Final Paper Rough Draft

Throughout the years technological innovations have brought to us many great things. One of the most important and widely used today is the Internet. It allows us to look for anything by typing into a search engine and getting millions of results under a minute, communicate with others anywhere in the world, get the latest news, along with many other great things. Although there are all of these good things that have come along due to the Internet there are also bad things. With the help of the Internet people known as “trolls” have found that attacking others through a computer screen is very easy. About tech defines the word troll as “[a person who] actively goes out of their way to cause trouble on the Internet” (about.com). These trolls have been perpetrators to many online bullying incidents which in some cases lead to the victim committing suicide. In a lot of these cases those trolls were using websites which allow anonymity so that the victim would not know who they really are. Like in the case of Rebecca Sedwick a twelve year old girl who on September 9, 2013 committed suicide by jumping from a tower after being cyberbullied through anonymous websites such as Ask.fm along with Instagram and Kik Messenger (abcnews.com, theledger.com). This is only one of many other similar cases in which people are attacked and threatened through the use of the Internet. Which brings into question whether anonymity on social media websites and platforms should be allowed or not. This paper will take a look at the problems that many people believe anonymity enabled websites and cyber bullying can bring on to people who are common users of the Internet and their websites. In order to do this I will be looking at three texts. The first text I will be taking a look at is “How the Internet created an age of rage” an article posted on The Guardian by Tim Adams who is a staff writer for the Observer. In his text Adams talks more about the problems with anonymity but also hints at some benefits it could have. The second text I will be looking at is “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt” by Julie Zhuo who is a product design manager at Facebook. In her text she talks about the origins of anonymity and morality, and how these apply now with the existence of the Internet. Finally the last text I will be examine is an excerpt from Smarter Thank You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds or the Better a book written by Clive Thompson who is a Canadian freelance journalist, blogger and science and technology writer. In this text Thompson gives examples on situations where anonymity has not proven to be a problem but rather a positive environment for people to exchange comments. By analyzing these three texts I will take a look at what these authors believe is causing online bullying, what solutions they believe can work to solve this issue, and finally I will be providing my own input on what I think about the issue of anonymity and what I believe should be done about it. 

Tim Adams text starts off by introducing a comedian by the name of Stewart Lee. Lee decided that he would collect comments made about him over the course of six months by going on Google for about ten minutes most days of the week. He collected over dozens of comments that said rude things about him, at first he was worried by these comments but after according to Lee himself, “You can see a lot of them seem to be the same people posting the same stuff under different names in different places,…,abusing you under barely effective pseudonyms” (Adams). Lee is not the only one who receives this type of hate victims include celebrities along with many other people especially politicians. The problem with these commenters is that a lot of them tend to be anonymous. Psychologist have came up with a term called “deindividuation”, which “happens when social norms are withdrawn because identities are concealed” (Adams). These people who are commenting through their computers have the courage to say all of those things because they know no one will ever know it was actually them. This happens in many cases such as when one is in a car and you feel like you can scream anything to another driver whose driving skills you do not like. Trolls live to cause outrage and they want to be held credible for it so they aspire for people to recognize their work or style of trolling and since they are anonymous it is risk-free. Some of these trolls become so popular that they catch the eye of the people whose work is being commented on. Adams introduces Jeffrey Wells in his text, he is “author of Hollywood Elsewhere, is a former columnist on the LA Times who has been blogging inside stories about movies for 15 years” (Adams).On his blog, Wells had seen various comments by a character going under the name of LexG and dressed him directly. They met up once and Wells asked him to write a column, but LexG refused. Wells does not want to get rid of anonymity on his blog because he believes that the comments section on his page would dry up and thinks that “anonymity makes for livelier writing” (Adams). Adams goes on to talk about a woman by the name of Sarah Bee who decided to take matters in her own hands and began to moderate comments herself by confronting those who wrote rude things. Taking the same route as Bee is Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia. Wales has people working around the clock to moderate the pages posted so that no trolls are able to ruin information which can actually be useful. Others who oppose the ban of anonymity take a political approach to it, that it conflicts with the freedom of speech along with many other things. Overall Adams believes that people should have to put their names on everything that they post online, and to those who do not that they should not be listened to.

