honest communities based around the support of others. Thompson makes a very strong argument when he describes the security put up by Coates to not only keep a thread on topic, but to also keep the community from harm's way. Finally, with the rise of technology today, the future will hold a  great place for interacting with others in safer manners. Although the internet is young it will grow with the communities always looking for a kinder and more intellectual thread.

Work Cited

Gheorghe, Alexandra. "What's “Internet Trolling” And How Can It Affect You?" Blog             BullGuard Your Online Security Hub. N.p., 17 Jan. 2013. Web.

Thompson, Clive. Smarter than You Think. N.p.: Penguin, 2013. 77-81. Print.

Watt, Nicholas. "Internet Trolls Face Four times Longer in Jail, Chris Grayling Pledges."             The Guardian. N.p., 19 Oct. 2014. Web.

essay 4 rough draft

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christopher Werry

May 13, 2015

Incivility is Only Abuse

With such a growing population and the growing demand for technology there is bound to arise issues, such as online incivility. Online incivility can be seen as freedom of speech from a positive stance, or as an abusive way to attack others without having to be face to face. Many of the younger generations may have used or heard of the word “troll”, a common term for a person trying to invoke a negative response out of a person or community. A “troll” can commonly be found on social Medias, online article, or blogs. It is the easiest way to bully someone and not feel guilty. “Chloe Madeley, the Daughter of television presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, … was trolled after she defended her mother’s remarks about the convicted rapist Ched Evans.” (Watt 1) In this essay I will be explaining the growing issue of the incivility “trolling” and what may be a possible solution to stop the outrageous acts of harm it causes.

According to a study conducted by the US Cyberbullying Research Center, as mentioned by Alexandra Gheorghe “52% [of] US students and 33% [of] teens admitted to have been cyberbullied…”, this shows the high amount of “trolling” incidents that become bullying. With such high numbers you would think that the government would want to prevent this from happening. Schools try to prevent it on campus, but can do little to prevent it on social media. Having been victim to bullying, I would want someone to step in and prevent these situations because it is hard to confront the attacker or even higher authority to stop such cruel behavior. Gheorghe, author of “What’s ‘Internet Trolling’ And How Can It Affect You?” then states that there are ways of preventing these situations. Gheorghe says to report the attacker, change passwords frequently, deactivate or delete social media, ignore comments, or at worst cases contact authorities. Why would contacting authorities not be the first on this list? Cyber bulling should not be tolerated and there should be laws placed to prevent such situations.

In an article by Nicholas Watt, “Internet trolls face four times longer in jail, chris grayling pledges” , Watt discusses the justice secretary’s plan to imprison online abusers for six months to two years. The six month plan would be extended to two years sentence for online abuse. Grayling says

These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the six-month sentence.

Having agreed with Grayling’s statement, the best possible answer for a crime that damages many youths into their adulthood should be a jail sentence. Some may argue that the trolling is a sign of “freedom of speech”, however in America it isn’t legal to threaten the life of the President, so why should we make it legal for anyones life to be threatened. Do we not all have equal rights? Are we not all governed by the same laws? There is no room for a threat towards anyone and the problem should be dealt with immediately to protect everyone.

    Effect on the teenage mind-

    conclusioin-

essay 4 research

did a google search containing "should trolling be illegal?

First page received: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/19/justice-secretary-chris-grayling-pledges-stiffer-sentences-for-internet-trolls

google searched "how does trolling effect teens?"

first page: http://www.bullguard.com/blog/2013/01/whats-internet-trolling-and-how-can-it-affect-you.html

also: http://www.channel4.com/news/trolling-online-abuse-one-in-three-young-people-affected

essay 3

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

April 15, 2015

Christoffer Werry

Public Incivility’s Uprising

Public incivility is rising in our society and has become a problem to just about everyone that has access to the internet. Public incivility is the disrespect towards others to cause harm or damage an argument’s rhetorical strategies. Some common forms of these incivilities are using words improperly by creating false meanings, improper representation can cause significant damage to credibility, and using social media and forms of social media to inflict pain or cause arguments between others. Many articles, books, and essays have been written on these topics discussing the growing issue and the possible solutions. Is this incivility causing great disruption in our society, according to “A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that an overwhelming majority of Americans (75 percent) think so, and anecdotal evidence of the coarsening of our public debate abounds.”(Clayton 1) In this essay, I will be comparing the evidence of incivilities and possible solutions to the growing issue, while giving the similarities and differences between each author’s views.

