Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Media influence on public opinion
Media influence on public opinion
Media influence on public opinion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Media influence on public opinion
According to the Elie Wiesel, fanaticism today is a symptom of people fearing to take responsibility for their own choices, fearing to have their own moral consciences. Wiesel suggests that fanaticism is a kind of degraded conformity, an escape from moral responsibility by joining a party, a gang, a banner, and a dogma: “The fanatic thinks he can tear down the wall of his cell by joining other fanatics. No need to think – the Party does the thinking for him, and the deciding for him.” Wiesel’s essay here well defines who is fanatic, and proposes the idea that “we cannot continue to live with fanaticism.” In January 2012, a feminist punk collective, called Pussy Riot, has organized a provocative concert in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which is the main church of orthodoxy in Russia, singing a song against the Russian president and the political situation in Russia. There is a big debate in the society about it, and while some people are totally against them, and find their actions inappropriate, others support them. However, it is hard to deny that singing inappropriate slogans, dressing indecently and making political protests in the main church of the country is radical and fanatic. First of all, Pussy Riot can be considered fanatic even because of their name and style. Their name itself is a provocation. The word riot means a violent disturbance of the peace by the crowd. The combination of these two words already can tell a lot about the people in this band. It’s a very effective way to get as much attention as possible by choosing such name. For example, there are a lot of feminist bands, but they are no as popular as Pussy Riot. Likewise, Pussy Riot is a feminist punk collective, who always wear trademark brightly co... ... middle of paper ... ...nd violent, because they made their performance in the church, which means that they have hurt religious people, for whom church is the holy place. Pussy Riot have not only distracted people who was praying, but also insulted and outraged all religious people in Russia and cultural heritage that belongs to this church. They have committed a kind of crime, and therefore they have been imprisoned. If in this situation they would have escaped punishment, it means that everybody can come to the church and organize performances like this. They are fanatic, and in order to fight fanaticism we need to show that for such actions people will get punished. Pussy Riot has attracted attention of people from all over the world. Obviously, they could not manage to do it by making peaceful demonstrations and protests. So, only fanatic could create such resonance in the society.
In this essay, I will define authoritarianism and discuss the differences and similarities between Adorno et al.’s and Altemeyer’s approaches towards authoritarianism. Authoritarianism refers to the obedience and strict adherence to rules and figures of authority, as well as this, an authoritarian personality can be characterised by hostility towards groups or individuals who differ from what they perceive as normal (The Open University, 2015, p23).
Throughout History our world has seen societies which have risen to power and publicity through pure hatred and suffering of others. Our past could yet, reveal the answer to the question, “Can a society based on hate and suffering survive?”. The most powerful and controversial of these societies will be mentioned and with hope, put an end to our uncertainty. The German Reich, modern day North Korea, Al-Qaeda, and the Ku Klux Klan. These listed had based their societies on hate, suffering, or both, which they have marked themselves forever in history.
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
Culture is made up of three main components: ethics, aesthetics, and religion (Lincoln 52). The lines of culture become skewed as it often blends in with political and religious views. In Western Europe during the time of the Reformation, the Church was the central ruler of the society. This meant that religion was not only a cultural view, but also a political one. As time moved on, the Church became less important, but today’s standards still connect religion to culture. This becomes an issue as individuals who are noticeably outside the culture in forms or religion are often judged and looked down upon (Lincoln 56). Due to this outcast it can cause anger to certain religions and culture which can often lead to these acts of violence. With the hate between cultures, religion becomes the justifiable mean on which violence can occur. Many individuals can state that God wants them to make their own religion superior, and one way they can draw attention to their religion is terrorism and other forms of violence. Due to this connection to culture, religion can not be separated into it’s own personal category, as it is forever affected by the changes and culture of the community (Lincoln 57). As time and culture progress, the religion of the community will either change with it, or fight the changes which will often cause conflict. This can be seen in the results of the practice of Jihad, the Reformation and
“’Is my mother a communist?’ Staring. Straight ahead. ‘They were always asking her things, before I came here.’ … ‘Did the Fuhrer take her away?’ … ‘I knew it.’ The words were thrown at the steps and Liesel could feel the slush of anger stirring hotly in her stomach. ‘I hate the Fuhrer’ she said. ‘I hate him.’” (115)
History always finds a way of repeating itself. A Tale of Two Cities, depicts the French Revolution and the citizens living through it. Many citizens go along with the leaders want, in order to avoid being executed, this is taking part in mob mentality because although they might not be doing what they want, they are doing what everybody else is doing, so they can fit in. Some people can participate in something so vulgar even when they do not mean to. In “Top 10 Instances of Mob Mentality”, author S.Grant says that, “Looking back on Nazi Germany, it’s difficult to comprehend how ordinary people acted so ruthless and inhumane. Even if you assume the average German citizen didn’t know what was happening in the concentration camps, there were still 24,000 members in the “Death’s Head Unit,” a special section of the Schutzstaffel (SS) that was in charge of the concentration camps. These Death’s Head
The author of this paper disagrees with this assessment. TWE is more than that; it is an informed way out of a psychological deadlock, cannot be resolved in any other way. It is an attempt to stop a severe form of subjugation and degradation that focuses on the wellbeing of the oppressed. The only player in the “Manichean game” that was willing to end it. Fanon’s “regression” to violence is not a sign of resignation, nor of radicalization. It is a well-informed recourse to get rid of an abuser that has proven to be hopelessly egocentric, unsuited to live in a truly humanist society, even less so in bringing it about. Hence, Fanon was to the very end committed to improve the lives of the
Restraint and Activism Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted, rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include the U.S. v. Kinder, where Congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine.
