camille

Leonard Alyashaa & Camille Quichocho

RWS 200

Christopher Werry

11 May 2016

Misogyny and Misfortune: Incivility on the Internet

The Internet has been around for several decades, and it was not until recently that online incivility and trolling became a growing concern. After writing about anonymity and its role in the advocation of online incivility, we decided to take a different approach and theorize that prejudice against women is a major component of online incivility. We will analyze the effects of online incivility in terms of gender roles that are rooted in misogynistic views. Our discussion of online incivility began with the assumption that anonymity is the catalyst for uncivil behavior on the Internet. While it is true that anonymity has presented users with a multitude of problems, it has posed solutions to such problems as well. Opinions regarding online anonymity range from protecting it and all its benefits, keeping it but implementing new, heavier restrictions, and banning it altogether. Anonymity undoubtedly provides a platform for uncivil behavior, but this paper will approach that notion from a new perspective. Both women and men are targets of online harassment and bullying, but we will primarily focus on the disadvantage women have in the online world. Specifically, we seek to address how this social construct of women affects their right to free speech, lives off-screen, and the potential danger it presents. Women have fought for gender equality for what seems like forever but, contradictory to their mission, they continue to be viewed and mistreated as lesser beings. There are countless instances of women falling victim to scrutiny, polarization, and harassment on online chat rooms, social media sites and in gaming communities, to such a severe extent that it leads to inevitable and lasting insecurity. In this essay, we will look at a series of articles, a personal interview, and provide support to determine why the factors that contribute to misogyny and prejudice towards women  are the main components of online incivility, and offer what we think are the solutions to these problems.

Men and women are held to two completely different standards, which is evident in America’s largely patriarchal society run by mostly male leaders. Many still hold views that devalue a woman’s worth, assuming that she cannot provide for herself or her family, but the idea that it is a man’s job to be the head of the household bears the qualities of sexism. Although feminism should be a more prominent topic of discussion, our focus is misogyny, the dislike of or prejudice against women. Anonymity is a direct influence on online harassment and cyberbullying, but our discussion on online misogyny emphasizes the kinds of abuse targeted towards a specific audience – women. Misogyny comes in various forms, but hate speech is infamous on social media and public forums. It is evident that young girls and women are being targeted based solely on their gender, and this discrimination is threatening to their right to free speech. Laura Thompson, a Columbia Journalism School student who reports on criminal justice, writes about Caroline Criado-Perez, a British journalist who had been campaigning to have female figures depicted on British banknotes. Hundreds of people on Twitter tweeted that “the freelancer and activist needed to “learn [her] place as a woman in this world,” and that “women that talk too much need to get raped,” which are callous comments (Thompson). Criado-Perez has received numerous violent threats which made her feel terrified and like she was being hunted (Thompson). She is only one of hundreds of female journalists who receive the same kind of abuse regularly. There are “some female journalists [who] accept a low level of online abuse as an occupational hazard,” but there has been data collected to show that “women journalists are three times more likely to be on the receiving end of online abuse than their male colleagues” (Thompson). In our interview with Twitch streamer Tyrannasauruslex, also known as “Lex,” she agreed that “women in our society hold are at more of a power disadvantage, and therefore [they] make easy targets.” Because of Lex’s job as a streamer, she says that “entering a female’s stream and calling her a dumb whore is easier than entering a male’s stream and calling him…what, an idiot? Bad at games? Women make easy targets.” Talking about misogyny should not entail a conversation about misandry, the dislike of or prejudice against men. Women do not “have it worse,” as if this situation could be likened to a competition, but women do receive different kinds of online abuse. There are hundreds of degrading terms and phrases that target women specifically, and new guidelines need to be implemented so that the authorities have the capacity to act on violent threats and stalking. It is very possible to impose rules and regulations on the Internet, especially in matters of personal safety and privacy because people often feel like they lack protection on the Internet.

Women are often seen as strong willed, determined, and motivated, but are not taken seriously when they bear comparison with men, especially on the Internet. Instead, they are usually put down and in more serious cases, even put in life-threatening situations because of what they believe in. Recently, feminist blogger Clementine Ford has experienced unnecessary verbal harassment surrounding her gender and intelligence. In the BBC article, “Why do Trolls Go After Feminists?” Emma Wilson writes about Ford’s experience and how “a Sydney man named Michael Nolan called the feminist columnist and blogger a ‘slut’ after she drew attention to [the] threatening abuse she had been receiving elsewhere online” (BBC). After receiving hatred from Nolan, Ford discussed the hostility she was experiencing for being a woman and speaking her mind, and sure enough, she was put under more fire and received much more hatred regarding her sexuality. She received an immense amount of hate mail, with people going so far as to send death threats to the columnist. Ford realized that this recurring trend could be attributed to Internet trolls, but the only solution she feels “women are told” is to “just ignore it,” and somehow “it will go away,” but she realizes that it is not true and that “it never goes away.” In “Trolls Threaten Women Across The Internet. Here’s Why It’s So Hard To Stop Them,” Rebecca Adams, Voices Staff Writer of the Huffington Post, writes about women’s experiences from the trolls they have encountered online. One of which is about a 26-year-old female who was given the alias “Vanessa,” who, along with her family, fell victim to harassment on an online Facebook movie group. Vanessa acknowledged that a troll was sending rape threats, acting inappropriately, and contributed to uncivil discourse on the group. She discussed this with an administrator of the page, who swayed them to take appropriate action to ban the troll. Vanessa spoke up because she knew it was the right thing to do, but then suddenly, her private information was plastered on the Internet and an influx of messages were being sent her way because somehow the troll knew she was the reason why he/she was banned. The troll went as far as making menacing calls to Vanessa’s mother. Vanessa was just trying to be part of a community involving leisure, which valued safe space, but her plan almost immediately backfired when she was playing the role of the hero, just as many other women, trying to protect what should not be threatened in the first place.

