breeaunnalewis

Bree, Elise, and Madie

Professor Werry

RWS 200

28 April 2016

Teaching Our Way Out Of The Online Incivility Culture

As technology continues to progress and advance rapidly in today’s modern society, the issue of proper conduct and incivility online substantially grows as well.  Without a proper code of ethics for how to behave online added to public freedoms, specifically anonymity, the lines between freedom of speech and hate speech are easily and frequently crossed. This problem is most commonly seen in teenagers and young adults and not many know how to address and manage the situation. It is a very new developing problem but it is very urgent nonetheless. According to the Pew Research Internet Project, “95% of all teens ages 12-17 are now online and 80% of online teens are users of social media sites. 88% of those social media-using teens have witnessed other people being mean or cruel on social networking sites” (meganmeierfoundation.org). It is apparent that online incivility is a rapidly increasing issue that needs to be dealt with. The question is, what is causing teens to engage in online civility and what can be done to prevent this issue? We believe that the lack of education that has been given to young teens has resulted in a rise in online incivility. Educating young teens on proper online conduct, along with the dangers and consequences of online incivilities will provide a foundation for a more solidified code of online conduct. In this paper we will observe the effects of the lack of education on online conduct and incivility and compare them to the effects that educational programs have on issues, as well as compare and contrast two outside articles that both support and challenge our claims.

I think it can be widely agreed that incivility due to anonymity existed even before the internet was invented. However, with all the forms of modern technology children have easy access to many forms of social websites from a very early age. Anonymous blogs, social media websites, and apps are given to children at the touch of their fingertips, however, they have no education on the effects of what they may post. Ann Applebaum, columnist for the Washington Post, wrote an article called “ The Trolls Among Us” in which she discussed the growing amounts of incivility due to anonymity on the internet. In her article, Applebaum suggests that “Perhaps schools, as they once taught students about newspapers, now need to teach a new sort of etiquette: how to recognize an Internet troll, how to distinguish the truth from state-sponsored fiction” (Paragraph 8). Anonymity has always, and will always, be around. Since there has been a growing amount of incivility due to the lack of education on anonymity, it only seems logical that students should be taught about the topic in school. The purpose of anonymity on the internet should be to respectfully share opinions without having to expose your identity. I believe that if students were taught how to properly use anonymous websites and apps, incivility due to anonymity would greatly decrease.

Although online incivility is a major problem throughout the world that doesn’t mean there is nothing to be done about the issue.  In the article, “Improving Online Civility” by Richard West he suggests some interesting approaches and ideas that people can do to help improve online civility.  He begins talking about how much of an impact the internet has on people today. West explains how within the past decade humanity’s personal human communication has been morphed by computers and the internet.  The excess amount of freedom to create blogs or a website at the touch of a button along with the lack of personal interaction and online anonymity has lead to the major issues of online incivility.  “According to polling by KCR Research”, says West, “two and three Americans believe that civility is a major problem, and three and four believe is it getting worse” (West).  After introducing the issue of online incivility West takes a proactive approach and introduces some ideas to help improve the issue.  One idea that stood out was “accept other’s perspectives”.  The great thing about the internet is that everyone is allowed to freely express their opinion, but it is important to remember that not everyone has the same one.  West says, “[w]hile you do not need to agree with others’ opinions, you can prevent hurtful conversations by being respectful and understanding of other points of view” (West).  I think this quote effectively captures the idea that it is important to always have respect for other people’s opinions even if you don’t agree.  If you do not agree either respectively disagree then give your opinion or remove yourself from the conversation.  Sometimes the best thing one can do to “accept other’s opinions” is to metaphorically “walk away”, the best thing to say is nothing.  Another suggestion that West makes is to “forgive by not reciprocating”.  West says, “[t]ry to avoid becoming offended, even if offense was intended. The most destructive online conversations become flaming wars of words that tear down all involved. Forgiving and moving on is the best approach” (West).  This idea could be very effective because trying to argue with every hater, negative comment, or troll is unrealistic. If  you shut one down more will pop up in it’s place.  Instead of reciprocating it, it is often times more effective to avoid getting offended.  I noticed that the ideas West suggests to improve online incivility are things that each person needs to take upon themselves to do.  His ideas depends on people’s maturity and people who want to improve the internet incivility problem.   

Unfortunately people are not always as mature online as we want them to be, so West’s improvement ideas might not resonate with everyone.  However, I do believe that some of the simple solutions that West suggests will open the eyes of many internet users who want to improve the online incivility issue.  It will hopefully make them take a step back and think twice about reciprocating or intentionally saying hurtful things to others. But the people who are mature enough, care, and see the issue of online anonymity as urgent can and should do something. A valuable solution would be to have those who care and want to fix the issue to educate those who are uninformed and do not care as much about the problems of online incivility. The more educated people are about a situation, the more they care. If young teenagers are educated about the severity, urgency, and realities of the consequences that online incivility generates chances are they will care more and want to do something to help the problem.

Online incivility is growing issue and is most visible in college campuses. This issue on college campuses is analyzed in University of Phoenix researcher Mariam Frolow’s article, Misbehavior Online in Higher Education, where she focuses on cyberbullying, social media, and academic integrity and claims that online misconduct is negatively impacting college campuses and communities at an increasingly high rate. Frolow claims, “[c]yberbullying is not a new issue on campus, yet practitioners are just now becoming aware of the devastating impact it can have on campus” (235). Cyberbullying and online incivility is becoming more noticeable and urgent of a problem within communities. Frolow offers a solution, stating, “[i]nstitutions should establish guidelines for the role of social media in higher education. Guidelines can show institutional support for faculty and staff and identify the consequences for inappropriate actions” (334). Frolow argues that setting guidelines and implementing support for students and faculty will help establish a code of ethics for online conduct. Frolow’s argument supports our claim that teaching students about how to properly behave and treat each other online will help with the problems of online incivility and hate speech. It shows support from the campuses and it also gives incentive to do better and care more when there is a standard to uphold.

