Homework for 3/25

In the articles I read, there were 3 main solutions for the problem of online incivility. One solution is for people to learn how to be civil and act in a civil manner. This seems a bit far fetched to me because I don't believe that many people will all of a sudden just realize they are being uncivil and change their ways to act in a civil manner. Another solution that was presented stated that we need better software, or algorithms, that can catch the uncivil trolling comments or whatever it is and keep it hidden away from normal viewers. This problem seems unlikely to work due to the amount of people out there who would learn how to work around the system not to mention the fact that people would argue that it goes against our first amendment rights. The third solution i read was for online companies to create better algorithms that would stop personal attacks from hate groups like what went on in the #gamergate situation. This seems like a promising situation because if an algorithm can see that something is happening in mass, it will be easy to recognize and shut down. It would be a lot easier than noticing if 1, 2, or a few people would post something because they could easily find ways to work around bans. however if hundreds or even thousands of people were to do it, it would be quite easy to spot and catch. An idea that ive been toying around with in my head would be to have certain levels in the internet. Some cites could be blue for kid friendly then green for civil, yellow for moderately civil, and red for entirely unmonitored and could be civil or uncivil. see the green and blue coded sites would be strictly monitored for people who dont want to see anything that could be uncivil. The yellow sites would be less strictly monitored so you could find stuff that ranges from civil to mildly uncivil. the red sites would be completely unmonitored so everything found there is completely uncensored so you dont know if you will be getting civil, uncivil, or something in between.

Homework for monday 3/23

What are some of the main differences in the way these texts define The Problem?

1. In the first text Andrew Stafford, a reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald, says that the problem with cyber bullying is that cyber bullies endeavor to poison and ruin online debates and they encounter little to no resistance and always win. Cyber bullies revel in anonymity, according to Stafford, and they will censor themselves much more if they will be recognized.
2. The second text, written by Jason Wilson, counters Staffords article, says that cyber bullying is just another form of argument or “conflict” which is a pillar of democracy. He believes that the problem is anonymity which can cause people to lose inhibitions.
3. In the third article, author Julie Zhuo determines that the problem is internet trollers who are cloaked in anonymity because they are not held accountable for any of their libelous statements.
4. Dana Boyd said in her article that the problem is the attempted limitation of pseudonyms and internet handles. Anonymity is a massive boon to many people and it would be damaging in many ways to these people to be saying the things they do under their own names.
5. In article #5, Cornell Clayton said that the problem in our online society is the lack of civility. atrocious things are being said with little thought of the acceptability of their statement. Most people wouldnt do something completely uncivilized in person but on the internet, most people will go much farther than they normally would. Civility is the foundation of a Civilized culture and it seems that it is slowly slipping away from people typing on a keyboard.
6. Tim Adams, author of the 6th article, said that deindividuation is the problem with the internet. Deindividuation is the state you are in once you are anonymous and feel as if social norms don't apply to you anymore.

What are some of the main differences in their claims about what causes the problem?

In the first and fifth articles, the authors say that the people are the problem because they can do whatever they want with no repercussions and they have lost their sense of civility whilst online. In the second, third, fourth, and sixth articles, the authors believe that the problem is is caused by the anonymity that the internet provides. People can hide behind a pseudonym or a handle and do whatever they want.

What are some of the main differences in their claims about what should be done to solve the problem?

The first, third, and sixth articles say that the solution to the problem is to take away anonymity on the internet. This would lead to much more polite discussions because people would be accountable for their own actions. However Jason Wilson says that the solution to the problem is to stop trying to get people to censor their voices. He says that this is a new frontier of democracy in which people can speak freely without fear of harm. In the fourth text, roberts says that anonymity is vital to many people on the internet and should be kept no matter what. The fifth text, by Clayton, says that we really need to just evaluate our words before we type them. Instead of the old saying think before you speak, he is basically saying think before you write online.

Essay 2

Demagoguery is a particular type of argument that is very popular in the United States. Demagoguery is an underhanded way of garnering support for a specific cause such as an election and it relies heavily on in-group and out-group differences, polarization, scapegoating, and leading questions. Author Patricia Roberts Miller describes demagoguery and the different rules of discourse which are needed in order to have a successful argument in her article “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”. Miller explains that demagoguery is “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some outgroup, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called ‘an escape from freedom’”(Miller 462). Wayne La’Pierre is the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association and he gave this speech which outlines some steps he believes should be taken in order to protect the children of America. In this essay I will analyze La’Pierre’s argument and his demagogic discourse in order to determine the effectiveness of his speech. I will do this with help from Roberts-Miller’s article.  