            The common use of slang words or distorting the actual meanings of words has become more significant in our society. It is the cause for many disruptions and arguments in speech debate and social media. In “How the Internet Created an Age of Rage”, written by, journalist, Tim Adams, Adams discusses the increasing amount of comments on social media and the way things are being moderated. An example from experience comes from, journalist and moderator for The Register, Sarah Bee when she became victim to name calling on social media, stating "There was a lot of misogyny and casual sexism, some pretty off-colour stuff. I would get a few horrible emails calling me a c[***] or whatever…"(Adams 4) This explicit language was used to get a response from Bee in a negative manner. This form of incivility was to expose Bee’s anger and possibly backfire on her. James Fallows, a writer for The Atlantic, believes that there are ways to avoid this such problem, in his article “Is There Anything to do About Civility?” Fallows discusses some solutions to the rising issue. A possible solution to the problem is stated by James Fallows, “If you aren't sure what a particular word (such as treason, murder, fascism, Nazi, or socialism) means, do not use it.” (Fallows 4) The same goes for words that are used as slang. If the audience you are speaking to may not know what your slang term means then you are more likely to cause a great disturbance or harass another individual involuntarily. The use explicit words, such as the ones used against Bee, shows the incivility of today’s society. Fallows suggests that we have more respect for each other and mind what we say.

            Many authors today use a fake name or pseudonym to hide their identities and stay away from much of the incivilities. However, social media has allowed for the use of pseudonyms, causing many aggressive debates and sometimes creating unnecessary disturbance. An article posted on Zephoria.org, “’Real Names’ Policies are an Abuse of Power”, by Danah Boyd, discusses the use of pseudonyms to create disturbance and “troll” others, but possibly disguising some people for their own safety. While many people who are on Facebook have a pseudonym name, Google’s new rule of enforcement is the policy to use your real name on their social media to moderate their website. Many people disagree with this because many are “abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people.” (Boyd 1) Tim Adams discusses how the use of trolling has found its way into serious debates, saying

Barbarians, or "trolls" as they became known, had entered the community, ignoring the rules, shouting loudly, encouraging violence, spoiling it for everybody. Thereafter, anyone who has established a website or forum with high, or medium-high ideals, has had to decide how to deal with such anonymous destructive posters, those who got in the way of constructive debate. (Adams 3)

Adams acknowledges the issue and describes “trolling” as a “…kind of covert bullying…” (Adams 3). A commenter on James Fallows article says “there's good reason for offensive imagery and language to have broad legal protection, but public shaming is a valuable and entirely appropriate tool…”(Fallows 6). Some disagree with the use of trolling however it can be justified as a rhetorical strategy. The effects of “trolling” are a pathos approach to cause an uproar of anger.

            A rising issue of incivility today in the gamer gate conflict. Gamer gate is the depiction of the human body in repulsive or explicit manner. Natasha Lomas discusses gamer gate in her article, “#Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms”, approaching a younger audience by using the “pound” symbol in her article title, as a Twitter reference known as “hashtag”. Lomas believes that women are depicted in new and developing games in a rude and explicit manner. These forms of social media are seen as a fight against feminism. The incivility seen here is the creation of argument through social and mainstream media. It is apparent that game creators use offensive depictions of women in their game to grab the male society’s attention and create profits. Extreme activists of gamer gate have gone to extraordinary lengths as stated by Lomas,

Gamergate activists use online channels to funnel graphic death and rape threats as a weapon to silence feminist critics. But they also repurpose more banal channels — by, for instance, carrying out orchestrated email campaigns that fire carefully worded missives at advertisers to apply commercial pressure against targets (such as hated media outlets). (Lomas 4)

Using extremist tactics, gamer gate activists are forcing their beliefs upon everyone on social and mainstream media.

