Synthesis Prompt

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

6 April 2015

Synthesis Prompt

            Millions of people are hooked onto social media because it has become a big part of their lives. So it becomes apparent that everyone as seen comments on the bottom of a YouTube page done by online “trolls.” These people infect online forums with vulgar words and hate speech, which deteriorates “online civility.” The inability to produce a productive conservation in society is what hinders it from becoming a well-rounded environment.  The hefty questions regarding trolling, harassment, and online bullying have raised people’s attention in how to conduct appropriate civil discourse. In Jason Wilson’s 2012 online article “ Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet,” he argues how the negative aspects of incivility and anonymity are started by “astroturfers” who contaminate public discourse by utilizing coercion to manipulate the public. But he quickly evokes his audience in realizing that they should recognize how “conflict is a fundamental part of democracy” and understand how as long as there is communication conflict will continue to persist. So there is the question: should anonymity be banned, restricted, or made available to ensure that “proper” online civility is kept? In this paper I will go in three specific texts that defend their own biases and opinions on the topic of anonymity and civility. Then I will carefully analyze each text to their own degree and point out the similarities and differences between each text as well as their main points. After that I will conclude with a conclusion that in essence, will state which argument is most persuasive to me.

            First, I will began with a writer who is against anonymity and thinks it should be banned. In Julie Zhuo’s 2010 New York Times article, “Where Anonymity breeds Contempt,” she argues how once people are given anonymity their actions alter since they are no longer distinguishable. Throughout her article she refers to many accountable authorities to ensure that her readers believe her side of the debate. By alluding to Plato’s “ring of Gyges” Zhuo is illustrating how many people feel “invisible” when they are no longer being accountable for their actions. The ability to conceal their identity leads to unregularly behavior and the loss of morals. If people began to lose their morals she believes it will lead to unjustly behavior onto society. An example of how anonymity is used to its most ruthless way is when “trolls descended on her online tribute page to post picture of nooses…” reveals how many teenagers took the opening to act unmorally since they knew no one knew they were posting things. The inability to understand the severity of their careless actions cuases these “tolls” continues to hunt and prey on vulnerable Internet websites to inject their unethical behavior. Zhuo uses the jargon of “online disinhibition effect” to reveal how people, no matter how good of a person they are, act in sure dishonorable ways due to the sense of being concealed and unnoticed. The specific jargon of how people behave leads to how “50 states now have stalking, bullying, or harassment laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication.” The states action to cut down this abuse highlights one of Zhuo’s rebuttals of how to stop anonymity with a real name policy but she quickly acknowledges how “names and e-mail addresses can be faked.”  This acknowledgment to her opposing side increases her reputation with her audience and makes them realize she knows the other side to the debate. By boosting her ethos she swiftly moves and describes her three points of solutions to stop trolls from behaving unethically on web forums. By “, raising barriers to posting bad comments,” and “letting trollish ones sink into oblivion” points out her two prime solutions to eliminating the uncalled for behavior of anonymous trolls. She also believes by applying more social pressure onto these self-proclaimed trolls they will cease to exist because their friends would see what they would be posting. The knowing of their friends seeing what type of unethical behavior they possess makes trolls halt and think twice before commenting on a post, which provides a better environment for public civility. The ability to expose one self on social media is safe guarded with the slow process of weeding out trolls by eliminating anonymity according to Zhuo.