La Pierre’s speech takes place in the wake of the Sandy Hook School Shooting where a young man, Adam Lanza, shot 20 children and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. When Lanza was confronted by police, he committed suicide. This is one of the greatest tragedies to happen to this country in years. La’Pierre is speaking towards people who are filled with fear at the abhorrent actions of Adam Lanza and he is trying to dissuade people from the idea that stricter gun control is the answer. La’Pierre’s main claim in his speech is that Americans must protect their children at their schools with armed guards. “I call on congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school”(La’Pierre, 3).  He says that Americans protect the most important things in their lives such as their money and their president with armed men and women so why not the future of America, the children.  Another claim that La’Pierre makes is that “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people” (2). La’Pierre is referring to the entertainment industry. The industry that creates such things as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty or “ blood soaked slasher films like ‘American Psycho’ and ‘Natural Born Killers’” (La’Pierre, 2). La’Pierre states that these massive “media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes” (2) and all these deaths and acts of violence that people witness must have some psychological effect. La’Pierre has decided that the best defense is a strong offense. We need to post well trained, armed guards at all schools because, as La’Pierre states, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (2).

            In her article, Patricia Roberts-Miller describes many of the fallacies that demagogues often commit. After reading her article, it is obvious that La’Pierre has committed some of these fallacies, leading to a flawed speech. Polarization is where someone presents two different options to a problem. One option is the option that the speaker or writer wants you to choose while the other option is obviously a much worse solution or is seriously flawed in some way. An example of polarization in La’Pierre’s speech occurs when he asks “Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away . . . or a minute away” (2). Obviously any person in their right mind would rather have a well-trained good guy with a gun come as soon as possible however the idea is not nearly as simple as La’Pierre makes it sound. He presents his listeners with a way oversimplified, easy solution of guns, and an obviously worse solution of no guns. Another type of demagogic fallacy, according to Roberts Miller, is scapegoating which La’Pierre uses multiple times. Remember the “callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry” (2) that La’Pierre mentions? Well he is making the entertainment industry a scapegoat. A scapegoat is someone who “bears the blame” (Roberts-Miller, 464) and La’Pierre is implying that the entertainment industry is the culprit behind the corruption of people such as Adam Lanza. Another example scapegoating in La’Pierres speech is when he said that the political class and the press in Washington were so afraid of and angry at the NRA that they wouldn’t allow any real resistance to monsters such as Adam Lanza. La’Pierre blames politicians and press for these atrocious actions because they might have been prevented if the NRA’s advice was heeded after the Virginia Tech massacre when they advocated for armed security in schools. La’Pierre gives a very convincing speech that is impossible to refute because nobody in their right minds can say that they would rather not protect America’s children.

            Through analyzing both La’Pierre’s and Roberts-Miller’s text I learned a lot about demagoguery, and more specifically, I learned about scapegoating, polarization, and the other types of fallacies used by demagogues. La’Pierre’s makes an initially convincing argument but when his speech is analyzed with help from Roberts-Miller’s article, we see that it is actually heavily flawed. After analyzing La’Pierres speech, I feel confident that I can now recognize and evaluate the different types of demagogic discourse.

Intro

The Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, addressed the media following the Sandy Hook Massacre and gave his opinion on what needs to be done now in order to keep this unspeakable crime from being repeated. Author Patricia Roberts Miller Explains the different rules of discourse which are needed in order to have a successful argument. Miller explains that demagoguery is “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called ‘an escape from freedom’”(Miller 462). In this essay I will use Millers text to help me analyze LaPierre’s speech. La Pierre’s speech takes place in the wake of the Sandy Hook School Shooting. The Sandy Hook shooting is where a young man, Adam Lanza, shot 20 children and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. When he was confronted by police, he committed suicide and this is one of the greatest tragedies to happen to this country in years. LaPierre is speaking towards those people who are calling for greater restrictions on gun ownership. LaPierres main claim in his speech is that Americans must oprotect their children at their schools with armed guards. He says that we protect the most important things in our lives with armed men and women so why not the future of America, the children. Another claim that LaPierre has is that the blame for acts of violence such as these should be placed partially on the media. Americans witness such atrocious acts of crime in movies, shows and games ranging from minor crimes to major crimes such as rape and murder. Obviously this must have some psychological impact on some people.

11. One of La pierres claims is that American children are unprotected from gun violence at school and other childrens areas. . Another claim he has is that although guns have an almost taboo quality nowadays, they are not bad. We love for soldiers, government and police to have guns, so why not lawful citizens. Another claim he makes is that it would be easy to accomkplish the goal of having armed guards protecting children because there are millions of retired police or soldiers who would gladly stand up and help.

22.  One of the major strategies pierre uses to connect with are his appeals to pathos. Of course we all want to protect our children.

33.  Pierre is writing in response to the sandy hook massacre at a time when many people were either very pro guns or very against guns and his writing could appeal to the fear many people felt at the thought of losing their families.

44. He doesn’t use many statistics whioch would really help out his cause. He also over simplifies things greatly.