While discussing the issue and its effects on the safety of women, an apparent trend is that misogyny plays a big role in online impudence. A lot of personal information is given out to social media and it can be easily accessed by most people if made public. For instance, having so much personal information put out there can lead to a person being doxed. Doxing is the use of simple information obtained from someone in order to access more personal information. It is essentially an online way of document tracing in which anyone can gather information and deduce an address, phone number or other information (Study Web). Recently, the New York Times’ article “The Serial Swatter” about online anonymity discussed a more intricate form of trolling. Jason Fagone, a free-lance journalist, discusses how online anonymity played a part in the SWAT operation. An online Twitch streamer named Janet left college for a few days because she was being harassed on the Internet. A troll named “obnoxious” managed to find personal information just by using her first and last name. Obnoxious called Amazon’s support to retrieve her account and password and was capable of finding her address, phone number and credit card information. Obnoxious later used Janet’s phone number to reach out to her, and because she was not submitting to his sexual advances, he called a SWAT and sent them to her address while she was home with her family (Fagone). From arbitrary attacks and other threatening situations, Fagone and Ford discussed the dangers of the Internet that particularly plague women. Our interview with Twitch streamer Lex provided a lot of insight into her own experiences as a female gamer in the streaming community. When asked if she had ever experienced some form of backlash, she replied with “I find I have at least 1-2 people everyday who come in with a specific goal of trying to hurt me.” Lex later mentions that these are “typical experiences” in which “people call [her] an attention whore or dumb slut.” She, too, fell victim to the common attack on her “intelligence and sexual sordidity.” Since there is already a clear distinction between free speech and hate speech, then there should be more precautionary measures taken to ensure the safety of everyone online.

Emma Gray, Executive Women’s Editor at the Huffington Post, says that “there’s rarely a week that goes by without someone on Twitter commenting on [her] body, calling [her] fat, saying that [she’s] a dumb bitch, [or] that they’re going to do something lewd sexually to [her]” (Thompson). Because of Gray’s caliber as a journalist, she has written an article herself that presents an unconventional motive for misogynistic views which is that “when misogyny is amplified at the highest levels of our political system, it becomes legitimized” (Gray). This is exactly what we are dealing with in the current presidential election. Donald Trump is infamous for making misogynistic comments and as a presidential candidate with a large following, he is essentially “giving America permission to hate women” (Gray). Megyn Kelly is a political commentator on Fox News Channel and she is known as one of several women whom Trump has verbally degraded on multiple occasions. Trump’s history of trolling Kelly sets an example for his supporters, and now they have the mindset that if someone as important as Donald Trump, presidential candidate and billionaire, can speak to a woman like that, then so can they. Trump’s campaign is essentially built on misogyny, which is evident in the sexist slurs tweeted at Megyn Kelly from Trump supporters. The words “bitch,” “whore,” “slut,” “skank,” and “bimbo” are reserved only for women, and “[it is] hard to imagine a man receiving such personal, sexually charged ire” (Gray). Misogyny stems from the outdated belief that women can be boiled down to obedient housewives or sexual objects. A frightening thought that Gray will put into your head is that “if our next president can’t respect a woman enough to let her do her job without behaving like a petulant child, how can we expect him to fight for the issues and policies that would improve the lives of women in this country at large?” (Gray). There are thousands of female Trump supporters who have set aside his misogynistic views because they believe that he will “Make America Great Again.” People often complain about politics and the possibility of having an imbecile as the president, but if every man and woman who believes in equality and making an effort to end misogyny acts on their words, then they could ensure that the President of the United States is not someone who disrespects half of the United States’ population.

We have researched, provided evidence for, and discussed the effects and anomalies of online misogyny, and have a better understanding of the measures that need to be taken to ensure equal social status and the safety of women. Our research has revealed to us that online misogyny, and misogyny in general, is a social issue rather than an issue that stems from online anonymity. We have learned that there are many components of online incivility and online misogyny is only one of them. Online incivility is evident in countless situations, especially on social media and public forums, but the hate that women receive is unacceptable and action needs to be taken. The solutions we have presented are ideas that we have the ability to make tangible. The evidence we have provided, in regards to the articles, is in favor of our idea that misogyny is comprised of the feeling of power or control, although it has had a major impact on online incivility. A prominent amount of Internet users are seen interacting or partaking in language that provides a patriarchal point of view. Ultimately, we are capable of ending misogyny and promoting equality, and we are capable of making a difference.

 

Works Cited

Adams, Rebecca. “Trolls Threaten Women Across The Internet. Here’s Why It’s So Hard To Stop Them.” The Huffington Post. N.p., 12 Nov. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

BBC. “Why Do Trolls Go After Feminists?” BBC News. N.p., 6 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/&gt;.

Fagone, Jason. “The Serial Swatter – The New York Times.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., 24 Nov. 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.

Gray, Emma. “Donald Trump Is Giving America Permission To Hate Women.” The Huffington Post. N.p., 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

McCafferty, Georgia. “#EndViolenceAgainstWomen Outs Trolls Online.com.” CNN. N.p., 4 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Study Web. “What is Doxing? and How Can You Avoid It?” StudyWeb.com. N.p., Aug. 2015. Web. 7 Apr. 2016.

Thompson, Laura. “Is online misogyny a threat to free speech?” Columbia Journalism Review. Columbia Journalism Review, 18 Mar. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Tyrannasauruslex. Personal interview through Email. 28 Apr. 2016.

The internet has been around for quite a few decades, and it was not until recently that online incivility and trolling became a big issue. After writing about anonymity and its role in the advocation of online incivility, we decided to take a different approach and theorize that prejudice against women is a major component of online incivility. We will analyze the effects of gender roles on online incivility rooted in misogynistic views. Our discussion of online incivility began with the assumption that anonymity is the catalyst for uncivil behavior on the Internet. While it is true that anonymity has presented users with a multitude of problems, it has posed solutions to such problems, as well. Opinions regarding online anonymity range from protecting it and all that it provides, keeping it but implementing new, heavier restrictions, and banning it altogether. Anonymity undoubtedly provides a platform for uncivil behavior, but this paper will approach that notion from a new perspective. Both women and men are targets of online harassment or bullying, but we will primarily focus on the disadvantage women have in the online world. Specifically, we seek to address how it affects their right to free speech, their lives off-screen, and the potential danger it presents. Women have fought for gender equality for what seems like forever but, contradictory to their mission, they continue to be seen as lesser and treated as such. There are countless instances of women falling victim to scrutiny, polarization, and harassment on online chat rooms, social media sites and in the gaming communities, to such a severe extent that it leads to inevitable and lasting insecurity. In this essay, we will look at a series of articles and determine the factors that contribute to misogyny as a main component of online incivility.