            In conclusion, the articles and journals used were all very strong and persuasive documentation of the ongoing incivilities. A weakness I encountered however was Lomas sharing the gamer gate extremist actions. Sending graphic media would be frowned upon in a movement with such support from feminists. Following the Real Name policy set out by google could possible expose trolls and online threats to social media. Finally, I agree with the solutions brought up by James Fallows and believe that with enough support he could make a movement to create a more civil social society for this generation.

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Adams, Tim. "How the Internet Created an Age of Rag." The Guardian. The Guardian, 23 July   2011. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Ftechnology%2F2011%2Fju                        l%2F24%2Finternet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams>.

Clayton, Cornell. "Understanding the “Civility Crisis”." Understanding the “Civility Crisis”.         Washington State Magazine, n.d. Web. <http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=827>.

Boyd, Danah. "“Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power." Danah Boyd Apophenia RSS.      Zephoria, 2011. Web. <http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-   names.html>.

Fallows, James. "Is There Anything to Do About 'Civility'?" The Alantic. The Atlantic Monthly    Group, 2015. Web.

Lomas, Natasha. "#Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms." TechCrunch. N.p.,      2015. Web. <http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/18/gamergate-tactics/>.

 

 

Incivility solutions

The author's involved tell us of the constant obstructions to rhetoric. Each has their own solutions to the problem. Followed by the large debate of gamergate and hate speeches, the issue is becoming larger as social media grows. Some solutions suggested are using words properly for what they mean and not for a concept or idea, Name calling should be abolished for its cruel acts and childish ways, and that it is possible to be wrong and debates are for instructing. These would reduce the amount of personal argument and focus on the facts. I believe that a great way to solve the rhetoric issue is to follow common sense etiquette. Is swearing, name calling, and arguing the reason for a debate? It should be to find a proper solution by discussing causes and effects whether negative or positive, and all possible outcomes.

essay 2 final

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christoffer Werry

March 18, 2015

Demagoguery in Persuasion

Demagoguery is "polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in group to hate and scapegoat some out group(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called 'an escape from freedom'"(Miller 462). Demagoguery can be found in many speeches and is a vital form of rhetoric. Patricia Robert Miller, author of "Democracy, Demagoguery and Critical Rhetoric", written in 2005, and published by Michigan State University Press, gives the reader the idea of "good public discourse" and demagoguery by illustrating how decision making and debating is affected by standards given to evaluate an argument. Robert Miller also uses secondary authors to help improve the description of the fallacies and techniques. LaPierre, spokesman for the NRA, gave a speech on December 21, 2012, discussing the shooting of an elementary school in Connecticut. LaPierre's speech discusses how we need an immediate fix for the issue to prevent shooting such as this from happening ever again. LaPierre's target audience was the parents and staff affected by the tragic event, but he also forced it towards all schools who do not have a security force on campus to protect staff and students. In this paper I will use the demagoguery standards mentioned by Robert Miller to evaluate the effectiveness of LaPierre's speech.

    Robert Miller introduces the idea of scapegoating as a way to cause blame on others. Robert Miller defines scapegoating “as denial through projection… Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. (Miller 464)” When La Pierre sees the blame of what happened to Sandy Hook Elementary is on the NRA, La Pierre scapegoats media and the government for the incident. La Pierre believes that with the violent media people are encouraged to take the actions such as what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. He gives a list of several video games and movies that promote violence and the killing of children.  La Pierre explains

too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away. (LaPierre 4)

LaPierre believes that the acts at Sandy hook could have been avoided had it not been for the media and government. LaPierre scapegoats the media because of its violence with video games such as the video games: “Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. (LaPierre 2)” Some of the most violent games on the market available at almost any retail store. Kindergarten Killer, a lesser known video game, was found online by the NRA’s research department. LaPierre exclaims “…the media demonizes lawful gun owners…” and states that the media is “the filthiest form of pornography. (LaPierre 2)”

    Robert Miller explains that one form of demagoguery is having in groups and out groups. Robert defines in groups and out groups as “Our views of people like us (the ingroup) are nuanced and complicated, whereas we define the outgroup by one or two salient and generally negative features that we insist epitomize the entire group.” (Miller 463) By this statement Miller explains that the in group would be the group of people who agree with what you believe in and the outgroup is the opposing group. Miller goes on to say “there are some people whom we think of as “like us” in some important regard, and others who are very different from us in some equally important regard” (Miller 462), not discriminating either side, however showing that they are separate in important manors. In La Pierre’s article, La Pierre uses the media, government, and certain parts of society as the outgroup and ultimately scapegoats them for their disbelief in the shootings that occurred at the elementary school, Sandy Hook. La Pierre explains that the media is the “filthiest form of pornography” because of its constant violence. La Pierre also believes that the governments laws to control guns are not useful because they “refus[e] to create an active national database of the mentally ill[.]” (La Pierre 3) La Pierre believes that the NRA is a defender of the nation and gun rights. La Pierre believes the NRA is the ingroup and the out groups are media, government, and other opposing parties who blame the NRA for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    A fallacy as described by Robert Miller “...is wrong in the sense that it frustrates efforts to arrive at the resolution of a dispute.” They set out ten rules of discourse.” La Pierre uses the media as one of those ten rules, this one being straw man. He lists multiple violent video games, saying

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come  my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? (La Pierre 3)

La Pierre essentially creates the media to be an object to attack because of how easy it is to blame them. Video games and other media are, as LaPierre would say, the source of motivism for the shooting. Robert Miller describes straw man as making a point that is undefendable from the other side of the argument. La Pierre points out that maybe the shooting at Sandy Hook may not have happened had the motivators for the shooter had been accessible. LaPierre’s use of the straw man should weaken his effectiveness, but in this case it gives the media no way to defend itself, giving LaPierre the upper hand on the situation.

In Conclusion, Robert Miller shows us the techniques that were used in La Pierre’s speech and gives us a good definition of how demagoguery was used in La Pierre’s speech. La Pierre’s speech was meant to motivate the correct actions to be taken to control events such as the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I have learned that demagoguery is highly negative but can be used in a positive way to motivate others. Demagoguery is a strong form of persuasion. I believe that La Pierre’s speech was to show the problem that was presented to many the day of the shooting. Robert Miller’s demagoguery rules help the listener, or audience, understand that La Pierre wants to be a problem solver in a strict way. To improve La Pierre’s speech, instead of scapegoating other medias, La Pierre should pay more attention to his audience and realize many may be offended by what he says. I do, however, agree with his argument that the NRA is not to blame for the actions of that day. Instead of a scapegoat he should offer a proposal to help everyone understand gun safety and protection of others. LaPierre’s use of the straw man may have strengthened his argument by not giving the media a way to defend themselves from his criticism. LaPierre’s speech was effective because it gave no one a defense, however LaPierre did not view others opinions and tackle the oppositions.

References

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. "Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric." Rhetoric & Public       Affairs 8.3 (2005): 459-76. Web.

"Transcript of NRA's LaPierre's Speech on Newtown Massacre." TBO.com. N.p., 20 Dec. 2012.         Web.

Rough draft (full)

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christoffer Werry

March 11, 2015

Demagoguery is "polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in group to hate and scapegoat some out group(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called 'an escape from freedom'"(Miller 462). Patricia Robert Miller, author of "Characteristics of Demagoguery", gives the reader the idea of "good public discourse" by illustrating how decision making and debating is affected by standards given to evaluate an argument. LaPierre, spokesman for the NRA, gave a speech in 2012 discussing the shooting of an elementary school in Connecticut. LaPierre's speech discusses how we need an immediate fix for the issue to prevent shooting such as this from happening ever again. LaPierre's target audience was the parents and staff affected by the tragic event, but he also forced it towards all schools who do not have a security force on campus to protect staff and students. In this paper I will use the demagoguery standards mentioned by Robert Miller to evaluate the effectiveness of LaPierre's speech.

    Robert Miller introduces the idea of scapegoating as a way to cause blame on others. Robert Miller defines scapegoating

as denial through projection. Tsesis has said,“A racist society may actually promote bigotry in order to unite ingroup members and distract them from real political and economic problems by sacrificing a historical scapegoat. Intragroup conflict is diffused by focusing anger on a common target.” Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. (Miller 464)

When La Pierre sees the blame of what happened to Sandy Hook Elementary is on the NRA, La Pierre scapegoats media and the government for the incident. La Pierre believes that with the violent media people are encouraged to take the actions such as what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. He gives a list of several video games and movies that promote violence and the killing of children.  La Pierre explains

too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away. (LaPierre 4)

La Pierre believes that the acts at Sandy hook could have been avoided had it not been for the media and government. La Pierre scapegoats both the media and government to persuade the audience to his side of the argument and take control of the debate.

    Robert Miller explains that one form of demagoguery is having in groups and out groups. Robert defines in groups and out groups as “Our views of people like us (the ingroup) are nuanced and complicated, whereas we define the outgroup by one or two salient and generally negative features that we insist epitomize the entire group.” (Miller 463) By this statement Miller explains that the in group would be the group of people who agree with what you believe in and the outgroup is the opposing group. Miller goes on to say “there are some people whom we think of as “like us” in some important regard, and others who are very different from us in some equally important regard” (Miller 462), not discriminating either side, however showing that they are separate in important manors. In La Pierre’s article, La Pierre uses the media, government, and certain parts of society as the outgroup and ultimately scapegoats them for their disbelief in the shootings that occurred at the elementary school, Sandy Hook. La Pierre explains that the media is the “filthiest form of pornography” because of its constant violence. La Pierre also believes that the governments laws to control guns are not useful because they “refus[e] to create an active national database of the mentally ill[.]” (La Pierre 3) La Pierre believes that the NRA is a defender of the nation and gun rights. La Pierre believes the NRA is the ingroup and the out groups are media, government, and other opposing parties who blame the NRA for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    Motivism can be described as a piece of demagoguery that is the influence of others to cause situations such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary. La Pierre speaks of the media that becomes a motivator for many of the shootings that happen today. He lists multiple violent video games, saying

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come  my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? (La Pierre 3)

La Pierre essentially scapegoats video games and other media as the source of motivism for the shooting. Robert Miller describes motivism as the in groups source to argue, or reason to take action. La Pierre points out that maybe the shooting at Sandy Hook may not have happened had the motivators for the shooter had been accessible.

In Conclusion, Robert Miller shows us the techniques that were used in La Pierre’s speech and gives us a good definition of how demagoguery was used in La Pierre’s speech. La Pierre’s speech was meant to motivate the correct actions to be taken to control happening such as the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. I have learned that demagoguery is highly negative but can be used in a positive way to motivate others. Demagoguery is a strong form of persuasion. I believe that La Pierre’s speech was to show the problem that was presented to many the day of the shooting. Robert Miller’s demagoguery rules help the listener, or audience, understand that La Pierre wants to be a problem solver in a strict way. To improve La Pierre’s speech, instead of scapegoating other medias, La Pierre should pay more attention to his audience and realize many may be offended by what he says. I do, however, agree with his argument that the NRA is not to blame for the actions of that day. Instead of a scapegoat he should offer a proposal to help everyone understand gun safety and protection of others.

4 pragraph rough draft

Demagoguery is "polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in group to hate and scapegoat some out group(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called 'an escape from freedom'"(Miller 462). Patricia Robert Miller, author of "Characteristics of Demagoguery", gives the reader the idea of "good public discourse" by illustrating how decision making and debating is affected by standards given to evaluate an argument. LaPierre, spokesman for the NRA, gave a speech in 2012 discussing the shooting of an elementary school in Connecticut. LaPierre's speech discusses how we need an immediate fix for the issue to prevent shooting such as this from happening ever again. LaPierre's target audience was the parents and staff affected by the tragic event, but he also forced it towards all schools who do not have a security force on campus to protect staff and students. In this paper I will use the demagoguery standards mentioned by Robert Miller to evaluate the effectiveness of LaPierre's speech.

Robert Miller introduces the idea of scapegoating as a way to cause blame on others. Robert Miller defines scapegoating

as denial through projection. Tsesis has said,“A racist society may actually promote bigotry in order to unite ingroup members and distract them from real political and economic problems by sacrificing a historical scapegoat. Intragroup conflict is diffused by focusing anger on a common target.” Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. (Miller 464)

When La Pierre sees the blame of what happened to Sandy Hook Elementary is on the NRA, La Pierre scapegoats media and the government for the incident. La Pierre believes that with the violent media people are encouraged to take the actions such as what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. He gives a list of several video games and movies that promote violence and the killing of children.  La Pierre explains

too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away. (LaPierre 4)

La Pierre believes that the acts at Sandy hook could have been avoided had it not been for the media and government. La Pierre scapegoats both the media and government to persuade the audience to his side of the argument and take control of the debate.

    Robert Miller explains that one form of demagoguery is having in groups and out groups. Robert defines in groups and out groups as “Our views of people like us (the ingroup) are nuanced and complicated, whereas we define the outgroup by one or two salient and generally negative features that we insist epitomize the entire group.” (Miller 463) By this statement Miller explains that the in group would be the group of people who agree with what you believe in and the outgroup is the opposing group. Miller goes on to say “there are some people whom we think of as “like us” in some important regard, and others who are very different from us in some equally important regard” (Miller 462), not discriminating either side, however showing that they are separate in important manors. In La Pierre’s article, La Pierre uses the media, government, and certain parts of society as the outgroup and ultimately scapegoats them for their disbelief in the shootings that occurred at the elementary school, Sandy Hook. La Pierre explains that the media is the “filthiest form of pornography” because of its constant violence. La Pierre also believes that the governments laws to control guns are not useful because they “refus[e] to create an active national database of the mentally ill[.]” (La Pierre 3) La Pierre believes that the NRA is a defender of the nation and gun rights. La Pierre believes the NRA is the ingroup and the out groups are media, government, and other opposing parties who blame the NRA for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    Motivism can be described as a piece of demagoguery that is the influence of others to cause situations such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary. La Pierre speaks of the media that becomes a motivator for many of the shootings that happen today. He lists multiple violent video games, saying

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come  my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? (La Pierre 3)

La Pierre essentially scapegoats video games and other media as the source of motivism for the shooting. Robert Miller describes motivism as the in groups source to argue, or reason to take action. La Pierre points out that maybe the shooting at Sandy Hook may not have happened had the motivators for the shooter had been accessible.

Intruduction Essay 2

Demagoguery is "polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in group to hate and scapegoat some out group(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called 'an escape from freedom'"(Miller 462). Patricia Robert Miller, author of "Characteristics of Demagoguery", gives the reader the idea of "good public discourse" by illustrating how decision making and debating is effected by standards given to evaluate an argument. LaPierre, spokesman for the NRA, gave a speech in 2012 discussing the shooting of an elementary school in Connecticut. LaPierre's speech discusses how we need an immediate fix for the issue to prevent shooting such as this from happening ever again. LaPierre's target audience was the parents and staff effected by the tragic event, but he also forced it towards all schools who do not have a security force on campus to protect staff and students. In this paper I will use the demagoguery standards mentioned by Robert Miller to evaluate the effectiveness of LaPierre's speech.

Robert-Millers evaluation

demagoguery- "polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in group to hate and scapegoat some out group(s) largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called 'an escape from freedom'"(Miller 462)
scapegoating-  "'denial through projection'"(Miller 464)
polarization- The opposite perception of a situation
"simple solutions"- eliminate out groups, promote in groups
victimization- use an existing perception to change the mind of others
in-group/out-group thinking- people who believe the same as us/differently than us

Creating out groups is what happens when you make scapegoating and polarization. "Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints." This violates the standards of discourse because it prevents solution and causes greater problems. LaPierre's document conforms to the discourse such that he describes the news as misattributing an argument and blaming others for one persons actions. LaPierre's document resembles discourse in that one must defend their argument with relevant information. LaPierre uses the example of other recent shootings to describe the actions of others.

LaPierre Evaluation

LaPierre claims that the media blows situations out of proportion and blames innocent people, the government has taken away the protection of American schools and made them vulnerable to attacks, and that every school in America should have at least one armed security member to protect the children and staff of the schools. A couple strategies LaPierre uses in his argument are statistics, to emphasize his ethos, and anecdotes to another shooting at schools such as this one. LaPierre has a strong argument that having at least a single armed security guard in every school would help prevent situations such as the Connecticut elementary school tragedy. LaPierre states "Under Asa's leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge." LaPierre is so certain that armed forces will help protect the safety of American schools that her offers his own assistance in the matter. I noticed that LaPierre uses statistical information but doesn't claim where it is from, possibly damaging his ethos. It can also be seen that LaPierre fails to make any rebuttal at all towards the government's "implications" on new laws to prevent these situations from happening.

Essay 1 (Final)

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christoffer Werry

Februray 23, 2015

Veiling Under Judgment

The religious headdress known as a veil, also known as a burqa, has become a highly debated symbol of freedom or oppression. Abu­Lughod and Maysan Haydar share their opinions from their personal views on the matter. Abu­Lughod shares her opinion in her article, ​The Muslim Woman,​ written in 2006, and Haydar explains her personal view in her article ​Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering​, written in 2004. Haydar is a Muslim women with a unique story about her head dress. Haydar received her headdress after seeing a board game in a store that she wanted, but wanted to get it for free, so she made the excuse that she was getting veiled so she could get the game for free. Abu­Loghod gives her own opinion about the burqa and its purpose. Abu­Lughod supports her argument with historical facts and research she has found on her own. Haydar speaks to teenagers and tries to appeal to the new generation, whereas Abu­Lughod tries to appeal to high scholars for an educational stance in the argument. Both Abu­Lughod and Haydar defend the culture of the head dress and explain that it is an optional garment that has benefits to women who wear it. In this essay, I will comparing the views of both authors and the views of the feminist groups.

Haydar uses personal anecdotes to demonstrate her view of how an American woman views her head dress and her culture, based on her head dress. Hayday explains how we should redefine how we see the burqa and stop the harassment of people who wear them. Haydar says

On a New York bus a couple weeks ago, i sat with another woman, also veiled, but wearing a traditional Jihab (a cloak that women wear over their clothing). A girl two seats over remarked to her friend, while flipping her hair for effect, that she couldn’t understand how we could dress this way. “Me I got to be free.” (Haydar 260)

Haydar explains that she is free and feels more free that the girl who commented on her dress. Haydar tell the reader that the teenager seems less free because of the way the teenager dresses in tight jeans and lots of make­up. The veil is a sign of modesty and freedom to people who wear it. It gives the women who wear it confidence that they are seen for their mind and not for their body, as like being seen as “20 piece chicken dinner.” The intended audience is the female teenager of America. The teenage audience is more advanced now and may see the view of Haydar in a more clearly minded manner. This relates to the claim that our view on the burqa should be changed because the women who wear it get the free choice of whether they wear it or not. It is a personal choice and is not required by men or religion. Haydar creates an ethical appeal to her audience by giving a personal anecdote, as for only Haydar would know everything she has been through. Haydar’s appeal to ethos is also a good use of pathos, allowing the reader to understand the mind of how covered women feel. Haydar feels her covering is a good way to make a stronger bond with others, including the opposite gender.

 Abu­Lughod appeals to the claim that even with the American support in the eastern countries, women who wear burqas are not wearing “channel suits.” Abu­Lughod tells the reader to beware pity of the comment on burqas and to accept that the burqa is a choice for women saying 

Liberals sometimes confess their surprise that even though Afghanistan has been liberated from the Taliban, women do not seem to be throwing off their burqas…Did we expect that once “free” from the Taliban they would go “back” to belly shirts and blue jeans, or dust off their Chanel suits?  (Abu­Lughod 3)

Abu­Lughod makes the points that the Taliban did not invent the burqa and that it was a local form of dress that was used by Pushtan women. Abu­Lughod wants them to accept the burqa as a women’s choice of modesty and respect. Abu­Lughod’s example makes a strong logos appeal because the reader must understand that the burqa is a choice and has a proper use in the eastern countries.