Technology is going to continue to advance year after year.  If teenagers and young adults and are not given any information on how to address and manage the situation, incivility on the internet will continue to grow. Clearly, online incivility is a rapidly increasing issue that needs to be dealt with. We believe that the lack of education that has been given to young teens has resulted in a rise in online incivility. If  young teens are educated on proper online behavior, along with the effects and consequences of online incivilities will provide a foundation for a more solidified code of online conduct. In this paper we observed the effects of the lack of education on online conduct and incivility and compared them to the effects that educational programs have on issues, as well as compared and contrasted two outside articles that both supported and challenged our claims. Overall, we believe that incivility due to anonymity on the internet will continue to grow unless people are educated on the causes and effects of what they say on the internet.

 

Works Cited

Applebaum, Anne. “The Trolls Among Us.” The Trolls Among Us (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 24 Apr.

2016.

 

West, Richard. “Improving Online Civility.” Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2016.

Laura A. Wankel and Charles Wankel (Eds.). Misbehavior Online in Higher Education: Cutting-

Edge Technologies in Higher Education. Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing, 2012.

Web.

 

Essay #4 Outline-

1. Intro: (Should be about a full page)
   1. As technology continues to progress and advance rapidly in today’s modern society, the issue of proper online conduct and incivility online substantially grows as well.  Without a proper code of ethics for how to behave online added to public freedoms, specifically anonymity, the lines between freedom of speech and hate speech are easily and frequently crossed. According to the Pew Research Internet Project, “95% of all teens ages 12-17 are now online and 80% of online teens are users of social media sites. 88% of those social media-using teens have witnessed other people being mean or cruel on social networking sites” (meganmeierfoundation.org). It is apparent that online incivility is a rapidly increasing and urgent issue that needs to be addressed. The question is, what is causing teens to engage in online civility and what can be done to prevent this issue? We believe that the lack of education that has been given to young teens has resulted in a rise in online incivility. Educating young teens on proper online conduct, along with the dangers and consequences of online incivilities will provide a foundation for a more solidified code of online conduct. In this paper we will observe the effects of the lack of education on online conduct and incivility and compare them to the effects that educational programs have on issues, as well as compare and contrast two outside articles that both support and challenge our claim.
   2. I liked what we talked about in class about how people aren’t educated on the effects of incivility from anonymity so I think what we should say is that in the paper we are going to discuss the effects of people not being educated on anonymity and then our argument will be that students should be educated. One article that was in one of the packets he gave us was “The Trolls Among Us” by Ann Applebaum in which she mentioned that students should learn about this issue in schools.
2. Main Body:
   1. Outside Articles:
      1. One that challenges our argument, why it is wrong:
      2. One that supports our argument
3. Conclusion:

Some ideas for paper #4-

The increased access to the internet has opened up debate to some people that really don’t have the credibility or right to be there.

If the situation was in real life situation instead of online, it would be much different. Would you allow a high school dropout to attend a congress meeting? Or would a white supremacist be allowed to attend a Black Lives Matter rally? The answer is of course, no. However, when it comes to online there is no rules or regulation to who can attend and comment. An idea came to me after reading these articles.

Compare the behavior of a young child in these situations,

1. With a parent

1. In a classroom

1. With a friend

1. By themselves

What stands out to me is that, most likely, when a child is with a parent their behavior is going to be regulated and maintained by a set code of rules and ethics enforced by their parents. These rules and ethics transfer over into a classroom setting, where the child has a bit more sense of freedom to choose and act for themselves. However, the child’s choices are still going to be influenced by their parents. This cycle of learning how to behave properly in different environments but always being governed by our foundations of codes and ethics carries all the way into how we behave when we are by ourselves. It is how we function properly in a society. When comparing this to how to behave in an online society, one issue stands out to me, and that is the fact that the online world is a new society. Who can teach us to behave properly here? Our parents, or maybe our grandparents, all the people we would normally depend on for advice and guidance? The issue is that we cannot go to them, because they do not know how to guide us. The development of an online society is so fresh that nobody knows how to behave properly. Sure, we can take away a little bit of how we would behave in the real world and apply that to our online personas but the truth is that it is entirely different. Online we are allowed to access any website, comment on any forum whether it be way out of our scope of knowledge or not, and given the privilege to be completely anonymous. Where are the ten commandments? Who do we go to for guidance? The responsibility falls upon the young people, who have never had the responsibility of creating our own code of ethics or rules. How do we behave, when given the privilege to completely govern ourselves?

Breeaunna Lewis

Professor Werry

RWS 200

2 April 2016

Should Yik Yak Be Banned On College Campuses?

In an age of fast-pace technological development, the issue of how to behave online versus in real life is a growing concern. Without a solidified code of ethics the boundary line between right and wrong can be easily blurred, especially when the factor of anonymity is added to the equation. This ongoing debate can be observed by the smartphone app Yik Yak, launched in 2013, which allows its users to post anonymously to people within a ten-mile radius of themselves. Generally targeting school campuses, this app has generated a serious reputation for fostering hate speech within communities. Middlebury College, located in Vermont, is one of the many examples that exemplifies this Yik Yak issue. The student body debated and responded to this issue in their campus newspaper, The Middlebury Times, all taking different positions. In this essay, I will examine online anonymity’s role in incivility by analyzing three different articles from The Middlebury Times regarding the debate of banning Yik Yak on college campuses. By using Yik Yak as a test case, I will provide a credible answer to the question, “should apps like Yik Yak that allow anonymity be allowed on college campuses?”.

The first Middlebury article that will be analyzed is The Middlebury Campus editorial board members Isaac Baker and Edward O’Brien’s article, “Why not Ban Yik Yak?”. In their article, they argue that although some people feel as if to ban Yik Yak would be to impede on freedom of speech, Middlebury College is a tight-knit community and young adults should not be allowed to behave in such a way. They claim, “[w]e as members of the Middlebury community do not have any sanctified right to engage in this kind of behavior. There is a precedent for colleges banning Yik Yak and there’s no reason Middlebury cannot, in light of pervasive misuse, restrict access to the app over our wireless network” (1). In other words, Baker and O’Brien argue that by attending the University itself, there is a certain set code of ethics and regulations to abide by, as well as a standard to uphold as a student. To ban Yik Yak would not be a revokement of a student’s freedom of speech, but rather a foundation enforced by the University that targets the regulation of hate speech and allows a positive community to flourish. Baker and O’Brien’s argument appeals and is very relatable to most college students, therefore making it very persuasive.

