Can Political Rhetoric Be Too Civil Summary

So when someone like Donald Trump comes along with his strong, divisive rhetoric that can be classified as being not politically correct or divisive it shakes the nation and gains him the presidency. The author states:“Sadly, like a lovely field of wildflowers—which in reality is filled with bloodsucking ticks and noxious pollen—we live oh-so-politely in what must certainly be the rudest era in recorded history. Maybe even prehistory.” That example and statement serve to prove and support the reality that we live in an era of politically correctness to not exclude anyone, but in reality we are more divided than ever before. Today people hold the belief that the divisive rhetoric of Donald Trump is the root of all evil in the United States. But, the nation had been divided racially, socially and economically way before the Trump epoc. It is just showcased more now than it was

The editorial, “weaponized words” written by Kate Manne and Jason Stanley is a cry for help in the world of politics, which argues that the freedom of speech laws allow for the voices of dominant social groups to overpower those that are inferior. This opinion is also shown in the third political cartoon provided, that shows two different social groups under the same “freedom of speech” umbrella, who have to deal with each other constantly trying to oppress the other. These laws make it hard for any advancement of the lower-class societies.

In countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

In his State of the Union Address for 2016, Barack Obama uses logical and ethical arguments to emphasize shared ground rather than partisan disputes. He also taps into the audience’s desire to feel better about themselves and their country. By using humor and irony, Obama paints his opponents into corners, out of which it would require outrageous extremism to effectively squirm away. At its best, this approach demonstrates how much Americans actually have in common in a culture dominated by ideologically polarized cable-news channels, Facebook, and cultural tribes that increasingly live and socialize apart from one another. The president's technique throughout the speech is to frame issues through a rhetorical jujitsu to persuade his opponents,

The Lyceum this past Sunday was about the ways people can put an end to incessant squabbling over differences and get to a place that allows for calm and rational discussion. The discussion panel was comprised of five speakers: Senator Horn, a Republican; Senator Jackson, a Democrat; Dr. Barakat, a Muslim woman whose family was affected by anti-Islamic violence; Professor Monde, Department of Sociology at Wingate and Mr. Romain, a Mecklenburg County Assistant District Attorney “ADA.” The panel presented a range of views on the topic of civil discourse. One crucial point made during the discussion was that people have to acknowledge the nature of the problems that exist within our society.

Through the transition of opinion left behind a hysterical fear of radical racism and recollection of the demeanor of The United States’ history regarding race. A population in disillusion of the thought of racism and it’s consequences. Tensions have built to the degree some are pursuing anyone who is racist. Although racism is less prevalent today, an anomaly has surfaced, where people get accused for verbally portraying something supposedly ‘racist’ but rather are purposely taken out of context. Often for personal gratification, a righteousness prosecution of anything that could be manipulated or slightly interpreted as racist or isn’t politically correct. This ‘P.C. culture’ stands to remove ‘Rude’ or ‘Hateful’ speech and believes, especially

"Fighting for Our Lives" offers great insight into the current state of public dialogue. Deborah Tannen describes how our public interactions have increasingly become "warlike", in the way we discuss ideas, the way we cover the news, and the way we settle disputes. She observes that an adversarial approach has become the standard as much in public dialogue as it has in "just about anything we need to accomplish". Although she concedes that "conflict and opposition are as necessary as cooperation and agreement", she believes that the balance has been tipped in recent years. An "argument culture" has pervaded American culture, and the consequences are real.

While it is true that minority groups suffer pain and injury as the result of racist speech, we cannot escape the idea of allowing “hate mongering” for the interest of society in whole or in part. We need a free flow of ideas in all matters of dealing with one another especially in our democracy. There is an imperative need for us for a full understanding of the nature and extent of our speech, in this way no harm is inflicted.

Yet, it is important to realize the colossal differences that exist between hate speech and political protest, or any other societal critique. Hate speech differs from all other discourse in that it can never lead to anything productive for society, and the value of counter discourse can be judge as minimal. The characteristics that are under attack in hate speech are immutable and innate to an individual, and there is nothing that can, or should be, done to change them. Consequently, it is very well possible to distinguish between hate speech and any other forms of speech. Of course, the slippery slope argument can always be applied by fear mongers, who ask, “Where will the line be drawn? If we stop allowing the KKK to disseminate racist propaganda, then how can we continue to be a democratic country?” Nonetheless, if the slippery slope argument is indeed being invoked, then it is even becomes easier to see how racist speech can lead to genocidal violence, and then the calculation that must be made is the tradeoff between the stifling of democracy and a major loss of life. Definitely, on the other hand, there will be individuals who say that this revision to the harm principle does not go far enough, and that there is no clear answer to whether or not gladiator contests can be held in Yankee

Civil discourse is at the basis of progressing society. Without it, the world could perhaps remain stagnant. We live in a fast paced world that is always morphing and changing. As the world evolves, so does science and we need to be able to create new laws and re-evaluate old ones to ensure that they are appropriate for modern day. We also need to be able to address ideas and topics with many different perspectives, with all parties being respected and considered. To oppose civil discourse is to oppose innovation. Without the one there is no other. The two go hand in hand because to ever progress, one must first challenge the old and present something new.

Civil Discourse is an honest conversation that brings interest, civil manor, and understanding to all participants throughout an argument. No matter if the topic is given vocally, or written, participants have great knowledge on the input that is shared.

From nations, faiths, views, and cultures, there are many aspects which make individuals distinct and different from one another. Most of the time, a great deal of these differences are beneficial as they enable humans to learn and progress from each other's practices. Yet overtime, these dissimilarities have sown seeds of abhorrence, fear, and animosity in many, which are steadily watered by our own mindsets. The media, politicians, and large corporations thrive off of this fear and exploit it. Only they profit whilst acquiring power and authority by consistently feeding citizens with propaganda and fear in hopes to create more separation. It’s ironic how humans proclaim to be the most brilliant and dominant creatures on this planet. They

Civility as a virtue is commonly invoked in contemporary political discussions, given modern political America’s highly partisan interactions and the reemergence of battles for civil rights. However, many argue that civility, while an admirable virtue for the individual, is not easily applied on a larger scale and should not be considered to be a civic virtue. Civility as a civic virtue may hinder our chances of genuine and productive political interactions and serve as an impediment to honest communication. If civility is considered to lie on a sliding scale—seen as an aim for political correctness on the right and the goal of silencing dissent on the left—what

I have chosen to investigate the language used in political speeches discussing racial equality. The recent flow of political debates and speeches, brought on by the upcoming 2016 presidential election in American, and Donald Trump's clear display of controversial views regarding racial equality, has inspired me to study the way in which other political figures have confronted this issue throughout time.

In society today we are faced with a growing hotbed of tensions between races, political parties