Julie Zhuo starts her text off by providing a definition for trolling which is “the act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums” (Zhuo). Trolling has been a problem since the Internet came into existence but its roots go way back. Plato talked about anonymity in the 4th century B.C., in his parable of the ring of Gyges. This ring gave is owner the power of invisibility and Plato noticed that even the most truthful man would become a thief because they knew they would not be caught. Zhuo goes on to give an example of a girl by the name of Alexis Pilkington, a 17 year old girl who committed suicide, trolls descended on her tribute page and posted tons of hateful comments and pictures of nooses. Another example is that of Nicole Catsouras, an 18 year old, who died in a car crash. Pictures of her disfigured body were posted on the Internet and were also sent to her family. A lot of psychological research has been done and over and over again they have proven that anonymity causes people to promote unethical behavior. Many people are already trying to find ways to combat these trolls, some of them shut down their commenting systems and others turn to the law. Unfortunately the law can not do a lot to deactivate them but the content providers should be the ones who should not allow or discourage anonymity. Reuters, a news agency, recently decided that they would block those people who commented anonymously. Many people argue that the abolishment of anonymity goes against their rights established in the Untied States Constitution but before the Internet anonymity was very rare. Those who said something were held accountable for it because every one would know who said it. Raising barriers to prevent those bad comments from being posted is a the very firs step to completely eradicate anonymity and that is where this process should start. Zhou gives some examples of content providers who are trying to combat these trolls such as Gizmodo who is “trying an audition system for new commenters, under which their first few comments would be approved by a moderator or a trusted commenter to ensure quality before anybody else could see them. After a successful audition, commenters can freely post” (Zhuo). Along with Disqus who “has experimented with allowing users to rate one another’s comments and feed those ratings into a global reputation system called Clout. Moderators can use a commenter’s Clout score to “help separate top commenters from trolls”” (Zhuo). These content providers need to stop allowing for people to post anonymously and to moderate their comments. This will begin to lift “the veil of anonymity” and we will be able to see those trolls for who they really are, and that is human, just like everyone else. 

Clive Thompson’s excerpt he begins by talking about how the people who the abuse is typically directed at is at women especially if they talk about politics or anything controversial and it is also directed to minorities in the United States. It is hardly every directed at white men. We cannot completely get rid of this abuse because it has always been present, the Internet just made it easier but there are techniques to reduce online abuse. People are already finding ways in learning not only how to manage online conversations but how to improve them also. Thompson gives the example of a man by the name of Ta-Nahesi Coates, a senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly. Coates used to run a personal blog for many years until he moved it to the Atlantic, he posts about many subjects such as race, TV shows, sports, politics, movies, etc. Surprisingly enough the comments on his forum are abuse-free. Coates achieved this by noticing back when he was not a blogger that people would comment terrible things on his favorite blogs so he decided he would change it. When he started his own blog he would go out of his way to encourage those who had something good to say to continue posting and those who would post abusive things would get their comments deleted and if they continued they would get banned. Coates still has arguments with people who challenge him but it is done in a civil manner without any abuse. People need to be the ones who have to take action first if they want to see change in the way people engage online. The problem with cites, such as YouTube, whose comments section are a cesspool is that there is no one there to moderate them. Coates has found that a conversation works better when it is smaller, which is also a huge problem for moderating sites such as YouTube or newspapers because they are always trying to get bigger. All in all everyone should learn and be taught how to behave online. Every one must know that when it comes to the Internet there is always going to be good things about it and a lot of bad, which we have to learn to accept.

How I Will Use the Texts

http://www.silive.com/relationships/index.ssf/2013/03/online_anonymity_shields_bad_behavior_and_positive_work.html
This text talks about why anonymity is bad and why it can not be completely unavailable. I will use this text to talk about why is bad and why banning anonymity cannot be completely achievable.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
This text shows examples on why anonymity should not be allowed and I will use this text to support my claims with actual evidence.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2625309/identity-management/the-internet-should-not-be-anonymous.html
This text talks about why allowing anonymity can cause total disorder because there is no one to regulate the trolls. I will use this text to pose some solutions that can help avoid total anonymity.

Three Texts for Fourth Paper

I found this text by using Google, it was on the first page when I typed "anonymity why it's bad".
http://www.silive.com/relationships/index.ssf/2013/03/online_anonymity_shields_bad_behavior_and_positive_work.html

I found this text by using Google, it was on the first page when I typed "why is anonymity bad".
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

I found this text by using Google, it was on the first page when I typed "why is online anonymity bad".
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2625309/identity-management/the-internet-should-not-be-anonymous.html

Anonymity Essay

As technology has developed more and more over the years we have seen many great things come about such as smart phones, portable laptops, along with many other things. But these advancements in technology have not always brought on good things. Many websites that are available for public use on the world wide web have been home to many bullying incidents, and have become more and more common over the years. The ability for the so called ‘trolls’ to hide behind a computer knowing that their identity is hidden due to anonymity has allowed for them to make even more attacks very easily. In a lot cases those who are being cyber bullied have went to drastic measures to end those attacks by committing suicide, this has become such a problem that even our current President Barack Obama has addressed the issue (2010). This paper will take a look at the problems that many people believe anonymity enabled websites and cyber bullying can bring on to people who are common users of the Internet and their websites. I will be taking a look at three texts one of them being “How the Internet created an age of rage” an article posted on The Guardian by Tim Adams who is a staff writer for the Observer. In Adam’s text he shows what is pushes the anonymous commenters to do what they are doing and why it can be beneficial for there to be anonymity or not beneficial. Another text I will be looking at is “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt” by Julie Zhuo who is a product design manager at Facebook. Zhuo’s text takes a whole look at both sides of the argument to see what can be done about anonymity. The last text I will look at is an excerpt from Smarter Thank You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds or the Better a book written by Clive Thompson who is a Canadian freelance journalist, blogger and science and technology writer. In Thompson’s text he gives examples of situations where anonymity is allowed but there is nothing put positive comments and feedback.  By analyzing these three texts I will look at what many writers believe is causing online bullying and what can be done to change it to see if their solutions to these problems seem effective. 