The next Middlebury article that will be analyzed is Jordan Seman’s article, “A Letter on Yik Yak Harassment”. Seman, a student at Middlebury College, was encouraged to download the Yik Yak app by a friend for some light humor. When Seman did, she was shocked and hurt to see a hateful comment posted about herself by a fellow student. She argues that although she cannot stop the negative comments, nor will she be the last person to be attacked by hate speech, the Middlebury Campus should reflect on what kind of community they wish to uphold. Seman states, “[m]ostly, I hope that we can all reflect on what kind of community we want Middlebury to be. I know I want to be able to sit down at lunchtime and not worry about what other people are saying — or writing — about me. I want to feel comfortable on our campus, and I don’t think I’m alone” (1).  Seman makes a very strong claim for the Middlebury populace to reflect on; would any person want to constantly be at a place that only evokes negative feelings of uncomfortableness and insecurity?  It is an issue that is relatable to every college student. The college of your choice should allow a student to feel safe, secure, and at home. Seman’s argument gives the people of Middlebury campus something to think about. Her solution is not to ban anonymity all together, but rather to gain support from the community and Middlebury College itself. Seman acknowledges that she is not the only one who has or will be the victim of hateful speech and removing anonymity completely would not stop the problem.

The final Middlebury article that will be analyzed is an article published by the editorial board for The Middlebury Campus titled “Changing the Way We Yak”.  The board argues that banning apps like Yik Yak would be putting a band aid on a much bigger issue. Rather, there should be educational training about the dangers of internet ethics as there is for sexual consent and alcohol. The board claims, “[t]o clamp down on damaging online dialogue, we must provide resources and education to incoming students. In the same way that we promote sexual assault awareness and prevention, we should educate the community about the dangers of online harassment. Bystander intervention means looking out for each other, both online and off” (1). In other words, the board is advocating for media literacy. With technology developing faster and becoming more advanced each day, it is challenging to develop and implement a concrete code of ethics and guidelines. Not to mention, the internet is a huge spectrum of endless websites and to regulate all of them would be almost impossible. Accountability and ethics are as important, if not more, in modern society than they are in real life. The board offers a solution, stating, “[w]e have had countless examples for hateful online comments on this campus — we should not have to wait for Middlebury to become the public face of this problem for us to take it seriously” (1). In other words, the board is saying that taking action should not be delayed seeing how this is a developing and integral issue now. Whether Middlebury College chooses to step in or not, is essentially irrelevant and would not be a complete solution to the issue. Instead, there should be educational programs implemented that help prevent and regulate this issue alone.

The first outside article that will be analyzed is Journalism and Communication lecturer Jason Wilson’s article, “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet”. Wilson argues that anonymity provokes debate, which is essential to democracy. Wilson states, “[a]t its heart, after all, the modern unfolding of democracy has been about an opening up of public spaces, including discursive spaces, to broader participation. It proposes radical equality” (1). In other words, Wilson is claiming that anonymity opens up debate for certain people that normally would not participate due to outside circumstances, such as: race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Anonymity allows people to focus more on the argument being proposed, rather than focus on the person who is saying it.  Wilson suggests, “[r]ather than seeing incivility as an ‘end state’ into which a society can fall, we will achieve more by inculcating a ‘thick-skinned liberalism’ in younger citizens by teaching them to argue, and just as importantly to listen carefully to those with whom they disagree” (1). His solution is for people to take the incivility online as a way to learn how to debate and be more tough when dealing with cruelty.

The next outside article that will be analyzed is Facebook product design director Julie Zhuo’s article, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt”.  Zhuo argues that anonymity allows people to behave unethically without the moral obligation of having their name attached to their words. Zhuo states, “[m]orality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly” (1).  The issue of anonymity has been an ongoing issue for quite some time, however, since the coming age of the internet the choice to be anonymous has increased drastically. Without a name, it is much easier to speak without consequence. Zhuo claims that internet trolls, people who feel pleasure by various forms of online harassment, are a perfect example of how anonymity effects morality. She claims that regulating hateful comments will overall promote a more positive atmosphere, she states, “[w]ell-designed commenting systems should also aim to highlight thoughtful and valuable opinions while letting trollish ones sink into oblivion” (1).  Zhuo offers the solution of regulation, opposed to flat out banning anonymity all together. By solely focusing on reforming the negative parts of  anonymity, such as trolls, the positive parts can be enhanced and therefore outshine the negatives.

The final article that will be analyzed is an article by social media scholar and Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd, titled “‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse of Power”. Boyd claims that “[n]ot everyone is safer by giving our their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far less safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable…” (1). In other words, Boyd is speaking for the minority groups and the people who encompass them. She argues that some people should not have to expose themselves in order to protect their own identities and own personal safety. Forcing people to reveal their identities under every circumstance to compensate for those who cannot behave themselves is not a solution to the problem, but rather an abuse of power. Boyd points out that, “not everyone is a huckster,” and just because certain people are does not give others the permission to revoke certain people’s safety.

After analyzing and comparing the above articles about online anonymity and hate speech on Yik yak, I say that Yik Yak should be banned on college campuses. Here is why; banning Yik yak shows support from the campus you are paying to feel safe and comfortable while attending. That is why The Editorial Board’s, “Changing the Way We Yik Yak” offers the most persuasive argument and solutions in regards to combating this issue. I also believe in every American’s freedom of speech, but there is a fine line between speech and hate speech. When your whole identity is backed by your words, it forces you to take a moment to stop and think before you blurt out words. However, I do not believe that Yik Yak is the problem, nor do I foresee banning the app as a solution. Instead, I see Yik Yak as a safe zone for people to unveil their naturally hateful and discriminatory thoughts while being endorsed by the support of others who share the same subconscious beliefs. These people being those who could not possibly act upon those feelings with the possibility of ruining their identities.  I do believe that banning on this would just be a band aid to a much bigger issue. We must be proactive and strive to develop a code of ethics for online society by educating others on the dangers and outcomes of online hate speech. Just like with sexual assault and alcohol and drug abuse.

