1C Agenda 10-29-19: Dentistry Fraud; Should We Censor Social Media? Two Essay Prompts Dovetail into One (Choices D & H)

October 22 Go over "It's Time to Confront the Threat of Right-Wing Terrorism" by John Cassidy in The New Yorker and "Does the banning of Alex Jones signal a new era of big tech responsibility?" by Julia Carrie Wong and Olivia Solon in The Guardian and agree or disagree with the claim that big tech companies are morally obliged to censor right-wing white nationalist trolls such as Alex Jones. We will also read “Free Speech Scholars to Alex Jones: You’re Not Protected” by Alan Feuer. Homework #12: In the context of Jasmin Barmore’s essay “The Queen of Eating Shellfish Online,” develop an argumentative thesis of 22 words that addresses the alleged benefits of mukbang, the glorification of binge-eating on a webcam.

October 24 Go over Jasmin Barmore’s essay “The Queen of Eating Shellfish Online,” develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the alleged benefits of mukbang, the glorification of binge-eating on a webcam. Your homework #13 is to read “Is Dentistry a Science?” by Ferris Jabr and in 200 words refute or defend his claim that dentistry is rife with venality (greed) and corruption that compromises a patient’s best interests.

October 29 Go over “Is Dentistry a Science?” by Ferris Jabr and refute or defend his claim that dentistry is rife with venality (greed) and corruption that compromises a patient’s best interests. You can also consult “Dentists Need to Up Their Game” and “Is Your Dentist Ripping You Off?” Homework #14 is to read Nick Hanauer’s “Better Schools Won’t Fix America” and in 200 words explain the author’s argument.

October 31 Read Nick Hanauer’s “Better Schools Won’t Fix America” and refute or support the author’s contention that structural inequality, not schooling, is the root of America’s crisis.

November 5 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write introduction and thesis paragraph.

November 7 Chromebook In-Class Objective: Write 3 supporting paragraphs, your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph, and your conclusion.

November 12 Essay 3 is due on turnitin.

Essay 3

Minimum of 2 sources for your MLA Works Cited page.

Choice A

Watch Hasan Minhaj in The Patriot Act episode “Why the Internet Sucks” and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the episode’s main theme.

Choice B

Watch John Oliver’s YouTube presentation about medical devices and develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the alleged abuses in the medical device industry.

Choice C

Read Ibram Kendi’s “What the Believers Are Denying” and agree or disagree with his contention that racism and global warming denial are rooted in the same psychologically flawed thinking.

Choice D

Read "It's Time to Confront the Threat of Right-Wing Terrorism" by John Cassidy in The New Yorker and "Does the banning of Alex Jones signal a new era of big tech responsibility?" by Julia Carrie Wong and Olivia Solon in The Guardian and agree or disagree with the claim that big tech companies are morally obliged to censor right-wing white nationalist trolls such as Alex Jones. For another source, you can also use “Free Speech Scholars to Alex Jones: You’re Not Protected” by Alan Feuer.

Choice E

In the context of Jasmin Barmore’s essay “The Queen of Eating Shellfish Online,” develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the alleged benefits of mukbang, the glorification of binge-eating on a webcam.

Choice F

Read “Is Dentistry a Science?” by Ferris Jabr and refute or defend his claim that dentistry is rife with venality (greed) and corruption that compromises a patient’s best interests. For this assignment, you can consult “Dentists Need to Up Their Game” and “Is Your Dentist Ripping You Off?”

Choice G

Read Nick Hanauer’s “Better Schools Won’t Fix America” and refute or support the author’s contention that structural inequality, not schooling, is the root of America’s crisis.

Choice H

Read Andrew Marantz’s “Free Speech Is Killing Us” and support or refute his claim that free speech does not apply to private companies.

Choice I

Read Allison Arieff’s “Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won’t Change That” and support or refute her contention that self-driving cars are not the solution to traffic dangers.

Choice J

Read Judith Shulevitz’s essay “Why You Never See Your Friends Anymore,” and support or refute the author’s claim that lack of regular friendship bonding is having far outreaching destructive effects on society.

Option K

See the movie Black Panther and in an argumentative essay, with a counterargument-rebuttal section, address the question: Is Erik Killmonger a villain or a hero?

Resources for Works Cited:

See: Argument about Erik Killmonger

See: Boston Review

See:"Black Panther and the Invention of Africa" by Jelani Cobb

See Killmonger Is Real Hero

See Guardian

See Washington Post

See Forbes

See The Ringer

Option L

Watch the movie Black Panther and address the argument that the mythical city of Wakanda is a metaphor for the need of African history that has been corrupted and "white-washed" over the centuries by racist, white historians who have painted an inaccurate history of Africa.

Sources:

"Black Panther and the Real Lost Wakandas" by Clive Irving

"Black Panther and the Invention of Africa" by Jelani Cobb

"Black Panther: A Conversation about Real African History" by Melvin Lars

"Black Panther is a gorgeous, groundbreaking celebration of black culture" by Tre Johnson

"The Real History Behind the Black Panther" by Ryan Mattimore

"Searching for Wakanda: The African Roots of the Black Panther Story" by Thomas F. McDrew

Option M

Watch the movie Black Panther and develop a thesis about how the film sheds light on the tensions between Africans and black Americans.