Many of the attacks that happen on the Internet are done by those who use websites that allow anonymity or those who use pseudonyms. A lot of people believe that if websites did not allow for users of their websites to chose to be anonymous or have the ability to go under a different name that they would not say the mean things that they do. It is obvious that no one is safe from these types of attacks from the common person to entertainers and especially politicians. Psychologist came up with the terms deindividuation which happens when “social norms are withdrawn because identities are concealed” (Adams). In other words that means that people are more prone to do or say bad things when they know no one else will now who said or did such things. An experiment was done with trick-or-treaters who were invited into a house to take sweets and right next to it there was also a large sum of money “When children arrived singly, and not wearing masks, only 8% of them stole any of the money. When they were in larger groups, with their identities concealed by fancy dress, that number rose to 80%” (Adams). This experiment shows the same thing that happens in a online social media situation because people know that their identities are concealed and they are in large groups they encourage one another attack people. On the other hand a man by the name of Jeffrey Wells, who Adams introduces in his text, is the author of  author of Hollywood Elsewhere,  a former columnist on the LA Times, and a blogger believes that “anonymity makes for livelier writing” (Adams). Wells has had many encounters with a man who uses the name LexG, a man who constantly comments on Wells’ work, Wells believes that LexG is a great writer and does not agree with others to enforce a “real name” policy. Adams writes, “He [Wells] has resisted insisting that people write under their own name because that would kill the comments instantly”. Overall in Adams text he shows why anonymity can be a bad thing but also uses Wells as an example on why anonymity should be allowed because it promotes people to comment freely on things whether it be positive or negative feedback.

Trolling has become easier due to the Internet but it has roots that go all the way back to the fourth century B.C. when Plato was alive (Zhuo). In a parable written by Plato he touched upon the subject of anonymity and morality. He talks about a ring called the ring of Gyges this ring when gave its owner the ability to become invisible and Plato noticed that even most honorable man would become a thief because they knew they would not be caught (Zhuo). This same concept applies to those who use the Internet Zhuo calls is the “online disinhibition effect” which basically means that when a person is online they tend to act our more frequently than they would in a face-to-face situation. Zhuo writes, “Many victims are turning to legislation. All 50 states now have stalking, bullying or harassment laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication…Last month,…,Carla Franklin, persuaded a judge to force YouTube to reveal the identity of a troll who made a disparaging comment about her on the video-sharing site”. The law itself cannot protect these people all on their own Zhuo believes that the websites and content providers should help out the law by discouraging or disallowing anonymity on their websites. Although many people might argue that anonymity cannot be completely eradicated because people will always find a way to get around the rules, making it harder for them to do so is a start. Many websites are already beginning to take action in learning how to make their comments a well regulated place for people to exchange ideas and opinions such as Gizmodo. In Gizmodo the commenters have to go through sort of an audition to see that they are posting quality comments and once they are trusted then they can post freely. As a whole Zhou believes that the content providers should stop allowing anonymity and train their users to report trolls and that the websites should moderate their comments sections.

The types of threats that arise can range from just a plain disagreement statement to rape threats, when the person being attacked is a woman. According to Thompson, “…abuse isn’t evenly distributed. It’s much less often directed at men, particularly white men like me. In contrast, many women I know—probably most—find that being public online inevitably attracts a wave of comments”. When women along with minorities or any subordinated group have opinions on topics which are controversial, politics, or even something intellectual they are most likely to be attacked online. Although many people blame the Internet for creating these types of prejudices they did not, they only created a new stage for them according to Thompson. A good example on how the Internet can once again become a good place where people can receive and give positive or constructive feedback is that of Ta-Nahesi Coates. He is a “…senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly, a magazine of politics and culture…” (Thompson 78). Coates was a blogger himself before moving it over to the Atlantic and noticed large amounts of terrible comments left on the pages of his favorite political bloggers. He noticed that when a lot of people would post negative things that they would “…poison the atmosphere, chasing off productive posters” (Thompson 78). So Coates decided that his blog would be different, that those who had an opinions that were written in an intelligent manner and not meant to hurt anyone would actually be allowed to stay. According to Thompson, “The instant he [Coates] saw something abusive, he’d delete it, banning repeating offenders… he went out of his way to encourage the smart folks, responding to them personally and publicly, so they’d be encouraged to stay and talk” (78). What Coates did was a very smart thing because it forced out those “trolls” and welcomed the intellectuals. Many social media websites should look at what Coates did and learn to moderate their sites comment section so that it will not be such a cesspool.