Breeaunna Lewis

Professor Werry

RWS 200

2 April 2016

Yik Yak Essay

`In an age of fast-pace technological development, the issue of how to behave online versus in real life is a growing concern. Without a solidified code of ethics the boundary line between right and wrong can be easily blurred, especially when the factor of anonymity is added to the equation. This ongoing debate can be observed by the smartphone app Yik Yak, launched in 2013, which allows its users to post anonymously to people within a ten-mile radius of themselves. Generally targeting school campuses, this app has generated a serious reputation for fostering hate speech within communities. Middlebury College, located in Vermont, is one of the many examples that exemplifies this Yik Yak issue. The student body debated and responded to this issue in their campus newspaper, The Middlebury Times. In this essay, I will analyze three different articles from The Middlebury Times that respond in accordance to the Yik Yak issue, compare The Middlebury articles to three outside articles, and analyze their strengths and weaknesses.

The first Middlebury article that will be analyzed is The Middlebury Campus editorial board members Isaac Baker and Edward O’Brien’s article, “Why not Ban Yik Yak?”. In their article, the boys argue that although some people feel as if to ban Yik Yak would be to impede on freedom of speech, Middlebury College is a tight-knit community and young adults should not be allowed to behave in such a way. They claim, “[w]e as members of the Middlebury community do not have any sanctified right to engage in this kind of behavior. There is a precedent for colleges banning Yik Yak and there’s no reason Middlebury cannot, in light of pervasive misuse, restrict access to the app over our wireless network” (1). In other words, Baker and O’Brien are arguing that by attending the University itself, there is a certain set code of ethics and regulations to abide by, as well as a standard to uphold as a student. To ban Yik Yak would not be a revokement of a student’s freedom of speech, but rather a foundation enforced by the University that targets the regulation of hate speech and allows a positive community to flourish.

The next Middlebury article that will be analyzed is Jordan Seman’s article, “A Letter on Yik Yak Harassment”. Seman, a student at Middlebury College, was encouraged to download the Yik Yak app by a friend for some light humor. When Seman did, she was shocked and hurt to see a hateful comment posted about herself. She argues that although she cannot stop the negative comments, nor will she be the last person to be attacked by hate speech, the Middlebury Campus should reflect on what kind of community they wish to uphold. Seman states, “[m]ostly, I hope that we can all reflect on what kind of community we want Middlebury to be. I know I want to be able to sit down at lunchtime and not worry about what other people are saying — or writing — about me. I want to feel comfortable on our campus, and I don’t think I’m alone” (1).  Seman makes a very strong claim for the Middlebury populace to reflect on; would any person want to constantly be at a place that only evokes negative feelings of uncomfortableness and insecurity?  It is an issue that is relatable to every college student. The college of your choice should allow a student to feel safe, secure, and at home. Seman’s argument gives the people of Middlebury campus something to think about. Her solution is not to ban anonymity all together, but rather to gain support from the community and Middlebury College itself. Seman acknowledges that she is not the only one who has or will be the victim of hateful speech and removing anonymity completely would not stop the problem.

The final Middlebury article that will be analyzed is an article published by the editorial board for The Middlebury Campus titled “Changing the Way We Yak”.  The board argues that banning apps like Yik Yak would be putting a band aid on a much bigger issue. Rather, there should be educational training about the dangers of internet ethics as there is for sexual consent and alcohol. The board claims, “[t]o clamp down on damaging online dialogue, we must provide resources and education to incoming students. In the same way that we promote sexual assault awareness and prevention, we should educate the community about the dangers of online harassment. Bystander intervention means looking out for each other, both online and off” (1). In other words, the board is advocating for media literacy. With technology developing faster and becoming more advanced each day, it is challenging to develop and implement a concrete code of ethics and guidelines. Not to mention, the internet is a huge spectrum of endless websites and to regulate all of them would be almost impossible. Accountability and ethics are as important, if not more, in modern society than they are in real life. The board offers a solution, stating, “[w]e have had countless examples for hateful online comments on this campus — we should not have to wait for Middlebury to become the public face of this problem for us to take it seriously” (1). In other words, the board is saying that taking action should not be delayed seeing how this is a developing and integral issue now. Whether Middlebury College chooses to step in or not, is essentially irrelevant and would not be a complete solution to the issue. Instead, there should be educational programs implemented that help prevent and regulate this issue alone.

The first outside article that will be analyzed is lecturer in Journalism and Communication Jason Wilson’s article, “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet”. Wilson argues that anonymity provokes debate, which is essential to democracy. Wilson states, “[a]t its heart, after all, the modern unfolding of democracy has been about an opening up of public spaces, including discursive spaces, to broader participation. It proposes radical equality” (1). In other words, Wilson is claiming that anonymity opens up debate for certain people that normally would not participate due to outside circumstances, such as: race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Anonymity allows people to focus more on the argument being proposed, rather than focus on the person who is saying it.  Wilson suggests, “[r]ather than seeing incivility as an ‘end state’ into which a society can fall, we will achieve more by inculcating a ‘thick-skinned liberalism’ in younger citizens by teaching them to argue, and just as importantly to listen carefully to those with whom they disagree” (1). His solution is for people to take the incivility online as a way to learn how to debate and be more tough when dealing with cruelty.

The next outside article that will be analyzed is Facebook product design director Julie Zhuo’s article, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt”.  Zhuo argues that anonymity allows people to behave unethically without the moral obligation of having their name attached to their words. Zhuo states, “[m]orality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly” (1).  The issue of anonymity has been an ongoing issue for quite some time, however, since the coming age of the internet the choice to be anonymous has increased drastically. Without a name, it is much easier to speak without consequence. Zhuo claims that internet trolls, people who feel pleasure by various forms of online harassment, are a perfect example of how anonymity effects morality. She claims that regulating hateful comments will overall promote a more positive atmosphere, she states, “[w]ell-designed commenting systems should also aim to highlight thoughtful and valuable opinions while letting trollish ones sink into oblivion” (1).  Zhuo offers the solution of regulation, opposed to flat out banning anonymity all together. By solely focusing on reforming the negative parts of  anonymity, such as trolls, the positive parts can be enhanced and therefore outshine the negatives.