America is a largely patriarchal society run by a predominantly male government, but it is the 21st century and feminism has yet to be taken more seriously. Many still hold views that devalue a woman’s worth, assuming that she cannot provide for herself or her family, but to say that it is a man’s job to be the head of the household is preposterous. Although feminism should be discussed more often, our focus is misogyny, dislike of or prejudice against women. Emma Gray, Executive Women’s Editor at the Huffington Post, says that “when misogyny is amplified at the highest levels of our political system, it becomes legitimized” (Gray). This is exactly what we are dealing with in the current presidential election. Donald Trump is infamous for making misogynistic comments and as a presidential candidate with a large following, he is “giving American permission to hate women” (Gray). Megyn Kelly is a political commentator on Fox News Channel and she is known as one of several women whom Trump has verbally degraded. Trump’s history of trolling Kelly sets an example for his supporters and now they have the mindset that if someone as important as Donald Trump, presidential candidate and billionaire, can speak to a woman like that, then so can they. Trump’s campaign is essentially built on misogyny, which is evident in the sexist slurs tweeted at Megyn Kelly from Donald Trump supporters. The words bitch, whore, slut, skank, and bimbo are reserved only for women, and “[it is] hard to imagine a man receiving such personal, sexually charged ire” (Gray). Misogyny stems from the dated belief that women can be boiled down to obedient housewives or sexual objects. A scary thought that Gray will put into your head is that “if our next president can’t respect a woman enough to let her do her job without behaving like a petulant child, how can we expect him to fight for the issues and policies that would improve the lives of women in this country at large?” (Gray).

In regards to recent events, a feminist blogger named Clementine Ford had recently subjected to being the target of hate speech in regards to her gender and intelligence. In the BBC article, “Why do Trolls Go After Feminists?”, Emma Wilson writes about Clementine’s experience and how “A Sydney man named Michael Nolan called” Clementine “a ‘slut’ after she drew attention to [the] threatening abuse she had been receiving elsewhere online” (BBC CITATION). For what should be considered a safe space to talk about equality between men and women and societal progression, a woman that had just been attacked on the internet who wrote the base of the article on that attack was then attacked again for her sexuality. [Edit & add more]

[Discuss harassment and women and why it’s predominantly there and the reason behind it and go into what DOXING and SWATTING is]. In “Trolls Threaten Women Across The Internet. Here’s Why It’s So Hard To Stop Them”, Rebecca Adams, the Voices Staff Writer of the Huffington Post writes about experiences women have had from the trolls they have encountered online. One of which happens to be of a story about “Vanessa”, a 26 year old female who was given an alias, had undergone very serious attacks in relation to her and her family from an online Facebook movie group. Vanessa acknowledged that there was a troll that was sending rape threats and was acting childish on the facebook group. Vanessa discussed this with an administrator of the page and they took care of it and banned the troll. The next thing she knows, an inflow of messages and private information was being spewed her way because somehow the troll found out she told on him. He did not stop there but took it even further and called her mother a few times in the middle of the night with menacing, heavy breathing phone calls. (Mention New York Times Article and rewrite it) Recently, the New York Times’ article “The Serial Swatter” about online anonymity and the dangers of it, but it discussed a more intricate form of trolling. Jason Fagone, a free-lance journalist, discusses how online anonymity played a part in the SWAT team’s involvement. An online Twitch streamer named Janet left college for a few days because she was being harassed via cyberspace. An internet troll named “obnoxious” had used his anonymity to find personal information just by using her first and last name. He called Amazon’s support to retrieve her account and password and was capable of finding her address, phone number and credit card information. He used her phone number to reach out to her, and because she was not submitting to his sexual advances, he called the SWAT and sent them to her address while she was home with her family (Fargone). From arbitrary attacks and scenarios where people can easily be attacked and hurt or harassed, Barton formed his argument to restrict anonymity because of the safety reasons.

• Is there a problem or case you’d like to focus on?

The role gender plays in the way people act because of online misogyny.

• Is there a question(s) you’d like to ask about the issue (you don’t need to know the answer at this point).

When it comes to online harassment or bullying, why do women receive more abuse?

• What claims are you thinking of making? What texts are you thinking of using?

How dangerous it is, how it affects one’s right to speak freely, the disadvantages that women have in the online world, and how it affects their lives offscreen.

Sources:

Adams, Rebecca. “Trolls Threaten Women Across The Internet. Here’s Why It’s So Hard To Stop Them.” The Huffington Post. N.p., 12 Nov. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

BBC. “Why Do Trolls Go After Feminists?” BBC News. N.p., 6 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/&gt;.

Fagone, Jason. “The Serial Swatter – The New York Times.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., 24 Nov. 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.

Gray, Emma. “Donald Trump Is Giving America Permission To Hate Women.” The Huffington Post. N.p., 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Lee, Joel. “What Is Doxing & How Does It Affect Your Privacy? [MakeUseOf Explains].”MakeUseOf. N.p., 23 Nov. 2012. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.

McCafferty, Georgia. “#EndViolenceAgainstWomen Outs Trolls Online .com.” CNN. N.p., 4 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Rashid, Syerleena Abdul. “Online misogyny: It is real and it is dangerous.” Aliran. Aliran.com, 08 Mar. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Thompson, Laura. “Is online misogyny a threat to free speech?” Columbia Journalism Review. Columbia Journalism Review, 18 Mar. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Thorpe, Vanessa, and Richard Rogers. “Women Bloggers Call for a Stop to ‘hateful’ Trolling by Misogynist Men | World News | The Guardian.” The Guardian. N.p., 5 Nov. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Tillman, Kristy. “Women and Minorities As Targets of Attack Online – NYTimes.com.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 7 Apr. 2016.

• Are you going to focus on one of the following: the facts (how bad is the problem), the definition (how should the problem be understood), the causes, the solutions, or a principle you think is most important?

We’re not very sure on that part specifically, but are leaning more towards how bad the problem is. We will also be looking at what may be the reason for targeting women.

• Is there a text or position you would like to extend, add support for, or use as a lens to explore some new case?

Currently, we’ve decided that the main focus is of our main idea, which is dislike or hatred of females, and not exactly restrict ourselves to 3 or 4 articles and elaborate on them. We’re figuring out the structure of it.

• Can you use your experiences, or those of people you know, in your paper?

Yes! Actually, we’re going to conduct an interview and experience it firsthand by taking the initiative and creating accounts on twitch.tv/ and we will observe the chatrooms of female streamers.

Enter into the topic of anonymity with a brief overview of its pros and cons, then expand on its importance but also its need to be regulated. Briefly introduce the articles we’ll be using in each body paragraph. We’ll use articles that present the negativities of anonymity  then follow them with articles that strongly support why it should be protected. Our material will present a case and then give support to our position. Anonymity has its bad traits, but it serves a purpose and should be protected. We will present ideas of how to regulate it and find places that have regulated anonymity, if any. Our body paragraphs will definitely include other people’s opinions on the issue, but mostly from those who share the same ideals. We will conclude by presenting our argument and bringing out our best supporting evidence, as well as our own opinions. We will talk about why we chose this position and why it should be put in place.