As a whole these three authors made great claims on the subject of anonymity. All three of them acknowledged it as something that can have negative effects when directed towards others. Adam’s text gave and example on how anonymity pushes large groups of people to attack others but he also wrote about a man (Wells) who sees anonymity as a good thing. Zhuo’s text showed us how far back the negative effects of anonymity come from and what can be done to fix all of the problems that come out of it. Thompson’s text talks about the people who tend to be attacked the most by anonymous posters and showed a great example on how one man was able to moderate his website to be a place full of positivity while still allowing people to be anonymous. I think that these text’s were all very strong because they all gave a sufficient amount of examples to support their claims and the fully explained their position. After reading all of them I think that I was most persuaded by Thompson’s text because I believe that they only way for these problems to be avoided is if websites or content providers themselves do a good job at eliminating the trolls and allowing for those who post quality feedback to stay.

Works Cited

Adams, Tim. "How the Internet Created an Age of Rage." The Guardian. The Guardian, 23 July 2011. Web. 6 Apr. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams>.

Thompson, Clive. Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p.: Penguin, 2013. 77-81. Print.

Zhuo, Julie. "Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html>.

Anonimity Essay Rough Draft

As technology has developed more and more over the years we have seen many great things come about such as smart phones, portable laptops, along with many other things. But these advancements in technology have not always brought on good things. Many websites that are available for public use on the world wide web have been home to many bullying incidents, and have become more and more common over the years. The ability for the so called ‘trolls’ to hide behind a computer knowing that their identity is hidden due to anonymity has allowed for them to make even more attacks very easily. In a lot cases those who are being cyber bullied have went to drastic measures to end those attacks by committing suicide, this has become such a problem that even our current president Barack Obama has addressed the issue. This paper will take a look at the problems that many people believe anonymity enabled websites and cyber bullying can bring on to people who are common users of the Internet and their websites. I will be taking a look at three texts one of them being ““Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power” by Danah Boyd who is a Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research, a Research Assistant Professor in Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, and a Fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Another text I will be looking at is “How the Internet created an age of rage” an article posted on The Guardian by Tim Adams who is a staff writer for the Observer. The last text I will look at is an excerpt from Smarter Thank You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds or the Better a book written by Clive Thompson who is a Canadian freelance journalist, blogger and science and technology writer. By analyzing these three texts I will look at what many writers believe is causing online bullying and what can be done to change it to see if their solutions to these problems seem effective. 

Many of the attacks that happen on the Internet are done by those who use websites that allow anonymity or those who use pseudonyms. A lot of people believe that if websites did not allow for users of their websites to chose to be anonymous or have the ability to go under a different name that they would not say the mean things that they do. It is obvious that no one is safe from these types of attacks from the common person to entertainers and especially politicians. Psychologist came up with the terms deindividuation which happens when “social norms are withdrawn because identities are concealed” (Adams). In other words that means that people are more prone to do or say bad things when they know no one else will now who said or did such things. An experiment was done with trick-or-treaters who were invited into a house to take sweets and right next to it there was also a large sum of money “When children arrived singly, and not wearing masks, only 8% of them stole any of the money. When they were in larger groups, with their identities concealed by fancy dress, that number rose to 80%” (Adams). This experiment shows the same thing that happens in a online social media situation because people know that their identities are concealed and they are in large groups they encourage one another attack people. On the other hand a man by the name of Jeffrey Wells who is the author of  author of Hollywood Elsewhere,  a former columnist on the LA Times, and a blogger believes that “anonymity makes for livelier writing” (Adams). Wells has had many encounters with a man who uses the name LexG, a man who constantly comments on Wells’ work, Wells believes that LexG is a great writer and does not agree with others to enforce a “real name” policy. Adams writes, “He [Wells] has resisted insisting that people write under their own name because that would kill the comments instantly”. If everyone, according to Wells, was forced to use their real names on all social media websites it would ruin the feedback that they get whether it be positive or negative. 

A website that attempted to fix the problem was Google. Google listened to the peoples pleas to enforce a “real name” policy which basically means that people who do not sign up with a real name will not be allowed continued access to their website or their profiles will be deleted. Googles attempt at trying to enforce this “real name” policy got many people fired up so they decided, then, to change their policy to allow pseudonyms just not nicknames and no longer suspending any of the accounts who did not follow the rules. Those who are for the “real name” policy constantly use Facebook as an example but what they do not know is that many Facebook users do not use their real names. According to Boyd, 

“…countless black and Latino youth signed up to Facebook using handles.…Likewise, people from outside of the US started signing up to Facebook and using alternate names. Again, no one noticed because names transliterated from Arabic or Malaysian or containing phrases in Portuguese weren’t particularly visible to the real name enforcers. Real names are by no means universal on Facebook, but it’s the importance of real names is a myth that Facebook likes to shill out. And, for the most part, privileged white Americans use their real name on Facebook. So it “looks” right.”

What many people fail to notice is that the people who chose to sign up under pseudonyms do so because they want their names to “look” right while white people do not need to because their names already “fill” that requirement. Many times these people do this to protect themselves because “many people are far LESS safe when they are identifiable” (Boyd). Interestingly enough those who spoke up against the “real name” policy are privileged white folks who are the ones who least likely to be affected by the policy, but they are actually being listened to because they have much more power than minorities. Overall attempting to force social media users to use their real names has proven ineffective because many people are safer going under different names.