The final article that will be analyzed is an article by social media scholar and Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd, titled “‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse of Power”. Boyd claims that “[n]ot everyone is safer by giving our their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far less safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable…” (1). In other words, Boyd is speaking for the minority groups and the people who encompass them. She argues that some people should not have to expose themselves in order to protect their own identities and own personal safety. Forcing people to reveal their identities under every circumstance to compensate for those who cannot behave themselves is not a solution to the problem, but rather an abuse of power. Boyd points out that, “not everyone is a huckster,” and just because certain people are does not give others the permission to revoke certain people’s safety.

After analyzing and comparing the above articles about online anonymity and hate speech on yik yak, my personal opinion is that banning yik yak shows support from the campus you are paying to feel safe and comfortable while attending. That is why The Editorial Board’s, “Changing the Way We Yik Yak” offers the most persuasive argument and solutions in regards to combating this issue. I also believe in every American’s freedom of speech, but there is a fine line between speech and hate speech. When your whole identity is backed by your words, it forces you to take a moment to stop and think before you blurt out words. However, I do not believe that Yik Yak is the problem, nor do I foresee banning the app as a solution. Instead, I see Yik Yak as a safe zone for people to unveil their naturally hateful and discriminatory thoughts while being endorsed by the support of others who share the same subconscious beliefs. These people being those who could not possibly act upon those feelings with the possibility of ruining their identities.  I do believe that banning on this would just be a band aid to a much bigger issue. We must be proactive and strive to develop a code of ethics for online society by educating others on the dangers and outcomes of online hate speech. Just like with sexual assault and alcohol and drug abuse.

Breeaunna Lewis

Professor Werry

RWS 200

2 April 2016

Yik Yak Essay

1. Introduction

1. Topic Sentence: In an age of fast-pace technological development, the issue of how to behave online versus in real life is a growing concern. Without a solidified code of ethics the boundary line between right and wrong can be easily blurred, especially when the factor of anonymity is added to the equation. This ongoing debate can be observed by the smartphone app Yik Yak, developed in 2013, which allows its users to post anonymously to people within a ten-mile radius of themselves. Generally targeting school campuses, the app has generated a serious reputation for fostering hate speech within communities. Middlebury College, located in Vermont, is one of the many examples that exemplifies this Yik Yak issue. The student body debated and responded to this issue in their campus newspaper, The Middlebury Times.

1. Thesis: In this essay, I will analyze three different articles from The Middlebury Times that respond to the Yik Yak issue, compare The Middlebury articles to three outside articles, and compare their strengths and weaknesses.

1. Body Paragraphs: Introducing the three Middlebury responses, and their strengths and weaknesses.

1. “Why not Ban Yik Yak?”

1. The first Middlebury article that will be analyzed is The Middlebury Campus editorial board members Isaac Baker and Edward O’Brien’s article, “Why not Ban Yik Yak?”.  In their article, the boys argue that although some people feel as if banning Yik Yak is impeding on freedom of speech, Middlebury College is a tight-knit community and young adults should not be allowed to behave in such a way. They claim, “We as members of the Middlebury community do not have any sanctified right to engage in this kind of behavior. There is a precedent for colleges banning Yik Yak and there’s no reason Middlebury cannot, in light of pervasive misuse, restrict access to the app over our wireless network” (1).

1. “A letter on Yik Yak Harassment”

1. The next Middlebury article that will be analyzed is Jordan Seman’s article, “A Letter on Yik Yak Harassment”. Seman, a student at Middlebury College, was encouraged to download the Yik Yak app by a friend for some light humor. When Seman did, she was shocked and hurt to see a hateful comment about herself. She argues that although she cannot stop the negative comments, nor will she be the last person to be attacked by hate speech, the Middlebury Campus should reflect on what kind of community they wish to obtain. Seman states, “[m]ostly, I hope that we can all reflect on what kind of community we want Middlebury to be. I know I want to be able to sit down at lunchtime and not worry about what other people are saying — or writing — about me. I want to feel comfortable on our campus, and I don’t think I’m alone” (1).  Seman makes a very strong claim for the Middlebury populace to reflect on. What campus do they wish to have? It is a question that is relatable to every college student, nobody wants to feel uncomfortable and out of place somewhere that should feel like a second home.  Seman’s argument gives the people of Middlebury campus something to think about. Her solution is not to ban anonymity all together, but rather to have support from the community and Middlebury College itself. Seman acknowledges that she is not the only one who has or will be the victim of hateful speech and removing anonymity completely would not stop the problem.

1. “Changing the way we yak”

1. The final Middlebury article that will be analyzed is an article published by the editorial board for The Middlebury Campus titled “Changing the Way We Yak”.  The board argues that banning apps like Yik Yak would be putting a band aid on a much bigger issue. Rather there should be educational training about the dangers of internet ethics like there is for sexual consent and alcohol. The board claims, “To clamp down on damaging online dialogue, we must provide resources and education to incoming students. In the same way that we promote sexual assault awareness and prevention, we should educate the community about the dangers of online harassment. Bystander intervention means looking out for each other, both online and off” (1). In other words, the board is advocating for media literacy. With technology developing faster and becoming more advanced each day, it is challenging to keep up with it all. Accountability and ethics are as important, if not more, in modern society then they are in real life. The board offers a solution, stating, “[w]e have had countless examples for hateful online comments on this campus — we should not have to wait for Middlebury to become the public face of this problem for us to take it seriously” (1). Develop More

 

1. More Body Paragraphs: Introduce the three outside articles that respond to the same Yik Yak issue

1. Wilson, “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet”

1. The first outside article that will be analyzed is lecturer in Journalism and Communication Jason Wilson’s article, “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet”. Wilson argues that anonymity provokes debate, which is essential to democracy. Wilson states, “[a]t its heart, after all, the modern unfolding of democracy has been about an opening up of public spaces, including discursive spaces, to broader participation. It proposes radical equality” (1). In other words, Wilson is claiming that anonymity opens up debate for certain people that normally would not participate due to circumstances, such as: race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Anonymity allows people to focus more on the argument being proposed, rather than focus on the person who is saying it.  Develop this more.