            In contrast, in his 2012 Sydney Morning Herald article, “Who are these haters that poison the well of our discourse?” Andrew Stafford argues how anonymity should not be banned but heavily restricted. He begins off his article by describing how a small publication, called the Tribune, turned off their comments to disable people from posting any type of remarks on their page. He reveals how many people do not seem to care about the comment section on the “bottom half of the internet” because now a days many people are so caught up their worlds they stay on a web page for about 20 seconds to read or gather the information they need. He sees this as a shift in cultural values because the comment section was the birthplace for blogging but now since the cultural landscape has been altered he frowns upon how anonymity can have a negative effect on “entire social groups.” He discusses how this form of harassment and bullying excludes “female writers” who are one of the “brightest voices” in the public. The huge sociological effect of excluding a gender from public discourse evokes Stafford to put a halt to such vulgar and biased thinking done by trolls and make them realize that their actions are stunting the growth of society because without both genders working together the public discourse, that is so treasured today, can not be kept intact. The presumed effect on society evokes his audience to side with him and enable restrictions on anonymity to ensure that one gender is not left out of society.  The way public civility can be ensured to benefit the people is by “genuine transparency of identity,… tougher line on personal abuse and a greater weighting towards comments that actually expand discussion” as proposed by Stafford. He believes that by doing this; anonymity would not be sure of a problem but rather a way to have personal information at hand, if requested, and a better way of actually having comments that focus on the topic that encourages a more civil discussion. His proposed solutions contrast Zhuo’s main argument of how anonymity should be banned all together because she believed that it encouraged people to act uncivilly as well as unethically. They also contrast in that Zhuo uses more examples of real life people and incidents to make her argument more believable and persuasive as compared to Stafford. However, they both agree upon the idea of how anonymity does contribute to the different behaviors of people due to the fact that people feel that they are invisible and cannot be identified.

            However, in contrast in his 2011 Zephoria online article, “ Real Names Policies Are an Abuse of Power,” Boyd argues that anonymity should be protected and made available anywhere it could be made available. He starts off this article discusses the highly debated “nymwars” done by Google Plus to “enforce its real names policy.” The company eliminated accounts that resisted cooperating with the new rule. This new rule created such a spark about “pseudonymity” and why it should be allowed. Boyd believes that “pseudonymity” is a must in society because some people need them due to their jobs or abused pasts. He uses quotes from average people to highlight the necessity of ensuring a form of concealment to protect themselves from people who try to harm them. His main point is intertwined with this example because he states how “real names policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people.” This quote reveals his true feelings about this “failed” attempt of trying to block anonymity because he is quick to point out the flaws of these major companies by stating how they do not actual care about the safety of their users but rather for their personal gains. He tries to insert himself as a defender for the people who support anonymity by advocating for it especially, if they use a “psuedonymity” to ensure their safety. He views safety as the number one component for the reason of anonymity because some individuals use anonymity as a tool to protect themselves from trolls or uncivil people. The aid to public civility is through the use of anonymity, as proposed by Boyd, by allowing people to hide and separate themselves from dangerous people. The way Boyd argues his main points and argument is most different from anyone else because he used tons of sarcasm and humor to convey his anger and dislike toward these “real name” policies. His hatred is exemplified through his use of capitalized words which makes his audience realize the passion he has for this topic which makes him more likely to gather more followers.

            The topic of online bullying and trolls is very controversial because there are two sides: anonymity or no anonymity. After reading various texts I sided with Zhuo and her argument of how anonymity should be banned because of the way she famed and organized her article. Her article flowed from each point to the next allowing each point have its fair amount of information and time. The use of real life incidents such like “ Alexis Pilkington” reveals the harsh and degrading abuse people receive from online trolls who have passed. But also people who do not own up to what they say are bashing people who are living and degrading them and sometimes even dehumanizing them. The ability to utilize pathos effectively evokes her audience to realize the brutality of these inconsiderate trolls and most likely side with her because she is able to side with her audiences’ emotions more effectively. So by utilizing real life examples and pathos Zhuo is more likely persuasive to her audience. So this is why I am more persuaded due to her ability to use these most effectively as compared to Boyd who uses too much sarcasm which only pertains to people who like that type of humor and Stafford who is more conservative and discredits him a lot.

