Link: http://time.com/5272331/let-us-now-punish-famous-men/
Diction 1. The amount of words that serve to establish emotion in this piece is surprisingly sparse. In the first paragraph, the word "claims" immediately hints towards a feeling is disdain towards the justice system for its empty promises. In the fifth, "burden" brings a somewhat somber feel to the piece, making readers know the issue is one without an easy or even well liked solution, while "exact" shows that author Jill Filipovic desperately wants to see justice served to these men. "Muddled" in the sixth brings back the somber tone, while also showing Jill feels somewhat hopeless, feeling nothing can be done. "Compensate" in the ninth, meanwhile, is more forceful, used to argue the accused should find a new way to live their lives without their prior influence. 2. Filipovic seems extremely attached to the topic of forgiveness. In addition to the above mentioned words, the author has a history writing, reporting, and commenting on feminist issues, such as the #MeToo movement. Beyond this, though, she goes into great detail when she argues for her point; this can be seen in paragraph 3, where she claims most accused harassers face little to no punishments. She then lists Donald Trump winning the presidency and Mike Tyson's ongoing career as examples. This detail also applies to her solution on paragraph 9, where she states men should make amends, and lists examples of this, like asking women "How can I right this wrong?" and leading quiet lives. 3. The tone in this piece is somewhat assertive, with many words giving off a feeling of self-confidence. Words like "devote" in the context if its sentence, for instance, let readers know the author has a solution in mind, and truly believes it to be the best one. Another common tone would one that's rather disapproving, mainly of the legal system that allows abusers and harassers to get off with no punishment. "Infinitely" in the sixth paragraph, in context, is used to claim the system is arguably more harmful to society than those they persecute. This can also be seen in the word "rare", describing how often these men face punishment, and is used to induce guilt in the system. Devices 1. Allusion-One allusion is made in the second paragraph is made towards Bill Cosby's trials. Filipovic uses it as a subtle argument, which will later become the central thesis of the article: while some men have faced legal repercussions for their misconduct, most not only don't face them, but still maintain their prior status fairly unaffected by the controversy. Tone 1. Besides the words mentioned above that set her tone, as well as her own history with subjects such as these, there are a few other details that show the author's tone; for one, the examples of punishments and instances of people getting off the hook, mainly the former, are rather serious in their nature: for example, paragraph 4 mentions how some men could face punishments like "going to jail, being on probation or spending...life on a sex-offender registry", rather sad to think about, but its usage is needed to put the severity of their actions in legal context. Another detail could be the solutions; as mentioned above, the general tone of the piece is fairly assertive and serious. These solutions, however, are somewhat hopeful, offering the men a chance at a better life despite their misdeeds. Purpose 1. The portions of the story which speak to the purpose are: paragraph 2, which sets what the author considers to be the main issue (abusers retaining their influence) and facing small consequences, giving readers an understanding of the topic; paragraph 3's final 3 sentences, which give examples of men who apply to the claim in the prior section, backing up the argument with evidence; paragraph 8, which argues that the accused deserve to lose their clout, as punishment for their actions, which gives the readers another argument; paragraph 9 gives a solution to the dilemma of the accused and their influence, believing they should try to make things right by giving up their influence in exchange for a more simple life; and the final paragraph, which sums up the whole article, condensing the info into a small bit for readers. 2. The goal is to argue the men at the center of the #MeToo movement don't deserve to "make a comeback". 3. The worth of the goal is pretty high; in addition to being a hot button topic at the time, it addresses an alternative to the failing legal system, which has faced increasing amounts of scrutiny for its inaction on the topic. Appeals 1. The beginning section of the article (paragraphs 1-5) is mostly organized in a traditionally linear structure, with the exception of paragraph 1. Rather than serve as the intro to the topic, it poses a question, one which is essential to the argument, which is whether or not those who face no consequences for their actions deserve to make a comeback. From this point, it follows the structure of paragraph 2 introducing the topic, 3 giving context to 2's argument, and so on. The middle section, paragraph 6, is less connected to the main argument of why the harassers don't need to rebound, but more of an acknowledgement, in this case one of the legal system's failings and limitations in these instances; Filipovic later goes on to argue that "having people pay no penalties at all, despite huge...evidence against them, seems...worse". The final 5 paragraphs are her less of a summarization and more of a solution to the issue: paragraph 9 is perhaps the best example of this, as the whole paragraph is just her elaborating on her solution. 2. Jill Filipovic mostly uses current examples of harassers and their current life situations as evidence; for example, she mentions Bill Cosby's trial in the 2nd paragraph, and the NY Attorney General's resignation in the third. Aside from that, no other evidence is used. 3. Filipovic's argument is largely solid: the order in which her points are brought up, while not particularly common, is effective enough, the solution she presents-harassers accepting never getting their positions back-is well argued for, and the evidence she presents is relevant. However, the one fault is the evidence, or lack of. While the instances of the harassers' lives is effective, more evidence would serve to address alternative points of view, like an example if a case where a harasser was prosecuted. Not to mention, the examples of the men's situations is confined entirely to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, but using an example of an accused abuser trying to right their wrongs, as mentioned in paragraph 9, would strengthen the effectiveness of her solution.