Sources:

"Black Panther: Why the relationship between Africans and black Americans is so messed up" by Larry Madowo and Karen Attiah

"Black Panther and the Invention of Africa" by Jelani Cobb

"Black Panther Forces Africans and Black Americans to Reconcile the Past" by Kovie Biakolo

Choice N

Read Tad Friend’s New Yorker online article “Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change?” and look at two opposing camps on the role of alternative protein sources as a viable replacement for meat. One camp says we face too many obstacles to accept non-animal alternative proteins: evolution, taste, and cost, to name several. An opposing camp says we have the technology and the proven product in Impossible Foods and other non-meat proteins to replace animal protein. Assessing these two opposing camps in the context of Tad Friend’s essay, develop an argumentative thesis addresses the question: How viable is the push for tech companies to help climate change by replacing animals with alternative proteins?

October 31 Read Nick Hanauer’s “Better Schools Won’t Fix America” and refute or support the author’s contention that structural inequality, not schooling, is the root of America’s crisis.

Choice F

Excerpts from "Is Dentistry a Science" by Ferris Jabr (headings are mine)

(Brendon Zeidler earns only 10-25% of previous dentist John Rodger Lund's earnings. Why?)

In early 2012, Lund retired. Brendon Zeidler, a young dentist looking to expand his business, bought Lund’s practice and assumed responsibility for his patients. Within a few months, Zeidler began to suspect that something was amiss. Financial records indicated that Lund had been spectacularly successful, but Zeidler was making only 10 to 25 percent of Lund’s reported earnings each month. As Zeidler met more of Lund’s former patients, he noticed a disquieting trend: Many of them had undergone extensive dental work—a much larger proportion than he would have expected. When Zeidler told them, after routine exams or cleanings, that they didn’t need any additional procedures at that time, they tended to react with surprise and concern: Was he sure? Nothing at all? Had he checked thoroughly?

In the summer, Zeidler decided to take a closer look at Lund’s career. He gathered years’ worth of dental records and bills for Lund’s patients and began to scrutinize them, one by one. The process took him months to complete. What he uncovered was appalling.

(We suffer a power disparity at the dentist that leaves us vulnerable in many ways)

We have a fraught relationship with dentists as authority figures. In casual conversation we often dismiss them as “not real doctors,” regarding them more as mechanics for the mouth. But that disdain is tempered by fear. For more than a century, dentistry has been half-jokingly compared to torture. Surveys suggest that up to 61 percent of people are apprehensive about seeing the dentist, perhaps 15 percent are so anxious that they avoid the dentist almost entirely, and a smaller percentage have a genuine phobia requiring psychiatric intervention.

When you’re in the dentist’s chair, the power imbalance between practitioner and patient becomes palpable. A masked figure looms over your recumbent body, wielding power tools and sharp metal instruments, doing things to your mouth you cannot see, asking you questions you cannot properly answer, and judging you all the while. The experience simultaneously invokes physical danger, emotional vulnerability, and mental limpness. A cavity or receding gum line can suddenly feel like a personal failure. When a dentist declares that there is a problem, that something must be done before it’s too late, who has the courage or expertise to disagree? When he points at spectral smudges on an X-ray, how are we to know what’s true? In other medical contexts, such as a visit to a general practitioner or a cardiologist, we are fairly accustomed to seeking a second opinion before agreeing to surgery or an expensive regimen of pills with harsh side effects. But in the dentist’s office—perhaps because we both dread dental procedures and belittle their medical significance—the impulse is to comply without much consideration, to get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible.

(Essay's Thesis)

(We make assumptions about dentistry that are not true)

The uneasy relationship between dentist and patient is further complicated by an unfortunate reality: Common dental procedures are not always as safe, effective, or durable as we are meant to believe. As a profession, dentistry has not yet applied the same level of self-scrutiny as medicine, or embraced as sweeping an emphasis on scientific evidence. “We are isolated from the larger health-care system. So when evidence-based policies are being made, dentistry is often left out of the equation,” says Jane Gillette, a dentist in Bozeman, Montana, who works closely with the American Dental Association’s Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry, which was established in 2007. “We’re kind of behind the times, but increasingly we are trying to move the needle forward.”

Consider the maxim that everyone should visit the dentist twice a year for cleanings. We hear it so often, and from such a young age, that we’ve internalized it as truth. But this supposed commandment of oral health has no scientific grounding. Scholars have traced its origins to a few potential sources, including a toothpaste advertisement from the 1930s and an illustrated pamphlet from 1849 that follows the travails of a man with a severe toothache. Today, an increasing number of dentists acknowledge that adults with good oral hygiene need to see a dentist only once every 12 to 16 months.

Many standard dental treatments—to say nothing of all the recent innovations and cosmetic extravagances—are likewise not well substantiated by research. Many have never been tested in meticulous clinical trials. And the data that are available are not always reassuring.

(There exists little research in the efficacy of many dental practices)

The general dearth of rigorous research on dental interventions gives dentists even more leverage over their patients. Should a patient somehow muster the gumption to question an initial diagnosis and consult the scientific literature, she would probably not find much to help her. When we submit to a dentist’s examination, we are putting a great deal of trust in that dentist’s experience and intuition—and, of course, integrity.

(Dentists have less oversight than doctors)

Whatever happened, from that point on, “the professions of dentistry and medicine would develop along separate paths,” writes Mary Otto, a health journalist, in her recent book, Teeth. Becoming a practicing physician requires four years of medical school followed by a three-to-seven-year residency program, depending on the specialty. Dentists earn a degree in four years and, in most states, can immediately take the national board exams, get a license, and begin treating patients. (Some choose to continue training in a specialty, such as orthodontics or oral and maxillofacial surgery.) When physicians complete their residency, they typically work for a hospital, university, or large health-care organization with substantial oversight, strict ethical codes, and standardized treatment regimens. By contrast, about 80 percent of the nation’s 200,000 active dentists have individual practices, and although they are bound by a code of ethics, they typically don’t have the same level of oversight.