Reading Responses on Various Texts

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

25 Monday 2015

Reading Responses to Various Texts

            Throughout these various texts the main topic among them is how “public civility” is no longer present in online forums or on comments on various blogs posts. The reason for that is because some websites do not monitor their comments or do not try anything to stop the harassment or “uncivil” acts people commit on these websites. In this reading response I will go into how four articles define the problem, state the causes of the problem, and finally possible solutions for fixing the problem.

            First, I would like to talk about the Atlantic article that is called “, Is There Anything to Do About Civility,” by James Fallows. In his article he defines the problem as how violence never persuades another person to see the world how another person sees the world and in fact it does the opposite; it makes the other person stay stagnant in their ways and not pay attention to what the aggressor is saying. He also states how an actual conversation can only happen through dialog, civility, and mutuality. He maps out how he lives his life by his “three rules of civility” which he tries to enforce onto his audience to encourage them to live by them to enable “actual conversations.” The problem in this article is how many people try to end arguments by trying to be too negative and using hate speech which destroys the overall attempt to try and create a public communication ground. The solution to this problem to Fallow is that by simply following the 9 points he maps out for his readers enables them to try and change their actions.

            In Lomas “#Gamergate Shows Tech needs far better Algorithms,” she states how big corporations like “Google” and “Twitter” have allowed unwanted and harsh comments that have led to the ruin of comment section. This failure to monitor this allows gamers to surf the web and disregard females in ways that are indescribable as well as leaving unprecedented comments. Also by the actions of Eric Schmidt  as he “shrugged off finding a solution” to algorithms reveals how big industries such as Google rely on controversial material to provide “clicks” that provide their website to get as many views as they need. They rely on material like this to enable more people to converse about such topics. She states how the problem can be fixed by making algorithms less “dumb” and more properly said to evade all this hate speech.

            In Pinto’s article he reveals how “Gamergate” is such a bad thing that needs to be seriously attended to. He states how gamers feel how their movement is trying to higher the ethics of journalism but in reality they are using hate, vulgar, and crude ways to get their point across. He reveals actual women who have been harassed by gamergate and how their actions reveal the cruelty and severity of the comments. But the actual problem is not with the gamers but more with the state for allowing and enabling them to continue to commit these harsh acts. As he states “ States also have their share of responsibility,” because they are the ones who have the ability to stop this criminal activity because they are proposing horrific things. The solution to this problem is that if states accept more blame and try to band these acts but in the end there is “nothing that the victims can do.”

            From Thompson’s excerpt from his book he states how “anonymity” is a bad thing for public speech because it enables the most civil people to say things that they would of not said if their name was attached to the post or to their words. He also illustrates how the Internet enabled us to have a “new stage” on doing this hate speech. He inserts an example of an Atlantic article made by this man named Ta-Nahesi Coates who monitors his comments and removes the vulgar and disrespectful ones to create a peaceful and intellectual speaking ground. By doing that people come to the senses that kind of speech is not wanted inside their speaking ground and actually creates a better environment for commenters who are actually trying to communicate with the writer. Thompson’s solution is that if every company or person can remove hate speech from their websites it will create a better way for public civility and allow real discussions to take place inside society.        

Revised RWS 200 Paper

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

4 March 2015

LaPierre Analysis using Miller’s Piece as a Lens

            The ability to unite people under the sense of “certainty” has been displayed throughout history. The term we use today to describe how groups of people are influenced by a single condescending authoritarian to polarize towards another group of people is called demagoguery. The issue of demagoguery is discussed in Patricia Robert Miller’s 2005 article, “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.  In her piece she refers to famous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler to reveal how they try to create an in and out group and provide one single solution to the in groups problem. She also states the fallacies they have on their arguments that the common people do not seem to catch onto due to the fact that during those time periods the sense of an answer was being worth listened to. The topic of demagoguery is highlighted in the NRA’S Wayne LaPierre’s 2012 speech concerning the Newtown Tragedy. In his speech he defends the NRA against the angered and dismal parents who are pushing for an increase in gun control. Throughout his speech he provides claims but none as important as these three: that the media encourages killers to plot and scheme, that by putting a “gun-free zone” sign this enables killers to have a vulnerable target, and finally his main claim is that gun enforcement should be instituted in schools, handled by certified people. Through the use of ethos and pathos he tries to persuade his audience to open their minds to how useful guns can really be.