The types of threats that arise can range from just a plain disagreement statement to rape threats, when the person being attacked is a woman. According to Thompson, “…abuse isn’t evenly distributed. It’s much less often directed at men, particularly white men like me. In contrast, many women I know—probably most—find that being public online inevitably attracts a wave of comments”. When women along with minorities or any subordinated group have opinions on topics which are controversial, politics, or even something intellectual they are most likely to be attacked online. Although many people blame the Internet for creating these types of prejudices they did not, they only created a new stage for them according to Thompson. A good example on how the Internet can once again become a good place where people can receive and give positive or constructive feedback is that of Ta-Nahesi Coates. He is a “…senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly, a magazine of politics and culture…” (Thompson 78). Coates was a blogger himself before moving it over to the Atlantic and noticed large amounts of terrible comments left on the pages of his favorite political bloggers. He noticed that when a lot of people would post negative things that they would “…poison the atmosphere, chasing off productive posters” (Thompson 78). So Coates decided that his blog would be different, that those who had an opinions that were written in an intelligent manner and not meant to hurt anyone would actually be allowed to stay. According to Thompson, “The instant he [Coates] saw something abusive, he’d delete it, banning repeating offenders… he went out of his way to encourage the smart folks, responding to them personally and publicly, so they’d be encouraged to stay and talk” (78). What Coates did was a very smart thing because it forced out those “trolls” and welcomed the intellectuals. Many social media websites should look at what Coates did and learn to moderate their sites comment section so that it will not be such a cesspool.

Unit 3 Questions pt 2

1. Summarize the main solutions presented

Some of the solutions these writers pose are that people themselves should learn not to say mean things to people over the internet and that websites should have stricter rules on what users can and cannot post and what they can and cannot say.

2. Describe a few that seem promising

I think a very promising solution to this problem is to have websites pose stricter rules on what they can and cannot post because the solution of trying to teach people themselves to not say bad things about others would never work because there’s always going to be people who say bad things about others even if they are told not to.

3. State why you think they could work, or present your own solutions

I think that is the best solution because although it will take a lot of work for the websites themselves to change the policies that are written up it is I believe the only way for this type of hate to stop affecting people. Or people should learn that whatever someone behind a computer screen says about them should not affect them because after all most people that say those types of things would never dare to say those things to them personally.

Unit 3 Questions

1. What are some of the main differences in the way these texts define the problem?

Some of these texts like “Who Are These Haters That Poison the Well of Our Discourse” by Andrew Stafford define the problem of trolling on the Internet as something really bad that can be prevented with time, money, and human resources. All in all most of these texts define and acknowledge that because users are allowed to stay anonymous that it is a huge problem and a really bad thing because people once someone is anonymous you cannot do anything to defend your self against them because there will most likely be more than one person attacking you.

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

Some texts say that because users of the internet now have the the ability to remain anonymous that it drive these ‘bullies’ to post these mean things online because they know that no one will ever know who said that. Others blame the internet at as a whole and others blame the social medias that allow for ‘trolls’ to post derogatory things on these websites. 

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

In the text “Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power by Danah Boyd claim that the social medias play a huge role in providing some safety for their users. She believes that they should do something to prevent users from receiving hate. In the text “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt.” by Julie Zhuo she states that they law should do something to “disrarm these Internet trolls” but if they cannot do anything about it then the content providers and social networking problems should change their websites so that anonymity is not allowed on their platforms.

LaPierre Essay

​In America all of its inhabitants have certain rights protected by the government under the United States Constitution. One of those rights states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Recent tragic event that have happened in the United States have brought up the question and many arguments on whether guns should be eliminated or if they should continue to be sold. In order for these arguments to be fair there are certain rules that they must follow which Patricia Roberts-Miller, author of “Characteristics of Demagoguery” and “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”, talks about. In her texts she takes a look at what aspects a public debate must have so that it is not only good but that also allows for democratic decision making. Her article also takes a look at certain forms of persuasion that are flawed, manipulative, one sided along with many other details that can make an argument weak. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association Vice President, gave a speech a week after the Sandy Hook incident in Newton, Connecticut where twenty six students and staff were fatally shot. He gave this speech to reach out to anyone across the United States that has children and cares deeply for their security. In his speech some of the main claims that LaPierre makes are that the only way we can prevent tragedies similar to the one that occurred in Sandy Hook is to train and post people with guns at schools to protect the children. He sees that the only way to protect children from a bad person with a gun is to have a lot of other good people with guns in the same vicinity. Throughout this 

​​Torres 2

text I will take a look at LaPierre’s speech while using Roberts-Miller’s text as a lens in order to see how and to what extent certain elements of demagogic discourse I can identify in his speech.