(Dentistry needs to be integrated with mainstream medicine)

Throughout history, many physicians have lamented the segregation of dentistry and medicine. Acting as though oral health is somehow divorced from one’s overall well-being is absurd; the two are inextricably linked. Oral bacteria and the toxins they produce can migrate through the bloodstream and airways, potentially damaging the heart and lungs. Poor oral health is associated with narrowing arteries, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and respiratory disease, possibly due to a complex interplay of oral microbes and the immune system. And some research suggests that gum disease can be an early sign of diabetes, indicating a relationship between sugar, oral bacteria, and chronic inflammation.

Dentistry’s academic and professional isolation has been especially detrimental to its own scientific inquiry. Most major medical associations around the world have long endorsed evidence-based medicine. The idea is to shift focus away from intuition, anecdote, and received wisdom, and toward the conclusions of rigorous clinical research. Although the phrase evidence-based medicine was coined in 1991, the concept began taking shape in the 1960s, if not earlier (some scholars trace its origins all the way back to the 17th century). In contrast, the dental community did not begin having similar conversations until the mid-1990s. There are dozens of journals and organizations devoted to evidence-based medicine, but only a handful devoted to evidence-based dentistry.

Sample Outline for Dentistry

Paragraph 1, your introduction, is a summary of the unchecked abuses John Rodger Lund committed against his patients for decades.

Paragraph 2, your thesis, should address the claim that "Common dental procedures are not always as safe, effective, or durable as we are meant to believe."

Paragraphs 3-7 are your supporting arguments.

Because this essay traces the causes behind the lack of safety, effectiveness, and accountability in many dental procedures, there is no counterargument-rebuttal.

Paragraph 8 is your conclusion, a powerful restatement of your thesis.

Free Speech Debate on Social Media Platforms Combines Two Essay Prompts:

Choice D

Choice H

Read Andrew Marantz’s “Free Speech Is Killing Us” and support or refute his claim that free speech does not apply to private companies.

(Parenthetical citations my own)

(Social media platforms deny accountability for their content by hiding behind two false claims: First Amendment, the right of free speech, and the idea that words can't translate into violence.)

There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

(The idea that social media is benign and can't be held to account for violence has lost credibility in the face of recent bloodshed.)

No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch gunman, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 51 people.

(In addition to violence, Alt-Right conspiracy memes can even influence national policy in favor of the bigots' views.)

Having spent the past few years embedding as a reporter with the trolls and bigots and propagandists who are experts at converting fanatical memes into national policy, I no longer have any doubt that the brutality that germinates on the internet can leap into the world of flesh and blood.

(The heart of the argument from which we derive our thesis)

The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?

(Common argument is nothing should be done to censor social media content because this censorship is a form of fascism and "thought police.")

Nothing. Or at least that’s the answer one often hears from liberals and conservatives alike. Some speech might be bad, this line of thinking goes, but censorship is always worse. The First Amendment is first for a reason.

After one of the 8chan-inspired massacres — I can’t even remember which one, if I’m being honest — I struck up a conversation with a stranger at a coffee shop. We talked about how bewildering it was to be alive at a time when viral ideas can slide so precipitously into terror. Then I wondered what steps should be taken. Immediately, our conversation ran aground. “No steps,” he said. “What exactly do you have in mind? Thought police?” He told me that he was a leftist, but he considered his opinion about free speech to be a matter of settled bipartisan consensus.

(The author compares the refusal to address free speech in the face of violent-provoking memes with the refusal to address gun rights in the face of gun violence. Is this a fair comparison?)

I imagined the same conversation, remixed slightly. What if, instead of talking about memes, we’d been talking about guns? What if I’d invoked the ubiquity of combat weapons in civilian life and the absence of background checks, and he’d responded with a shrug? Nothing to be done. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?

(First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies.)

Using “free speech” as a cop-out is just as intellectually dishonest and just as morally bankrupt. For one thing, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private companies. Even the most creative reader of the Constitution will not find a provision guaranteeing Richard Spencer a Twitter account.

(Even if social media platforms were government entities such as a public utility, there would be no absolute free speech.)

But even if you see social media platforms as something more akin to a public utility, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment anyway. Libel, incitement of violence and child pornography are all forms of speech. Yet we censor all of them, and no one calls it the death knell of the Enlightenment.

(Free speech exists in constant tension with public safety; the issue is balancing the two, not granting absolute favor in one over the other.)

Free speech is a bedrock value in this country. But it isn’t the only one. Like all values, it must be held in tension with others, such as equality, safety and robust democratic participation. Speech should be protected, all things being equal. But what about speech that’s designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism? Navigating these trade-offs is thorny, as trade-offs among core principles always are. But that doesn’t mean we can avoid navigating them at all.

(History shows that failure to censor has led to genocide.)

In 1993 and 1994, talk-radio hosts in Rwanda calling for bloodshed helped create the atmosphere that led to genocide. The Clinton administration could have jammed the radio signals and taken those broadcasts off the air, but Pentagon lawyers decided against it, citing free speech. It’s true that the propagandists’ speech would have been curtailed. It’s also possible that a genocide would have been averted.

(Marantz clarifies his thesis that censorship is a constant judgment call in the interests of public safety as opposed to making an outright ban on First Amendment.)

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What I’m arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

(Marantz offers solutions short of censorship, including "news literacy.")

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder.

(U.S. government should create a competing public utility, a social media platform that competes with Facebook.)