            In LaPierre’s speech, he directs the negative emotions from angered and outraged parents of the victims of Newtown to try to make them realize how guns can prevent future incidents. He starts off his speech on conceding and acknowledging the difficult time the parents are experiencing and begins to build his claims of how his organization can help join the cause of defending against future gun incidents by using their own policy. His attack on the ethics of the victim’s parents of how they are going to “ protect [their] children right now” reveals how he tries tries to make them realize how their anger towards guns is misleading. With the use of Roberts Miller’s piece we will use her text as a lens on analyzing the strengths and weakness of Lapierre’s piece y using the definition of Millers’ “good public discourse” but also on how he builds his argument through ethos and pathos.

            In Lapierre’s speech he gains form of a demagogue by the use of several aspects of demagoguery. His prime use of polarization enables him to reinforce his central claim of how guns should be allowed into schools. In Roberts Miller’s eyes she defines polarization by “presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one.” She believes that through the use of polarization it “contributes to stereotyping and racism.” She states this because the use of polarization creates a divide between the in group and the out group and that line creates prejudice and hatred toward one another. Even though she disagrees with this assessment, LaPierre uses this form of demagoguery to argue how armed professionals at a school are the solution to the problem. He states in his speech how

 “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun… bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away… or a minute away.” His proposed ideology fits Miller’s definition because LaPierre proclaims how ethically just and right it truly is and because all parents want their children to be safe. His counter argument to his audience of how dangerously things can be on how far a “good person” is away from an incident emphasizes the “impractical” side. But through his eyes he believes that there are only two choices. He attacks his audiences ethics because his organization is facing heavy criticism and realizes how he can only make the use of guns morally right for the sake of the children safety. He continues to ensure that his audience is with him by questioning them, and making them realize that his solution is the only real way for progress. When he states, “if we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible… properly trained- armed- and good guys.” This statement attacks his audience’s priorities and realigns their viewpoints on what truly is most important.  The prior quote reaffirms Millers definition because even though LaPierre isn’t trying to make another solution, but rather he was still trying to establish how his audiences importance of protection for materialistic things is such at a high standard; that those same standards should be applied to their children who they care for a whole lot more. The ability to readjust their viewpoint is essential in rallying support for his solution. His proclaimed mater plan of installing a “ National School Shield Emergency Response Program,” illustrates what he wants to do for his audience but also provides this one; and only, solution to these incidents. The ability to show his audience a plan to prevent mass shootings may have gained popular support due to the recent shooting and enabled him to unhook himself from being the poster boy of guns but rather a solution maker. The program statement helped him gain credibility from his audience but he did that by attacking their own throughout the process. By attacking his audience’s morals and ethics, he allowed himself to install the only solution to the problem; however in the process he creates an in group and out group which creates a major divide between his audience. The line creates a form of racism which a problem that Miller warned against.

