David Brooks : Fanatics And Fanaticism

The 2016 Presidential Election is approaching quickly, and as is customary a number of highly controversial issues have taken center stage and each side argues their position with oftentimes charged rhetoric. Using the rhetorical strategies discussed in class (ethos, pathos, and logos) in varying degrees and combinations both Democrats and Republicans appeal to their base and attempt to reach out to those who are on the fence. Oftentimes, whether a presentation or piece of controversial writing is political or apolitical a sizable majority of the readership will begin reading with preconceived notions. Those who take a hardline stance against the writer's position typically will never be convinced to adopt it. However, a large minority of readers

To achieve this effect, Alexander appeals to the pathos of the readers. According to Thank You For Arguing, “Pathos, or argument by emotion…appeals to the brain, gut, and the heart of your audience,” (Heinrichs 40). To appeal to these various parts of the readers, Alexander utilizes rhetoric. The rhetoric in Alexander’s text basically gives the readers a call to action. Alexander uses an experience of an individual, who was targeted because of his race to appeal to pathos of the readers, “In that case, Terrance Bostick, a twenty-eight-year-old African American, had been sleeping in the back seat of a Greyhound bus…suspicionless police,” (Alexander XX). Alexander uses this personal experience of Mr. Bostick to reveal the ambiguities in the American justice system. She frames the experience in such a way that the police are looked upon as the bad guys, which shows how she has appealed to the pathos of the readers. The specific readers, who are are target of Alexander’s text, feel that there is something wrong with the justice system if people are only being suspected and arrested based on their skin color. They do not feel bad for the person’s actions, as they were illegal, but they demean the manner in which he was arrested and it sort of riles them up. Alexander uses this type of rhetoric in her text to emphasize that the United States’ justice system is set up in a

By primarily utilizing pathological rhetoric through a colloquial tone, Mike Royko is able to effectively support his exposé of an argument in “A Faceless Man’s Plea”. Primarily, he is only using 33% of the basic rhetorical strategies; pathos. This usage is however justified in reference to his argument, in that his whole piece sets out to provoke an emotional response from the people who read it, in which the Veterans Association must thereafter appease due to the theoretical outcry the public would create in response to “blind, faceless Leroy Bailey[’s case]” (Royko 2). Although personally irritating, Royko does precisely what he set out to do, in that the VA undertook response in under 24 hours; Bailey would supposedly receive funds to complete surgical operations necessary to construct his fact to

Carlson gives evidence of the decline in public discourse by summarizing an incident in which a talk radio host crossed the line of decency by failing to respect a person whose ideas differed from his and his listeners’. Why is it important to maintain civility toward those whom you disagree?

In Martin Luther King Jr.ʻs (MLK) “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” excessive use of rhetoric devices are used such as logos (logical), pathos (emotional) and ethos (ethical). Although all examples of rhetoric are present, some seem to appeal more than others. Some of the most effective rhetoric used in the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” are logos and pathos. While there are multiple examples of ethical (ethos) rhetoric and many more additional rhetorical devices, logical and emotional appliances seem to have an abundant amount of examples relative to these two devices. Therefore, in this prompt, I will further explore the meanings of these implements and examples referring to this topic.

The speaker is camouflaging compelling emotions with external civility. While the hiding of true feelings is an everyday

John Wyndham presented the themes the dangers of the nuclear war, the acceptance of others who are different than the “norm”, the negative effects of religious fanaticism, and the evolution of the human species throughout The Chrysalids. These themes, specifically the acceptance of others who are different than the “norm”, make The Chrysalids a futuristic and memorable novel. Accepting others who are different than the norm is a common theme in both The Chrysalids and our society today. This was demonstrated by presenting a town with no imperfections and contrasting it with a town full of imperfections, Wyndham displays a great progression from our reality. After the tribulation anything other than the “norm” is not acceptable in the town of

