Word Wars Rhetorical Analysis

788 Words4 Pages
Rhetorical Analysis of Word Wars A strategic narrative is a story that a nation must tell itself, and the world, to wage a war or to maintain a competitive advantage in the international system (Free Speech). The mass impact of technology has captivated this idea and has used it to express the freedom of speech in ways that has never been done before, but also "[pushes] these limits past common decency" (Wickman 27). Two authors debate with this international problem in different styles, but share some of the same concepts and common fallacies on this issue. Lindsay Wickman writes about the formal and informal use of how technology over the years has shaped our government and our overall system of actions to how we adapt to it. Susan Benesch writes about the…show more content…
She writes that, "a policymaking tool is needed to draw the line between speech that should be sanctioned and speech that must be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression, no matter how ugly it may be" (Benesch 250). This exemplifies two types of common fallacies. The first is the SLIPPERY SLOPE fallacy because it almost states that one change will lead to another, and it can be a negative or positive result. The second fallacy is CONFIRMATION BIAS because it confirms her own standpoint and belief, opposed to contrary evidence. She states that the government has even tried to place censorships on technology and the media which has not worked. It actually causes more outbreaks and violence. Another example of fallacy she uses is FALLACY OF EXCLUSION. This is because she is referring to one group 's behavior and assuming that behavior is specific to that one group when it is yet common to many groups. She writes, "Diverse communities will never agree on which speech is inherently offensive" (Benesch 250) Though she says diverse groups, it can quite well mean she is trying to make her own opinion for a group of

More about Word Wars Rhetorical Analysis

Open Document