            Another form of demagoguery LaPierre utilizes is ingroup/outgroup as well as demonization. He is able to use ingroup/outgroup thinking by previously using polarization and from there he is able to separate his audience from who’s with him and who’s against him. This is critical because his sppech will gear itself toward the emotions of the ingroup to rally and support his cause (solution). According to Miller she define outgroup/ingroup thinking and demonization as a “common way for people to view the world: 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.” She is trying to reveal how demagogues try to make their audiences see the world around them how they interpret the world. She believes this is problematic because this enables people to see a population as a “subhuman” and create a “high and low ground.” This dehumanization will create affect society in a negative way, which is speculated by Miler. In LaPierre’s speech he centrally creates an in-group by stating, “ Those who exploit the tragedy for political gain, directing anger and noise at NRA while doing nothing to solve the problem vs. the NRA… committed to real solutions.” This assertion quickly reveals how the people inside the NRA are the in-group trying to reach out to the victims parents who are the out-group.  He is slowly carving out his members and deciphering whom else he can possibly recruit and agree to his claims. The ability to create one type of thinking creates a uniform, universal pedigree, and association that brings together his in-group even tighter. His beginnings of demonizing people who commit these atrocities starts off in line eight by calling them “monsters, predators, and the mentally ill.” The demonizing creates an inferior group, who are the people who commit mass shootings but also people who seem not to believe in the prime solution. The ingroup consist of the NRA and believers of the prime plan. The use of these dehumanizing words can help the in group associate this jargon towards the people against them and unite these toward the cause. Another way he uses demonization is by installing fearful pathos by saying “They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school.” The use of this intimidating and terrifying emotional language creates a higher ground (in group) and puts these people at the bottom of the pyramid (out group) and makes the audience leave the speech being suspicious and fearful from strangers that are around them. The frightened emotion that his audience most likely would have felt makes them side with the in group because they do not want to be considered belonging with the demonizing group. The unwanted switch of his audience accomplished his goal of trying to make them see the world but also the people around themselves as how he does. This is problematic to Miller because this huge divide now creates a further strain on society as a whole but also subjugates people and dehumanizes them as well.

            Despite LaPierre’s attempt to lure his audience into seeing the world the way he sees it, there was a false dilemma inside his speech. The fallacy he deployed in his speech is defined as a false dilemma because he only presented two choices to his audience. He realized if he could show his side as a brilliant and credible option he most likely would have been supported. But as we look more depth into his quote, “ bad guy with a gun… or a good guy with a gun,” we begin to exploit the weakness of his argument. The quote exemplifies how LaPierre is unwilling to ascertain any other outside arguments and believes that these are the only two valid and assured options to propose to society; but in reality it is not. He also does not allow any room “in between” both sides which makes his audience chose one side or the other, which most likely led to hatred between the two sides. But LaPierre does not realize that his argument is flawed because he simply does not have examples to back up this claim. Matter in fact a “good guy” can easily snap at any moment and kill innocent children just like a “bad guy” with a gun. The inability to take in account another viewpoint undermines a reasoned debate, which is encouraged by Miller. LaPierre violates her belief and he disregarded her first rule. She states in her first rule that by trying to “discredits the interlocutor- are fallacious because they try to prevent the disagreement from happening at all, thereby preluding its being resolved.” Her quote illuminates how LaPierre tries to provide his only two choices with the resolution of the “Shield Program,” to prevent any further disagreement or anger. Despite his efforts his attempt is flawed and was most likely not accepted by most of his audience because other parents may of not wanted their children around guns because a trained and certified individual can still commit the same type of crime due to the fact that everyone is human. His audience probably did not easily notice his fallacy but once they truly see what he is trying to do they begin to make counterarguments toward his cause.

            The incident of Newtown was a global phenomenon that required a closer look to analyze the exact way LaPierre tried to ensure that the NRA was not responsible for the horrible occurrence. The ability to decipher exactly how LaPierre tried to figure out a way to reveal his claims and arguments through is speech was fascinating because I was able to see the fallacies that he used. But most importantly, I saw exactly how a speaker tries to appeal to his audiences ethics and emotions and as well as LaPierre trying to hide his non supported claims with fallacies by appealing to these rhetorical devices.