As someone who was born in the era of technology, I can vouch for many of my peers and say that our parents knew what to expect when they told us not to talk to strangers on the Internet. Online incivility is an unmanageable sector of the Internet but sometimes users cannot help but be exposed to it. Anonymity has raised concerns in many communities because problems with trolling, harassment, bullying, and hate speech have escalated to the point where people consider banning anonymity. Because the Internet is fairly new, we are still learning how to deal with problems that originate from sharing online. Trial and error is the key to success, so it is necessary that we find an innovative way to manage online incivility today for the sake of future generations. Think of anonymity as a cloak of invisibility; imagine the things you could do if nobody knew it was you. Being anonymous is essentially not having any responsibility for your words or actions. Some people take advantage of the confidence that anonymity gives you to share their opinions and say the things they usually cannot because of personal reasons, but others take advantage of this confidence to say hateful things they would not say otherwise. Some think that anonymity has created an unstoppable force and the only solution is to ban it altogether. Others believe that anonymity bears real benefits for many people and that it should be protected and offered wherever possible. Some are in between these two extremes and believe that although anonymity proves to benefit many lives, there are also many individuals who have forgone the intended purpose of anonymity to spread hateful messages. There are advantages and disadvantages to almost everything, and it depends on one’s perspective, but arguments for banning, heavily restricting, and protecting anonymity are being thrown to the public, so it is up to you to decide which is the most logical route. In this essay, I will present the three approaches to anonymity and analyze, evaluate, and make justifications for each.

To solve the issue of online incivility, banning anonymity was proposed as a solution. The terms “troll” and “cyberbully” have entered peoples’ vocabularies fairly recently, but today they are well-known terms because of the impact that trolls and cyberbullies have had in online communities. Cyberbully, a 2011 television film that premiered on ABC Family, was made with the purpose of informing teens about the very real dangers that exist online, and the film worked in major issues such as “the anonymity that exists online, the legal loopholes that enable cyberbullying, … and the emotional devastation that bullying inflicts on its victims and their families” (Ashby). In 2012, the Internet Protection Act was introduced in Albany to target anonymous internet trolls by “[requiring] sites to have online commenters identify themselves” (“Internet Protection Act”). This example of a ban on anonymity actually taking place leads me to someone who has firsthand experience with the way social media has transformed into breeding grounds for trolls and cyberbullies. Julie Zhuo is the Vice President of Product Design at Facebook and she manages the design team responsible for how you share on Facebook. Her line of work requires that she have knowledge of how to manage the vast number of commenters and the different kinds of commenters – particularly trolls. In an article she wrote, entitled “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt,” she defines trolling as the “act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums, [and it] is a problem as old as the Internet itself, although its roots go much farther back” (Zhuo). She advances the idea that “anonymity increases unethical behavior” and as a result of the online disinhibition effect, “people – even ordinary, good people – often change their behavior in radical ways” (Zhuo). Although she acknowledges that the Internet cannot be entirely rid of anonymity and that some argue that it is a breach of privacy and freedom of expression, she believes that the ban would make at least a small difference because “instead of waiting around for human nature to change, [we should] start to rein in bad behavior by promoting accountability” (Zhuo). Power is the root of all evil, and the power one thinks they have when they are anonymous enables abuse and harassment. Banning anonymity would mean that every user would be responsible for what they say on the Internet and consequences may follow posting hate speech. The result of banning anonymity from the Internet entirely is unknown, but what we do know is that even a small change makes a difference.

For those of us who are in between banning anonymity and protecting it, placing heavy restrictions on it and educating people on online etiquette is another option. A ban would be effective, but in some cases, being anonymous does not stop someone from trolling, harassing, or bullying others. To visualize this situation, banning anonymity altogether can be likened to carrying around pepper spray. Some people carry pepper spray to defend themselves in case of emergency. If carrying pepper spray became illegal, then all those individuals who sought to protect their well-being will be restricted of that right. The same goes for anonymity because although this may not be obvious to many, there are a number of people who do not feel safe or comfortable putting their real identity on the Internet. Just how there are those people who misuse pepper spray because they are capable of doing so, there are people on the Internet who post hate speech because their identity is unknown. Andrew Stafford, a freelance writer whose works have been published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Geographic, and Rolling Stone, wrote an article that essentially says that anonymity should not be banned but heavily restricted because he believes that its protective qualities are worth the trouble of dealing with trolls and cyberbullies. Anonymity has brought about major issues that have made people question just how much someone can take before they have had enough, and an important point that was made is that “a culture of online bullying – particularly towards female writers – actually has the potential to drive some of our brightest voices out of public life altogether. Writers have always needed thick hides, but for some the price of your anonymity can be measured in their therapy bills” (Stafford). Anonymity is among a lengthy list of things that are both beneficial and detrimental, but the negative aspects of something should not undermine its benefits. Anonymous speech is protected by the Constitution, but “the law does not protect speech that goes beyond certain boundaries, such as defamation or harassment” (Park). Instead of banning anonymity, a truly beneficial aspect of the Internet, placing restrictions on who can post and what can be posted can aid in countering trolls and cyberbullies. Users should not be obligated to attach their names to their posts, but using an e-mail address would be a reasonable requirement to prevent someone from making a fake account and they could still be contacted privately by the site they posted on if their comment is on the brink of being classified as trolling, harassment, or cyberbullying. What can be done to bring order to online communities is to start educating people of all ages on online etiquette and digital literacy. The thing about being anonymous is that nobody knows your sex, age, race, or beliefs. There are no statistics to show who makes up a majority of anonymous users and there is no one way to tackle the issue. The Internet is a safe space for many, so giving users rules to follow and educating them is an innovative way of combating the problems that anonymity causes.

People like Danah Boyd have argued that enforcing a “real names” policy is an abuse of power and is an added risk for a large number of online users. Danah Boyd is a Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research but blogs in her free time, and one of her posts presented multiple reasons from real people who believe that anonymity is necessary and should be protected. There is a site “where people vocalize their support for pseudonyms,” and “[what is] most striking is the list of people who are affected by “real names” policies, including abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people” (Boyd). One’s ability to share and contribute on public forums should not be obstructed by a ban on the one thing that allows their participation. To what extent anonymity is good and to what extent it is bad are impossible to know because every person has their own perspective and opinions on the topic. People argue to protect anonymity because a ban can be likened to one person speaking for an entire population, and not everybody is affected by trolling, harassment, or cyberbullying. So, banning anonymity is not a justifiable solution because a ban would only solve the problems of a small percentage of users. White privilege still exists today and “the people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power” (Boyd). Protecting the right to remain anonymous online would mean that more people can feel comfortable sharing their opinions, be genuine, talk about their beliefs, debate honestly, and essentially share without worrying about their personal lives interfering or being endangered.