1. Julie Zhuo, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt”

1. The next outside article that will be analyzed is product design director for Facebook Julie Zhuo’s article, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt”.  Zhuo argues that anonymity allows people to behave unethically without the moral obligation of having their name attached to their words. Zhuo states, “[m]orality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly” (1).  The issue of anonymity has been an ongoing issue for quite some time, however, since the coming age of the internet the choice to be anonymous has increased drastically. Without a name, it is much easier to speak without consequence. Zhuo claims that internet trolls are a perfect example of how anonymity effects morality. She claims that regulating hateful comments will overall promote a more positive atmosphere, she states, “[w]ell-designed commenting systems should also aim to highlight thoughtful and valuable opinions while letting trollish ones sink into oblivion” (1).  Zhuo offers the solution of regulation, opposed to flat out banning anonymity all together. Maybe develop this further

1. Dana Boyd, “‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse of Power”

1. The final article that will be analyzed is an article by social media scholar and Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd, titled “‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse of Power”.

1. Conclusion: Identify the most persuasive case out of the six and why it is the most persuasive.

1. Julie Zhuo’s article is the most persuasive to me.

I looked closely on the Middleburry Yik-Yak articles and the strongest claim I found was that the campus community should work to support the victims of hateful anonymity posts, like the ones on Yik-Yak. The Middleburry Times claims that while banning Yik-Yak completely is almost impossible, it is very important that students are aware that the campus supports all its students and strives for a supportive and close-knit college community. However, banning Yik-Yak completely is very controversial because of the freedom of speech debate and the fact that students will still be able to access the app by using data, it still shows a sense of support to the students that have been targeted. It is very hard to deal with issues on your own, and especially if you feel like nobody is there to support or back you up. By Middleburry’s active response and support of Jordan Seman’s letter, it shows a strong sense of support from the school and shows that the community is working hard to fix certain hateful online harassment issues from happening consecutively.

Breeaunna Lewis

Professor Werry

RWS 200

3 February 2016

Demagoguery in the Twenty-First Century

As America’s presidential election approaches, the nation is being exposed to many forms of rhetoric. One of the Presidential candidates, Donald Trump, has caused a phenomenal uproar by his harsh and radical speeches and comments which have led to a widespread debate over whether or not Trump should be labeled a modern-day demagogue. In the article “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” professor of rhetoric and writing at The University of Texas, Patricia Roberts-Miller, discusses the elements and characteristics of demagoguery and claims that it is a form of rhetoric that removes debate and offers only one true solution while promoting members of an ingroup to hate or scapegoat specific outgroups. Demagoguery as a form of rhetoric can be found throughout America’s history and is identifiable in present day society, particularly in times of crisis, anxiety, and contested social change. Some of the elements of demagoguery described in Roberts-Miller’s article can be found in the inaugural speech given in 1963 by the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, who challenges the attempts of the federal government to impose laws of desegregation. The elements of demagoguery used by Wallace to gain support and followers can be compared in present day politician, Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech. Wallace illustrates a prototypical demagogue in America’s history, however, the extent to which Trump uses demagogic strategies to gain support in the current political moment is still under debate. In this essay I will evaluate the elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s and Trump’s speeches, examine the extent to which Trump builds off of Wallace, and compare the extent in which demagoguery is present in both by analyzing each text through the lens of Miller’s text.

One of the most prominent and recurring elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s speech is his use of polarization. Roberts-Miller defines polarization in regards to demagoguery, stating, “a demagogue breaks everything into two camps the one s/he represents (what people call the in-group), and evil (the out-group)” (51). Roberts-Miller’s definition is very applicable and can be identified in Wallace’s speech, where he immediately creates an ingroup, being the people who believe in segregation, and an out-group, being all the people who support desegregation. Wallace begins his speech by directly addressing his in-group, stating, “[l]et us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South” (72). In saying this, Wallace creates a distinctive barrier between his in-groups and outgroups by using words such as “us” and “they”. He further defines a barrier between the two groups by attributing them with positive descriptions, such as: “upright man”, “true southerners”, and “the greatest people that have ever trod this earth”. Wallace manipulates his word choice and highly emphasizes his use of words, such as: my, us, and we, when addressing his in-group. By using this type of language, he evokes feelings of importance, entitlement, and essentialism from his audience. This same manipulation of word choice is also used when Wallace addresses his outgroup. He again uses the same separating words, but rather in the opposite way. Some examples of these separating descriptions are, “ungodly government”, “opposite of Christ”, and “the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South”. These descriptions only further evoke feelings of hatred and fear from the in-group, thus leading to an increase of support for Wallace.

Another apparent element of demagoguery used in Wallace’s speech is demonization. Demonizing, as defined by Roberts-Miller, “is done through explicitly saying that the out-group is Satan himself, or through metaphors that imply Satan and Devils” (52). Roberts-Miller claims that this element of demagoguery “is a scare tactic that helps polarize the situation,” and “is part of the general project of demagoguery of making it actively dangerous to disagree” (53). Wallace exemplifies this element of demagoguery, as described by Roberts-Miller, when he uses it to demonize the federal government and African-Americans. Wallace states, “… [i]f we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers then the enrichment of our lives, the freedom for our development, is gone forever” (76). Wallace attacks the federal government by creating a connection between them and communism. In the eyes of most Americans, a communist is one of the worst identities a person can claim to have. Wallace extends this further by using many more demonizing terms towards the federal government, such as: “opposite of Christ”, “ungodly government”, and even compares it “to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South” (75). By demonizing the federal government, Wallace evokes feelings of righteousness and unity within his audience by appealing to their fears, anxieties, and subconscious hatred.

One of the most noticeable fallacies found in Wallace’s speech is the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy can be defined as making a claim that one idea or action will lead to something completely awful and disastrous. Wallace uses this in his speech, stating, “[b]ut we warn those, of any group, who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamation that we will not surrender our system of government, our freedom of race and religion…” (76). In other words, he is claiming that if the federal government desegregates Alabama the “true Southerners” will have to surrender to a communist government and lose their freedom of race and religion. This is a perfect illustration of how Wallace uses the slippery slope fallacy to intimidate and instill fear in his audience. Realistically, the federal government is not communist for trying to implement a new law, which is their job. Realistically, the government is also not going to take away its people’s freedom of religion.

The same elements of demagoguery present in Wallace’s speech can be examined in Trump’s presidential announcement speech. In many of the same ways that Wallace uses the strategy of polarization, Trump does as well. Trump begins his speech, instantly attacking and creating a separation between two sides, claiming, “[w]hen was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us” (1).  By using language such as “us” and “they”, Trump creates a distinct division between all those who support him against all those who disagree with him. Trump also intensifies his argument by using such extreme metaphors, such as: “they kill us”. He is repetitive with these aggressive metaphors, using them frequently. When using the word “they”, Trump is able to address all of his outgroups, such as: China, Mexico, Japan, Muslims, other politicians, etc., therefore resulting in ambiguity and interpretation from his supporters. “They” are made the enemy, while Trump’s ingroup are the victims. Trump illustrates how his in-group are the victims, stating, “[a]nd we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing” (3). By simply flipping the word choice when addressing his in-group, Trump is able to create a much different tone. The word “they” is used much more harshly and negatively compared to the use of the word “we”. This strategy used by Trump is very similar to Wallace’s use of word choice and manipulation to gain support and evoke feelings of righteousness and unity from supporters, while simultaneously putting the blame for America’s problems on the outgroup. Both Trump and Wallace use polarization, as described by Roberts-Miller, in their speeches to separate their audiences into two distinguished groups of good and evil.

While Trump’s speech is rich with many fallacies, the one that stands out most is Ad Hominem. The Ad Hominem fallacy, can be defined by Roberts-Miller as, ” [a] personal attack; it generally involves some kind of name-calling. It’s really a kind of red herring, as it’s generally irrelevant to the question at hand, and is an attempt to distract the attention of the audience” (www.drw.utexas.edu).  Trump illustrates this fallacy, as described by Roberts-Miller, frequently, claiming, “[t]he Mexican government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc….” (www.townhall.com). Trump generalizes The Mexican people of the United States, calling them “criminals”, “drug dealers”, and “rapists”, which is completely inaccurate and stereotypical. However, it appeals to the hatred, jealousy, and racism that lie in many American’s hearts making it a powerful strategy to use.

People are exposed to many forms of rhetoric every day. It is very important, as a society, to know when the words being spoken are being used maliciously. By becoming more informed and educated on the different forms of rhetoric, including the negative side, we are more able to delegate what is honest and what is being used to manipulate us. Roberts-Miller’s description of demagoguery is especially important in modern day society. With upcoming presidential elections, our nation has been exposed to a higher amount of manipulative rhetoric. It is important to remember that while rhetoric is essential, it is also important that our democratic nation keep its ability to debate.

Demagoguery In The Twenty-First Century

As America’s presidential election approaches, the nation is being exposed to many forms of rhetoric. Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has caused a phenomenal uproar by his harsh and radical speeches and comments. However, Trump still remains to play an active role in the election, which leads people to question whether this man is just crazy or a modern-day demagogue.  In the article “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” professor of rhetoric and writing at The University of Texas Patricia Roberts-Miller discusses the elements and characteristics of demagoguery and claims that it is a polarizing propaganda form of rhetoric that promotes members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat certain outgroups. Demagoguery as a form of rhetoric can be found throughout America’s history and is applicable to present day society, particularly in America’s current political moment, where many people are debating whether elements of demagoguery are being used to obtain a political position. Some of the elements of demagoguery described in Roberts-Miller’s article can be found in the inaugural speech given by the Governor of Alabama in 1963, George Wallace, who challenges the attempts of the federal government to impose laws of desegregation and argues that Alabama must stand up against the government and African-Americans in order to remain virtuous and save Alabama. The elements of demagoguery used by Wallace to gain support and followers can be compared in present day politician’s, Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech. Wallace illustrates a prototypical demagogue in America’s history, however, the extent to which Trump uses demagogic strategies to gain support in the current political moment is still under debate. In this essay I will evaluate the elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s and Trump’s speeches, examine the extent to which Trump builds off of Wallace, and compare the extent in which demagoguery is present in both by analyzing each text through the lens of Miller’s text.

One of the most prominent and recurring elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s speech is his use of polarization. Roberts-Miller defines polarization in regards to demagoguery, stating, “a demagogue breaks everything into two camps the one s/he represents(what people call the in-group), and evil(the out-group)” (51). Roberts-Miller’s definition is very applicable and can be easily found in Wallace’s speech, where he immediately creates an ingroup, being the people who believe in segregation, and an out-group, being all the people who support desegregation. Wallace begins his speech by directly addressing his ingroup, stating, “[l]et us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South” (72). In saying this, Wallace creates a distinctive barrier between his ingroup and outgroup by using words such as “us” and “they”. By using this type of language, Wallace is provoking negative emotions of hatred and anger towards the people who support desegregation, therefore making an issue that should be overcome as a united nation an issue of people against people. This element of demagoguery appeals to people’s subconscious, thus making it a very powerful and persuasive form of rhetoric.

Another apparent element of demagoguery used in Wallace’s speech is motivism. Motivism, as defined by Roberts-Miller, “is the assertion that people don’t really have reasons for what they do, but they are motivated by something else- some dark motive” (54). In other words, Roberts-Miller is saying that this element of demagoguery serves no genuine purpose to audience, but rather is only used for reasons that are advantageous to the speaker’s argument. Wallace states, “…[i]f we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers then the enrichment of our lives, the freedom for our development, is gone forever” (76). Wallace creates a connection between the federal government and communism, while simultaneously making a connection between the Southerners and freedom, thus resulting in the fulfillment of his own desires for power. Given the circumstances of the historical events that were taking or had just taken place during the time of Wallace’s speech, there was most likely a lot of hatred, fear, and vulnerability in the people of the south, making this an opportune time for Wallace to using the demagogic element of motivism to gain support and power.  

One of the most protrusive fallacies found in Wallace’s speech is the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy can be defined as making a claim that one idea or action will lead to something completely awful and disastrous. Wallace uses this in his speech, stating, “[b]ut we warn those, of any group, who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamation that we will not surrender our system of government, our freedom of race and religion…” (76). In other words, he is claiming that if the federal government desegregates Alabama the “true Southerners” will lose have to surrender to a communist government and lose their freedom of race and religion. This is a perfect illustration of how Wallace uses the slippery slope fallacy to intimidate and instill fear in his audience. Realistically, the federal government is not communist for trying to implement new laws, that is their job. Realistically, the government is also not going to take away its people’s freedom of religion.