                     

                      

                

Assigmnet #2 Rough Draft

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

4 March 2015

LaPierre Analysis using Miller’s Piece as a Lens

            The ability to unite people under the sense of “certainty” has been displayed throughout history. The term we use today to describe how groups of people are influenced by a single condescending authoritarian to polarize towards another group of people is called demagoguery. The issue of demagoguery is discussed in Patricia Robert Miller’s 2005 article, “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.  In her piece she refers to famous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler to reveal how they try to create an in and out group and provide one single solution to the in groups problem. She also states the fallacies they have on their arguments that the common people do not seem to catch onto due to the fact that during those time periods the sense of an answer was being worth listened to. The topic of demagoguery is highlighted in the NRA’S Wayne LaPierre’s 2012 speech concerning the Newtown Tragedy. In his speech he defends the NRA against the angered and dismal parents who are pushing for an increase in gun control. Throughout his speech he provides claims but none as important as these three: that the media is encourages killers to plot and scheme, that by putting a “gun free zone” sign this enables killers to have a target, and finally his main claim is that guns should be instituted in schools and handled by certified people. Through the use of ethos and pathos he tries to persuade his audience in trying to open their minds to how useful guns can really be.

            In LaPierre’s speech, he directs the negative emotions from angered and outraged parents of the victims of Newtown to try to make them realize how guns can prevent future incidents. He starts off his speech on conceding and acknowledging the difficult time the parents are experiencing and begins to build his claims of how his organization can help join the cause of defending against future gun incidents by using their own policy. His attack on the ethics of the victims parents her tries to make them realize how their anger towards guns is misleading. With the use of Robert Miller’s piece we will use her text as a lens on analyzing the strengths and weakness of Lapierre’s piece y using the definition of Millers’ “good public discourse” but also on how he builds his argument through ethos and pathos.

            In Lapierre’s speech he gains form of a demagogue by the use of several aspects of demagoguery. His prime use of polarization enables him to reinforce his central claim of how guns should be allowed into schools. In Robert Miller’s eyes she define polarization by “presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one.” She believes that through the use of polarization it “contributes to stereotyping and racism.” She states this because the use of polarization creates a divide between the in group and out group and that line creates prejudice and hatred toward one another. Even though she disagrees with this assessment LaPierre uses this form of demagoguery to argue how armed professionals at a school are the solution to the problem. He states in his speech how “ the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun… bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away… or a minute away.” His proposed ideology fits Miller’s definition because LaPierre proclaims how ethically just and right it truly is and because all parents want their children to be safe. His counter argument to his audience of how dangerously things can be on how far a “good person” is away from an incident emphasizes the “impractical” side. But through his eyes he believes that there are only two choices and that is why he presents them to his audience. He attacks his audiences ethics because his organization is facing heavy criticism and realizes how he can only make the use of guns morally right for the sake of the children safety. He continues to ensure that his audience his with him by questioning his audience and making them realize that his solution is the only real way for progress. When he states, “if we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible… properly trained- armed- and good guy.” This statement attacks his audience’s priorities and realigns their viewpoints on what truly is most important.  The prior quote reaffirms Millers definition because even though LaPierre isn’t trying to make another solution, but rather he was still trying to establish how his audiences importance of protection for materialistic things is such at a high standard; that those same standards should be applied to their children who they care for a whole lot more. The ability to readjust their viewpoint is essential in rallying support for his solution. His proclaimed mater plan of installing a “ National School Shield Emergency Response Program,” illustrates what he wants to do for his audience but also provides this one; and only, solution to these incidents. The ability to show his audience a plan to prevent mass shootings may of gained popular support due to the recent shooting and enabled him to unhook himself from being the poster boy of guns but rather a solution maker. The program statement helped him gain credibility from his audience but he did that by attacking their own throughout the process. By attacking his audiences morals and ethics he allowed himself to install the only solution to the problem but also created an in group and out group which creates a major divide between his audience. The line creates a form of racism which a problem that Miller warned against.