The way the photo was taken only showing the people being abused adds hardship. It does not show the policemen who are spraying the hoses, which makes them seem even more evil and more like the bad guys. This gives the effect of a faceless foe and adds to the drama of the picture. This image shows that the protesters were willing to endure pain to get what they desired and deserved. The people in the background wanting to give up and go home, stay and show that they support their cause and are willing to fight for what they believe in. The man holding the woman shows the power and pain endured during the protest. They show that they are determined to get what they believe but also are being unfairly harassed.
The way they hold themselves with contorted stature gives away that they are able to corrupt peace. The shorter man in the white shirt with a black flag symbol on it shows that he may be ignorant to what his shirt represents. His shirt stands for anarchism, a political statement that wants stateless societies that are self-governed (Marshall 4). Anarchism is dealt with in harmful ways back when is first began in the mid 1800s. The symbol on the shirt the boy is wearing represents the time when anarcho-punk bands joined anarchism and made the circle with an ‘a’ through it a national symbol. The girl on the other hand, on the far right hand side, portrays risqué attire. With a cut off shirt and what looks like patched up clothing, can show a lack of respect for ones body. The boy who has his arm around her, looks similar in attire. It shows that he is not wearing a shirt and only a jacket. He looks like he is want-to-be band boy. The boy on the left side has hands raised looking as if he is trying to scare the mother, and by the look on the mothers face, the boy has succeeded. These kids aren’t helping make socialization a good thing what so
The mid-fourteenth century Black Death created panic and fear among Western Europe, causing the population to react violently. The primary document, Flagellants Attempts to Ward Off the Black Death, 1349, discusses a witness’s account of the flagellant movements that spread through Western Europe as a result of the Black Death. The flagellant movements were confraternities of men and sometimes women that came together in procession in order to repent their sins through flagellation or self-penance. Many of the flagellant movements became heretical and exemplified violence as the confraternities led the persecution of the Jews. This paper will analyze the interpretations historians have regarding the severity of the flagellant movements and persecution of the Jews during the Black Death in order to determine if the violent movements were justifiable.
Wiesel’s speech, persuasive in nature, was designed to educate his audience as to the violence and killing of innocent people across the globe. Wiesel spoke of acts that had taken place throughout his lifetime, from his youth, up through present day atrocities. His focu...
Nationalism has played a crucial role in world history over the past centuries. It continues to do so today. For many, nationalism is indelibly associated with some of the worst aspects of modern history, such as the destructive confidence of the Napoleon’s army and the murderous pride of Nazi Germany. Large numbers of people, descent in their hearts, have carried out unbelievable atrocities for no better reason than their nation required them to. Authoritarian and totalitarian regime have crushed dissent, eliminated opposition, and trampled on civil liberties in the name of the nation.
Hannah Arendt was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. After witnessing the atrocities of both World Wars and the worldwide tension during the Cold War, no concepts or theoretical understandings of the crimes and events that occurred were developed, inciting Arendt to comment on political violence. She considers these events to be a failure of politics and tradition. However, On Revolution seeks to provoke revolutionary thought, ideally with society reverting to the opulence of public life and politics as seen in Ancient Greece. Modern warfare echoes that of Roman antiquity, as we begin to see justifications of these conflicts, with rationalisation of violence accepted by society, seeing the amalgamation of violence and politics, as Marx highlights. Therefore, this structural violence must overcome with an overhaul of the political realm, with emphasis on speech, conversation and debate, creating radical upheaval and reform. Arendt emphasises this separation of politics and violence with great conviction, as politics in the modern world has greatly failed humanity as evidenced through the atrocities of the 20th century. This goes against the theories of Marx, who argues that the ruling class’ violence struct...
Yet not all Religious Fundamentalism can be categorised as both totalitarian and violent as they are not all involved in terrorism or violent protest but usually one or both. The overwhelming evidence does support this as Hindus and Muslims in the state of Gujarat partake in communal violence, the Amish can be debated using symbolic violence (Heywood, 2012, p. 305). This suggests that Religious Fundamentalism will always be linked to violence and totalitarianism, because of the majority's actions and principles. Works Cited Ball, T. And Dagger, R. (2009) Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader.