One Nation Slightly Divisible David Brooks Analysis

” This is an effective device because it makes the reader pay more attention to the opponent’s personal affiliations rather than their argument by not allowing the audience to assess the opponent’s argument for its validity, but it also discredits her claim. By using this device Gail Collins is drawing attention to President Trump’s and Roy Moore’s rather unpleasant and repulsive behavior to deceive the reader and make them believe that

In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech.

She believes the growing political correctness in our country and government censorship solves nothing and actually causes more problems than it solves (660). She claims that such actions “selectively [erase] history” (660). Reynolds claims that political correctness and censorship are actually hurting efforts to overcome racism and other acceptance issues. She states not being able to freely discuss issues such as “race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation” is harming the efforts for understanding and acceptance because individuals are not discussing them at all and therefore it hinders them from gaining new perspectives (660). She finishes her argument by stating that the bill will smother our freedom and ability to have productive conversations about Native American history in our culture (660).

Authors always have a message they wish to instill upon readers. That is, of course, the purpose of writing: to eloquently devise a message that can be easily interpreted by the public so that they can develop a better understanding of something that an author represents. The success of an author, then, in creating a powerful message, manifests itself in whether or not those who read the message decide to take action on the issue presented by the author. The success of Brent Staples in “Black Men and Public Space,” and Andrew Sullivan in “What is a Homosexual?” in conveying their messages come from the ways that the authors utilize various rhetorical devices and tone, elements which help to solidify the purpose of their essays.

Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article. David Bok’s reasoning for how racist speech can be solved is flawed.

Martin Luther King Jr., an African-American activist, once said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” In the Jim Crow South in the 1930s, the setting of the film The Great Debaters, directed by Denzel Washington in 2007, King’s words were particularly relevant. James Farmer Jr., the main character of the film, argues King’s point in the final debate about civil disobedience between Harvard and Wiley College. Although the Wiley debaters rely effectively on the strategy of ethos, the keys to their victory are the strategies pathos and logos.

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

He does so specifically with examples that resonate with the audience. For instance, as he attempts to persuade listeners to consider revolting against the government, he uses a real-life example: All men recognize... the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution Of '75... when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole

The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

For example, the critics of the environmental movement claim the environmentalists are a threat to personal freedom and if they are put in a position of power, “property rights go down the tube.” Similarly, the environmentalists obliquely associate the critics with the Nazi regime by saying “unrestrained capitalism with land development uber alles.” These attacks are incredibly vicious, but they lack credibility. Neither group makes an argument that is supported by statistics and logical reasoning. Rather, Wilson uses effective propaganda techniques and crafts brash and accusatory statements to show how each group attempts to vilify the other and how it is ultimately

“Virtuous Arguments” Reading Response Through John Duffy’s written works, he stated that Rush Limbaugh’s sexist comments were insults towards the Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke. John Duffy describes in a well-written manner how critical it is to have knowledge in having an opinion towards a certain topic and commenting about it in a structured format. John Duffy states that rhetoric has taken a turn into a negative path to where people do not care about what they say anymore to the public. John Duffy suggested that Rush Limbaugh was being sexist towards Sandra Fluke on public radio. We should be respectful of other people’s beliefs and or values, because if we have dissimilar opinions we need to be cautious in verbalizing those thoughts so that we do not offend others.

In her article, “Censorship 101,” West crafts her text through numerous court case experience and skill in rhetorical devices as her background expertise is used to her advantage. Sonja West begins her argument with the use of exemplification in a previous court case. The scene is set in 1962, and West garments the introduction with excessive details and biased language as readers quickly root for the victory of the Tinker case and share the celebratory state of their

Humanity needs to change before all information is censored. In “College at Risk,” Andrew Delbanco discusses liberal learning and the “whole person” that may not be developed in college due to a lack of income. Liberal learning develops the “whole person” by teaching the basic ethics and morals a person should have. Anne Applebaum presents examples of censorship in her essay, “The Decline of American Press Freedom.” She uses China and Yale to make the point that differing forms of censorship are doing more harm than good.

David Foster Wallace uses a combination of rhetorical literary devices and modes of persuasion to convince his audience, Kenyon College’s graduating class, that in their adult life it is not only important, but necessary to look past themselves and view the world without themselves at the center. If they do not do so, it will cause them daily misery and pain when having to interact with people when they are tired or bored. Wallace is able to persuade his audience by first gaining credibility with them, so they are more willing to listen to what he has to say. Then, he uses logical reasons as to why they should not put themselves above others in their lives, and solidifies the lesson through emotional appeals that most of the class can relate to and use to grow from. Throughout his speech he uses a variety of rhetorical tools to persuade the audience further, such as his use of anaphora, and syntax in the way he presents his ideas.

looks at how it ultimately affects society and targeted groups. There are a myriad of arguments for and against the allowance of hate speech. Some citing Democracy and the first amendment others stem from the fear of eroded freedoms of expression and have valid points, but ultimately, it corrodes society’s human rights and freedoms. The two fold issue being intolerance of the freedom of self-determination and the fact that some are born a color or culture and have no choice. Therefore, hate speech is anti-social and damaging to society as a whole.