            Another form of demagoguery LaPierre utilizes is ingroup/outgroup as well as demonization. He is able to use ingroup/outgroup thinking by previously using polarization and from there he is able to separate his audience from who’s with him and who’s against him. This is critical because his sppech will gear itself toward the emotions of the ingroup to rally and support his cause (solution). According to Miller she define outgroup/ingroup thinking and demonization as a “common way for people to view the world: 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.” She is trying to reveal how demagogues try to make their audiences see the world around them how they interpret the world. She believes this is problematic because this enables people to see a population as a “subhuman” and create a “high and low ground.” This dehumanization will create affect society in a negative way, which is speculated by Miler. In LaPierre’s speech he centrally creates an in-group by stating, “ Those who exploit the tragedy for political gain, directing anger and noise at NRA while doing nothing to solve the problem vs. the NRA… committed to real solutions.” This assertion quickly reveals how the people inside the NRA are the in-group trying to reach out to the victims parents who are the out-group.  He is slowly carving out his members and deciphering whom else he can possibly recruit and agree to his claims. The ability to create one type of thinking creates a uniform, universal pedigree, and association that brings together his in-group even tighter. His beginnings of demonizing people who commit these atrocities starts off in line eight by calling them “monsters, predators, and the mentally ill.” The demonizing creates an inferior group, who are the people who commit mass shootings but also people who seem not to believe in the prime solution. The ingroup consist of the NRA and believers of the prime plan. The use of these dehumanizing words can help the in group associate this jargon towards the people against them and unite these toward the cause. Another way he uses demonization is by installing fearful pathos by saying “They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school.” The use of this intimidating and terrifying emotional language creates a higher ground (in group) and puts these people at the bottom of the pyramid (out group) and makes the audience leave the speech being suspicious and fearful from strangers that are around them. The frightened emotion that his audience most likely would have felt makes them side with the in group because they do not want to be considered belonging with the demonizing group. The unwanted switch of his audience accomplished his goal of trying to make them see the world but also the people around themselves as how he does. This is problematic to Miller because this huge divide now creates a further strain on society as a whole but also subjugates people and dehumanizes them as well.

            Despite LaPierre’s attempt to lure his audience into seeing the world the way he sees it, there was a false dilemma inside his speech. The fallacy he deployed in his speech is defined as a false dilemma because he only presented two choices to his audience. He realized if he could show his side as a brilliant and credible option he most likely would have been supported. But as we look more depth into his quote, “ bad guy with a gun… or a good guy with a gun,” we begin to exploit the weakness of his argument. The quote exemplifies how LaPierre is unwilling to ascertain any other outside arguments and believes that these are the only two valid and assured options to propose to society; but in reality it is not. He also does not allow any room “in between” both sides which makes his audience chose one side or the other, which most likely led to hatred between the two sides. But LaPierre does not realize that his argument is flawed because he simply does not have examples to back up this claim. Matter in fact a “good guy” can easily snap at any moment and kill innocent children just like a “bad guy” with a gun. The inability to take in account another viewpoint undermines a reasoned debate, which is encouraged by Miller. LaPierre violates her belief and he disregarded her first rule. She states in her first rule that by trying to “discredits the interlocutor- are fallacious because they try to prevent the disagreement from happening at all, thereby preluding its being resolved.” Her quote illuminates how LaPierre tries to provide his only two choices with the resolution of the “Shield Program,” to prevent any further disagreement or anger. Despite his efforts his attempt is flawed and was most likely not accepted by most of his audience because other parents may of not wanted their children around guns because a trained and certified individual can still commit the same type of crime due to the fact that everyone is human. His audience probably did not easily notice his fallacy but once they truly see what he is trying to do they begin to make counterarguments toward his cause.

            The incident of Newtown was a global phenomenon that required a closer look to analyze the exact way LaPierre tried to ensure that the NRA was not responsible for the horrible occurrence. The ability to decipher exactly how LaPierre tried to figure out a way to reveal his claims and arguments through is speech was fascinating because I was able to see the fallacies that he used. But most importantly, I saw exactly how a speaker tries to appeal to his audiences ethics and emotions and as well as LaPierre trying to hide his non supported claims with fallacies by appealing to these rhetorical devices.