If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

Or the private sector could pitch in on its own. Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly. Or he could replace Sheryl Sandberg with Susan Benesch, a human rights lawyer and an expert on how speech can lead to violence. Social media companies have shown how quickly they can act when under pressure. After every high-profile eruption of violence — Charlottesville, Christchurch and the like — tech companies have scrambled to ban inflammatory accounts, take down graphic videos, even rewrite their terms of service. Some of the most egregious actors, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, have been permanently barred from all major platforms.

(Marantz raises this question: Should the government favor the rights of free speech of racists while showing no concern for that racist speech leading to crosses burning on people's lawns? Is that connection valid? Should you raise this question in your counterargument section?)

“We need to protect the rights of speakers,” John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, “but what about protecting everyone else?” Mr. Powell was the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and he represented the Ku Klux Klan in federal court. “Racists should have rights,” he explained. “I also know, being black and having black relatives, what it means to have a cross burned on your lawn. It makes no sense for the law to be concerned about one and ignore the other.”

Mr. Powell, in other words, is a free-speech advocate but not a free-speech absolutist. Shortly before his tenure as legal director, he said, “when women complained about sexual harassment in the workplace, the A.C.L.U.’s response would be, ‘Sorry, nothing we can do. Harassment is speech.’ That looks ridiculous to us now, as it should.” He thinks that some aspects of our current First Amendment jurisprudence — blanket protections of hate speech, for example — will also seem ridiculous in retrospect. “It’s simpler to think only about the First Amendment and to ignore, say, the 14th Amendment, which guarantees full citizenship and equal protection to all Americans, including those who are harmed by hate speech,” he said. “It’s simpler, but it’s also wrong.”

(To stand for absolute free speech is an easy, lazy position that excludes acknowledging the relationship between speech that incites violence.)

I should confess: I used to agree with the guy I met in the coffee shop, the one who saw the First Amendment as an all-or-nothing dictate. This allowed me to reach conclusions with swift, simple authority. It also allowed me to ignore a lot, to pretend that anything that was invisible to me either wasn’t happening or didn’t matter.

(Racist speech can be compared to air pollution; it can reach lethal levels.)

In one of our conversations, Mr. Powell compared harmful speech to carbon pollution: People are allowed to drive cars. But the government can regulate greenhouse emissions, the private sector can transition to renewable energy sources, civic groups can promote public transportation and cities can build sea walls to prepare for rising ocean levels. We could choose to reduce all of that to a simple dictate: Everyone should be allowed to drive a car, and that’s that. But doing so wouldn’t stop the waters from rising around us.

Excerpts from Charlie Warzel's "Why Will Breitbart Be Included in 'Facebook News'?"

Parenthetical citations are mine.

(Facebook is now partnering with an Alt-Right troll media outlet.)

It’s into this environment that, on Friday, Facebook announced Facebook News — a curated section on the social network that will partner with news publishers. Facebook will pay for content from dozens of partners, including The Times, The Washington Post, Business Insider and others.

But any hope that the takeaway from the announcement would be “Facebook saves the news” was quashed by the inclusion of one unpaid partner: the far-right online outlet Breitbart News.

The site, formerly run by Steve Bannon, is known for its unabashed pro-Trump activism and early embrace of toxic online politicking and trolling. Breitbart has published articles with tags like “Black Crime” and was once described by Mr. Bannon as a platform for the alt-right. A 2017 BuzzFeed News exposé detailed, via obtained emails, how Breitbart actively courted the right-wing online fringes and helped to launder white nationalist talking points into the mainstream. Since 2016, more than 4,000 advertisers have severed ties with Breitbart over its ideological bent, according to the Sleeping Giants founder Matt Rivitz.

For some, Breitbart’s inclusion among its select news publishers is proof of Mr. Zuckerberg’s, and his company’s, political biases. Judd Legum, who publishes the newsletter Popular Information, reported recently that three Republican employees in the company “call the shots at Facebook” and that the social network “has repeatedly taken actions that benefit Republicans and the right wing.” Progressive critics have suggested that Mr. Zuckerberg is a Republican and that his company’s ethos leans to the right as well. “Facebook is a conservative outlet,” Adam Serwer, a journalist at The Atlantic, tweeted last week. “When conservatives criticize, they solemnly and apologetically promise to do better. When liberals criticize, they tell them to shut up.”

(Zuckerberg isn't so much Right-Wing as he is libertarian; he sees government as a threat to running his operation.)

Facebook’s decision to include Breitbart among its select publishers is clarifying, though perhaps not in the way many critics have suggested. It’s not an indicator of secret political bias; instead, it’s a small window into how Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook see the world. Here, the realms of government and media aren’t levers to achieve some ideological goal — they’re mere petri dishes in which to grow the Facebook organism. And when it comes to Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg’s end game, nothing is more important than growth.

(Zuckerberg isn't about public safety or public interest or sanctimonious chants about "bringing people together"; he's about unlimited growth of his company.)

Growth has always been the end game for Facebook. The company’s onetime internal credo, “Move fast and break things,” was about a need for rapid, sometimes reckless innovation in service of adding more users, market share and ad dollars, while its early mission statement, “Make the world more open and connected,” was a friendly way of expressing a desire for exponential growth. The company’s new mission statement, “Bring the world closer together,” is a friendlier way of saying the same thing — after all, you can’t bring people closer together if you don’t acquire them as active users first. Growth at any cost is a familiar mantra inside Facebook as well, as an internal memo surfaced last year by BuzzFeed News revealed; subsequent investigations by The Times detailed a company “bent on growth.”

(Facebook takes a big you know what and leaves others to deal with the mess.)

But the costs of this growth — election interference, privacy violations — are passed on to users, not absorbed by Facebook, which takes a reputational hit but generally maintains, if not increases, market share and value. The real threat to Facebook isn’t bad P.R., it’s alienating its user base.

Through this lens, it makes perfect sense that Facebook should want to publicly court conservative audiences that seethe at what they perceive as Facebook’s liberal bias. And while the outcomes of Facebook’s decisions have serious political consequences, Mr. Zuckerberg and his fellow decision makers at the company view their decision to choose both publishers and off-the-record dining partners in terms of user acquisition strategy. According to Bloomberg, publications for Facebook News were chosen after surveying users and studying news consumption habits on the platform. Breitbart’s inclusion suggests that it checked enough of Facebook’s boxes, despite its toxicity. The same goes for dinner with Mr. Carlson, who launders white nationalist talking points and speaks to a large audience on cable TV every weeknight. The pattern is clear: If an entity or individual achieves a certain level of scale and influence, then the company will engage earnestly.

(Facebook benefits from "hyperpartisan vitriol.")

It’s telling that Facebook would look to Mr. Carlson or Breitbart and interpret a large audience and influence as a stand-in for authority and credibility. What else should we really expect from a company that refuses to meaningfully distinguish those who share hyperpartisan vitriol from those joyfully sharing baby pictures? When scale is the prism through which you view the world, that world becomes flat. When everyone becomes a number, everyone starts to look the same.

Because Mr. Zuckerberg is one of the most powerful people in politics right now — and because the stakes feel so high — there’s a desire to assign him a political label. That’s understandable but largely beside the point. Mark Zuckerberg may very well have political beliefs. And his every action does have political consequences. But he is not a Republican or a Democrat in how he wields his power. Mr. Zuckerberg’s only real political affiliation is that he’s the chief executive of Facebook. His only consistent ideology is that connectivity is a universal good. And his only consistent goal is advancing that ideology, at nearly any cost.

Recommended Outline

Paragraph 1: Your introduction discusses the complexities of free speech before the age of social media (2010) when inciting violence, community standards (Gucci "blackface" sweater), defamation (slander, libel), and what constitutes emotional damage in a work or educational environment.

Paragraph 2: Support or refute that in a digital world (post-2010), social media platforms either need to be censored or shunned or boycotted.

Points to Consider in Your Mapping Components

One. We have a history of failed censorship leading to genocide.

Two. It is lazy and over simplistic to say we can do nothing about social media promoting hate and fake news because we must defend the First Amendment.

Three. Online dog whistles on social media platforms are not so much opinion as they are incitements to violence.

Four. Weaponized misinformation radicalizes lonely malcontents so that some of them turn to violence.

Five. Social media platforms create need for viral videos of violence such as the killer at the New Zealand mosque.

Six. Businesses such as FB, YT, and Twitter are not bound by free speech law, so they can use their discretion as they see fit.

Your Counterarguments

One. The definition of a troll may be nebulous. What is a troll that uses fake speech and an honest dealer who uses real speech? How is the arbiter of this distinction?

Two. Slippery slope: If we deplatform Alex Jones, where does it stop?

Three. Snowflake argument: If we protect people from PTSD and the like from deplatforming offensive trolls, are we conditioning people into snowflakes?

3 Types of Claims Or Thesis Statements

Identifying Claims and Analyzing Arguments from Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky’s From Inquiry to Academic Writing, Third Edition

We’ve learned in this class that we can call a thesis a claim, an assertion that must be supported with evidence and refuting counterarguments.

There are 3 different types of claims: fact, value, and policy.

Claims of Fact

According to Greene and Lidinsky, “Claims of fact are assertions (or arguments) that seek to define or classify something or establish that a problem or condition has existed, exists, or will exist.

For example, Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow argues that Jim Crow practices that notoriously oppressed people of color still exist in an insidious form, especially in the manner in which we incarcerate black and brown men.

In The Culture Code Rapaille argues that different cultures have unconscious codes and that a brand’s codes must not be disconnected with the culture that brand needs to appeal to. This is the problem or struggle that all companies have: being “on code” with their product. The crisis that is argued is the disconnection between people’s unconscious codes and the contrary codes that a brand may represent.

Many economists, such as Paul Krugman, argue that there is major problem facing America, a shrinking middle class, that is destroying democracy and human freedom as this country knows it. Krugman and others will point to a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots, a growing class of temporary workers that surpasses all other categories of workers (warehouse jobs for online companies, for example), and de-investment in the American labor force as jobs are outsourced in a world of global competition.

All three examples above are claims of fact. As Greene and Lidinsky write, “This is an assertion that a condition exists. A careful reader must examine the basis for this kind of claim: Are we truly facing a crisis?”

We further read, “Our point is that most claims of fact are debatable and challenge us to provide evidence to verify our arguments. They may be based on factual information, but they are not necessarily true. Most claims of fact present interpretations of evidence derived from inferences.”

A Claim of Fact That Seeks to Define Or Classify

Greene and Lidinsky point out that autism is a controversial topic because experts cannot agree on a definition. The behaviors attributed to autism “actually resist simple definition.”

There is also disagreement on a definition of obesity. For example, some argue that the current BMI standards are not accurate.

Another example that is difficult to define or classify is the notion of genius.

In all the cases above, the claim of fact is to assert a definition that must be supported with evidence and refutations of counterarguments.

Claims of Value

Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of fact is different from a claim of value, which expresses an evaluation of a problem or condition that has existed, exists, or will exist. Is a condition good or bad? Is it important or inconsequential?

In other words, the claim isn’t whether or not a crisis or problem exists: The emphasis is on HOW serious the problem is.

How serious is global warming?

How serious is gender discrimination in schools?

How serious is racism in law enforcement and incarceration?