​In Roberts-Miller’s text she gives many examples of  the types of demagogic discourse that many people use in speeches, just like Wayne LaPierre did. LaPierre uses many if not all of the types of demagogic discourse that Roberts-Miller mentions in her article. A very prominent element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses is that of polarization. Roberts-Miller gives a definition of polarization when she states, “Demagogues polarize a complicated (and often frightening) situation by presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one” (Roberts-Miller, 462). Some examples of polarization in LaPierre’s text are when he states, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guywith a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?” (LaPierre) and “If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained— armed —good guy” (LaPierre). In this quote he insinuates that our country cares more about protecting our money [in banks] and our celebrities than we do our children but believes that having guns around them in schools will protect them. In LaPierre’s speech his main focus is the children of this country and the amount of safety provided for them at schools. Therefore he uses polarization to provide his listeners with just two options; we as a whole nation either position armed “good” people at every school in order to prevent a incident like that of Sandy Hook’s from happening again or we allow for the children to die because they did not have security. Because LaPierre uses polarization in his speech this poses a problem because according to Roberts-Miller it creates a division between the listeners 

​​Torres 3

into two categories, the in-group and the out-group, allowing for no middle ground. In this case the in-group would be those who have been persuaded by LaPierre and the out-group would be those who do not agree with his solutions. Those who agree with LaPierre will then grow to dislike those who do not because they have been convinced that there is only one solution to prevent tragic incidents where children are having their lives taken away from them in a terrible way.

​Another element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses in his speech in order to persuade his audience to want to have “good” people with guns at their children’s schools is that of scapegoating. Roberts-Miller gives scapegoating a definition when she writes, “Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some out-group. This is an attractive way of seeing a situation both when the causes are complicated (and there is no clear villain) as well as when the community does not want to hold responsible the individual or group who caused the situation…” (464). At the time that LaPierre did his speech it had only been a week since twenty six students and staff were fatally shot using a rifle at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Being the Vice President of the National Rifle Association there is many reasons why LaPierre would not want the blame of this incident to fall back on them so therefore he turns to scapegoating to put the blame on others. An example of this is when he begins to blame the media for having some form of influence on people to commit these sort of atrocities. He says that they [the media] promote the “filthiest form of pornography” and that they bring a “toxic mix of criminal cruelty” into homes causing people to go mad. LaPierre goes on to say that the media are “silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirtators” who “demonize lawful gun owners” and make the world believe fallacies about 

​​Torres 4

them. Here LaPierre is trying to make people who take full advantage of the second amendment as victims to this and making the media seem as the true culprit. He also blames politicians when talking about measures that this country should take to protect the children he states, “…politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm” (LaPierre). This argument would work if a politician had actually denied citizens the right to protect their families but he is very unclear on who has actually done that. According to Roberts-Miller using scapegoating poses a problem because the leader of the group, in this case would be LaPierre, removes himself from the problem and lays the blame on others. Overall the use of scapegoating seems like good way for LaPierre to make his audience believe him but if his audience really looked into statements like the ones he made in his speech they could possibly debunk them.

​LaPierre’s speech has some strengths but also has weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is in the form of straw men which is an informal fallacy based on the a false representation of an opponents argument. After saying that the only way to prevent tragic incidents from happening at schools is by putting “good guys” with guns at each of them LaPierre says, 

“Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to 

​​Torres 5

pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you”.

This  statement poses a weakness in LaPierre’s argument because not only does he assume that those who are against guns will say such statements but the statement as a whole is not supported by evidence. He does not provide evidence to support his claim that the word gun has become a bad word and with this he once again assumes that the people of this country think that guns are evil and that they should hold no place in this country. Another weakness in his statement is explained by Roberts-Miller when she writes, “This is the point at which van Eemeren and Grotendoorst discuss pathos appeals, which they do not reject out of hand. Such appeals, they say, are fallacious if “the purpose of exploiting the audience’s emotions is to play on prejudices of the audience that are not directly relevant to the stand- point being defended”” (470). In LaPierre’s speech he states, “…And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you”. In that quote he is trying to instill fear in his audience by making them imagine this scenario in their heads and basically saying that there is no other way for a person to protect themselves from an intruder without a gun and that all that they can hope for at that time is for someone, a “good” person, with a gun to protect them. Because LaPierre did not provide evidence for the claim that he makes and he messes with the listeners emotions to be able to persuade them easier poses a problem. Because according to Roberts-Miller an argument that exploits the audiences emotions is not fair which in turn makes his argument weaker because he does not allow for a reasoned debate.

​​

​Overall, Wayne LaPierre’s speech brought great attention to certain issues that should be addressed in this country but that does not mean his argument was solid. Throughout his speech he provided listeners with only two options one of which would seem illogical for a sane person to chose, blames others such as the media for influencing people to commit horrible atrocities, and assumed that people who do not agree with him would say certain things about claims that he made. In looking at LaPierre’s argument I learned that I should pay attention very closely when someone is trying to make an argument because I can then evaluate their arguments and use knowledge that I have learned from Roberts-Miller work to disprove their claims. It is important to know how to decipher peoples arguments because it can help one learn how to clearly understand them and know when a orator is trying to take advantage of the listener by using demagogic strategies.

