Hypocrisy Is A For Modern Civilization 's Language

The use of propaganda and double-speaking have a long history, going back to the ancient societies. Propaganda and doublespeak are the use of verbal exchange to have an effect on the emotions, attitudes, and opinions of human beings. To try to get them to accept a particular political, religious, or financial point of view, or even to start a war. It is careful manipulation of the opinions of the societies mostly by their government. In the effort to control the nation 's thought process, the government has stemmed to using mass propaganda for selling a war.

However, many groups claim that political correctness in society is justified in its efforts to sanitize offensive material created though years of oppressing minorities. What was originally a noble idea, to remove blatant words of offensive meaning, has turned into an “over the top” effort to rid any words of possible controversy. We are regulating our ways of plain speaking, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech. Laws of restrictions on slander and public decency should be decided on the common law methodology and not by the interests of the liberal “mob”. If plain speaking is not allowed, clear thinking is

The Idols of the Marketplace are illusions formed when people communicate with one another. These illusions are caused by the misuse of words, which results in misinterpretation. There are two classes in which the illusions may fall. The first class consists of words that are invented with no meanings and do not exist. The second class is made up of words that have double meanings. Let us take the word liberal; there are countless ways an individual may interpret this word. One person may associate it with becoming a progressive individual, while someone else may connect it with being honorable through education. No matter the word, there are always multiple ways to view and apply the meaning of a word to a situation.

In addition to suggesting that eradicating prejudice can cause bigger conflicts among the “purist” and “pluralist”. Rauch also argues when purist campaign against words they are also only targeting the surface of the issue. Everyone who is a minority is a target to this kind of language, even Rauch himself. To appeal to our emotions, once again he tells us about the incident in the train when he believed for a moment that those kids were referring to his as a faggot. This experience made him realized the power of prejudice words. By condemning words as inappropriate, we condemn only those whose say them, once again not prejudice it self, and once again leading to a defeated battle from the start. He referenced the “Dictionary of Cautionary Words and Phrases” from The University of Missouri's journalism department as an example of this battle to caution non politically correct vocabulary. Rauch draws a very valid point here, words are just words, and as long as there bigots and racist will find new words to add more fuel to this

Hypocrisy is not saying one thing, and then doing another. It is saying one thing, and believing another.

Again, I would like to rebut Gee’s claim by adding my belief that the perceived value of the person and or group applying the criticism has a lot to do with the way the criticism can be received to effect change within a discourse. This belief ties in perfectly with the next statement made by Gee, which I shall now address, as within that very same point Gee writes, ‘But what one cannot do is stand outside all discourse and criticize any one or all of them – that would be like trying to repair a jet in flight by stepping outside it.’ In my estimation, Gee’s loses his argument here when he chooses to speak in this all-encompassing term, as by crafting this sentence in such a manner he essentially paints himself into a corner. In our culture any individual or group (regardless of background, religion, education, experience, etc.,) has the right of freedom of speech and as such may freely criticize whatever another person or group

Stating multiple things and saying that you will do one thing and you won’t do another thing and going against it, is not only being a hypocrite but you’re also not being fair to other people. Thomas Jefferson did this on multiple occasions. “Probably of any colour, but of this color (black)...are by their habits rendered (made) as incapable as children of taking care of themselves,” (Document 2). Jefferson later on ended up becoming lovers with his daughters servant, Sally Hemings whom he then had four children with; Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston. His beliefs of black people being nothing but a disturbance and the help were heavily betrayed by him falling in love with his servant and having not one but four children with.

The eye has many different views; it can see a vice as virtue just as it can see green as red. There is always a different point of view- a principle that many historical and personal events have demonstrated.

The rules that we have once set out as a community can be compromised for our own benefit. For example, Waknuk has these huge horses that usually are not supposed to be there since they are a mutant. However, the Government in Rigo approved of these horses. Even though they knew it was wrong, but because they can carry two times the amount of a regular horse, and for half the feed of a regular horse, they allowed it. The community of Waknuk only allows mutants if they are profitable, and if they are not, and they are just another person that doesn't look right, then they are declared a deviant, and cast out. The same thing, believe it or not, happens in our world around us. For example, if an employer knows that the rule states to not hire anyone over eighty, but soon, an eighty year old man walks in the door wanting a job. Now, if the employer was not a hypocrite, he would simply say “sorry can’t hire you.” But once the employer sees how that eighty year old man performs, he hires him, not because out of the goodness of his heart, but because the eighty year old man can bring profit to that company. That employer becomes a hypocrite because he completely bypassed the rules set out for

Words have the power to inspire change very easily. When many people are trying to change something, they use a certain tone and provide a bias point. For example, Martin Luther King jr has expressed his opinion during his “I Have a Dream” speech trying to “inspire

1. In paragraph 3, Fairman says that the history of offensive words shows that “words themselves are not the culprit.” What does he mean? Do you agree with his rationale?

When looking at these two problems of our society, we have to continuously remind ourselves of both sides of the argument, even if that means going against our own

It glorifies certain actions, attributes, and ideas while shaming others that

It can be defined as claiming to have moral standards or beliefs when the person’s character does not match those beliefs. I believe everyone from time to time or at least once in a person’s lifetime has been a hypocrite, and because this is so common it might not always be a bad thing because people learn from their mistakes, or get educated on that thing they were so against. In Young Goodman Brown that was not the case. The town people were hypocrites, and I say they were hypocrites because for example, after Goodman Brown witnessed the evil that took place that night he saw Old Deacon Gookin at domestic worship (Hawthorne, 335). The town people were not only hypocrites, but they were entirely different people which is a much more severe case of

Based on one’s mentality, your mind is the characteristic attitude of the way you think of a person or a group, given this knowledge, your mentality and mindset sets together the things you say about anything, or in this case, towards something. What you say about something is your freedom of speech in America, the first amendment of the constitution, “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Madison, 1789). This amendment has it’s aspects where it helps out the fellow people of America livelihood, but instead, people can be deleterious towards what they say to someone and is also faced with hypocrisy.