0 Comments
Link: time.com/5160427/forgiving-sexual-assault-perpetrators-metoo/?xid=homepage
2. Author Jill Filipovic is clearly attached to the topic of harassment scandals, not only because this is her 6th article on social justice since October, but also because of how in depth she is when she writes. Few of the paragraphs are less than 4 sentences, and those which are generally serve to lead into another idea or sub-topic. The diction, as mentioned above, plays a role. Going back to the in-depth nature of the piece, Filipovic gives many examples of different sub-topics; for example, she gives 8 examples of harassers in the first paragraph alone. 3. Despite all the talk of forgiveness and coming to terms with the past, the actual tone of this piece, when combined with the diction, comes off as somewhat self-righteous and hypocritical. For example, she claims that "redemption and forgiveness are not synonymous with a return to fame, and...being forgiven of one’s sins does not mean...restoration to one’s previous...power" but previously brings up criticism of Harvard for rejecting a woman's admission because she committed murder. Regardless of personal opinion on the matter, it was Harvard's and Harvard's choice alone to reject her. Why should she be accepted for a crime equally or arguably worse than rape?
2. A fair amount of appositives are used, mostly to give more context to the harasses and their current situations. 3. One could argue that Diane Moore, the original lawyer for Michelle Jones, the woman who murdered her disabled son, calling Harvard's rejection of the latter inappropriate was hyperbole.
2. The general purpose of this story is in the title: forgiving the men accused in the #MeToo movement, while acknowledging the fact that they aren't likely to return to their previous positions of power. The piece also subtly hints at a desire for prison reform, though this paragraph is actually irrelevant in the context of this story. 3. In the wake of the Weinstein scandal, more and more men of influence have been accused of sexual misconduct, and this all came to a head at the turn of the new year, when the #MeToo movement was formed to combat it. However, while there's no denying the fact that the actions of the former were unacceptable, it seems as if no one is remembers that these men, for all their faults, are just people: they make mistakes, screw up. It also seems as if members of the movement have become increasingly more extreme in their attempts to curb these events from happening. So a desire for forgiveness of these men is a position of value, mostly because it both lets the accused know redemption is possible, while also quelling the more intense movement members.
2. A large majority of the evidence used is allusions, most of which are to the perpetrators of these acts; aside from those, the author either references enablers of these men or those with plights similar to that of them. Beyond that, little other evidence is used. There is a statistic used regarding incarceration rates, but it holds little to no influence on the paper. Likewise, 3. While the argument is solid for the most part, there are parts where it fails. As mentioned above, paragraphs 6-8 are filler in terms of contributions to the overall argument, and the logic of Michelle Jones' plight compared to that of Spacey and Franken is flawed. However, one major issue I want to draw attention to is the fact that Filipovic never looks at the issue from a non-liberal view, as the article never even attempts to see this issue from a conservative view. In addition to sidetracking from her argument to talk about the need for more women in film, which holds no merit to anything mentioned prior, she even held the left as morally superior and mocked conservatives by saying, "On the left, our politics and our ideals simply don’t hold up if we don’t believe people can change. On the right, forgiveness is baked in Christianity, in which all sin can be forgiven with repentance".
Link: time.com/5176976/donald-trump-nra-republican-lawmakers/?xid=homepage
1. One notable word that shows emotion is stricter, used to describe the kind of background checks Trump wants to implement on gun buyers. A word to contrast that is modest, which describes the kind of legislation that Congressional Republicans would like, as well as how their stance regarding guns has been since returning. 2. Authors Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Daly seem to be very invested in this topic. In addition to going fairly in depth on topics brought up, specifically Congress' inaction, as well as their reluctance to act, they incorporate views from a diverse bunch, including Democrats, Republicans, governors, US Representatives, and even White House Staffers. 3. Certain words give off different tones, but overall, the authors seem to be aggrieved. To start, the word "afraid" comes up twice, almost as if Mascaro and Daly are mocking those on Capitol Hill. In addition, the word "modest" frequently appears throughout the passage; however, while the actual word denotes shyness, one could argue that it's being used to call out Republicans as cowardly, as all the times the word or a synonym is used, it's in a covertly mocking way.
2. An appositive defining bump stocks is in paragraph 18, so to let readers know what they are, as since the Las Vegas shooting talk thereof has increased dramatically.
2. Overall, the goal is to tell readers about the inaction of Congress and Trump's willingness to act, both of which regard gun laws. 3. Generally speaking, this is an opinion that has always had value. However, after the Parkland shooting, the issue of mass shootings seems to have become even more prevalent. Beyond the massive amount of student activism, it generally seems as if the nation has had enough with the shootings and the NRA as well. So raising awareness does hold value.
2. The majority of the evidence are quotes of some kind. Across the whole article, 13 quotes are used, the majority of which are from current lawmakers of both parties. Aside from that, pieces of legislation are brought up, largely as a guide on how to approach the issue. 3. The argument is pretty strong. The paragraphs all flow into each other in a natural way; for example, paragraph 6 ends with a bill which discussed the age of gun buyers. After that, paragraphs 7-8 have a top Republican giving his two-cents. Likewise, the article never strays from three central points: Democratic efforts to curb gun availability, Republican reluctance to that, and Trump's desire to weaken the NRA. Soapstone
Link: http://time.com/4996516/naacp-black-passengers-flying-american-airlines/?xid=homepage
Diction
Link: http://time.com/4976836/fraternity-hazing-deaths-reform-tim-piazza/?xid=homepage
1. Diction
Link:http://time.com/4983786/biloxi-mississippi-school-ban-to-kill-a-mockingbird/?xid=homepage
|