LaPierre Essay Draft

In America all of its inhabitants have certain rights protected by the government under the United States Constitution. One of those rights states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Recent tragic event that have happened in the United States have brought up the question and many arguments on whether guns should be eliminated or if they should continue to be sold. Patricia Roberts-Miller is the author of “Characteristics of Demagoguery” and “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”. In her texts she takes a looks at what aspects a public debate must have so that it is not only good but that also allows for democratic decision making while also taking a look at certain forms of persuasion that are flawed, manipulative, one sided along with many other details that can make an argument weak. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association Vice President, gave a speech a week after the Sandy Hook incident in Newton, Connecticut. He gave this speech to reach out to anyone across the United States that has children and cares deeply for their security. In his speech LaPierre argues that the only way we can prevent tragedies similar to those is to train and post people with guns at schools to protect the children. He sees that the only way to protect children from a bad person with a gun is to have a lot of other good people with guns in the same vicinity. Throughout this text I will take a look at LaPierre’s speech while using Roberts-Miller’s text as a lens in order to see how and to what extent certain elements of demagogic discourse I can identify in his speech. In Roberts-Miller’s text she gives many examples of  the types of demagogic discourse that many people use in speeches, just like Wayne LaPierre did, and in their writing. LaPierre uses many if not all of the types of demagogic discourse that Roberts-Miller mentions in her article. A very prominent element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses is that of polarization. Roberts-Miller gives a definition of polarization when she states, “Demagogues polarize a complicated (and often frightening) situation by presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one” (Roberts-Miller, 462). Some examples of polarization in LaPierre’s text are when he states, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?” (LaPierre) and “If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained— armed —good guy” (LaPierre). In this quote he insinuates that our country cares more about protecting our money [in banks] and our celebrities than we do our children but believes that having guns around them in schools will protect them. In LaPierre’s speech his main focus is the children of this country and the amount of safety provided for them at schools. Therefore he uses polarization to provide his listeners with just two options; we as a whole nation either position armed “good” people at every school in order to prevent a incident like that of Sandy Hook’s from happening again or we allow for the children to die because they did not have security. LaPierre uses polarization in his speech because at moment of panic and distress people are more willing and open to options that can help “fix” a certain problem. By using polarization in this context is very persuasive because parents obviously do not want their young children to die in a tragic way, they want them to be safe and grow up. 

Another element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses in his speech in order to persuade his audience to want to have “good” people with guns at their children’s schools is that of scapegoating. Roberts-Miller gives scapegoating a definition when she writes, “Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. This is an attractive way of seeing a situation both when the causes are complicated (and there is no clear villain) as well as when the community does not want to hold responsible the individual or group who caused the situation…” (464). At the time that LaPierre did his speech it had only been a week since twenty six students and staff were fatally shot using a rifle at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Being the Vice President of the National Rifle Association there is many reasons why LaPierre would not want the blame of this incident to fall back on them so therefore he turns to scapegoating to put the blame on others. An example of this is when he begins to blame the media for having some form of influence on people to commit these sort of atrocities. He says that they [the media] promote the “filthiest form of pornography” and that they bring a “toxic mix of criminal cruelty” into homes causing people to go mad. LaPierre goes on to say that the media are “silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirtators” who “demonize lawful gun owners” and make the world believe fallacies about them. Here LaPierre is trying to make people who take full advantage of the second amendment as victims to this and making the media seem as the true culprit. He also blames politicians when talking about measures that this country should take to protect the children he states, “…politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm” (LaPierre). This argument would work if a politician had actually denied citizens the right to protect their families but he is very unclear on who has actually done that. Overall the use of scapegoating seems like good way for LaPierre to make his audience believe him but if his audience really looked into statements like the ones he made in his speech they could possibly debunk them.

LaPierre’s speech has some strengths but also has weaknesses. One of those weaknesses is in the form of straw men which is an informal fallacy based on the view of an opponents view or argument. After saying that the only way to prevent tragic incidents from happening at schools is by putting “good guys” with guns at each of them LaPierre says, 

“Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you”.

This is statement poses a weakness in LaPierre’s argument because not only does he assume that those who are against guns will say such statements but the statement as a whole is not supported by evidence. He does not provide evidence to support his claim that the word gun has become a bad word and with this he once again assumes that the people of this country think that guns are evil and that they should hold no place in this country. Another weakness in his statement is explained by Roberts-Miller when she writes, “This is the point at which van Eemeren and Grotendoorst discuss pathos appeals, which they do not reject out of hand. Such appeals, they say, are fallacious if “the purpose of exploiting the audience’s emotions is to play on prejudices of the audience that are not directly relevant to the stand- point being defended”” (470). In LaPierre’s speech he states, “…And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you”. In that quote he is trying to instill fear in his audience by making them imagine this scenario in their heads and basically saying that there is no other way for a person to protect themselves from an intruder without a gun and that all that they can hope for at that time is for someone, a “good” person, with a gun to protect them. Because LaPierre did not provide evidence for the claim that he makes and he messes with the listeners emotions to be able to persuade them easier makes his argument weaker because he does not allow for a reasoned debate.