The same elements of demagoguery present in Wallace’s speech can be examined in Trump’s presidential announcement speech. In many of the same ways that Wallace uses the strategy of polarization, Trump does as well.  Trump begins his speech, instantly creating a separation between two sides, stating, “[w]hen was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us” (1).  By using language such as “us” and “they”, Trump makes distinctly divides his audience into an ingroup and an outgroup, either being with him or against him. This strategy evokes feelings of antipathy and anger from the ingroup towards outgroup and also allows the ingroup to feel significant and necessary in society. This element of demagoguery as a form of rhetoric is very similar to Wallace’s use of polarization in his speech. Both Trump and Wallace use polarization in their speeches to separate their audiences into people that support their argument, and those who disagree with it.

While Trump’s speech is rich with many fallacies, the one that stands out most is Ad Hominem. The Ad Hominem fallacy, also known as “attacking the man”, can be defined when a person makes a claim or an argument on an irrelevant fact about their opponent. Trump attacks his opponents and outgroup frequently, stating, “[y]ou know, when President Obama was elected, I said, ‘Well, the one thing, I think he’ll do well. I think he’ll be a great cheerleader for the country. I think he’d be a great spirit’” (3). By deliberately attacking President Obama, Trump is able to make himself look better while simultaneously putting his opponent down. Trump continuously attacks his outgroup throughout the rest of his speech. This fallacy is the most prominent in mostly all of Trump’s speeches. This form of rhetoric is harsh and draws attention from listeners, which has both positive and negative effects. The positive being that Trump gets a lot of  attention and people listen. The negatives being that the attention is more negative rather than positive, and it also produces a lot of hatred and anger among people.

Rhetoric is very powerful and has a high influence on humanity and everyday life. It is very important to be informed, educated, and aware of the how rhetoric can be used to manipulate and deceive its audience. Demagoguery is only one of the ways that rhetoric can be used negatively. Now, more than ever, is a time to be united as a nation and work to overcome issues together rather than being turned against neighbors. Demagoguery offers only two solutions, one good and one bad, but demagoguery does not have to be a choice at all. America is and can remain to be great, as long as its people are united and work together.

As America’s presidential election approaches, the nation is being exposed to many forms of rhetoric. Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has caused a phenomenal uproar by his harsh and radical speeches and comments. However, Trump still remains to play an active role in the election, which leads people to question whether this man is just crazy or a modern-day demagogue.  In the article “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” professor of rhetoric and writing at The University of Texas Patricia Roberts-Miller discusses the elements and characteristics of demagoguery and claims that it is a polarizing propaganda form of rhetoric that promotes members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat certain outgroups. Demagoguery as a form of rhetoric can be found throughout America’s history and is applicable to present day society, particularly in America’s current political moment, where many people are debating whether elements of demagoguery are being used to obtain a political position. Some of the elements of demagoguery described in Roberts-Miller’s article can be found in the inaugural speech given by the Governor of Alabama in 1963, George Wallace, who challenges the attempts of the federal government to impose laws of desegregation and argues that Alabama must stand up against the government and African-Americans in order to remain virtuous and save Alabama. The elements of demagoguery used by Wallace to gain support and followers can be compared in present day politician’s, Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech. Wallace illustrates a prototypical demagogue in America’s history, however, the extent to which Trump uses demagogic strategies to gain support in the current political moment is still under debate. In this essay I will evaluate the elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s and Trump’s speeches, examine the extent to which Trump builds off of Wallace, and compare the extent in which demagoguery is present in both by analyzing each text through the lens of Miller’s text.

One of the most prominent and recurring elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s speech is his use of polarization. Roberts-Miller defines polarization in regards to demagoguery, stating, “a demagogue breaks everything into two camps the one s/he represents(what people call the in-group), and evil(the out-group)” (51). Roberts-Miller’s definition is very applicable and can be easily found in Wallace’s speech, where he immediately creates an ingroup, being the people who believe in segregation, and an out-group, being all the people who support desegregation. Wallace begins his speech by directly addressing his ingroup, stating, “[l]et us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South” (72). In saying this, Wallace creates a distinctive barrier between his ingroup and outgroup by using words such as “us” and “they”. By using this type of language, Wallace is provoking negative emotions of hatred and anger towards the people who support desegregation, therefore making an issue that should be overcome as a united nation an issue of people against people. This element of demagoguery appeals to people’s subconscious, thus making it a very powerful and persuasive form of rhetoric.

Another apparent element of demagoguery used in Wallace’s speech is motivism. Motivism, as defined by Roberts-Miller, “is the assertion that people don’t really have reasons for what they do, but they are motivated by something else- some dark motive” (54). In other words, Roberts-Miller is saying that this element of demagoguery serves no genuine purpose to audience, but rather is only used for reasons that are advantageous to the speaker’s argument. Wallace states, “…[i]f we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers then the enrichment of our lives, the freedom for our development, is gone forever” (76). Wallace creates a connection between the federal government and communism, while simultaneously making a connection between the Southerners and freedom, thus resulting in the fulfillment of his own desires for power. Given the circumstances of the historical events that were taking or had just taken place during the time of Wallace’s speech, there was most likely a lot of hatred, fear, and vulnerability in the people of the south, making this an opportune time for Wallace to using the demagogic element of motivism to gain support and power.  

1. Transition from last paragraph. One fallacy in Wallace’s speech is slippery slope.(Will further develop this)

The same elements of demagoguery present in Wallace’s speech can be examined in Trump’s presidential announcement speech. In many of the same ways that Wallace uses the strategy of polarization, Trump does as well.  Trump begins his speech, instantly creating a separation between two sides, stating, “[w]hen was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us” (1).  By using language such as “us” and “they”, Trump makes distinctly divides his audience into an ingroup and an outgroup, either being with him or against him. This strategy evokes feelings of antipathy and anger from the ingroup towards outgroup and also allows the ingroup to feel significant and necessary in society. This element of demagoguery as a form of rhetoric is very similar to Wallace’s use of polarization in his speech. Both Trump and Wallace use polarization in their speeches to separate their audiences into people that support their argument, and those who disagree with it.

1. Trump’s use of motivism compared to Wallace’s (Similarities and differences)

 

1. Fallacy in Trump’s speech? Attacking the person/ad Hominem
2. Conclusion (How this affects the world we live in today)