How serious is the threat of injury for people who engage in Cross-Fit training?

How serious are the health threats rendered from providing sodas in public schools?

How serious is the income gap between the haves and the have-nots?

Claims of Policy

Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of policy is an argument for what should be the case, that a condition should exist. It is a call for change or a solution to a problem.

Examples

We must decriminalize drugs.

We must increase the minimum wage to X per hour.

We must have stricter laws that defend worker rights for temporary and migrant workers.

We must integrate more autistic children in mainstream classes.

We must implement universal health care.

If we are to keep capital punishment, then we must air it on TV.

We must implement stricter laws for texting while driving.

We must make it a crime, equal to manslaughter, for someone to encourage another person to commit suicide.

The Importance of Using Concession with Claims

Greene and Lidinsky write, “Part of the strategy of developing a main claim supported with good reasons is to offer a concession, an acknowledgment that readers may not agree with every point the writer is making. A concession is a writer’s way of saying, ‘Okay, I can see that there may be another way of looking at the issue or another way to interpret the evidence used to support the argument I am making.’”

“Often a writer will signal a concession with phrases like the following:”

“It is true that . . .”

“I agree with X that Y is an important factor to consider.”

“Some studies have convincingly shown that . . .”

Identify Counterarguments

Greene and Lidinsky write, “Anticipating readers’ objections demonstrates that you understand the complexity of the issue and are willing at least to entertain different and conflicting opinions.”

Developing a Thesis

Greene and Lidinsky write that a thesis is “an assertion that academic writers make at the beginning of what they write and then support with evidence throughout their essay.”

They then give the thesis these attributes:

Makes an assertion that is clearly defined, focused, and supported.

Reflects an awareness of the conversation from which the writer has take up the issue.

Is placed at the beginning of the essay.

Penetrates every paragraph like the skewer in a shish kebab.

Acknowledges points of view that differ from the writer’s own, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

Demonstrates an awareness of the readers’ assumptions and anticipates possible counterarguments.

Conveys a significant fresh perspective.

Working and Definitive Thesis

In the beginning, you develop a working or tentative thesis that gets more and more revised and refined as you struggle with the evidence and become more knowledgeable of the subject.

A writer who comes up with a thesis that remains unchanged is not elevating his or thinking to a sophisticated level.

Only a rare genius could spit out a meaningful thesis that defies revision.

Not just theses, but all writing is subject to multiple revisions. For example, the brilliant TV writers for 30 Rock, The Americans, and The Simpsons make hundreds of revisions for just one scene and even then they’re still not happy in some cases.

Four Models for Developing a Working Thesis

The Correcting-Misinterpretations Model

According to Greene and Lidinsky, “This model is used to correct writers whose arguments you believe have been misconstrued one or more important aspects of an issue. This thesis typically takes the form of a factual claim.

Examples of Correcting-Misinterpretation Model

Although LAUSD teachers are under fire for poor teaching performance, even the best teachers have been thrown into abysmal circumstances that defy strong teaching performance evidenced by __________________, ___________________, ________________, and _____________________.

Even though Clotaire Rapaille is venerated as some sort of branding god, a close scrutiny exposes him as a shrewd self-promoter who relies on several gimmicks including _______________________, _______________________, _________________, and ___________________.

The Filling-the-Gap Model

Greene and Lidinsky write, “The gap model points to what other writers may have overlooked or ignored in discussing a given issue. The gap model typically makes a claim of value.”

Example

Many psychology experts discuss happiness in terms of economic wellbeing, strong education, and strong family bonds as the essential foundational pillars of happiness, but these so-called experts fail to see that these pillars are worthless in the absence of morality as Eric Weiners’s study of Qatar shows, evidenced by __________________, __________________, ___________________, and _____________________.

The Modifying-What-Others-Have-Said Model

Greene and Lidinsky write, “The modification model of thesis writing assumes that mutual understanding is possible.” In other words, we want to modify what many already agree upon.

Example

While most scholars agree that food stamps are essential for hungry children, the elderly, and the disabled, we need to put restrictions on EBT cards so that they cannot be used to buy alcohol, gasoline, lottery tickets, and other non-food items.

The Hypothesis-Testing Model

The authors write, “The hypothesis-testing model begins with the assumption that writers may have good reasons for supporting their arguments, but that there are also a number of legitimate reasons that explain why something is, or is not, the case. . . . That is, the evidence is based on a hypothesis that researchers will continue to test by examining individual cases through an inductive method until the evidence refutes that hypothesis.”

For example, some researchers have found a link between the cholesterol drugs, called statins, and lower testosterone levels in men. Some say the link is causal; others say the link is correlative, which is to say these men who need to lower their cholesterol already have risk factors for low T levels.

As the authors continue, “The hypothesis-testing model assumes that the questions you raise will likely lead you to multiple answers that compete for your attention.”

The authors then give this model for such a thesis:

Some people explain this by suggesting that, but a close analysis of the problem reveals several compelling, but competing explanations.

Types of Argument

Informal argument is a quarrel, or a spin or BS on a subject; or there is propaganda. In contrast, formal or academic argument takes a stand, presents evidence, and uses logic to convince an audience of the writer’s position or claim.

In a formal argument, we are taking a stand on which intelligent people can disagree, so we don’t “prove” anything; at best we persuade or convince people that our position is the best of all the positions available.

Thesis Must be Debatable

Therefore, in formal argument the topic has compelling evidence on both sides.

The thesis or claim, the main point of our essay, must therefore be debatable. There must be substantial evidence and logic to support opposing views and it is our task to weigh the evidence and come to a claim that sides with one position over another. Our position may not be absolute; it may be a matter of degree and based on contingency.