Burqas are becoming more frequent to see in a free country such as America, we should be more understanding of veiled people’s views on their style of clothing. Instead of opposing the idea of covering up we should ask them why they dress that way and accept their answers, and then take our opinions to ourselves. I have learned about the culture of the Muslim people and how they live their lives under the cover of a veil to protect their modesty and dignity in public. I believe that Haydar and Abu­Lughod both make great points to their side of the argument, however after reviewing Abu­Lughod’s article I noticed she used a quote from an Al Qaeda extremist. Abu­Lughod critically damages her appeal to any American who believes Al Qaeda is a risk to America and must be stopped at all costs. I do not disagree with Abu­Lughod, however to the average American the quote she uses from Osama Bin Laden would make her argument completely invalid. I believe to improve Abu­Lughod’s article she must look at the view of how an American citizen would read this. To improve Haydars document I believe that some facts are necessary to validate her opinions. Personal anecdotes only take a small effect on an author’s ethos. In conclusion, Abu­Lughod and Haydar are personal experts of the burqa, having worn them, and should be recognized for their feminist actions in their culture.

Jackson Barackman

RWS 200

Christoffer Werry

Februray 11, 2015

Veiling Under Judgement

The religious headdress known as a veil, also known as a burqa, has become a highly debated symbol of freedom or oppression. Abu-Lughod (AL) and Maysan Haydar share their opinions from their personal views on the matter. AL shares her opinion in her article The Muslim Woman, pulished in 2003,and Haydar explains her personal view in her article Veiled Intentions, written in 2004. Haydar is a Muslim women with a unique story about her head dress. Abu-Loghod is a member of the perseus book group who gives her own opinion about the burqa and its purpose. Haydar speaks to teenagers and tries to appeal to the new generation, where as AL tries to appeal to high scholars for an educational stance in the argument. Both AL and Haydar defend the culture of the head dress and explain that it is an optional garment that has strong benefits to all women who wear it. In this essay, I will comparing the views of both authors and the views of the feminist groups and the veil wearing groups opinions.

Haydar uses personal anecdotes to demonstrate her view of how an american woman views her head dress and her culture based on her head dress. Hayday explains how we should redefine how we see the burqa and stop the harassment of people who wear them. Haydar says

On a New York bus a couple weeks ago, i sat with another woman, also veiled, but wearing a traditional Jihab (a cloak that women wear over their clothing). A girl two seats over remarked to her friend, while flipping her hair for effect, that she couldn’t understand how we could dress this way. “me i got to be free.”

Haydar explains that she is free and feel more free that the girl who commented on her dress. Haydar tell the reader that the teenager seems less free because of the way the teenager dresses in tight jeans and lots of make-up. The viel is a sign of modesty and freedom to people who wear it. It gives thewomenwho wear it confidence that they are seen for their mind and not for their body, as like being seen as “20 piece chicken dinner.” The intended audience is the femaleteenager of america. The teenage audience is more advanced now and may see the view of Haydar in a more clear minded manner. This relates to the claim that our view on the burqa should be changed because the women who wear it get the free choice of whether they wear it or not. It is a personal choice and is not required by men or religion. AL also appeals to this with her explanation on how the burqa was made by women to protect them from abuse in the country they live in. AL also tells the reader to beware pity of the comment on burqas saying

One can worry about the echoes of this rhetoric in contemporary liberal feminist concerns about women around the world. One need only think of the American organization the Feminist Majority, with their campaign for the women in Afghanistan, or the wider discourse about women's human rights.

AL makes the points that feminist groups do not yet understand the burqa and need to research the meaning of it for themselves. AL wants them toaccept the burqa as a women’s choice of modesty.

Burqas are becoming more frequent to see in a free country such as america, we should be more understanding of the people who wear the headdress’s views on their style of clothing. Instead of opposing the idea of covering up we should ask them why they dress that way and accept their answers, and then take our opinions to ourselves. I have learned about the culture of the Muslim people and how they live their lives under the cover of a veil to protect their modesty and dignity in public. I believe that Haydar and AL both make great points to their side of the argument, however after reviewing AL’s article i noticed she used a quote from an Al Qaeda extremist. AL critically damages her appeal to any american who believes Al Qaeda is a risk to America and must be stopped at all costs. I do not disagree with AL, however to the average American the quote she uses from Osama Bin Laden would make her argument completely invalid. I believe to improve AL’s article she must look at the view of how an American citizen would read this. To improve Haydars document i believe that some facts are necessary to validate her opinions. Personal anecdotes only take a small effect on an authors ethos. In conclusion, AL and Haydar are personal experts of the burqa, having worn them, and should be recognized for their feminist actions in their culture.