The approach to anonymity that seems the most logical is to protect it and provide it wherever possible. Banning and heavily restricting anonymity will not solve every problem that deals with trolling, harassment, and bullying because people are capable of making fake accounts or using fake names, and some people may have the confidence that allows them to share negative or hateful things under their real name. We must account for human error because no one solution would be perfect and fix everything. Of the three positions, protecting the right to be anonymous is the approach that bears the most benefits. Anonymity is one of the most beneficial aspects of the Internet and we should not squander something that has done less harm than good.

 

Works Cited

Ashby, Emily. “Cyberbully.” Common Sense Media. Common Sense Media Inc., 17 Jul. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.

Boyd, Danah. ““Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power.” Danah boyd | apophenia. WordPress, 04 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

“Internet Protection Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Online Comments In New York.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 23 May 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.

Park, Susan. “From Founding Fathers to Internet Trolls.” The Blue Review. Boise State University, 17 Jun. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Stafford, Andrew. “Who are these haters that poison the well of our discourse?” The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Zhuo, Julie. “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

 

As someone who was born in the era of technology, I can vouch for many of my peers and say that our parents knew what to expect when they told us not to talk to strangers on the Internet. Online incivility is an unmanageable sector of the Internet but sometimes users cannot help but be exposed to it. Anonymity has raised concerns in many communities because problems with trolling, harassment, bullying, and hate speech have escalated to the point where people consider banning anonymity. Because the Internet is fairly new, we are still learning how to deal with problems that originate from sharing online. Trial and error is the key to success, so it is necessary that we find an innovative way to manage online incivility today for the sake of future generations. Think of anonymity as a cloak of invisibility; imagine the things you could do if nobody knew it was you. Being anonymous is essentially not having any responsibility for your words or actions. Some people take advantage of the confidence that anonymity gives you to share their opinions and say things that might interfere with their personal lives, but others take advantage of this confidence to say hateful things they would not say otherwise. Some think that anonymity has created an unstoppable force and the only solution is to ban it altogether. Others believe that anonymity bears real benefits for many people and that it should be protected and offered wherever possible. Some are in between these two extremes and believe that although anonymity proves to benefit many lives, there are also many individuals who have forgone the intended purpose of anonymity to spread hateful messages. There are advantages and disadvantages to almost everything, and it depends on one’s perspective, but arguments for banning, heavily restricting, and protecting anonymity are being thrown to the public, so it is up to you to decide which is the most logical route. In this essay, I will analyze, evaluate, and make justifications for each position.

To solve the issue of online incivility, banning anonymity was proposed as a solution. Andrew Stafford, a freelance writer whose works have been published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Geographic, and Rolling Stone, wrote an article that is essentially supporting the ban because he believes that people should take responsibility for what they put online. Anonymity has brought about major issues that have made people question just how much someone can take before he/she has had enough, and an important point that was made is that “a culture of online bullying – particularly towards female writers – actually has the potential to drive some of our brightest voices out of public life altogether. Writers have always needed thick hides, but for some the price of your anonymity can be measured in their therapy bills” (Stafford). The terms “troll” and “cyberbully” have entered peoples’ vocabularies fairly recently, but today they are well-known terms because of the impact that trolls and cyberbullies have had in online communities. Cyberbully, a 2011 television film that premiered on ABC Family, was made with the purpose of informing teens about the very real dangers that exist online, and the film worked in major issues such as “the anonymity that exists online, the legal loopholes that enable cyberbullying, … and the emotional devastation that bullying inflicts on its victims and their families” (Ashby). In 2012, the Internet Protection Act was introduced in Albany to target anonymous internet trolls by “[requiring] sites to have online commenters identify themselves” (“Internet Protection Act”). This example of a ban on anonymity actually taking place leads me to someone who has firsthand experience with the way social media has transformed into breeding grounds for trolls and cyberbullies. Julie Zhuo is the Vice President of Product Design at Facebook and she manages the design team responsible for how you share on Facebook. Her line of work requires that she have knowledge of how to manage the vast number of commenters and the different kinds of commenters – particularly trolls. In an article she wrote, entitled “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt,” she defines trolling as the “act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums, [and it] is a problem as old as the Internet itself, although its roots go much farther back” (Zhuo). She advances the idea that “anonymity increases unethical behavior” and as a result of the online disinhibition effect, “people – even ordinary, good people – often change their behavior in radical ways” (Zhuo). Although she acknowledges that the Internet cannot be entirely rid of anonymity and that some argue that it is a breach of privacy and freedom of expression, she believes that the ban would make at least a small difference because “instead of waiting around for human nature to change, [we should] start to rein in bad behavior by promoting accountability” (Zhuo). The result of banning anonymity from the Internet entirely is unknown, but what we do know is that even the small change makes a difference.

For those of us who are in between banning anonymity or protecting it, heavily restricting anonymity and educating people on online etiquette             is also an option. Jon Healey, the deputy editorial page editor for the Los Angeles Times, has said that “requiring people to comment under their real names is no guarantee that they’ll behave less like trolls.” An example of restrictions that can be placed on what kind comments that can be posted is exemplified in Clive Thompson’s work, “Smarter Than You Think.” In this text he narrows in on a blogger named Ta-Nahesi Coates who has made it a point to promote intellectual conversations. The topics that Coates blogs about are vastly controversial, so it is surprising that “his forum is amazingly abuse-free” (Thompson 78). Coates kept his forum this way by deleting negative or hateful comments the moment he saw them and encouraging the “smart folks” to return. As a result, he and several of his regular commenters helped “cement the culture of civility” (Thompson 79).

Anonymity has proven to be beneficial for certain people’s situations and people have argued that it should be protected and made available wherever possible. A blog post by Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research, Danah Boyd, included multiple explanations for why so many people believe that anonymity is necessary and should be protected. She discussed how “real names” policies are an abuse of power and that many people are not comfortable with putting their name on the Internet for safety or personal reasons. People have the right to a private life, especially because a majority of people do not have “white privilege” and cannot use their real name on social media without avoiding consequences, and their ability to share and contribute to online forums should not be taken away.

 

Works Cited

Ashby, Emily. “Cyberbully.” Common Sense Media. Common Sense Media Inc., 17 Jul. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.

Boyd, Danah. ““Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power.” Danah boyd | apophenia. WordPress, 04 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Healey, Jon. “Are online trolls a reason to ban anonymous comments?” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.

“Internet Protection Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Online Comments In New York.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 23 May 2012. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.

Stafford, Andrew. “Who are these haters that poison the well of our discourse?” The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Thompson, Clive. Smarter Than You Think. Penguin Press, 2013. Print.