For example, I may write an argumentative essay designed to assert America’s First Amendment rights for free speech, but my support of the First Amendment is not absolute. I would argue that there are cases where people can cross the line.

Groups that spread racial hatred should not be able to gather in a public space. Nor should groups committed to abusing children be able to spread their newsletters and other information to each other. While I believe in the First Amendment, I’m saying there is a line that cannot be crossed.

Thesis Is Not a Fact

We cannot write a thesis that is a statement of fact. For example, online college classes are becoming more and more available is a fact, not an argument.

We cannot write a thesis that is an expression of personal taste or preference. If we prefer working out at home rather than the gym, our preference is beyond dispute. However, if we make the case that there are advantages to home exercise that make gym memberships a bad idea, we have entered the realm of argumentation.

It is an over simplification to reduce all arguments to just two sides.

Should torture be banned? It’s not an either/or question. The ban depends on the circumstances described and the definition of torture. And then there is the matter of who decides who gets tortured and who does the torturing? There are so many questions, qualifications, edicts, provisos, clauses, condition, etc., that it is impossible to make a general for/against stand on this topic.

Why Argumentation Is Relevant

You make arguments for daily life problems all the time:

Should I go on Diet X or is this diet just another futile fad like all the other diets I’ve gone on?

Should I buy a new car or is my old car fine but I’m looking for attention and a way to alleviate my boredom, so I’m looking for the drama of a colossal purchase, which will be the source of conversations with others? In other words, am I looking for false connection through my rampant consumerism?

Should I break up with my girlfriend to give me more time to study and give me the “alone time” I need, or continue navigating that precarious balance between the demands of my job, my academic load, and my capricious, rapacious, overbearing, manipulative, emotionally needy girlfriend? (here the answer is embedded in the question)

Should I upgrade my phone to the latest generation to get all the new apps or am I just jealous that all my friends are upgrading and I fear they’ll leave me out of their social circle if I’m languishing with an outdated smartphone?

Should I go to Cal State and graduate with 20K debt or go to that prestigious private college that gives my résumé more punch on one hand but leaves me with over 100K in debt on the other?

Do I really want to get married under the age of thirty or am I just jealous of all the expensive presents my brother got after he got married?

Whether you are defining an argument for your personal life or for an academic paper, you are using the same skills: critical analysis, defining the problem, weighing different types of evidence against each other; learning to respond to a problem intellectually rather than emotionally; learning to identify possible fallacies and biases in your thinking that might lead you down the wrong path, etc.

We live in a win-lose culture that emphasizes the glory of winning and the shame of defeat. In politics, we speak of winning or losing behind our political leaders and their political agendas. But this position is doltish, barbaric, and often self-destructive.

Many times, we argue or I should say we should argue because we want to reach a common understanding. “Sometimes the goal of an argument is to identify a problem and suggest solutions that could satisfy those who hold a number of different positions on an issue” (8) Sometimes the solution for a problem is to make a compromise. For example, let's say students want more organic food in the college cafeteria but the price is triple for these organic foods and only one percent of the student body can afford these organic foods. Perhaps a compromise is to provide less processed, sugar-laden foods with fresh fruits and vegetables, which are not organic but at least provide more healthy choices.

Your aim is not to win or lose in your argument but be effective in your ability to persuade. Persuasion refers to how a speaker or writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or to follow a course of action.

3 Means of Persuasion

According to Aristotle, there are three means of persuasion that a speaker or writer can use to persuade his audience:

The appeal of reason and logic: logos

The appeal of emotions: pathos

The appeal of authority: ethos

Smoking will compromise your immune system and make you more at risk for cancer; therefore, logic, or logos, dictates that you should quit smoking.

If you die of cancer, you will be abandoning your family when they need you most; therefore an emotional appeal, or pathos, dictates that you quit smoking.

The surgeon general has warned you of the hazards of smoking; therefore the credibility of an authority or expert dictates that you quit smoking. If the writer lacks authority or credibility, he is often well served to draw upon the authority of someone else to support his argument.

The Rhetorical Triangle Connects All the Persuasive Methods

Logos, reason and logic, focuses on the text or the substance of the argument.

Ethos, the credibility or expertise from the writer, focuses on the writer.

Pathos, the emotional appeal, focuses on the emotional reaction of the audience.

The Elements of Argument

Thesis Statement (single sentence that states your position or claim)

Evidence (usually about 75% of your body paragraphs)

Refutation of opposing arguments or objections to your claim (usually about 25% of your body paragraphs)

Concluding statement (dramatic restatement of your thesis, which often also shows the broader implications of your important message).

Thesis

Thesis is one sentence that states your position about an issue.

Thesis example: Increasing the minimum wage to eighteen dollars an hour, contrary to “expert” economists, will boost the economy.

The above assertion is an effective thesis because it is debatable; it has at least two sides.

Thesis: We should increase the minimum wage to boost the economy.

Antithesis: Increasing the minimum wage will slow down the economy.

Evidence

Evidence is the material you use to make your thesis persuasive: facts, observations, expert opinion, examples, statistics, reasons, logic, and refutation.

Refutation

Your argument is only as strong as your understanding of your opponents and your ability to refute your opponents’ objections.

If while examining your opponents’ objections, you find their side is more compelling, you have to CHANGE YOUR SIDE AND YOUR THESIS because you must have integrity when you write. There is no shame in this. Changing your position through research and studying both sides is natural.

Conclusion

Your concluding statement reinforces your thesis and emphasizes the emotional appeal of your argument.