His use of trope, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate” explains America’s policies with handling negotiations with other countries. Using the phrase “both sides” as well as incorporating logos, he explains why it is logical to avoid war. The use of “both sides” suggest that he isn’t take any one sides part, but is looking at war as a whole, a war between two sides, looking through the eyes of each side and understanding what causes it. He wants us to unite and look at society and its changes positively: “where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.” His plea for peace both within the country and around the world let the audience know that he genuinely is against war, a terror that they were sick and tired

The use of logos (Ruszkiewicz) in the argument made by Dr. King proves that reason does rule over emotion, at least in the words he was able to get on paper. Even the use of paper was withheld initially to Dr. King and yet his words shine through the murk of politics and the depths of pathos. No matter what beliefs were held throughout Alabama at the time, it is hard to disagree with a point made so obvious through common sense. Just after the passage mentioned above he uses a great deal of pathos to back up his point. He asks “Will we be extremists for hate or for love:”, while this is an appeal to pathos it is directly backing up the conclusion reached through using logos. While initially disappointed, after thinking it through he decides being an extremist is really very satisfactory. He even uses ethos to back up the logos of his prior statements by comparing himself to historical and biblical figures once also deemed extreme. By keeping a clear head unclouded by ethos or pathos, he was able to speak precisely and profoundly to the heart of the matter.

David Brooks is a conservative political Op Ed writer who writes for the New York Times. His first experience as a writer was after his graduation, when he received a job as a writer for the City News Bureau of Chicago where he developed his conservative ideology and began utilizing writing to evangelize his values as a conservative writer. He has had many other jobs after that, all of which have strengthened his ability as a writer and brought him closer to his job at the New York Times. He artfully crafts intense and persuasive arguments through his use of Pathos through his historical evidence and quotes while establishing complex tone through diction. He trapps readers with well crafted hooks and releases them into the world with a different

In Brooks’ statement, “many of us are so narrow-minded that we can’t tolerate a few people with ideas significantly different from our own” (Brooks 136), he sounds very passionate about what he is saying. I believe that when a writer becomes emotional about their argument, it is more engaging and gives the reader a reason to be convinced. Brooks begins this fundamental paragraph comparing our wish for diversity to our dream of equality. He says that both of these are “based on ideals we celebrate even as we undermine them daily” (Brooks 135). In this 21st century, one would think that equality exists everywhere, however similarly, women still get paid less than men for the same job, and discrimination by race occurs plenty to this day. The same unawareness occurs with diversity, which we see, but by nature, we prevent it. Brooks continuously tells how terrible the situation is,

The exploration of fundamentalism began in school. As a senior student, I was tasked with inviting a speaker to our high school Model UN conference. I invited Pervez Hoodbhoy: decorated physicist and outspoken secularist. I regarded Hoodbhoy’s arrival as revelation. Who better to illuminate my path than the lone voice against extremism in the country? Alas, the director of our institution ordered the administration to instruct me to retract my invitation.

Everyone with a moral compass believes that the Nazis are bad. However, fighting them doesn’t make you or your cause good. Jonah Goldberg struggles to employ pathos, however, he employs ethos, logos, and kairos to successfully highlight why Antifa is no better than their alt-right enemies to persuade American adults along with those who blindly support Antifa, in his article “The Alt-Right is Bad – And So Is ‘Antifa.’”

The purpose of my paper is to construct a picture in your mind of the cult of Isis during the fourth century. In an attempt, I will describe Isis, the cult ceremonies, and the society around them dealing with the cult

In this week’s reading we see Socrates vs accusers and him telling his side of the story to the jury and the people. He is being accused of being a great orator but he is denying that. A popular cultural event that can be related to this week’s topic is that there are two sides to a story, bigotry and hate and the opposing sides. This is a major controversy in today’s society that causes division and hate among each other. Socrates says, disgrace/dishonor/immorality is worse than death. Bigotry and hate are a disgrace to society and dishonor human morals. George Clooney added his voice to this topic saying, “he wanted to add financial assistance to the ongoing fight for equality and that there are two sides to bigotry and hate that need to