In his essay, “The Culture of Shut Up,” Jon Lovett starts by presenting an allegory that ties in to the whole idea of his essay. He states that there was a village that was basically ran by three elders. So every decision or argument that came up among the villagers would go directly to these elders. One would always oppose the argument, another would support the argument, and the last would want a debate about the argument. This ties into today’s society in so many ways. The elders would be the media, the argument would be any rumor or any little amusing event on the news, and of course the villagers would be the general population. Lovett then goes on by exploring the idea that “a good idea can come from anyone anywhere” (30). He exclaims that the public should all stop telling others to shut up because in reality no one is going to shut up because of many reasons. Some of these reasons include: …show more content…
the fact that each individual right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment, some people just will not listen, and again a good idea can come from anyone anywhere. Continuing, Lovett gave examples of those who were told to shut up, so the public could think back on how that person approached the problem.
He exclaims that “we need to learn to live with the noise and tolerate the noise even when the noise is stupid, even when the noise is offensive, even when the noise is at times dangerous. Because no matter how noble the intent, it’s a demand for conformity that encourages people on all sides of a debate to police each other instead of argue and convince each other” ( Lovett 30). This statement is so true in today’s society. It basically says that the public needs to learn how to block out those trying to hold them down, acknowledge those who are opposing but don’t let them convince you, instead figure out how to correct their point accordingly. Almost every argument or debate that someone or a group of people have nowadays end up with the losing figure trying to attack the person or group directly instead of the point of the argument. It is so ignorant not to recognize your mistakes and it makes arguments and debates
pointless. This leads to Lovett’s main point that “you don’t beat an idea by beating a person, you beat an idea by beating an idea” (32). Therefore, beating someone in a personal argument does not mean that you also beat them in the argument up for debate. Lovett pondered upon the idea that “the First Amendment’s protections have always put a great deal of responsibility in our hands: not only to respect the power of our own speech, but also to respect that same power in the hands of people we despise. We all have more of that power now. And I for one think that’s great” (33). This is one of the most important quotes found in his essay. This quote states that we have a great deal of responsibility offered by the First Amendment’s protections. It also states that, with these responsibilities, we are not only to respect our own power of speech but that of those who we do not like or do not agree with. In conclusion, Jon Lovett examined how most modern day arguments are interpreted, mostly through the media, and gave a couple solutions on how to keep it as constructive as possible. Some of which include beating an idea by beating the idea and not the person, acknowledging and respecting the other side of the argument, and giving others on the opposing side the chance to express themselves without telling them to shut up.
Much of his argument rests on the nearly indisputable belief that if we, as a
Explaining that not only does it subvert pleasures, it tramples “novel notions” for the sake of tradition, and encourages an impotent “moderation” (896, 1060). For Unjust Speech, he sees no reason to simply endure this façade when one can theoretically work around it. Unjust Speech encourages resistance, calling on man to “believe that nothing is shameful!” (1078). This part of his argument displays that Unjust Speech recognizes shame as the essential cornerstone of societal life, yet encourages humans to not let it define them. He advocates for strong individualism against Just Speech’s encouraging words about societal
Varying opinions and ideologies exist everywhere in the world presently, but rarely do they lead to such drastic separation. Social dissent is when these clashing opinions exist within a society and ultimately pulls these sides apart. The Red Scare and McCarthyism are examples of social dissent when people clashed on the idea of Communism. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is an allegory for McCarthyism during the Red Scare. The Crucible is set in Puritan Salem and Puritan culture is based around religious ideals. When social dissent arose in Puritan Salem, it lead to the death of 19 individuals on grounds of witchcraft and support of the devil. Although social dissent is common in society and peacefully resolves itself most of the time, it can
His first principle regards the process of definition. As I sit in an every day classroom I notice several things. Many, if not all student simply nod their heads while a teacher explains, be it a theory in Math, or a formula in Science. Not once have I encountered a student willing to raise their hand and question the definition, or meaning that a teacher has rambled off to them. Neil Postman states his feelings on this best when he writes, “ It is a form of stupidity when to accept without reflection someone else’s definition.'; He wants people to realize that definitions are not god given, and that to question the validity is acceptable. Upon looking in a dictionary at any word you will see that all have several meanings. The same may apply to our lives, while one definition may apply to you another may not.
...s that you develop a way of regarding the information that you receive to the society that you are living in. He also believes that a quality education develops a students moral views and ability to think. And that these qualities are best developed in the traditional classroom setting by interaction between the student and their professors, and the student’s social life on campus, that is, their interaction with fellow students.
He shows that fear clouds the mind, thus making it absolutely imperative to maintain reason and logic throughout life. Fear will always end in a fate worse than death for those who survive it.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
He says that it is harder for him to doubt something deliberate, and the idea that he can have opportunities that are up to him to decide that fate of an outcome. He goes on to say that we must be wiser with our principles and start adjusting our theories to our data and avoid tailoring our data to our theories.
There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed … There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man … I hail as a benefactor … every man who … makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely
He says, “Information can save your life.” (p.334) This statement appeals to the emotions of the audience and strengthens his argument when he compares information to the importance of human life. He tells the audience of his personal experience with learning and provides them with his testimonial of its positive effects on his life. He says, “Make the love of learning central to your life. What a difference it can mean. If your experience is anything like mine, the books that will mean the most to you, books that will change your life, are still to come.” (p.335) When he mentions the word love, he is trying to spark that emotion into his audience. The word love usually brings to many individual’s minds happy and tender thoughts. By using this word he is hoping to have the audience associate it with
Mills believes that the people who “silence” people the most would be the Catholic Church. He thinks they are the most prejudice against people who voice against there believes. He explains, “…that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith” (49). Essentially, some of our most important teachings have come from people speaking against the Christian Church. In summary, Mills believes that in order for people and society to progress, we must give them the ability to think for themselves. Mills is persuasive in his first argument because a society that is silenced will never...
"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how people are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another. I see that the keenest brains of the world invent weapons and words to make it yet more refined and enduring. And all men of my age, here and over there, throughout the whole world see these things. All my generation is experiencing these things with me..."
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. You playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were all meant to shine, as children do. It’s not just in some of us it’s in everyone. And as we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others”.
‘Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.’
Another question that I have is when he cites Hannah Arendt “common sense stubbornly refuses to admit to, namely, the