Guns Essay Intro and Body Paragraph(s)

In America all of its inhabitants have certain rights protected by the government under the United States Constitution. One of those rights states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Recent tragic event that have happened in the United States have brought up the question and many arguments on whether guns should be eliminated or if they should continue to be sold. Patricia Roberts-Miller is the author of “Characteristics of Demagoguery” and “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”. In her texts she takes a looks at what aspects a public debate must have so that it is not only good but that also allows for democratic decision making while also taking a look at certain forms of persuasion that are flawed, manipulative, one sided along with many other details that can make an argument weak. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association Vice President, gave a speech a week after the Sandy Hook incident in Newton, Connecticut. He gave this speech to reach out to anyone across the United States that has children and cares deeply for their security. In his speech LaPierre argues that the only way we can prevent tragedies similar to those is to train and post people with guns at schools to protect the children. He sees that the only way to protect children from a bad person with a gun is to have a lot of other good people with guns in the same vicinity. Throughout this text I will take a look at LaPierre’s speech while using Roberts-Miller’s text as a lens in order to see how and to what extent certain elements of demagogic discourse I can identify in his speech.

In Roberts-Miller’s text she gives many examples of  the types of demagogic discourse that many people use in speeches, just like Wayne LaPierre did, and in their writing. LaPierre uses many if not all of the types of demagogic discourse that Roberts-Miller mentions in her article. A very prominent element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses is that of polarization. Roberts-Miller gives a definition of polarization when she states, “Demagogues polarize a complicated (and often frightening) situation by presenting only two options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one” (Roberts-Miller, 462). Some examples of polarization in LaPierre’s text are when he states, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?” (LaPierre) and “If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained— armed —good guy” (LaPierre). In this quote he insinuates that our country cares more about protecting our money [in banks] and our celebrities than we do our children but believes that having guns around them in schools will protect them. In LaPierre’s speech his main focus is the children of this country and the amount of safety provided for them at schools. Therefore he uses polarization to provide his listeners with just two options; we as a whole nation either position armed “good” people at every school in order to prevent a incident like that of Sandy Hook’s from happening again or we allow for the children to die because they did not have security. LaPierre uses polarization in his speech because at moment of panic and distress people are more willing and open to options that can help “fix” a certain problem. By using polarization in this context is very persuasive because parents obviously do not want their young children to die in a tragic way, they want them to be safe and grow up. 

Another element of demagogic discourse that LaPierre uses in his speech in order to persuade his audience to want to have “good” people with guns at their children’s schools is that of scapegoating. Roberts-Miller gives scapegoating a definition when she writes, “Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility onto some outgroup. This is an attractive way of seeing a situation both when the causes are complicated (and there is no clear villain) as well as when the community does not want to hold responsible the individual or group who caused the situation…” (464). At the time that LaPierre did his speech it had only been a week since twenty six students and staff were fatally shot using a rifle at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Being the Vice President of the National Rifle Association there is many reasons why LaPierre would not want the blame of this incident to fall back on them so therefore he turns to scapegoating to put the blame on others. An example of this is when he begins to blame the media for having some form of influence on people to commit these sort of atrocities. He says that they [the media] promote the “filthiest form of pornography” and that they bring a “toxic mix of criminal cruelty” into homes causing people to go mad. LaPierre goes on to say that the media are “silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirtators” who “demonize lawful gun owners” and make the world believe fallacies about them. Here LaPierre is trying to make people who take full advantage of the second amendment as victims to this and making the media seem as the true culprit. He also blames politicians when talking about measures that this country should take to protect the children he states, “…politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm” (LaPierre). This argument would work if a politician had actually denied citizens the right to protect their families but he is very unclear on who has actually done that. Overall the use of scapegoating seems like good way for LaPierre to make his audience believe him but if his audience really looked into statements like the ones he made in his speech they could possibly debunk them.

Guns Essay Introduction

In America all of its inhabitants have certain rights protected by the government under the United States Constitution. One of those rights states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Recent tragic event that have happened in the United States have brought up the question and many arguments on whether guns should be eliminated or if they should continue to be sold. Patricia Roberts-Miller is the author of “Characteristics of Demagoguery” and “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”. In her texts she takes a looks at what aspects a public debate must have so that it is not only good but that also allows for democratic decision making while also taking a look at certain forms of persuasion that are flawed, manipulative, one sided along with many other details that can make an argument weak. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association Vice President, gave a speech a week after the Sandy Hook incident in Newton, Connecticut. He gave this speech to reach out to anyone across the United States that has children and cares deeply for their security. In his speech LaPierre argues that the only way we can prevent tragedies similar to those is to train and post people with guns at schools to protect the children. He sees that the only way to protect children from a bad person with a gun is to have a lot of other good people with guns in the same vicinity. Throughout this text I will take a look at LaPierre’s speech while using Roberts-Miller’s text as a lens in order to see how and to what extent certain elements of demagogic discourse I can identify in his speech.