Zhuo, Julie. “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Coming from someone who was born in the era of technology, our parents told us not to talk to strangers on the Internet. They knew what to expect. Online incivility is an unmanageable sector of the Internet but sometimes users cannot help but be exposed to it. Anonymity has raised concerns in many communities because problems with trolling, harassment, bullying, and hate speech have escalated to the point of people considering banning anonymity. Think of it as a cloak of invisibility; imagine the things you could do if nobody knew it was you. Some people take advantage of the confidence that anonymity gives you to share their opinions and say things that might interfere with their personal lives, but others take advantage of this confidence to say hateful things they would not say otherwise. There are advantages and disadvantages to almost everything, and it depends on one’s perspective, but arguments for banning, heavily restricting, and protecting anonymity are being thrown to the public, so it is up to you to decide which is the most logical route. In this essay, I will analyze, evaluate, and make justifications for each position.

To solve the issue of online incivility, banning anonymity was proposed as a solution. Andrew Stafford, a writer for The Sydney Morning Herald, wrote an article that is in support of the ban because he believes that people should take responsibility for what they put online. Julie Zhuo is a product design manager at Facebook and she wrote “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt,” where she defines trolling as the “act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums, is a problem as old as the Internet itself, although its roots go much farther back” (Zhuo par. 3). As seen in Stafford’s article, trolls are infamously known to be a poison to the Internet with their goal of humiliating, angering, or defaming people or things.

Banning anonymity altogether may seem too extreme, so an alternative solution would be to put restrictions on the type of things one can post anonymously. A situation that can exemplify this new solution can be found in Clive Thompson’s work, “Smarter Than You Think.” In this text he narrows in on a blogger named Ta-Nahesi Coates who has made it a point to promote intellectual conversations. The topics that Coates blogs about are vastly controversial, so it is surprising that “his forum is amazingly abuse-free” (Thompson 78). Coates kept his forum this way by deleting negative or hateful comments the moment he saw them and encouraging the “smart folks” to return. As a result, he and several of his regular commenters helped “cement the culture of civility” (Thompson 79).

Anonymity has proven to be beneficial for certain people’s situations and people have argued that it should be protected and made available wherever possible. A blog post by Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research, Danah Boyd, included multiple explanations for why so many people believe that anonymity is necessary and should be protected. She discussed how “real names” policies are an abuse of power and that many people are not comfortable with putting their name on the Internet for safety or personal reasons. People have the right to a private life, especially because a majority of people do not have “white privilege” and cannot use their real name on social media without avoiding consequences, and their ability to share and contribute to online forums should not be taken away.

Works Cited

Boyd, Danah. ““Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power.” Danah boyd | apophenia. WordPress, 04 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Stafford, Andrew. “Who are these haters that poison the well of our discourse?” The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Thompson, Clive. Smarter Than You Think. Penguin Press, 2013. Print.

Zhuo, Julie. “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

The Internet is still fairly new, but it has created a multitude of platforms for sharing and communicating. Trolling, hate speech, harassment, and cyberbullying are all evident on social media and wherever online discussions take place, and these issues have raised concerns about regulations for anonymity. Online incivility is an unmanageable sector of the Internet. Anonymity provides people with a veil of confidentiality, protecting the identities of those who wish to share their opinion without risking their safety or giving those who wreak havoc on the Internet something to hide behind by keeping their names and faces unattached from negative content. There are advantages and disadvantages to almost everything, and it depends on one’s perspective, but there is a battle between banning, heavily restricting, or protecting anonymity. I will analyze and evaluate the discussion on whether anonymity is more beneficial or detrimental.

One example of social media where anonymity is often abused is Yik Yak. This app was intended for, but not restricted to, college campuses so that students could share openly and without warrant. The anonymous posting that Yik Yak was well-known for became controversial for several colleges as well as high schools. As a result, students used the false confidence of being “invisible” to talk about teachers, professors, and other students, spread rumors, make threats, and other hate speech that reached such an extreme that banning Yik Yak was proposed as a solution. An article in The Emory Wheel entitled “Yik Yak Sows Hostility at Emory” addresses that Yik Yak is not the issue and anonymity is the real culprit (CITE). Dana Boyd, a blogger who has gone in-depth about “real names” policies, would argue that one’s ability to share and participate online should not be obstructed because they would rather protect their identity than post on the Internet (CITE). She made a point that “for the most part, privileged white American use their real name on [Facebook, so] it “looks” right,” but not everybody has that privilege.

Wilson‘s strongest claims are that anonymity encourages honest debate because people are more inclined to share their opinions and beliefs with the comfort of knowing that their identity is protected. Another claim is that instead of seeing incivility as a problem, we would be far more successful instilling a “thick-skinned liberalism” in younger citizens by teaching them how to argue and to listen to those whom they disagree.  He said that we should recognize conflict as a fundamental part of democracy and that entails looking at the benefits of incivility.

Boyd talks about how enforcing “real names” policies would do more harm than good because many people rely on pseudonyms or nicknames to protect their identities. The backlash that Google+ received shows us that there is a large community of people who do not feel safe or comfortable enough to attach their real names to their postings on the Internet. People have the right to having a private life, especially because a majority of people are not privileged enough to use their real name on social media without consequences, and their ability to share and participate online should not be obstructed.

Thompson‘s article narrows in on a blogger named Coates who has made it a point to promote intellectual conversations by deleting abusive comments the moment he saw them and encouraging the “smart folks” to stay and talk. The result of Thompson going out of his way to create an abuse-free forum is that he and several of his regular commenters helped “cement the culture of civility.”

“Yik Yak Sows Hostility at Emory” – Yik Yak is not the issue at Emory; anonymity is. People have come to abuse the beauty of why Yik Yak was created in the first place. Sharing candidly with the comfort of anonymity used to be fun and a way for people to be genuine, but now people are abusing the anonymous feature on the web to create a hostile environment online.

“Opinion: Yik Yak promotes hate speech and should be banned from LSU” – LSU’s plan to ban Yik Yak should not be misconstrued for taking away people’s freedom of speech because hate speech is not constitutionally protected. LSU wants to ban the app because unlike writing gossip in bathroom stalls where people go out of necessity, yakking is entirely unnecessary and useless. The university is also undergoing budget cuts and a fall in student admissions because of a bad reputation won’t help the school at all.

“Banning Yik Yak from College Campuses Is Counterproductive” – As the title claims, banning Yik Yak is counterproductive. The app is but one platform where users can post hateful messages anonymously. Instead of trying to rid college campuses of Yik Yak, users of this app should be drowning out the hateful speech with positive messages, working to spread awareness to end racism, homophobia, and misogyny.

Leonard Alyashaa & Camille Quichocho

16 March 2016

The art of politics has long been associated with dishonest behavior and the manipulation of popular belief. With that said, history has seen its fair share of oppressive political figures. These figures, better defined as demagogues, utilize a rhetoric of hate rather than logical reasoning to deceive their audiences into compliance. Perhaps the most notorious among demagogues past is Adolf Hitler, but modern times have given way to a new generation of demagoguery. According to University of Texas, Austin rhetoric professor Patricia Roberts-Miller, demagoguery is “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some out-group(s)” (Roberts-Miller 51). It can be more simply understood as the act of closing down debate and refusing to entertain any argument that disagrees with that of the demagogue. Roberts-Miller’s works on demagoguery, which she refers to as “a subset of propaganda,” have turned it into a rising subject of discussion. Her article on its characteristics has provided a unique perspective that will aid in our analytical evaluation of George Wallace and Donald Trump as models of demagoguery in the past and modern era. George Wallace, an influential politician of his time, fueled the passion of many with regards to segregation in his 1963 inaugural speech as the newest governor of Alabama. Addressing the controversial issue of a black student’s denial for admission to the University of Alabama, Wallace heavily relied on his ability to twist meanings in order to justify segregation and thereby advocate racism. Looking towards the present, Donald Trump can easily be considered the demagogue of modern times. One would think that a candidate running for President of the United States would be much more considerate of their statements, but Trump’s demeanor has continually shown to be the complete opposite. His incessant racial slurs, sexist comments, and inappropriate remarks have left Americans in disbelief, yet he speaks with an eloquence that, to much of America’s surprise, has managed to accumulate a considerably large following among those who foolishly believe his words. This essay will analyze and evaluate the elements of demagoguery, with specific regard to the fallacious arguments made in George Wallace’s inaugural speech and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign speeches.

Polarization is an important characteristic of demagoguery where a binary is created “to divide a diverse range of things into two poles” (51) as defined by Roberts-Miller. An in-group and an out-group are created to distinguish the groups of people the demagogue represents and those who he/she motivates members of the in-group to hate (50). George Wallace can be seen using the demagogic characteristic of polarization throughout his inaugural address. Essentially, utilizing the rhetoric of polarization signifies that since “you are not on their side,” the “in-group’s,” then “you are against them,” the “out-group” (51). Virtually, he does not seem to be in favor of the idea of integration and says “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” (Wallace 72). He begins his speech by letting the audience know that he does not tolerate the idea of being unified but to maintain this status quo. As the speech progresses, Wallace increasingly fabricates a disconnect between the two groups, and uses phrases such as “we” and “us” while discussing his aimed group, and referring to the other side with words like “they” and “insipid” (72). His analogies and how he phrases some of his ideas can throw off some of his audience. Let’s say since you believe in god, are a supporter of the confederacy and because you do not like Hitler and communism, then you must support his ideals or else you are a communist nazi liberal (72-74). He is exploiting his audience and fundamentally discusses unethical ideas in order to make them feel bad or almost guilt trip them into agreeing with what he says or else they face the threat of being ostracized. The most prominent part of his speech involving polarization definitely has to be his contradictory statement he leaves his audience with. Considering his entire speech consisted of favoritism of segregation, but then states, “My prayer is that the father who reigns above us will bless all the people of this great sovereign State and nation, both white and black” is troublesome (77). He does a sort of turnaround and counters his entire argument in one sentence by, essentially saying that the only way to keep segregation is if the out-group and the in-group come together to stay separate.

Trump says that he represents “the people,” but his word choice suggests that he may be a white supremacist. He only appears to be chauvinist, but evidence of how others also perceive him as such is that “David Duke, a white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, told his [listeners on the David Duke Radio Program that] voting for anyone besides Donald Trump “is really treason to your heritage”” (Collins). Different races, religious followers, and even women make up the out-group and one thing that they all have in common is that they are groups of people that Trump is discriminatory against. A video from Times Video emphasizes that Trump thinks in binaries, where this is only good and bad. Trump treats his following as his team and refers to them as “we.” He uses the word “they” to refer to the groups of people he sees as problems (Berenstein). Trump uses polarization to create a distinction between what he represents versus what he sees as a problem. An example of Trump targeting his out-group is a racist remark he made towards our current president, Barack Obama, saying “Our great African American president hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore” (Rosslee and Chandler). To promote his own candidacy, Trump addresses the flaws in Obama’s presidency to demonstrate that he would be a better leader. Demagogic speech incorporates the use of arguments based on emotion rather than reason, and a quality that all demagogues share is their ability to manipulate how their audience feels about both the in-group and the out-group through word choice (Mercieca). A once united nation has been divided into a number of different minorities that Trump has targeted, and this epitomizes the element of polarization in his demagogic speech.

Victimization would not be possible without the separating effect of polarization. A continual attribution of demagoguery that Wallace used in his speech is the rhetorical use of victimization. Wallace creates a disconnect between the in-group and out-group while making the in-group appear to be the sufferers. This is what is known as being “victimized,” and this sort of rhetoric is powerful, yet dangerous because it can “[inspire] fear while not looking fearful” (Roberts-Miller 54). By using victimization, Wallace grasps his audience’s attention by boldly stating, “Let 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). The thought of his ideas being challenged uproots the anger in him. However, he still compares “their” (the in-group’s) problem to slavery, which could undoubtedly instil fear in his audience and lead to disaster because they could take matters into their own hands. Wallace becomes more passionate when he says, “We can no longer hide our head in the sand and tell ourselves that the ideology of our free fathers is not being attacked and is not being threatened by another idea, for it is” (73). This sort of propaganda can be seen throughout his speech, because he knows how to manipulate his Southern audience and uses victimization to his advantage. Adding to Roberts-Miller’s victimization argument, demagogues typically “[claim] extraordinary courage in the face of a terrible situation” and could possibly represent “one’s self as calm and reasonable while making apocalyptic predictions” (Roberts-Miller 54). An example of this would be when Wallace states “I shall fulfill my duty toward honesty and economy in our state government so that no man shall have a part of his livelihood cheated and no child shall have a bit of his future stolen away” (72). Wallace is using the slippery slope logical fallacy while insinuating that going through with integration would change the lives of men for the worst and destroy a part of their children’s future. His argumentation is more extreme because of the structure of his argument and the use of word choice. Essentially, he argues in such a way that his rhetorical use of victimization is almost unnoticeable, it is made to be seen like his heart is in the right place.

Trump also “[inspires] fear while not looking fearful,” which is a description from Roberts-Miller’s work which resembles Wallace’s use of victimization (54). Trump’s main tactic of persuasion is to stir up fear in his audience, “[tapping] into a growing victimization complex that begins with the theme that the United States can’t do anything right” (Mitchell). Countries like China, Japan, and Mexico may be beating the United States economically, but Trump gives the impression that he is the solution for the United States’ problems. Trump believes that America is at an all-time low and his slogan, “Make America Great Again!” reinforces this belief. He makes the United States look desolate in comparison to other countries when he says, “we are like a third world country,” but at the moment he was referring to the inadequacy of our airports, specifically LAX (Here’s Donald Trump’s…). The United States is far from being classified as a third world country; it is a rich, developed nation and America’s “poor” is vastly different from a third world country’s “poor.” Trump victimizing the United States portrays the nation as the underdog in the battle that is international economics, and this plays into voters’ insecurities consequently boosting Trump’s appeal. Trump displays the characteristics of a demagogue by using this tactic of persuasion because by making situations for the United States appear far worse than they actually are, he is using people’s emotions to gain their support rather than with logical reasoning.

Throughout his speech, Wallace indicates that the source of most of these problems is that people are too trusting of the government and it is because of the government that so much is going wrong. In order to prove his point, Wallace resorts to using the rhetorical strategy of scapegoating. Scapegoating is a strategy used by demagogues where “the scapegoat bears the blame, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and increased unity” (Roberts-Miller 53). The unity, or alliance, that forms from entire communities engaging in scapegoating results in a sense of purpose. Followings of demagogues are programmed to believe that “they” (the in-group) are in a bad situation because of “them” (the out group), and this division is made with the understanding that “if you are not on their side–with all your heart and soul, in all ways and without hesitations–then you are against them” (51). Wallace states that “it is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith, for where there is faith, there is no fear, and where there is fear, there is no faith” (74). He accuses the government of “replacing faith with fear” and they “give lip service to the almighty” ultimately meaning that the “government has become our God” (74). He is intentionally twisting the government’s intentions to push the audience into believing that the government is the one at fault for their problems. Wallace states the way he feels about the government’s politicians and how “its pseudo-liberal spokesman and some Harvard advocates have never examined the logic of its substitution of what it calls ‘human rights’ for individual rights, for its propaganda play on words has appeal for the unthinking” (74). Wallace’s argumentation is very troublesome because he is essentially using the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem as a means of persuasion. He is attacking the government for their attempt to make changes by addressing them as unintellectual people who are incapable of thinking.

Several logical fallacies are found in Wallace’s speech and their purpose is to obscure the true intent of his argumentation. A situation that explains the straw man fallacy is when person A has an opinion but person B completely misconstrues person A’s argument in order to attack them and make it easier to refute their argument. Wallace attacks the government and compares them to Hitler’s Germany, essentially calling the politicians dim-witted for trying to end segregation (74). To receive the reaction that he wanted, Wallace deceived his audience by making the federal government’s intentions appear to be something they were not. The straw man fallacy is also used when he states, “It is the spirit of power thirst that caused a president in Washington to take up Caesar’s pen and with one stroke of it make a law” (75). Not only is he attacking the federal government by using comparative analogies, but he also advocates the idea that the president is a tyrant for wanting change. The danger in this is that his argumentation and reasoning could cause “fear while not looking fearful” (54).

The manner in which Trump introduces economic issues with China, Japan, and Mexico portrayed these countries and their people as thieves. He said, “A lot of people…can’t get jobs, because there are no jobs, because China has our jobs and Mexico has our jobs” (Here’s Donald Trump’s…). He emphasizes that these countries are beating the United States economically, and that “the U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems” (Here’s Donald Trump’s…). Roberts-Miller’s description of a scapegoat is “a person or group on whom one dumps all responsibility for a situation; that person or group is responsible for the bad situation of the in-group” (53). He mentions Mexico specifically when he says that “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists” (Here’s Donald Trump’s…). Racial slurs are not expected from presidential candidates, but Trump’s binary thought divides the United States from other countries and thus promotes his immigration reform. Trump had shown America in his presidential candidacy announcement that he disapproves of what has become of the United States and he believes that he is the fighting force that will make all wrongs right. Demagogues are known to explicitly call the out-group demonic by linking them to devil terms, so associating Mexico with drugs, crime, and rape does what Roberts-Miller calls “[evoking] strong emotions” (52). Association with something sinful is a persuasive tactic that leads the audience to immediately disregard questioning the demagogue’s argument against the out-group (52).

What is so compelling about the topic of demagoguery is that as people come of age, they begin to make decisions for themselves that will affect their lives. Choosing to support a political leader’s ludicrous agenda is a prime example of how effective demagogic speech is. Electing the next President of the United States is more than just liking what one candidate has to say because they say it well. Demagogues are for the most part politicians, and they build followings based on what sounds like “rational” speech in that they can provide data, numbers, and analyses. If we learned anything from writing this essay, it is that the power of speech is incredibly effective and demagoguery is not something to be taken lightly no matter how nonsensical the speaker may be. America is fortunate for not having advocated George Wallace’s rally to preserve segregation. The only way we can Make America Great Again is by not letting America’s ethnic diversity be sabotaged today at the hands of Donald Trump.

Note: Both did the Introduction, Conclusion and Logical fallacy paragraph together. Leonard discussed George Wallace and Camille discussed Donald Trump.

Works Cited

Berenstein, Erica. “For Trump, ‘We’ Are Good and ‘They’ Are Bad.” Online video clip. Times Video. New York Times Company, 15 Dec. 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

Collins, Eliza. “David Duke: Voting against Donald Trump is ‘treason to your heritage’.” Politico. Politico LLC, 25 Feb. 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.

“Here’s Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech.” TIME. Time Inc., 16 June 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

Mercieca, Jennifer. “The Rhetorical Brilliance of Trump the Demagogue.” HuffPost Politics. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 12 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Mitchell, Jim. “In Dallas, Trump played into the nation’s victimization complex.” The Dallas Morning News. The Dallas Morning News Inc., 15 Sept. 20015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. “Characteristics of Demagoguery.” Rpt. in RWS 200 Course Reader. Comp. Chris Werry. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University 2016. 50-57. Print.

Rosslee, Norlisa Hanlon & Vicky Chandler. “25 of the Most Outrageous Donald Trump Quotes.” Marie Claire. Hearst Corporation, 04 March 2016. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

Wallace, George. “George Wallace Inaugural Speech as Governor of Alabama.” Rpt. in RWS 200 Course Reader. Comp. Chris Werry. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University, 2016. 72-77. Print.