12 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2018
  2. Sep 2018
  3. Apr 2018
  4. Oct 2017
    1. ng also explains and compares how orality and literacy can be linked through oral cultures and chirography.

      This is a little hard to follow. Try to unpack and elaborate such complex relationships.

  5. jbgardnerblog.wordpress.com jbgardnerblog.wordpress.com
    Homework 2 Demagoguery is a term I have known for a while but not one I would call my myself familiar with before these articles. The concept, as it is explained in the articles is now clearer than ever to me all over American rhetoric. In politics, in comments sections, it is all but impossible for me to not see it everywhere. One thing I found particularly interesting was all the subcategories within the two fields of thought. Miller notes of the polarization that there can be many beliefs, even some more subtle than the main idea that is presented as the representation of the group. As he discussed slavery there were many thoughts on the matter that were “rounded up” essentially to the most radical framework. If you didn’t fully support it, then you were against is, a sympathizer. The exact same can be seen in the arguably pro-gun majority within the comments on the Chris Matthews piece. While the interview would seem to suggest in the brief clip that there are issues to be discussed, i.e. the other views within the topics of pro-gun and anti-gun, the comments would suggest otherwise. Anyone not firmly on the stance of having any gun you want is labeled as a Dem, commie, woman, or other member of the outgroup. They attack the very few people who speak up against them. On the pro-gun side there are some clear subgroups in the seemingly responsible owners and the ones who appear to be only a couple paychecks away from actually buying a tank. Then there are the commenters who seem to mock the idea of actually owning a tank. People ramp up what they actually believe in at times in order to gain acceptance and feel as if they will be listened to and get there way. This also goes along with Miller’s idea that there is often not a demagogue, rather a set of opposing viewpoints. While there is a face of pro-gun supporters in the NRA, they get a lot of “support” from the Constitution. The ingroup here would have you believe that the arms mentioned in the Constitution need not ever be reevaluated. Certainly at the time of writing there was no thought of what a fully automatic assault rifle could do, or that such a thing could exist. They even go so far as to attack Chris Matthews’ appearance and belittle him due to his beliefs, though clearly anyone who doesn’t agree with them is wrong. They just scapegoat the other group, whoever they may be. The ingroup says that if only everyone had guns, mass shootings like this wouldn’t happen. Emotion also play big role. While the pro-gun said ofter says that their opposition shouldn’t politicize a tragedy, they use it as proof for their side. They say we need guns because of the Las Vegas shooting. They themselves start to make people feel scared and help perpetuate the terrorism agenda, to scare people. This uses emotion, not logic to appeal to people, especially those who may be under informed on the real issues or those on the fence.
    5
    1. subtle than the main idea that is presented as the representation of the group. As he discussed slavery there were many thoughts on the matter that were “rounded up”

      Interesting, but I suggest you outline Roberts-Miller's main claims and some key concepts before getting too far into discussion.

    2. his uses emotion, not logic to appeal to people, especially those who may be under informed on the real issues or those on the fence.

      OK, but RM says that emotion isn't necessarily demagogic.

    3. They just scapegoat the other group, whoever they may be

      Good - but give RM's definition of scapegoating, then present evidence showing how it works in the target text.

    4. This also goes along with Miller’s idea that there is often not a demagogue, rather a set of opposing viewpoints.

      Not sure this captures RM's claim. You could do more to explain her notion of a culture of demagoguery.

    5. he concept, as it is explained in the articles is now clearer than ever to me all over American rhetoric.

      Yes, we seem to live in an age in which demagoguery is highly visible.

  6. jbgardnerblog.wordpress.com jbgardnerblog.wordpress.com
    1. Both arguments use a lot of emotional appeal  to try and connect with people outside of those who would immediately agree with them.  The “Smoker’s Plea” article uses logic by citing article as well.  As with most articles of this nature, though they claim to be unbiased there is always a bias towards the authors point of view.  He cites older sources of information about smoking that may be out of date with current medical and research technology.  Also no counter articles are presents.  For instance anti-smoking articles that he might be able to find fault with.  The author only uses reports that directly go along with exactly his point of view.

      This establishes you understand the "gist" of both authors. But the response is very general, and does not delve deeply into either text. Try to quote the texts, use textual evidence to substantiate your analysis, and construct a more robust response.

  7. Feb 2016
  8. Oct 2015
    1. This chapter suggests two ways to make the grading of writing easier,fairer, and more helpful for students: using minimal grades or fewerlevels of quality, and using criteria that spell out the features of goodwriting that we are looking for in the assignment.Grading Student Writing: MakingIt Simpler, Fairer, Clearer