Stop And Frisk By Stephen Colbert And Jessica Williams

People often think that comedians have a straight forward job: they practically just have to joke about a topic and make people laugh. But not many realize the brutality comedians have to face when they are “forced” to change their acts according to the setting and diverse range of their audience. In the article “That’s Not Funny”, the author Caitlin Flanagan, explains on how comedians face an uphill talk when they perform in colleges and how they have to change their scripts to make sure they don’t offend students on the basis of gender, religion etc. Colleges are paying comedians big money and that’s the main reason comedians still perform even when they can’t express themselves freely through comedy. In this essay, I will explore how Caitlin argues about the unjust conditions interested comedians face who want to perform in college campuses. Caitlin builds the credibility of her work by stating strong and valid points, different types of arguments and rhetoric situations.

Through the use of diction and exaggeration, Staples is able to create this intelligent and humorous persona for the listeners. Staples first starts by describing a white woman as a “victim” (543). He purposely starts his essay by appearing as a criminal sharing his stories of trouble. As the reader progresses through his essay, one can see that he continually becomes more complex and through with his word choice. This transition shows that audience that he never was a criminal, but a rather intelligent college student. Likewise, Staples uses this shift to show the audience that initial perceptions of people like him are generally wrong. He paints himself as a criminal, only to reveal his true self, like what most white people would do. This conveys his message because Staples showcases that black people are almost instantly seen as bad and scary, when they could be better than the person making the discriminating notes. Staples mentions how he and other blacks are quickly judged by everyone else. In one instance, upon entering a jewelry store, he is met by an “enormous red Doberman pinscher” (544). This use of exaggeration creates a humorous persona to Staples. The purposely description of the dog as enormous shows just how unnecessary the prejudice against African Americans really is. The humorous persona that Staples has conveys the message that people are too assimilated with the negative

Satirical writing allows the author to express his or her opinion about a problem in society. A writing must follow three rules in order for

Having demonstrated how the use of technology can influence young generations, Stryker goes on to say that punishing those who make bad and or racist remarks only breeks further hatred. Stryker uses a hypothetical example to support his claim and explain why. He continues to go further and give real world examples of how a New York City EMT was fired because of his racist tweets on his online profile (Stryker 588). This strengthened Stryker’s position on how publicly shaming an individual only causes more harm and problems.

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

In 2011, Bill O’Reilly wrote Killing Lincoln. In this book he explains how the assassination of Abraham Lincoln took place and groundbreaking affects it had on the war and the country. O’Reilly had many reasons for the purpose in writing this book. He says he thought he knew what happened with the assassination and the effects it had on the country. I believe O’Reilly was truly intrigued once he started researching how the plot was planned and so forth. O’Reilly states that the plan itself had elements that have been unknown for quite some time. He states this book will have many effects on the readers. It will disturb-quotation marks the reader because of all of the conspiracies in the book. He also states that the book will advance readers knowledge on the assassination and its implication on the future of America. He states by reading this there are many lessons to be learned. He says realizing the heroes who have mad the country great-quotation marks and also the villains-quotation marks are vital to those who want to keep the country great. Lastly, while his main purpose is the thrill the reader, he makes sure not to spin any facts or compromise the integrity of the facts throughout the book. (need page number(s). Since there are no numbers on these pages you paraphrase/quoted from you can use roman numerals, which are i-ii)

Killing Lincoln by Bill O 'Reilly and Martin Dugard is a book that captures the days

The mystery of how John Wilkes Booth pulled off the most influential and notorious assassinations in history is revealed in Killing Lincoln. The author of this book, Bill O’Reilly, built up the plot of the story through vivid historical details and pieced them together like a thriller. He tries to explain all of what happened on one of the most interesting and sad days in American history. Many conspiracies and Civil War ideals are on full display in the book. I agree with most of O’Reilly’s ideas but there are some that I am not really sure about because of his point of view like many of the conspiracy theories. Killing Lincoln by Bill O’Reilly was a very compelling read which described the Civil War, lives of

The short story "Shame" by Dick Gregory, clearly shows that poverty brings many hardships as well as a great deal of shame. However, there are still ways to gain pride and happiness. This story shows that by emulating somebody you respect, even a very poor person can derive pride from small actions, which the average person sees as insignificant.

Robert LaBrecque Professor Labay RPW110 Date: 3/8/15 Due Date: 3/31/15 Offending Journalists and Politicians with the Support of Political Correctness Juan Williams’ essay "Defying the PC Police” warns the reader that political correctness is being used to make Americans afraid to speak up and voice their own opinions for the fear of offending other people. His attack on journalists and politicians for being part of this conspiracy is clearly heard by his audience. He felt that he was fired as a journalist because he exercised his right to the first amendment right of freedom of speech, while others argue that Williams’ lost his job because he crossed the line, abusing his right to freedom of speech by defying his responsibility

Social consciousness in the media and journalism is commonly thought of as the ability to acknowledge that an event has occurred, then address it vaguely to parade a false sense of progression. However, columnist and Pulitzer winner, Leonard Pitts Jr. embraces the analysis and discussion of issues that the public does not understand or refuses to recognize, such as racial prejudice in his essay, A Racial Hate Crime, Pure and Simple, where he concedes the denial of racism in America. In each of his pieces, Pitts provides versatility with his rationale as well as an immense regard for the magnitude of communal perception and prejudices. In support of his more liberalistic ideals, he makes a point of using compelling argumentative techniques, which convinces his audience to examine the articles in his favor, giving him the components of a strong essayist.

Patton Oswalt's essay, “You Gotta Fight for Your Right to F%@k Up” (2016), argues that the freedom to make a mistake without having it affect the reputation of one’s peer group is integral to the improvement of humanity. Through excess use of repetition, Oswalt exhausts the reader through his provision of numerous present day and past examples of minorities making mistakes, having their peer group suffer from stereotyping as a result. By tiring the reader with similar examples phrased in similar fashions, Oswalt stresses the notion that it always has been and forever will be ridiculous and ignorant to make assumptions about entire groups of people, as a single individual never characterizes the masses, in order to evoke possible change. Oswalt

Ever since 1997, South Park has revolutionized the cable TV scene as a profane and obscene program that isn’t afraid to mock religious, political, and cultural topics and not get away with at least offending somebody. Throughout its twelve seasons, some of the most prominent events in pop culture have suffered the wrath of ridicule from the show’s creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and succeeded in making millions of Americans laugh until they cry. The creative genius behind these cultural and controversial statements has exalted the series to iconic status in our entertainment industry for its satirical voice in each episode. Throughout its ten years on air, South Park has broken multiple political,

Satire is constantly evolving in order to maintain with the times. As technology, culture and humanity change and grow, satire is forced to grow with it. Satire of our modern time is more likely to be found on our phones than on print, more likely on a television than a telegram. By merging with pop culture, in forms of Family Guy and Comedy Central news shows, these forms of satire are able to stay relevant. But, despite the change in medium, the purpose of satire and effect of satire holds true. Modern satire, just as that of past satire, sheds light on the problems of our society through ridicule and mockery, without reinforcing and further cementing the stereotypes and prejudices they are trying to expose.