Learn to Identify the Elements of Argument in an Essay by Using Critical Thinking Skills

To read critically, we have to do the following:

One. Comprehend the author's purpose and meaning, which is expressed in the claim or thesis

Two. Examine the evidence, if any, that is used

Three. Find emotional appeals, if any, that are used

Four. Identify analogies and comparisons and analyze their legitimacy

Five. Look at the topic sentences to see how the author is building his or her claim

Six. Look for the appeals the author uses be they logic (logos), emotions (pathos), or authority (ethos).

Seven. Is the author's argument diminished by logical fallacies?

Eight. Do you recognize any bias in the essay that diminishes the author's argument?

Nine. Do we bring any prejudice that may compromise our ability to evaluate the argument fairly?

Critical Analysis of Dinesh D'Souza Essay

Lesson for Rhetorical Analysis (Chapter 4 from Practical Argument, Second Edition)

Rhetoric refers to “how various elements work together to form a convincing and persuasive argument” (90).

“When you write a rhetorical analysis, you examine the strategies a writer employs to achieve his or her purpose. In the process, you explain how these strategies work together to create an effective (or ineffective) argument.”

To write a rhetorical analysis, you must consider the following:

The argument’s rhetorical situation

The writer’s means of persuasion

The writer’s rhetorical strategies

The rhetorical situation is the writer, the writer’s purpose, the writer’s audience, the topic, and the context.

We analyze the rhetorical situation by doing the following:

Read the title’s subtitle, if there is one.

Look at the essay’s headnote for information about the writer, the issue being discussed, and the essay structure.

Look for clues within the essay such as words or phrases that provide information about the writer’s preconceptions. Historical or cultural references can indicate what ideas or information the writer expects readers to have.

Do a Web search to get information about the writer.

Example of How the Rhetorical Situation Gives Us Greater Understanding About the Text

I came across a book about the alleged limitations of alternative energy only to find that the author is paid by the oil industry to write his books.

I came across a book by an author who writes about nutrition and I learned that his findings were contradicted by new research, which the writer did not address because the research refuted his book’s main premise and the publisher had already paid him a .75 million-dollar advance.

I came across a book that refuted the health claims of veganism only to find that the author blamed her severe health problems on a twenty-year vegan diet. This last example could hurt or help the argument depending on how the argument is documented. Was the author showing a strong causal relationship between her illness and her vegan diet? Or was her connection correlational?

When we examine the writer, we ask the following:

What is the writer’s background? Does he work for a think tank that is of a particular political persuasion? Is he being paid by a lobbyist or corporation to regurgitate their opinions?

How does the writer’s background affect the argument’s content?

What preconceptions about the subject does the writer seem to have?

When we analyze the writer’s purpose, we ask the following:

Does the writer state his or her purpose directly or is the purpose implied?

Is the writer’s purpose simply to convince or to encourage action?

Does the writer rely primarily on logic or on emotion?

Does the writer have a hidden agenda?

How does the author use logos, pathos, and ethos to put the argument together?

When we analyze the writer’s audience, we ask the following:

Who is the writer’s intended audience?

Does the writer see the audience as informed or uninformed?

Does the writer see the audience as hostile, friendly, or neutral?

What values does the writer think the audience holds?

On what points do the writer and the audience agree? On what points do they disagree?

Consider the Author’s Stylistic Techniques

Simile: A simile is a figure of speech that compares two unlike things using the word like or as.

Example: “We must not educate the masses because education is like a great flame and the hordes of people are like moths that will fly into the flames at their own peril.”

In the above example “like a great flame” is a simile.

“Gorging on plate after plate of chicken fried steak at HomeTown Buffet, I felt like Jonah lost in the belly of a giant, dyspeptic whale on the verge of spitting me back into the throng of angry people.”

Metaphor: A metaphor is a comparison in which two dissimilar things are compared without the word like or as. “We must educate the masses to protect them from the disease of ignorance.”

Allusion: An allusion (not to be confused with illusion) is a reference within a work to a person, literary or biblical text, or historical event in order to enlarge the context of the situation being written about.

“Even though I am not a religious man, I would agree with Jesus who said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to Heaven, which is why rich people are in general against the minimum wage and the social and economic justice a healthy minimum wage exacts upon our society.”

Parallelism: Parallelism is the use of similar grammatical structures to emphasize related ideas and make passages easier to follow.

“Failure to get your college education will make you languish in the abyss of ignorance, weep in the chasm of unemployment, and wallow in the crater of self-abnegation.”

Repetition: Intentional repetition involves repeating a word or phrase for emphasis, clarity, or emotional impact (pathos).

“Are you able to accept the blows of not having a college education? Are you able to accept the shock of a low-paying job? Are you able to accept the disgrace of living on life’s margins?”

Rhetorical questions: A rhetorical question is a question that is asked to encourage readers to reflect on an issue, not to elicit a reply.

“How can you remain on the outside of college when all that remains is for you to walk through those open gates? How can you let an opportunity as golden as a college education pass you by when the consequences are so devastating?”

Checklist for Analyzing an Argument (your own or a reading you’re evaluating)

What is the claim or thesis?

What evidence is given, if any?

What assumptions are being made—and are they acceptable?

Are important terms clearly defined?

What support or evidence is offered on behalf of the claim?

Are the examples relevant, and are they convincing?

Are the statistics (if any) relevant, accurate, and complete?

Do the statistics allow only the interpretation that is offered in the argument?

If authorities and experts are cited, are they indeed authorities on this topic, and can they be regarded as impartial?

Is the logic—deductive and inductive—valid?

Is there an appeal to emotion—for instance, if satire is used to ridicule the opposing view—is this appeal acceptable?